Sitting of 6 March 1992

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

  Human Organ Transplants
  9.35 am
  Mr. John Hughes: I wish to present a petition. I fully support the aspirations of the petitioners, who are predominantly from the Coventry area. About 5,500 citizens have signed the petition. This test of public opinion reflects the findings of annual surveys carried out by the British Kidney Patients Association, which show that the majority of British adults —72 per cent.—are in favour of legislation of the sort that is widely accepted in Europe. It applies in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. There is a crying need for similar legislation in Britain. To those who might object, I suggest that they see themselves not as donors but as recipients. At some time any of us could be in need of a transplant.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House, in the circumstances, will take immediate steps to enact legislation that will protect patients' rights and permit surgeons to remove organs for transplantation in conditions specified by the Act of Parliament, except where the central information and records unit of the Department of Health indicates that an individual has clearly declared otherwise.
  Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table

  Crime (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have been presented with many signatures and petitions and the one that I seek to present is in a form that is suitable for Parliament. It was assembled after the community of Perranzabuloe— especially the senior citizens thereof and those from other areas—suffered from shock, outrage and fear as a result of daylight attacks—handbag snatching with force—resulting in hospital treatment in some instances. This happened at Malpas, Truro and Perranporth. Police and ambulance personnel were required to attend the scenes of the crime.
  For this reason the petitioners pray that the House calls upon the Home Office to provide the excellent Cornwall police with more support and to ensure that there are more community police officers on the beat to help reassure shocked people and children that our streets are safe.
  To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED
  HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Hughes, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Dave Nellist, presented a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplant Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
9.38 am
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I beg to move,
That this House calls for the early introduction of commonhold as a means of effecting necessary reforms in leasehold and freehold tenure.
I feel especially fortunate to have been lucky in the lottery. I drew first prize and thereby gained the opportunity to present to the House for debate a subject which is of great national importance. At the same time, it is of great constituency concern for many Members on both sides of the Chamber.
A motion in similar terms was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) almost a year ago, on 8 March 1991. The need for leasehold reform is a recurring theme in the House, and it has been with us throughout this Parliament. There is a need to regularise the relationship between landlord and tenant and between leaseholder and ground landlord and it is necessary to consider how these relationships can be improved by the introduction of the device of commonhold. In what might be the last occasion on which to debate private Members' business in the House, it is opportune to raise this matter. I hope that it will be viewed as a matter of great urgency and that it will have priority on the agenda in the next Parliament.
I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, who has tenaciously and relentlessly pursued the matter during his time in the House, but to his predecessor, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams who, throughout his time in the House, also made the issue one of his particular concerns.
The matter has particular links with particular constituencies. My constituency of Dulwich has a large amount of leasehold tenure, where the ground landlord is a large landed estate. Over the years, the matter has become one of enduring concern. My predecessor, Sam Silkin, although of a different party, pursued the matter in the House, and previously his predecessor, Robert Jenkins, a Conservative Member, did the same. The matter is therefore not party political, but one of great concern, because we want to ensure that the law relating to leasehold is reformed and regularised.
All sides of the House recognise that there is something wrong in the relationship between the leaseholder and the ground landlord. There is, perhaps, something rotten in the leasehold law. That is why I am grateful that the Minister for Housing and Planning gave a commitment on 4 March that legislation would be introduced to allow long leaseholders to extend the term of their lease, with a provision to allow acquisition of the freehold interest. That builds on the earlier commitment by the Minister on 12 July 1991 that commonhold tenure would be introduced into the legislative programme. I was somewhat disappointed that it was not included in the programme for this Session, but, realistically, we understand that such a complex matter, with so many unintended implications, must be comprehensively considered. We must get it right; we cannot take a chance on bodging it. Therefore, it is appropriate that the matter should be considered at the beginning of a new Parliament.
I am glad that those welcome commitments have been given, because they give a sharper focus to our debate this morning. In some ways we are now pushing at a opening
548
door and we can pinpoint where particular proposals can be most effectively applied. Why is there a need for change? Anyone who has had dealings, whether professionally, as a representative of local government, as a Member of Parliament or as a tenant, recognises that there is a deficiency in the current leasehold law and, therefore, a problem in the relationship between landlord and tenant. The law does not meet the needs of those whom it exists to serve.
I can cite one or two examples of that. In an ideal world, a lease is a contract between landlord and tenant—an agreement entered into voluntarily on equal terms by the parties concerned, to their mutual benefit, each recognising his obligations and accepting his rights under that agreement. In theory, it is an equal exchange. However, in many instances that is not the case and there is great inequity and inequality in the status of the two parties to the contract. I will not go into the matter in any detail, but I know of a number of cases where, for the long leaseholder, the interest that he has is the interest in his own home—an asset involving financial, emotional and personal investments. One of the most traumatic experiences must be any damage or threat to one's home. Landlords often view the contract as a simple commercial transaction. The property is an asset—an investment on which a return is sought. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contract relationship is one of equality, because there is a disparity of interest that could lead to conflict.
This may be an appropriate time to declare an interest. The House should be aware, if it is not already, that I am the chairman of a board of governors that looks after a charitable foundation—the Wellcot Educational Foundation. It has its assets in landed property in inner London. In that sense, I am a landlord, although it is a voluntary activity for which I receive no remuneration. My responsibilities allow me to view the position from both sides.
Over the years, I have received representations about the need to retain the integrity and the completeness of many of the large landed estates, to which the proposed legislation might be a threat. It has been argued, with great conviction, that there is a need in certain areas to have comprehensive management to ensure that the architectural integrity of the buildings concerned, which are often of great distinction, is maintained.
It is recognised that many of the large estates have been innovators in town planning and that they have made a substantial contribution to conservation. The charm and the beauty of my Dulwich constituency can largely be attributed to the good stewardship, sympathetic understanding and sensitive development of the estate's governors of Alleyns College of God's Gift, who are the managing agents and ground landlord for much of that area.
Recognising the distinguished service and responsible stewardship of many of the landed estates in the past should not obscure the fact that there is now a crying need for change. By way of comfort to those responsible landlords, I say to them that they will have to accept change, but they have nothing to fear from the proposed legislation. There is a need to adapt to changing social need, and landlords have done that over the ages. With reasonable recompense, there is an opportunity to redeploy those assets in some other directions.
Although responsible landlords have little or nothing to fear, the rapacious Rachman-like landlords have every

549
reason to be apprehensive. Many hon. Members have had experience of such landlords, but their racket has been rumbled and their game is up. The proposed legislation would do a great deal to ensure that responsible landlords can continue to exercise proper control and concern over their estates, but the irresponsible landlords will be rooted out.
What are the problems; what is the mischief; what are the elements that we are seeking to change? It concerns mainly flats but also houses. I refer to the problem, which affects hundreds, if not thousands, in my constituency, that arises in respect of the lease—having a term of perhaps 99 years—that is taken up by a person in their 20s when he or she is first beginning to earn. Throughout that person's working life of 40 years, the lease gradually diminishes, so that what was once a rising asset and an investment begins to fall in value. The property, on which the leaseholder once hoped to capitalise, in planning for his or her retirement, becomes an unmarketable asset. A lease with no more than 60 years to run is unsaleable, because it is unmortgageable by any prospective purchaser. A provision to extend leases so affected would go some way to mitigating that problem.
There is the attendant problem of the landlord's responsibility to repair, maintain and service the structure of a block of flats and its common parts, including the surrounding land, gardens and garages. That is a constant source of concern, friction, stress and anxiety. The irresponsible landlord often exploits that aspect in devious ways, perhaps by neglecting to meet his obligation under the covenants of the leases. He may not only allow the property to fall into disrepair but impose a service charge to finance a maintenance fund that makes payments that are disproportionately high in relation to the work undertaken.
Frequently, such work is not put out to open tender but is placed with the landlord's own sub-contractors, with all the opportunities for quasi corruption that that presents.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The House has addressed that issue on more than one occasion, and was able to close several gaps in that particular racket. I am interested to know whether others have appeared since the days when I was a housing Minister.
Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend has made a distinguished contribution to landlord and tenant issues since the first day that he entered the House. Overt corruption has been stamped out, but it is difficult to prove that necessary work commissioned by the landlord, but for which tenants will pay, has been contracted at the cheapest price or even at a competitive price. That presents an opportunity if not for corruption then for a form of internal payment that does not represent open market, value for money of the kind that is in the tenants' interest. Such practices may fall short of criminal behaviour, but they are not an open book. We seek to draw public attention to those loopholes, in the hope that provisions can be devised to close them.
Excessive management fees and service charges, and landlord neglect, are frequently obscured by complex leases. Long ago, I trained as a lawyer, but many of the leases that have been shown to me read like double Dutch. One cannot help but conclude that the drafting lawyers not only used an antiquated and unnecessary form of words, but made a deliberate attempt to kick dust in the eyes of
550
the prospective tenant, and that there was a deliberate intention to obscure the landlord's obligations and the prospective tenant's rights.
An element in commonhold reform should be the introduction of a simple and readily understandable form of words that the layman can comprehend, which clearly sets out the occupants' obligations and rights.
In the relationship between landlord and tenant, the cards are often stacked against the latter. It is often an unequal and inequitable relationship, and one which requires fundamental reform. It is no longer sufficient to tinker on the fringes of landlord and tenant law. The relationship between the long leaseholder and the ground landlord served a purpose in the past, and may have an enduring role to serve in future—but in its present form, it is not one which best represents the association between the occupant of a flat and the person or persons responsible for its maintenance and that of the common parts, including the building's roof and foundations.
Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning outlined in a written answer a move towards enfranchisement, by abolishing the artificial, rateable value hurdle in the way of leaseholders wanting to acquire their homes. A large number of leaseholders throughout the country will have an opportunity to acquire the freehold interest that they were artificially denied under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That is a step in the right direction.
Sir Donald Thompson: Will that provision relate to houses as well as to flats?
Mr. Bowden: Yes. The rateable value of £1,500 is applicable to London properties. I believe that the figure outside London is £750. Subject to consultation, the removal of that hurdle will allow occupants of properties under a long lease to acquire the freehold.
The next stage is to allow tenants who are anxious about the diminishing term of their leases and the threat that presents to their futures an opportunity to extend their leases or to acquire the freeholds, with the ultimate objective of the introduction of commonhold. That system of tenure flows automatically from the tributaries of lease extension and enfranchisement. To use the political idiom of the day, commonhold would serve as the leaseholders charter, offering rights and guarantees that are extended by charters to other aspects of our lives.
The nature of commonhold is often debated among those ideologues who think of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I may have erred in referring to it a moment ago as a form of tenure. Commonhold is a legal device which allows individuals who enjoy the freehold occupancy of a residential unit jointly to own a commonhold interest, with responsibility for all the duties and obligations, but also enjoying all the rights, of a ground landlord. It is not so much the creation of a new form of tenure as a way of supporting existing leasehold and freehold tenure in a regularised, sensible scheme.
There is a need for a standard form to be defined and recognised from the beginning. It should not be left to the individual draftmen of professional firms to draw up what they think is appropriate to meet these needs. Far be it from me to ascribe deviousness to draftsmen, but it is possible to benefit one party rather than the other.
With the introduction of commonhold there should be established a commonhold commission. It would be a

551
regulatory body with the duties of administering commonhold arrangements, of advising in any circumstances where they were being considered and of adjudicating when any dispute arose. Without such a safeguard, it would be impossible to ensure that the commonhold scheme would have universal application, which is desirable, and universal understanding, which is essential.
I fear that what I have said so far may have sounded like rather dry, academic theorising. The case is best illustrated by three examples from my constituency. Earlier I mentioned the management of the estate of Alleyn's College of God's Gift and particular developments that were introduced in the 1960s. Some fine blocks of flats of seven or eight storeys, containing 20 or 30 highly desirable, small dwellings, are involved. There is responsible tenant occupancy. The tenants occupy on long leases and there is a great deal of corporate concern through residents' associations and leaseholder associations. Whatever the good faith and good will on the part of the estate's governors, there is, if not conflict, certainly friction arising from the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship, to which I referred earlier.
Commonhold would provide tenants with the opportunity not only to extend their leases, which in most cases run for 60-plus years, to make them a more marketable asset, but to take responsibility for the management and maintenance of the blocks. They would be individual freeholders of their flats with a joint responsibility for carrying out the duties of the management of the block as a whole. That is clearly desired by the vast majority of the occupants of Lowood court, Raleigh court and Drake court. They, and others, are recognisable names of residents' groups that wish a greater say in the control of the management, maintenance, decoration and general care of their home which they regard as their freehold right.
The friction is reflected on a wider front. I am fortunate in having a constituency with a large number of professional people who are able to share their expertise for the benefit of the community as a whole. Three active, well-informed amenity societies are the Dulwich Society, the Dulwich residents' association and the Dulwich Village preservation society. They have all participated in the debate and have taken a view about any change in tenure that is needed and any change in management that commonhold would offer to occupants in the area. Those bodies represent broader interests than do individual tenants of a block and they commend the commonhold principle for the legislative programme.
There are developments in the private sector and there is significant involvement by the London borough of Southwark. The commonhold provisions would be of great benefit if applied to one of its responsibilities. There are two blocks known as Dawsons Heights. They dominate the landscape rather like the totalitarian buildings of eastern bloc countries. They have a commanding view of London. They were developed in the 1960s and are occupied by a remarkably lively group of tenants, some of whom, but by no means the majority, have exercised their right to buy under the Government scheme. They are, therefore, long leaseholders, whereas the remainder are direct tenants of Southwark council.
552
They have sought to take advantage of the provision in the Housing Act 1988 for tenants to choose their landlord and opt out of the landlordship of Southwark council. They have taken up the tenants choice scheme early on and run with it. Over the past two and a half years the negotiations have been slow, largely because of the efforts of Southwark council to put obstacles in the way of the tenants exercising that choice.
I am delighted to say that on Wednesday I had the opportunity of showing the estate to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. He met several tenants who made it clear to him that they wished to proceed. I hope that the negotiations will now take wing. The Samuel Lewis Trust is the preferred choice as landlord. It has been given what is called approved landlord status and is to be considered as the alternative landlord in a ballot. The management of the negotiations is in the reputable hands of the Paddington Churches housing association and I hope that a ballot will be held at the end of the year. This provides an opportunity for tenants who are not long leaseholders to show that they want to change their landlord. At the same time, if commonhold was thought to be an appropriate way of holding the freehold or harmonising leasehold, freehold and tenants interests on such an estate, it would work well for such mixed occupancy.
On a much smaller scale, in Dunton court, a block of 20 flats, 18 or 19 tenants have exercised their right to buy. They are outraged that they are called on to pay heavy sums to Southwark council for reserve and maintenance funds for work that is not being done on their leaking roofs and rising damp. In those circumstances there is an excellent, easy opportunity for the long leaseholders to take on a commonhold interest together, making provision for any remaining tenants but ensuring that they, rather than a remote, indifferent, inefficient bureaucracy, look after their interests.
I allude to another example which represents a different aspect of the problem. Ruskin Park house was built by the London county council to a higher standard and, in the terms of the times, was intended to be a block for professional people. In the early stages of the right-to-buy scheme—in the 1960s and early 1970s—the tenants of Ruskin Park house exercised that right in good measure. About 75 per cent. of the flats in that block are now owner occupied. I was about to say that the management of the block was organised on rather novel terms—it was certainly novel when it started.
The Greater London council—the successor to the LCC—retained the freehold interest. The owner-occupiers formed a housing association—I believe that their status is that of a non-charitable housing association—and took a long lease on the whole freehold interest which, in turn, was subject to sub-leases for owner-occupiers. The GLC took sub-leases for the people who remained tenants and offered weekly or periodic tenancies to their tenants. Therefore, the GLC was originally the ground landlord —the freeholder—which had granted a long lease to the Ruskin Park housing association which, in turn, granted subsidiary long leases to individual occupiers. In the case of those who remained tenants, a subsidiary long lease was granted in similar terms back to the council, and the tenants' position remained unaltered.
A management committee held shares in the proportion of one share per flat. When I was the Dulwich member of the GLC, I sat on that management committee and

553
exercised my vote for the number of shares—not a block vote in the pejorative sense, but limited to representing the flats still occupied by GLC' tenants. When the unlamented GLC was dissolved, one of the effects of that dissolution was the decision by the London residuary body not to transfer the freehold interest to the head lessee—the Ruskin Park housing association, as would have been right and proper. Instead, it transferred it to the London borough of Southwark. That, alas, has been one of the enduring concerns that have plagued this development.
The development was innovative and displayed all the best elements of management self-help, but under the present arrangements it has fallen between two stools. The opportunity provided by commonhold would be a way to solve that problem. When the Housing Act 1988 was in Committee I raised that issue several times and the then Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) acknowledged that something had to be done. I believe that something can be done with commonhold tenure.
By using examples from only one constituency I have tried to illustrate three problems that affect many people and which need to be resolved. The reforms of leasehold enfranchisement, extension of leases and commonhold would be steps in the right direction. However, there are a number of questions still outstanding which would need to be resolved in Committee. One of the most crucial is whether, if commonhold is thought to be desirable, it should be by voluntary agreement or involve an element of compulsion. I know that that will be a matter of controversy and that is why I raise it this morning. I have my view, but I accept that other people may have different views. I would start with the principle that, as the original arrangement between landlord and tenant is in theory reached through contract, any change should be by agreement. I am enough of a realist to know that if it is left to voluntary arrangements by agreement between the parties, there might be expressions of goodwill and support but little action. That was very much the case with the right-to-buy scheme. It was left to local councils to implement voluntarily if they wished, but it was not until it was made a right for tenants that it became effective. Therefore, there must be an element of compulsion. Compulsion might encourage ground landlords and their long leaseholders to get together in the spirit of co-operation. Without that, I do not think that the scheme will take off.
That leads to the question of proper compensation in such circumstances. Valuers will disagree, depending on whom they are representing, whether it should he the open market value, modified open market value, market value reflecting marriage values, or any other ramifications or whether it should be decided according to a statutory formula. I raise this issue without offering an opinion, but it must be considered at an early stage. Unless there is reassurance and clarification about the basis on which compensation would be given, there might be objections which might be misinformed.
Mr. W. Benyon: My hon. Friend will know from experience that in tranferring an asset from one owner to another, if the marriage value is not taken into account his constituents and others will make very large tax-free capital gains almost immediately if they wish to sell their property thereafter.
Mr. Bowden: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I in no way promote the idea of commonhold or the element of compulsion which it might bring to deliberately do down the landlord or to give an unexpected bonus to a tenant. It should realistically represent the value of the property so that some tenants do not make a killing and beneficiaries of a charitable trust do not suffer. There should be a professional and realistic valuation which would solve the mischief and problems inherent in the present system. Responsible landlords have little to fear from the financial consequences of the scheme, although they will have to adapt. It might be less attractive to and, indeed, might scupper some of the activities of irresponsible landlords.
We must also consider what happens when a number of residents wish to have a commonhold arrangement but others object. One can easily imagine that if it were necessary to have 100 per cent. unanimity in order for all residents to have commonhold, very few schemes would take off. There is bound to be one objector to any arrangement who might thwart the wishes of the vast majority. Indeed, I envisage an unscrupulous or devious landlord ensuring that there was one or more such persons in occupation to object. I am interested in the concept, which I believe came from Mr. Edward Nugee, QC, of qualified unanimity, which is a smart way of saying majority. It is necessary to have a decision on whether there should be commonhold tenure or a commonhold arrangement which is based not on complete unanimity, but on a majority vote by those affected. From my reading of the answer given earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, a two thirds majority would be considered acceptable support to trigger off the commonhold arrangements.
Sir Donald Thompson: There is another group of housing about which my hon. Friend may not know. In the north of England, there are houses that were built by benevolent employers with 999-year leases at £1 a piece. They can now be used by unscrupulous landlords to squeeze tenants who pay only £1 a year each. That must be dealt with in forthcoming commonhold or leasehold reform.
Mr. Bowden: I fully agree with the principle of my hon. Friend's suggestion. I hesitate to make any observations about the detail, because I do not have the facts of the case. The landlord's role is thoroughly honourable and socially useful. As I said when I declared my interest, I have been involved in that role. In defending that position and in speaking with pride as a landlord, one must recognise that there are unscrupulous landlords who must be rooted out and identified as such. They must not be allowed to prosper and flourish as many have.
The legislation will be complex. It will not be easy to understand and it will take time to ensure that it goes through the House properly. The legislation must be comprehensive and it cannot be hurried, although it is a matter of urgency. I commend the proposals to the House and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that they are high on the agenda of any new Parliament.
10.21 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on introducing the debate, which interests me and many other hon. Members. The issues of commonhold, leasehold reform

555
and a greater say by tenants in service charges are long overdue for consideration. It is regrettable that after 12 years of Conservative Government, we have the debate in the closing days of this Parliament when for many years —the hon. Member for Dulwich referred to four hon. Members who, like him, have been involved in the issue —there have been calls for changes in legislation.
Leasehold is a London issue and, as the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) explained, it is a problem in other areas. I refer to two blocks of flats in my constituency. Ducane court is a large block of flats containing 600 properties with 800 to 1,000 residents. There is a smaller block of flats called Moira court. Both give examples of the issues to which the hon. Member for Dulwich referred.
If ever a group of tenants has suffered the abuses of despicable behaviour by landlords and their agents, it has been those who live in Ducane court. I quote briefly from a letter from a lady who lives in Ducane court. She says:
"I have lived in Ducane court for 50 years and under the present regime of ineffective management agents, of which our landlords are directors which I believe is outside the law, I have watched this block deteriorating year by year."
Many other residents have made similar comments to me over the years in which I have tried to work with them. I have had countless meetings. I have had meetings here with junior Ministers in the Department of the Environment on the specific issues of the behaviour of the landlords and their agents, and of the service charges that were repeatedly charged to those men and women.
The great problem was that one could never get a detailed breakdown of how the charges were arrived at. The agents once decided that there would be a three-stage improvement programme for the property. The residents did not object to that, but they objected to the fact that before the first stage had been completed, the agents demanded money for the second stage. The residents came to see me and said that they did not know what the total cost would be for the first stage because they had not been given accounts and the work had not been completed. They told me that they were now being pressurised by the landlords and their agents who said, "Do not worry about the cost. Do not even worry about when the first stage will be completed. We are interested in payment for the work for the next stage." The landlords could not even tell my constituents when the work would be carried out.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to name the landlords? I do not ask that in a mischievous spirit, but because the behaviour he describes sounds so similar to the behaviour of some freeholders in my part of London that I wondered whether they could be the same landlords.
Mr. Cox: That is a fair question. I am not reluctant to give the name. However, the people who then owned and were responsible for the property have long passed from the scene. Other people now run the property. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman who the people involved were, because they have moved on. I am sure that many hon. Members can give similar examples. Such behaviour undoubtedly causes great bitterness. The hon. Member for Dulwich talked about commonhold and we must also consider services charges.
556
I have received letters from constituents who live in the blocks of flats and from other constituents who are aware of the commonhold proposals. They want to know what would be involved in the legislation and how they would be affected. We need to hear a little bit about several issues. Whichever party wins the next election, there will be support for legislation to be introduced quickly. People will decide that they are interested in such a scheme, but they will feel that they need to know certain basic points before they commit themselves to voting in support of commonhold.
As I understand it, two thirds of those eligible to vote on the introduction of a commonhold scheme will have to support it. There can be many different types of tenancies within a large block of flats. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's thinking on that. I accept that he may not be able to go into great detail at this stage, but those who come to us—their Members of Parliament—will want some basic guidelines. In the same block, there will be people with leases and people who are renting their property. In Ducane court, for example, some people have been renting for many years and may wish to know where they would stand under a commonhold policy. Some people live in sub-let properties and some own their properties. How would that breakdown of tenancies affect the two thirds majority proposal?
I received a letter from a gentleman which illustrates the kind of difficulties to which the hon. Member for Dulwich alluded:
"When one gets to 80 and with about 30 years to go on the lease of this desirable studio—husband and wife sharing, living on pensions and savings, no relatives to leave the property to anyway—one is not very enthusiastic for spending more money."
He is obviously talking there about spending more money on buying the leasehold. As a resident in a block of flats, that gentleman would clearly be eligible to vote for or against the introduction of commonhold and no doubt we can all understand and accept that he would have good reason for not wanting to vote for commonhold at this stage in his life. There are many elderly people living in such properties who may be interested, but would wish to know exactly what sort of sums would be involved. That information will be crucial to those interested in such schemes.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That matter has been examined in the context of a block of flats in my constituency which the tenants wished to purchase from the Church Commissioners. The whole block was bought by the tenants who then became landlords and those who did not want to buy their own flat became tenants of the new tenant organisation. Similar arrangements could apply in respect of commonhold.
Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting comment and I hope that such provision can be incorporated in any legislation.
I come back to the question of cost because that is what we are talking about. Another letter that I received says:
"I am very much in favour of commonhold being obtained for the above building, provided it is not too expensive."
We will be told that repeatedly.
Suppose that a majority of residents has voted in favour of commonhold. How will the market value be determined? Many of the properties have been neglected by agents over the years and some of them are in a very poor condition. Will that be taken into account in

557
determining their market value? I could quote many further letters, but I will not, because I am sure that many other hon. Members present will have received similar correspondence. Suffice it to say that these matters are of great concern to people in my part of London.
The residents in a large block may be very diverse. They may include professionals and elderly people who would not want to be involved in the management of the new commonhold. What criteria would the Department apply in relation to the management of such properties? In many cases large groups of properties may be involved and the legal aspect may be complicated. There is also the question of financial accountability—how money will be spent in the day-to-day maintenance of the property. The property will sometimes also need to be surveyed.
The management committee would presumably be made up principally of residents. Will there be certain legal requirements necessary to qualify for commonhold of which a potential management committee will he made aware before it decides whether it is in favour of commonhold? We are talking not only about cost but about complex issues of which many people have had no experience. Recently, I received a letter which said:
"One would need to be absolutely sure of the competence and representative stature of the management committee to supervise the introduction of the scheme and see to its day-to-day running."
Those are what I would describe as the gut issues affecting people who are interested in the introduction of commonhold. They will want some guidelines concerning the day-to-day management and how that would operate in legal terms.
I hope that whichever party wins the next election will regard the introduction of commonhold legislation as a priority. Can the Minister assure us that civil servants at the Department are already starting to put together draft legislation? I hope that we shall not be told after the next election that the Government have to go out to consultation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know what people want: they want action to be taken to protect their interests and an opportunity to express their concerns. They want to be listened to, and they seek redress for the injustices from which they have suffered for so long.
Mr. Chris Smith: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says about the urgency of ensuring that commonhold legislation is introduced. Does he agree, however, that it is important that any Bill should include measures to deal not just with flats held on leasehold but with whole houses held on leasehold? As I understand it, there are at present two exceptions to the ability to enfranchise and to take the freehold. That cannot be done if the rental value some time ago was too high or if the rateable value is too high. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that both those criteria should be wiped from the exceptions to freehold enfranchisement and that we ensure that people in my constituency and in Hackney, for example, can purchase the freeholds of their properties?
Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The great benefit of debates such as this is that we have an opportunity to introduce other aspects of the legislation that is needed and my hon. Friend has done just that. I hope that, after 9 April when a change of Government
558
comes about, the Minister then responsible for that legislation will take note of the points that have been made.
What will happen if a two thirds majority of the tenants in a block of flats is not arrived at? I hope that arty legislation will be tough on the abuse of service charges and that the dubious landlords who, sad to say, still exist, will be deterred. I am referring to those landlords who say, "My tenants have had an opportunity to vote for commonhold but did not take up that opportunity, so I need not bother about the law." Otherwise, we shall continue to see an abuse of service charges. I hope that, where the two thirds majority is not reached, there will be strict guidelines on service charges. People should have a right to oppose service charges, as my constituents have tried to do over the years, without success.
The issue of squatters may be out of the terms of the general debate, but it will be interesting to hear the Minister's views on it, because squatters have moved in to a block of flats in my constituency. Ministers may say that legislation on that already exists and that the agents or landlords should implement it. In the past two or three weeks, however, my consituents in that block of flats have been writing to me daily, asking me to get something done. The police say that they have enough to do, without worrying about squatters. Unfortunately, the legislation does not work quickly enough in support of decent, honourable people who have long lived in a block of flats and have a pride in it because it is their home. If a few properties fall empty for a period of time, it soon becomes known and the squatters move in. We need a means by which action can be taken quickly. Once squatters have been living in a property for a month or so, it becomes difficult to get rid of them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich, who has done a great service to London constituents who have experienced the difficulties to which he referred. Whichever party wins the election, I hope that this will be a priority for the next Parliament because it is long overdue.
10.43 am
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on raising this issue and compliment the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on what he has just said. From his experience of dealing with squatters, he will know that some of the attempts in the past 12 years or so to toughen the laws on squatting were vehemently opposed by hon. Members on the extreme left of the Labour party, under the guise of libertarianism. I exclude the hon. Gentleman, because he is a much more sensible person. He is the authentic voice of the Labour party. If such Labour Members controlled the Labour party, we might have some worries about winning the election, but we have no worries, because people like him are not in control.
May I place on record the absence of the co-called Liberal Democrats, who clearly have no interest in the problems of tenants of any kind? Yet when the election comes, they will be at the forefront, squeaking in their hypocritical terms about how they are the friends of tenants.
After being in the House for some 22 years, this is probably the last time that I shall address it. I have always

559
been greatly interested in the problems of tenants, both private and public. When I came into the House in 1970, there was the scandal of Freshwaters—landlords who were destroying private tenants. They had taken over from highly reputable landlords, such as the London County Freehold and Leasehold Property Company and the Prudential, all of whom managed their properties in the interests not only of themselves but of their tenants, and there was immense satisfaction.
My own dear parents lived all their lives as tenants in Key Flats, and I lived most of my early life in those same conditions. So I know the problems, and I saw the change when the Key Flats were sold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and the hon. Member for Tooting spoke about service charges. On occasions, I have rebelled and my first rebellion was on the first Housing Finance Bill to go through the House. As a new Member, I moved a new clause dealing with service charges, but I did not know the rules of the game then and had not warned the Whips what I intended to do. I won and beat the Government on the issue. However, I did not know that the second vote to be taken was that the new clause stand part of the Bill and, by then, the Whips had organised matters and my new clause was not added to the Bill. When the Bill was dealt with in another place, however, my points were covered. So I soon learnt that it is better to have the Whips on one's side and to work with them, and I have tried to do that ever since.
I thought that we had covered service charges then. Later, when I had the good fortune to be a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment, I again thought that we had cleared up all the loopholes. I was assured by the draftsmen and lawyers in the Department that that was so and, with the help of my senior colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), we went into the matter in great detail. I thought that we had managed to settle the issues of the inspection of service charge accounts and independent auditors—we had got rid of the phoney auditors put up by the landlords —and that we had provided that, where work was to be carried out, alternative and genuine estimates had to be submitted so that the tenants could challenge them if they were not satisfied. All those issues were to be challengeable in the county rather than the High Court so that expenses could be kept to a minimum.
I am disturbed to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and the hon. Member for Tooting that that system is not working. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain why it is not working. What can be done to ensure that Parliament's intention is carried out? If there are loopholes, will he take urgent steps to ensure that they are closed in the first housing Bill that comes before the House in the new Parliament?
The hon. Member for Tooting and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) spoke about landlords' identities. Again, I thought that we had ensured in the last Housing Act, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning took through the House, that the names and addresses of landlords had to be disclosed. If that Act is not working, I am very disturbed. I hope that the Minister will be briefed by his
560
officials on those points, because they are of immense importance. It is not a party issue but an issue affecting human life.
Such actions give landlords a bad name. The overwhelming majority of landlords do not deserve that bad name, as they are good. But they are tarred with the same brush as the irresponsible people who use so-called managing agents, who could not manage a fish and chip shop if everything was supplied free. The agents take large fees for doing poor work. I hope that the profession will tidy itself up. It involves only a minority, but we have all seen, over the years, newspaper headlines stating, "MP's fifth cousin up on driving charge". We never read, "Journalist's third cousin up on driving charge"—which is interesting. The irresponsible minority causes us all problems.
Having tried to do something for private tenants, when the opportunity arose, I tried to do the same for public tenants. I wanted to ensure that council tenants had the right to buy, and that the legislation covered various issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich spoke of the delays in Southwark. We introduced amendments to the legislation so that, if there were delays, tenants could serve notice on the council, rent could be withheld and go towards the purchase cost. Such delay was covered in the legislation.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to note a new factor. Camden council has now decided that there should be a differential parking charge on mixed estates. Council tenants pay one parking charge and those who have bought their flats and who park on the same estate are asked to pay four and six times the weekly amount. I am told that nothing can be done until the law is changed. I hope that that can be done, as that system is grossly unfair.
There will always be gaps. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich mentioned the problem of long leases coming to an end. Those long lease contracts were freely entered into many years ago—perhaps not even by the current residents, but by their predecessors. There are two sides to the question: the right of the freeholder who owns the property and who has sold on the lease for a fixed term at a ground rent, and the right of the person living there to some form of security. We must get the right balance.
One of the best ways of achieving the correct balance is to extend the lease. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) has done much work in that sphere and he put forward various proposals in a debate about a year ago. The extension of the lease would give tenants the security that they understandably want. It would also cover the issue raised by the hon. Member for Tooting about whether people could afford to buy.
There used to be an option to remain in a block of flats. Those who chose that option remained as tenants of the new owner. That might not always have been satisfactory. We must see what can be done to ensure that the market value of the lease extension is fair to both sides. Perhaps that task should be given to what used to be the old rent assessment committees, which now have some new duties under the Housing Acts. Perhaps we should re-establish the old valuation courts that used to work with the benefit of the advice of the district valuer. We must have a system that is seen to be fair and workable, in the interests of both the freeholder and the tenant. It would be possible to achieve that, and I should certainly welcome an advance on that front.

561
We must also examine the option of compulsory sale. We must decide what percentage is adequate to demonstrate the desire of the majority to purchase. How does one decide what to do if there is a resident freeholder or commercial occupation? The statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued spoke of a 10 per cent. commercial occupation—that is one suggestion to consider. There is a problem with mixed occupation. If a council tenant of a garage lives over that garage, he has no right to purchase that property, which does not seem fair. We must consider how we could overcome that problem in future legislation. There must be fairness on both sides.
The issue of leases presents problems. When I had responsibility for the new towns, I was confronted with the problem of what length of lease one should give in the case of commercial properties. I had been brought up all my life to think of 99-year leases. Those no longer held good as if there were substantial redevelopments to take place, this would involve a time scale of about 60 years. We considered the issue and decided that 125 or 150 years would be about the right length for a lease. When considering the continuation of existing leases, we may decide that they should extend for longer periods than previously, but we must bear it in mind that all properties have a useful life and it is no good to the freeholder, leaseholder or tenant if the useful life expires and one cannot redevelop in a sensible way.
One of the simple theories in the world is that there are more tenants than landlords, so one must carefully consider the tenants' interests. Of course, that is right. A landlord is in business to provide an income for himself, which is quite understandable. A tenant is there because it is his home. We must find the correct balance. Over the past 30 years or so, the balance has swung somewhat unfairly against the tenant due to the activities of the bad landlords.
I do not believe that many people in the world would quarrel with the concept of private landlords if they conformed to previously accepted landlords' practice. Big companies such as the London County Freehold and Leasehold Property company had an unmatched reputation for looking after property and tenants.
562
People who are to become the new owners of blocks of flats—I leave aside houses, as they are a different issue —must realise that they will not necessarily have the time or ability to look after the immensely detailed business that will come their way. They may need to appoint managing agents to look after the property, but they will have to ensure that they pick the right ones. They must realise that major repairs will have to be done from time to time, which cost substantial amounts of money. They will have to listen to the advice given to them by their managing agents, which means that they will have to establish sinking funds that are well maintained and looked after in the interests of the tenants. They must realise that a cycle of preventive maintenance is by far the best way of proceeding. They cannot suddenly think that, as they have purchased the commonhold or freehold, they will not have to carry out any more repairs or have any more outgoings. If they understand that, a new Parliament will provide us with the opportunity to introduce legislation to allow private tenants to feel more comfortable and satisfied as they enter the last stage of this decade. I think that the whole House would welcome that. That is what I hope will happen.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich on giving the House the opportunity of debating this important issue.
10.59 am
Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on introducing this subject. It is significant that the Government, who dithered on the issue for 13 years, have chosen their last few days to make a statement that seems to support the attitude of the hon. Member for Dulwich and of other hon. Members on both sides. It is also interesting that the warm noises emanating from the Department of the Environment have not yet been matched by any legislation. There is no draft Bill—
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

National Lottery
11 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plans, set out in a White Paper being published today, to introduce a national lottery for good causes.
As hon. Members will know, we have been considering for some time the merits of a national lottery. It raises a number of complex practical issues, but the potential benefits are substantial. In the past in our own country, a lottery funded the foundation of the British museum. More recently, in Canada a lottery also helped to fund the Olympic games. A lottery helped to fund the building of the Sydney opera house.
Many other countries have long been using the proceeds of national lotteries to fund a wide range of projects which improve the quality of life of their people. Every other country in western Europe has a national lottery. In the years ahead it will become increasingly difficult in practice to prevent their lottery tickets from being sold in this country. Without a national lottery of our own, other countries rather than our own will benefit.
In the light of all these considerations, and bearing in mind the opportunities it will give us to raise substantial sums for the public benefit, the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery to be promoted throughout the United Kingdom.
We propose that the national lottery proceeds should be used to support projects of lasting benefit to the nation. The good causes to be funded will be sports, arts, our heritage and charities. This means that sporting facilities could be further improved and new ones provided; a whole range of additional facilities for young people could be developed; our historic buildings, houses, museums, galleries and cathedrals could be restored and worthwhile new buildings constructed; art treasures could be purchased for our national collections; and a wide range of other charities could be supported.
A national lottery could be operating by 1994, but it will take some time to become fully established. Once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion a year for good causes. I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes. Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the national health service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community and must continue to be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way.
We have concluded that a single national lottery is the best way forward. This would allow major prizes to be offered and it would maximise the potential funds which could be raised for good causes, while minimising the risk of fraud or mismanagement.
The White Paper sets out the broad framework for the operation of the national lottery. There will be an independent national lottery board whose task will be to distribute the proceeds of the lottery. The day-to-day operation and management of the lottery will be undertaken by the private sector under contract and subject to strict regulation.
Today's White Paper sets out a number of practical
564
issues, and on some of them we want to consult interested parties. We are aware of the concerns of the football pools companies and others. We intend to discuss their concerns with them, and to assess the possible effect of a national lottery on their activities. In the light of these discussions we shall consider whether there is a case for any changes in the controls under which they operate at present.
Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the lottery. But we still need to consider how best to protect their interests, both in the allocation of the proceeds and the effect on their income from existing small lotteries. We would welcome the views of all charitable organisations on both these points.
A national lottery will be a popular development of great significance. It provides a unique opportunity to improve in a lasting way the quality of our national life. I look forward to its early introduction.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Government make themselves ridiculous by announcing in the dying days of a Parliament a decision that they could have taken years ago, and it is particularly absurd of the Government to introduce a White Paper which they will have no opportunity of implementing.
Does the Home Secretary recall that as late as January the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said—seven times, to be precise—that a decision on all these matters could not be taken without careful examination and consideration? He was especially precise about the need to examine the impact on the pools industry and, in his words,
"to give those directly affected a chance to express their views before a decision is taken."
That promise has been broken. Since that speech, no consultation with the pools industry has taken place, yet the Home Secretary has made his statement today. That amounts to nothing more than the Government taking decisions first and fraudulently holding the consultations afterwards.
The way in which this statement has been hurriedly cobbled together is demonstrated by the bland announcement that it will raise £1 billion. How can the Home Secretary possibly know that when, according to the White Paper, he cannot even tell us the extent of the tax to be levied from each lottery ticket?
Does the Home Secretary understand that the Labour party, in a policy statement over a year ago, announced its intention of giving serious consideration to a lottery? That remains our position. We well understand the benefits that a national lottery might provide—to the arts, to sport, to our heritage and to charities. There are, however, substantial problems to be overcome before one can be introduced, and I know very well that in their present mood the Government are not prepared to examine any of them.
The Under-Secretary promised consultation on a number of vital issues, all of which have since been subject to arbitrary decisions taken, not in the national interest, but in the hope of gaining brief party-political publicity. I intend, therefore, to ask the Home Secretary a number of questions to which I have no real hope of getting answers. I do so simply to demonstrate the irresponsibility of his position. The difference is that we anticipate being in a position to implement a lottery; the right hon. Gentleman only considers the hope of cobbling together a few votes between now and 9 April.

565
Is the Home Secretary certain that the lottery tax he proposes will not result in some small but important charities receiving less from the lottery than they do from their own current schemes? Is he sure that some small charities which now exist on fund-raising schemes will not be driven out of business altogether? Since the leak to The Times which appeared this morning, small charities of every sort have been phoning Members of this House, saying that their existence has been threatened. What assurance can the Home Secretary give them that that is not true?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he can avoid the most serious consequences to the football pools, with enormously adverse effects on Treasury revenue, with enormously adverse effects on the essential income of football clubs, and above all with deep damage to Merseyside, an area already grievously affected by unemployment?
The next Labour Government will examine these and other essential questions with the seriousness that the subject deserves. Only when the difficulties are resolved will it be right for the lottery scheme to go ahead.
Mr. Baker: That was one of the right hon. Gentleman's more memorable performances. He is a sourpuss—there is no event that he attends on which he does not cast a blight. In this case, he is a party-pooper.
In the past 18 months, during which the right hon. Gentleman has been my shadow, he has come forward with no creative idea. He could have committed the Labour party to a national lottery had he wanted to, but he has remained silent. There has been an absence of decision and a daily struggle in the right hon. Gentleman's frame between sloth and indifference.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about charities. I refer him to paragraphs 33 to 37 of the White Paper in which we discuss the effect upon large and small charities. We specifically say:
"The Government wants to consult widely with the major charitable interests and will pay careful attention to their views … The Government would welcome views on whether the monetary limits"
in the small lotteries on which some charities depend
"should be increased and, if so, to what level."
We also mention the existing rules on small lotteries.
On the question of football pools, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 30 and 31. This morning my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke to the Pools Promoters Association and to representatives of Vernons and Zetters, and I spoke to the managing director of Littlewoods. We explained to them what was in our mind, which they knew perfectly well. We say specifically in paragraphs 30 and 31 that we want to have meetings soon to consider their assessment of the effect of a national lottery upon their activities.
As the House knows, there are different views on the matter. The pools companies say that they would be seriously affected and quote examples from other countries. But in other countries with national lotteries the pools operation has not been affected. We want to make a proper assessment of that and want to discuss with the pools companies in the light of that consideration whether we should take steps to change the existing rules in relation to pools. The Government have no intention of forcing the pools companies out of business, and I do not think that that will happen. Pools can exist perfectly naturally and successfully alongside a national lottery.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that this is private Members' day and that time is precious. I will allow questions to continue until about 11.30, but I ask for questions about the national lottery and not on wider issues.
Sir John Wheeler: Would my right hon. Friend agree after a mere moment's reflection that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) are reminiscent of a 50p piece—two-faced and seven-sided? Does he also agree—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Withdraw the phrase "two-faced", please. It is not appropriate.
Sir John Wheeler: I do so immediately, M r. Speaker, but you will understand that as a numismatist I was factually correct. Of course I withdraw.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that his proposal, which will be widely welcomed, will bring new money to charities because many British citizens are already spending their money on lottery tickets elsewhere in Europe?
Mr. Baker: That is correct. It will become progressively difficult in the years ahead to prevent the sale of lottery tickets between European countries. We are the only country in Europe without a national lottery and money spent in other countries does not benefit Britain. Therefore, our proposal seems doubly sensible.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it not perverse that this Government of all Governments should be involved in nationalising gambling? Has the right hon. Gentleman not considered that in many cases gambling is an addiction which leads to great hardship in families and that for the state to be involved in its deliberate promotion is a dubious role for a Home Secretary? Has he considered the damage that state lotteries have caused in other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland where the 16 major charities are petitioning the Government to end the national lottery?
What possible guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give that the revenues, uncertain as they will inevitably be, from a lottery will not be used as an excuse by Government to stop money that would normally come from the Treasury to back the arts and other desirable heritage functions?
Mr. Baker: It seems that the Liberal party is hooked on yet another unpopular policy, because from what the hon. Gentleman says I understand that he opposes the proposal. The fact that it is a "national" lottery does not mean that it will be nationalised. It will be operated by a private contractor and the national lottery board will be at arm's distance from the Government.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what is said about additionality in paragraph 41 of the White Paper:
"Under standard conventions, the disbursements of a national lottery will be classified as public expenditure in the national accounts. The Government does not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways: the proceeds will not be brought within the planning total, and the Government will not make any case by case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of awards from the lottery proceeds."
Sir Richard Luce: I congratulate most warmly my right hon. Friend and the Government on their bold and imaginative decision. It is a great pity that the other parties have not given it their firm support. As a former Minister for the Arts, I believe that there is enormous potential for extra resources for the arts, sports and the environment and for other fields, thus improving the quality of life in the 1990s. Will my right hon. Friend continue to give every assurance that resources from the national lottery will not be seen as a substitute for public expenditure?
Mr. Baker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm welcome and pay tribute to the work that he carried out when he was responsible for our arts policy and for funding the arts. I know that he has supported for a long time our having a lottery, as does the present Minister for the Arts, who has given me great assistance in preparing the policy. I assure my right hon. Friend that resources from the lottery will not be a substitute. I remind the House of the substantial increase in arts spending under the Government—56 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79. The arts budget this year is some £560 million.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Home Secretary accept that the only wage packet for thousands of families in Merseyside comes from the member of the family who works in the pools? He proposes to introduce this measure without undertaking a single piece of work on the likely employment consequences. We accept that it is totally proper for the right hon. Gentleman to do as he wishes with his own money, but it is intolerable for him to gamble with the jobs of my constituents. Will he give a commitment that if he proceeds with the scheme the centre for the national lottery will be in Merseyside?
Mr. Baker: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views and I read his speech in the January debate on this subject. I also understand his concern about employment prospects. It is by no means certain that there will be such adverse effects upon the pools. We want to discuss that matter with the three pools companies, and especially in the hon. Gentleman's case with Littlewoods. It is quite possible that the pools companies, either individually or collectively, will make a bid to run the national lottery.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the site from which the lottery should operate. I cannot comment upon that now, but we shall be having constructive discussions with the pools companies because, obviously, we do not want to put them out of business. I do not think that a national lottery will put them out of business, but we must explore with them their concerns.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for his enthusiastic and prompt response to the National Lottery Bill which I presented only six weeks ago. It shows that the Government are still full of dynamic action. His proposal will be immensely popular in the country because it will bring much pleasure and reward for thousands of people every week, many of whom will not be well off. It will bring an immense amount of help, which the taxpayer does not provide, to the arts, sport, heritage and charities.
My right hon. Friend's proposal is timely because when my Bill was presented Albania was the only other country in Europe without a national lottery and now it has one.
568
If we did not have one, we would be alone. If a national lottery had not been introduced quickly, British money would quickly flow out of the country to foreign causes, even though there are many good causes in Britain that we have yet to satisfy.
Mr. Baker: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on being a pioneer in introducing his Bill in January, thus concentrating discussion on the matter. He brought the matter to a head in the House. There was considerable support for his Bill not only from the Government side, but from many Opposition Members. However, during the debate on my hon. and learned Friend's Bill, the Opposition spokesmen were rather lukewarm. The plain fact is that the Labour party would have made no decision on a national lottery. I doubt whether it will be mentioned in the Labour manifesto, although perhaps now it may be —it is a johnny-come-lately.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, if we do not do this, other lottery tickets will be sold here and it will be increasingly difficult to stop that, so this is a sensible move. The important point is that, in the words of Lord Rothschild in 1978, this is a harmless entertainment, a mild flutter, for many people, and our public life will benefit from it.
Mr. George Howarth: In considering whether to publish the White Paper, did the Secretary of State have the opportunity to study the Coopers and Lybrand report on the impact of a national lottery? On the evidence collected in Belgium, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, it predicted that a lottery would kill off the pools industry within a matter of weeks.
Has the Home Secretary taken into account the fact that 4,600 jobs on Merseyside alone will be put at risk, and the predictions are that, even if the national lottery scheme were located there, it would provide only about 200 jobs? Has he taken into account the fact that places such as Merseyside cannot afford to gamble with the jobs that are at stake in these proposals? Will he take it from me that the hostility that he will arouse among the people of Merseyside with this proposal will have an impact not only on the progress of this scheme but on the Tory party in the forthcoming election?
Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not over-exaggerate any likely effect. The interesting thing about the Belgian experience, as set out in the letter, is that its pools were operating on the British fixtures list because there was not a long, strong tradition of clubs playing there. Therefore, there was not the same commitment to and interest in soccer in Belgium as there is in this country, where it is the national sport. In other countries where soccer is well established as a national sport, the football pools co-exist quite happily with the national lottery. These are matters which, with the pools operators, we shall be considering.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and warmly welcome his announcement. It is very opportune because I believe, as a former Minister for Sport, that it may well enhance Manchester's chances of winning the Olympic bid, which will lead to the building of many excellent new sports facilities. Following what my right hon. Friend said about the flood of money to national lotteries in other countries, may I press him for a little more detail on the time scale of introducing a Bill and

569
then bringing in a national lottery, because there is some urgency to stop the sale of other national lottery tickets here?
Mr. Baker: After the general election, when we return to office, we shall introduce a Bill to implement a national lottery and that will be put on the statute book as soon as possible. It will establish arrangements for a national lottery and a national lottery board and all the regulations needed. We estimate that it will probably require a year to 18 months to get established. The arrangements for selling lottery tickets through different outlets, which could include small shops, large shops, village post offices—
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Creating jobs.
Mr. Baker: Yes; there will be a great deal of job creation as a result of this activity, not least in the disposal of the proceeds. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) for the work that he did for sport when he was Minister for Sport. The lottery will allow many new sports facilities to be built across the whole range of sports, including new stadiums, tracks and clubs, quite apart from supporting major international events. It is an exciting prospect.
Ms. Kate Hoey: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I am concerned about the way that this project has been introduced, and it will be clear to the public why it has been introduced today. Nevertheless, as a supporter of a national lottery for a long time, I welcome the decision. However, the Government will not implement their plans because the Conservative party will not be forming the Government after the general election. I know that the next Labour Government will look at this matter in great detail, immediately, with full consultation to ensure that the jobs of workers in the pools business are protected. I share the feeling that there has been some over-exaggeration of the threat to pools jobs that is posed by a lottery, but I hope that the Labour Government will look at this matter quickly and carefully to ensure that the national lottery will have the confidence of all the people.
Mr. Baker: I do not believe that what the hon. Lady says will happen, but, even if it did, I cannot imagine a Labour Administration giving a national lottery any priority. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her strong and consistent support for a national lottery. She has been outspoken about it; and I heard her speech on 17 January, in which she said that she does the football pools every week, and would continue to do so even if there were a national lottery. I think that that will be the reaction of many people. I hope that she is lucky on the pools this week.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his statement. It is up to his usual standard in creative and imaginative thinking. Does he see the premium savings bonds disappearing? Secondly, will he ensure that shareholders' money will not be used for buying tickets? Thirdly, what about regional money? Will the money collected in one region be allowed to be used in another, or will it be spent only in that region? How will that be organised?
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulatons— for such I took them to be. In paragraph 48, we say two things about regional money. First, we say:
"Consideration might also be given to the possibility of participants recording their general preference for the use of the proceeds at the time they pay their stake."
They could nominate which charity or activity it went to, Secondly, we say:
"Amongst the factors which the Board might want to take into account is whether proceeds raised in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should he devoted to causes in those countries. The Government would welcome views on these, and any other ways, in which the distribution of lottery proceeds could be arranged."
That is a matter for consideration.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am attracted to a national lottery, not least because I recently won 512 in the Florida state lottery. There are those who say that the Government have been organising a national lottery with the economy over the past 13 years.
Will the Home Secretary say a little more about charities? He said that money from the national lottery would not go to the national health service to replace those moneys that come from the Exchequer, but a number of charities work within the NHS. Finally, what sort of prizes does the Secretary of State envisage being paid out?
Mr. Baker: As the hon. Gentleman is a lottery punter —I did not know that he engaged in the Florida state lottery—he knows how they work and he has been lucky enough to win something. The odds are quite strongly against winning. I would expect a large number of medical charities to be among the beneficiaries of a lottery, just as charities for disabled people, for education and for charitable projects that help health activities generally will be.
The prize will depend on the stake, which is envisaged to be 50p or £1. It is for the lottery contractors to determine that. The White Paper deals with whether there should be a maximum. We are disinclined to set a maximum, but that will be a matter for the lottery operators and contractors to decide. Lord Rothschild said in his report in 1978 that there should be a maximum prize of £500,000—in current day money £1·5 million. Only the other week the prize for the pools exceeded £2 million. It is for the lottery operator to decide how to distribute prizes and how much they should be.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: This is the first Government to show real common sense on this issue in modern times, and I welcome this move by the Home Secretary. It could also have an enormously important social effect if my right hon. Friend would say that post offices, and particularly rural sub-post offices, will be able to handle the scheme. That would save many rural sub-post offices in our constituencies.
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I think that, like many others, he feels that perhaps this could have been done very much earlier. The scheme will benefit many good causes and will improve the quality of our national life.
It would be for the lottery contractors to decide what outlets they would use. I should have thought that they would be very attracted to village post offices. They are important outlets in many village communities and people have easy access to them. I should have thought that they would be high on the contractor's list.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As several new points have been raised by hon. Members—I hope that that will continue—I shall allow questions to proceed for a further 10 minutes. At that stage we must return to the private Members' business.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Home Secretary tell us whether this matter of principle, which it is, was included in the Conservative party's election manifesto at the last general election? Does he agree that some of his supporters might have reservations about the proposal on the ground that it gives a social imprimatur to gambling that it otherwise might not have? Apart from the charities which he has mentioned, will he tell us which good causes are either not being sustained by votes made by the House or which could easily be sustained from moneys voted by Parliament? Will not the members of the board be put in a position of considerable potential patronage? Does he think that appointed rather than elected persons of this sort, especially when there are other charities that perhaps will be affected, is compatible with representative democracy?
Mr. Baker: I am sure that the proposal will be clearly stated in our forthcoming manifesto. It is not our intention to promote gambling. A lottery is the softest form of gambling, the hardest being casino gambling. Lord Rothschild described a lottery as "harmless entertainment". I think that many people see it as that. They consider it to be just a flutter.
The hon. Gentleman referred to causes that are not supported. In all the areas that I have mentioned—sports, the arts and our heritage—I think that successive Governments have always wanted to spend more than that which is available. We have spent substantial amounts, and a lottery will provide an opportunity to spend more.
It is true that the members of the board will have a grave responsibility when it comes to allocating moneys. It is the sort of responsibility that has been borne by those who have to dispense money that is raised by various forms of television charitable raising of money, such as telethon, the BBC's "Children in Need" appeal and red-nose day. Those who decide which organisations shall be the beneficiaries take tremendously scrupulous care in so doing. Charities are examined and those involved like there to be a national spread. The board will have to conduct its affairs as scrupulously as that.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having finally overcome the reluctance of the Treasury, which we know has for years been against a national lottery. When putting the scheme out to contract, would it be possible to include a condition that rural post offices, for example, must be included in the list of sales places? Will he comment on the fact that Liberal Members came into the Chamber to be killjoys in their response to his proposal but took no interest earlier in the debate on tenants?
Mr. Baker: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's final point. However, it is on the record and will be used.
My hon. Friend's suggestion about post offices is one that we can consider. There are various matters that we will still wish to consider, including small shops as well as
572
large retail outlets. I am glad that we have been able to win over all members of the Government in support of this measure.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Home Secretary recognise that many people will see his announcement as one of the last sleazy acts of an exceptionally sleazy Government? What additional protection has he considered for charities such as the one with which I am proud to be associated, the National Children's Home, which refuse to accept anything from the proceeds of gambling? What defence has he for coming to the House, and using public money and parliamentary time, to announce something that was agreed by the Tory party only last night as part of its election spending and election commitments? What justification is there for doing that with the public purse?
Mr. Baker: The White Paper was not printed overnight; it was decided some time ago. The hon. Lady is being rather churlish. I suggest that she should have listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As I understand it, he is half-heartedly in favour of a lottery, so the Labour party will be committed to one as well. If there is the chance of possibly quite large sums—up to £1 billion—being distributed when a lottery is fully established, a considerable extra amount of money can go to good causes.
The policy of charities depends on their trustees. If the trustees do not wish their charity to receive money from small lotteries, that is up to them. The hon. Lady will see in the paragraphs in the White Paper dealing with charities that we wish to examine with them necessary safeguards and protections. Charities will be among the beneficiaries of a national lottery.
Mr. Robert Banks: The gestation period for coming to this decision has been inordinately long. I recall that in my maiden speech, which I made about 18 years ago, I spoke about lotteries. I therefore greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision. How many people does he believe will be directly employed by a national lottery? Will he consider the Spanish example with a view to employing disabled people and disadvantaged people to run the whole show?
Mr. Baker: I could not make an estimate of the number of people who will be needed to run the lottery. There will, of course, be many thousands of agents across the country, and the disposal of the proceeds will be job-creative in many instances. Major capital projects will stem from the lottery and so it will have a positive effect. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his percipience. It has taken a long time to ripen.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not a fitting epitaph for the Government that after 13 years, having chucked 3 million people on the dole and having a public sector borrowing requirement of £30 billion, they come to the House—[Interruption.]—they live in a never-never fantasy land—to talk about running another gambling den'? Will the Home Secretary consult the 50-odd Tory Members who are members of Lloyd's—[Interruption.] —on how best to run a lottery? They have got themselves into a right old mess. Will he get in touch with the Littlewoods organisation and all the other similar

573
concerns that have given money to the Tory party over the years and tell them that as the Government are trampling on their territory they will send the money back?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friends have showed their contempt for the hon. Gentleman's usual display of spleen and venom. As I understand it, he is about to fight an election and there is a commitment, I believe, in the Labour party manifesto to introduce a national lottery. I trust that he will be able to support the Labour party.
Mr. John Bowis: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and his commitment to speak to the pools companies. Will he bear it in mind that most people, if they had to choose, would rather the proceeds or their flutter went to good causes than into the extremely deep pockets of the pools millionaires, where they have gone in the past? Will he confirm that, although there may be some genuine concerns about jobs in the pools companies, there are good prospects for jobs in the arts, in welfare, in sport and in the environment, directly or indirectly, from the lottery?
Mr. Baker: Estimates have been made. The interests that promote a national lottery have talked of very high figures in terms of job creation. I am sure that it will have that effect. I believe that as a result there will be much greater activity in the arts and in sport, including building projects, and across a range of charities, and in preserving our heritage. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the pools. As I have said, we shall discuss with the companies the arrangements that may be necessary.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I wish to speak up for urban post offices. Are they not just as important as rural post offices? I have had to fight to save five in my constituency.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many churches, of all denominations, and other places of worship involving many faiths, organise raffles, lucky dips and the rest? So we already have the principle of a little flutter—perhaps concealed—by bodies that are committed to promoting morality of the most proper kind. There can be no moral objection to what my right hon. Friend is doing—just a warm welcome for it.
Mr. Baker: We all know that many church activities are supported by a mild flutter. Therefore, I hope that there will not be any great objection on those grounds. One of the beneficiaries should be the great clerical architectural heritage of our country. The cathedrals and the medieval churches will benefit.
If post offices are to be used—and the Post Office is a useful network for establishing contact with a large number of people—urban as well as rural post offices will be considered.
Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest excitment in doing the football pools is checking the results over the weekend, and that that will continue? People in the United Kingdom are compassionate and they will still want to give to other charities in their own way, so those other charities would not be harmed.
Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), introduced the gambling argument? I do not know what his experience is, but mine is that the first person to be asked to buy a raffle ticket in
574
a constituency is either the mayor or the Member of Parliament. For many years I have given most generously to so many causes that it is unbelievable. Either the Liberal Democrat spokesman is a mean man or he has a short memory. I am sure that he has bought raffle tickets.
Mr. Baker: The Liberal Democrat spokesman must struggle with his conscience—[Interruption.] I do not know who would win. As my hon. Friend rightly said, all politicians will be buying raffle tickets this weekend and supporting, in one way or another, a mild form of gambling. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a strong vein of compassion in our country. One of the endearing characteristics of the British nation is its willingness to give to charitable causes. The flows of money are very substantial, and I do not think that they will be choked by a national lottery.
Mr. Stuart Randall: The right hon. Gentleman's statement will be viewed as utterly reckless and ill considered. It has been presented entirely for electoral purposes. That is shown by the Home Secretary's wild departure today from the Government's statement on this very subject on 17 January. The forthcoming election has caused that.
There have been no consultations with the pools companies. We spoke to them this morning and they are annoyed that the Government have reneged on the promises made by the Under-Secretary of State, who is in his place, on 17 January.
The nature of gambling in Britain is such that none of us here today even knows whether a national lottery is viable—[Interruption.] We do not know. For example, we do not know what form of regulation would be used vis a vis the pools. We do not know what the taxation will be. Will it be 37·5 per cent. as it is for the pools? It would be irresponsible of hon. Members on either side of the House to talk about £1 billion in prizes for good causes when none of us knows what the figure will be.
From his experience of other EC countries, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the probability of two long odds gambling regimes co-existing is very doubtful? There are serious risks. The Belgian experience, to which he referred, was that the pools were wiped out within three weeks. In Britain, that would mean the loss of one third of a billion pounds to the Exchequer. The Government are not bothered about that any more. They are spending money like water—borrowing, borrowing, borrowing.
There are 6,500 full-time jobs on Merseyside and 70,000 collectors' jobs that need to be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had little to say about that. We are also worried—and I cannot underline this enough—about the effect that the lottery could have on charities, especially small charities. It could undermine a great deal of good work in this country. The Labour party wants to ensure that the charities are properly protected.
Labour party policy is to review the fund-raising arrangements for sport, the arts, charities and other bodies, and we will do so when we form the Government in the next few weeks. As we said in September 1991, we shall sympathetically consider the question of a national lottery while ensuring that the football pools and charities are properly protected.
Mr. Baker: That is not much of a commitment. The hon. Gentleman will have happier appearances at the

575
Dispatch Box than he has had in the past five minutes. The best advice to the Labour party is, "If you are in a hole, stop digging."
The Government have made a clear commitment to introducing a national lottery, and we shall do so. We will get on with it; we will not have reviews. We shall hold discussions immediately with the pools companies and charities to resolve any problems and difficulties. We are convinced that a national lottery will be of great benefit to the nation and to many good causes.

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

Bingo Act 1992.

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Offshore Safety Act 1992.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1992. Coal Industry Act 1992.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1992. Local Government Act 1992.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1992.

And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1992.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
Question again proposed.
Mr. George Howarth: Before the statement, I was saying that the Government have had 13 years to do something about leasehold reform, but they have shown a lamentable lack of inclination to do so—with the exception of the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper on commonhold.
Mr. Summerson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I have only just begun. I shall give way in a moment because I know that the hon. Gentleman has spoken in these debates previously. I want to get a little way into my argument before giving way.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich on introducing the motion. He made a cogent and well-argued case for reform. However, if the past 13 years are anything to go by, the prospects of the Government doing anything if they are returned to power are pretty dismal. I do not want to go back over the whole of those 13 years, so I shall just itemise a few opportunities during the past two years that the Government have had to do something about the problem, but which they have failed to take.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) has raised the matter frequently in the House. He is not in his place, although he was previously. He introduced the Leasehold Reform Bill on 3 April 1990. It is interesting that one of the sponsors of the Bill was the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), now the Minister for Housing and Planning—who has been somewhat reticent in following up the promise that he made at the time. There was another opportunity to make some sort of announcement on 8 March 1991, when a suitable motion was before the House. The Minister and I took part in that debate and the hon. Members for Kensington and for Dulwich also spoke. The opportunities have been there, but they have not been taken.
Mr. Summerson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will give the Government credit for passing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and 1987.
Mr. Howarth: I do so, but I will mention later the inadequacies of that legislation.
A letter dated February 1992 from Joan South of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, which was widely circulated, states:
"We have now received a positive commitment from the Labour party … a less than satisfactory one from the Liberal Democrats … but as yet have received nothing from the Government or the Conservative Party."
Earlier this week, perhaps because of fears in many Conservative-held marginal constituencies, particularly in London, the Department of the Environment issued a press release on which the Minister will no doubt comment in more detail. That suggests some panic in the Government. There are fears in a number of London constituencies about the inadequacy of the Government's past and proposed action.
When Labour comes to power in the next few weeks, it will put into effect a document, "Commonhold and other new rights for leaseholders" which I launched at Kensington town hall earlier this month in the company of that constituency's excellent Labour candidate, Ann Holmes. It suggests extending a new right to buy,
578
including one relating to commonhold, along the lines previously considered for all leaseholders of houses. It deals also with lease expiry. A Labour Government will consider introducing and co-operating in the introduction of holding legislation.
Other key points in that document include the right for existing leaseholders to choose their managing agents, to help to ensure that agents are efficient and that reasonable service charges are levied. Existing leaseholders will be given the right to extend their leases and to have the freeholder's accounts examined by an auditor of the leaseholder's own choosing.
There will be a right to covenants that will clearly stipulate the freeholder's responsibility to repair and to improve the block. We shall also introduce the concept of an arbitration panel with the remit of settling disputes between leaseholder and freeholder over, for example, the price of a freehold or the level of service charges. We will also repeal the legislation that makes the original lessee liable for payment when the lease is sold on—an anomaly which exists in respect of commercial and residential leases.
The Government's proposals made even at this late hour are inadequate. I quote from a letter sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) earlier this week from Miss Jude Goffe of 68 Cloudesley road, north London. She makes the reasonable point that
"The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 entitled the leaseholder to acquire freehold or to extend the lease by 50 years if certain conditions were met. These have been subsequently amended and the two most important are: 1. for leases issued pre-1 April 1990—the tenancy was at a "low" rent, i.e. at rent of less than two-thirds of the 1965 rateable value or the rateable value on the first day of the term, if later than March 1965. For leases post-April 1990—rents may not be more than £1,000 in central London or £250 elsewhere. 2. The rateable value on 23rd March 1965 was not more than £400 (increased in 1974 to £1,500) in London, and £200 (increased in 1974 to £750) elsewhere."
Miss Goffe makes the point that most houses in Islington and Hackney are excluded because of condition 1, whereas houses in Kensington, Mayfair, and Belgravia are mainly excluded because of condition 2—and that due to insufficient details in the Government's announcement,
"we are not sure whether it is proposed to remove both conditions."
Miss Goffe adds:
"We suspect that the Government is seeking to keep votes in key marginals, including Kensington. It would therefore not surprise us if only condition 2 were removed."
I understsand that that is precisely the Government's intention. That is all being done because in a few weeks' time, the country will go to the polls, and the Government are anxious to save the hides of a few Conservative Members in London constituencies.
The situation that I described does not exclusively affect London. In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) spoke at length about the problems of long leaseholders in the north-west of England. It exists also in south Wales, parts of Yorkshire, and the north of England.
My hon. Friend proposed a four-point plan. He suggested establishing the right to sell the ground lease 1 o the owner-occupier; limiting by statute the level of on-costs in any transaction, because some organisations have been ripping off long leaseholders, who have been charged for all manner of items, including extensions, modifications and improvements; the removal from a

579
given date of the imposition of retrospective permission; and, until the owner-occupier purchases, and for the benefit of those who do not choose—even at an affordable cost—to enfranchise, reasonable charges for current permissions to alter. I should be happy to incorporate those four provisions in legislation.
The Consumers Association also makes a number of important points. In a letter to me dated 4 March, it outlines five reservations that it has about the Government's proposals, and states:
"enfranchisement and commonhold alone will not be sufficient to address the problems of the long leasehold system. They should be conjoined with a right to extend leases, available to all residents, and an overhaul of landlord and tenant law to improve the lot of those unable to convert to commonhold;
too many leaseholders in 'mixed' blocks containing rented flats or commercial units will be excluded from the enfranchisement provisions, and too many 'resident landlords' in converted properties will be able to escape them; a statutory formula for valuation may be preferable to open market valuation: either way, the process must be clearly explained, and an inexpensive appeals procedure established; an early announcement is needed to persuade freeholders that they will not benefit from carrying out extensive works at the expense of flatowners in the run up to enfranchisement; a commonhold and enfranchisement commission should be set up to provide advice and informal resolution of disputes."
Broadly speaking, the association is proposing a similar strategy to that set out in the Labour party's policy document published earlier this month. We can happily go along with that approach, which I welcome.
In conclusion, I repeat an offer that I made earlier to the Under-Secretary. I said:
"My offer is that, if the Government take up one, two, three or all of those demands, made in our policy statement … the Opposition will co-operate in every way to ensure that the legislation—which we hope will be proposed by the Government—gets on to the statute book. We would do nothing to detain or delay such legislation and would co-operate as fully as possible."—[Official Report, 8 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 610.]
Even in the dying days of this Parliament if the Government, even over the weekend, come forward with some draft legislation, unlikely though it is, we would co-operate with them to get it on to the statute book.
The Government have dithered and delayed for 13 years. I have no confidence and I suspect that those affected have no confidence in this last-minute conversion. The Government's attitude has everything to do with the imminence of an election and nothing whatever to do with the fact that something needs to be done about this thorny problem. In the unlikely event of the Government holding their majority at the election, I suspect that nothing will be done thereafter. My pledge is that within the first year of a Labour Government we will introduce legislation to resolve these problems and the longstanding problem of leasehold reform, which this Government have evaded and avoided for the past 13 years.
12.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is likely to remain in opposition for some time, I thank him for his offer to co-operate with the Government in getting legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I look forward to taking up that offer later this year.
580
I declare an interest as the owner of a long leasehold flat in a rather well-managed block which, I am glad to say, as the Whip is present, is within the Division bell area. This has been an extremely high-quality debate. No speech exceeded in quality that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) when he opened the debate. I congratulate him on winning first place in the ballot, on choosing this particular topic so timeously and on the excellence of his speech.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that the fact that no Liberal Democratic Member has been present at any stage in our proceedings is a sign of the low priority that that party attaches to this subject. I know that it is customary to congratulate hon. Members when they make their maiden speech. This morning my hon. Friend made what he mentioned could be his valedictory speech to the House. I should like to take the opportunity of saying what an excellent speech it was. I hope to be able to deal with some of the points that he raised.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who asked for answers on a range of subjects when he spoke before the Home Secretary's statement, has not bothered to remain to hear the answers that I shall now try to give.
As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said, it is just a year since we last debated this subject. A great deal has happened since then. The Government have made progress at a vigorous pace. Last July my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced the Government's firm intention to proceed with the introduction of commonhold as an entirely new scheme of freehold ownership and communal management of flats and other interdependent buildings. He made a further commitment of our intention to give long leaseholders of flats the right to enfranchise and collectively to purchase at market value the freehold interest of their block. The Department of the Environment then issued a leaflet and sought comments on those proposals.
Only this week my hon. Friend confirmed our commitments to the policy of enfranchisement. On Wednesday in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) he announced two important additional measures: the right to a lease extension and the extension of the right to enfranchise to householders who were previously excluded because of the high rateable value of their property.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my hon. Friend say whether this warmly welcomed announcement will extend to individuals in a block of former council tenants where others have not bought or where some have bought not at all? He will be aware of the various problems that that causes.
Mr. Yeo: Yes, I shall try to explain in more detail exactly to whom this will apply. The fact that the landlord is a local authority rather than a private landlord will not make any difference. There will still be a threshold in that two thirds of the properties in a block will have to qualify. In other words, they will have to be sold on long leases. That means that a number of flat dwellers who have exercised the right to buy will find at this stage that they are in too small a minority within their block to qualify. In

581
smaller blocks it is perfectly possible that more than two thirds of the flats will have been sold under the right to buy, so will qualify.
Mr. Greenway: As my hon. Friend will know, this is extremely important to the people whom I have described. Can he give them some hope that the Government will consider the case of those who find themselves in a block where there are fewer than two thirds qualifying? They are almost always former council tenants. Can my hon. Friend give them some hope that they will be able to buy before too long?
Mr. Yeo: We shall have to consider that point in Committee when we reach that stage. The Government will continue to promote the right to buy. I hope, and I am sure that my hon. Friend hopes, that in blocks where a relatively small number of people have bought their leases the fact that this opportunity to enfranchise will exist when they get beyond the two thirds may attract more buyers. Therefore my hon. Friend's concerns will be met in that way.
Our proposed extension of the rights of leaseholders will go a long way towards resolving many of the bad management problems, about which many hon. Members on both sides are concerned. It has been apparent from the responses during consultation last year that there is still some confusion about the important differences between commonhold and leasehold enfranchisement. Indeed, that confusion has spilt over into this morning's debate, so I shall briefly clarify the Government's intentions.
Commonhold, as a new form of land tenure, is intended as a means of overcoming the present inadequacy of the law which does not provide for the satisfactory ownership of individual flats on a freehold basis. It is not intended to replace leasehold as a form of tenure, because in many instances, particularly in the commercial sector, leasehold works perfectly well. Commonhold will provide an alternative form of tenure.
There are some freehold flats in England and Wales, but the owners of those interests are in a far from satisfactory position. Their interest is generally not mortgageable, so is difficult to sell.
The commonhold Bill will introduce a new system of positive and restrictive land obligations which, in effect, will enable positive covenants to be enforced upon successors to a freehold title. Commonhold will also establish standardised arrangements and fair rules for the democratic management of individual flats and other relevant properties. All commonhold unit owners will automatically belong to a commonhold association which will have responsibility for the fabric of the building and its common parts. A commonhold unit owner will have the additional responsibilities and liabilities that freehold ownership brings, but he will also have a mortgageable asset instead of a diminishing leasehold. The Government do not feel that it would be right to enforce those additional liabilities of commonhold ownership on anyone who does not wish to take on such responsibilities. In answer, then, to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, commonhold will not include any element of compulsion.
By contrast, our proposals on leasehold enfranchisement have an element of compulsion. The qualifying leaseholders of flats in wholly or mainly residential blocks will be given a right to purchase collectively the freehold of
582
those blocks. That right forms a separate part in the package of measures that will be exerciseable by qualifying leaseholders, regardless of whether they subsequently wish to convert to commonhold.
We have placed in the Vote Office a leaflet that explains the proposals on the enfranchisement of leaseholds. It will go a long way towards answering the points raised by the hon. Member for Tooting, who I see is now back in his place. In outline, two thirds of the flats in the block concerned must be let on long leases—that is, leases originally granted for a term of more than 21 years. If two thirds of the flats are in that form, a further test is applied: two thirds of the people who have the long leasehold flats must vote in favour, if enfranchisement is to take place. There are a number of other more detailed conditions explained in the document, but I shall not weary the House with them now.
The process of leasehold enfranchisement will go a long way to ending management problems with freeholders, because enfranchisement transfers management to the people who own the flats.
Mr. Steve Norris: I must declare an interest as chairman of Haven Services Limited which manages more than 4,000 units of sheltered accommodation for the parent company Anglia Secure Homes and for many other outside developers. May I draw the Minister's attention to what I consider to be the most crucial element in what he has said so far. The only justification for leasehold enfranchisement is as a response to poor management by freeholders. Why does he believe that such a profoundly undemocratic and un-Conservative measure as the enforced sale of assets by an individual can be justified where there is no evidence of poor management? Does not he realise that there is justification for restricting the availability of leasehold enfranchisement only in those cases where there is proven poor management, perhaps by serving a notice on a recalcitrant landlord?
Mr. Yeo: It would be difficult to put into legislation a definition of what was or was not poor management. I have no doubt that the company of which my hon. Friend is chairman would never fall into the category of poor managers. That being the case, I strongly suspect that the leaseholders of properties that his company and other well-known companies own will not be in the forefront, demanding the purchase of the freehold. They will not be seeking to enfranchise because, as I am about to explain, the process of enfranchisement carries a considerable cost. It is not a free option, so I believe that landlords with well-managed properties have nothing to fear from the principle of compulsion. Indeed, negotiations may take place between landlords and leaseholders about lease extensions and other matters, which will largely satisfy the concerns of leaseholders in well-managed properties.
The other advantage of enfranchisement is that it eliminates the problem of an unsaleable asset in the form of a lease which is too short to be mortgageable, as has been said. We are also concerned about the freeholder. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) intervened, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made the same point. There is no question of expropriating the freeholder's asset. The price that the leaseholder must pay

583
to enfranchise must be a fair market value. We do not intend that through this legislation leaseholders should be able to acquire assets at a discount.
The valuation process will be complex. The price must include not only the open market value for the freehold but a share of the marriage value. The marriage value is a concept familiar to those in the property world. It represents the latent value released by the merger of two or more interests in land or property. The combination of those interests may be worth more if it is in the same ownership than the sum of the individual values in separate ownerships. Our aim in acquiring the marriage value to be shared is to be fair to the leaseholder and the freeholder. The document in the Vote Office explains that the freeholder will always receive at least half of the total marriage values of the individual flats.
Where there are disputes over facts, they will be referred to the county court. Where there are disputes over valuation, they will be referred to the local leasehold valuation tribunals.
Mr. Cox: I take the Minister's point that it is a complex issue, but, as I and other hon. Members have said, one of the on-going criticisms is the condition in which properties are left. Can the Minister say that the condition of a property will also be included in the market value that the owner is seeking to obtain?
Mr. Yeo: Inevitably, the condition and the location of a property will be reflected in the valuation.
I said that qualifying leaseholders in wholly or mainly residential blocks could enfranchise. Although we wish to spread the benefits of enfranchisement as widely as we can, our proposals will not apply to properties of which more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor area is used or intended for use for non-residential purposes.
We have no evidence of widespread demand in the property market for leaseholders of commercial units to have the same rights as people living in flats to purchase the freehold. I believe that the introduction of such a right for commercial leaseholders to enfranchise could undermine the effective working of the property market and would threaten the position of investors and developers. The 10 per cent. threshold has been chosen carefully in the light of consultation, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, it is a difficult balance to strike and there will no doubt be further debate about that in due course.
Relatively few leaseholders of flats will be excluded by that provision. We have also tried to minimise the other exclusions so that leaseholders such as local authorities and other public sector landlords will also qualify, as will leaseholders of housing association properties and of sheltered housing properties.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend at least examine the point that I made about a council property that is at least partly commercial—for example, a garage with residential accommodation upstairs? Can his Department's long-standing objection in that respect be overcome?
Mr. Yeo: I shall certainly look into that.
584
The effect of the proposals would be that if enough qualifying tenants in any of the categories that I mentioned are willing to enfranchise, the opportunity to do so will be widespread.
Where four or fewer flats in a property have been converted from a house and where the landlord occupies one of those flats as his sole or main residence, that block will also be excluded. However, for the people who are excluded the next proposal is important, because it will extend leases on an individual basis. We have amended our original proposals to include this right because of our concern about how unenfranchisable leases might be treated in the property market following the opportunity to enfranchise being granted to many other leaseholders. The right to extend individual leases will ensure that leaseholders exclude from the other provisions can retain a saleable and mortgageable asset, an issue which will be of great interest to many of my hon. Friends' constituents.
I stress that the right to lease extension will be confined to leaseholders excluded from the right to enfranchise in the categories that I have already mentioned. An extended lease will be granted for the unexpired portion of an existing lease, plus an additional 90 years at a peppercorn rent for the entire period. The price will be the market price of a new lease, including the income value to the landlord of the existing lease and the price that could reasonably be expected to be paid for granting a 90-year extension at a peppercorn rent. That price will also include a share of any marriage value lost to the landlord by granting a new lease. The process of settling the price will be the same as that for a lease enfranchisement.
The issue of lease extension is much more complicated for flats than for houses. Our minds are not absolutely closed on every detail. We are still consulting on that aspect of our proposals and we are looking for comments before the end of May.
I mentioned briefly our proposals to amend the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Most long leaseholders of houses have had the right under that Act to enfranchise, subject to their properties falling within certain rateable value limits. Those limits left many high-value houses—mostly in central London—excluded by the rateable value limits. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North has made us aware of the problem that that restriction poses for his constituents. We now recognise that introducing the right for leaseholders of flats to enfranchise without any rateable value limits would create anomalies for high value houses. Therefore, we have made it clear that not only do we have no fundamental objection to removing the rateable value limits but that we now intend to do so.
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I should be glad if he would comment on two issues.
First, will he assume that the provisions that he has just announced and which will be included in the forthcoming Bill will apply to the long leaseholders of the Crown Estate, as the Crown Estate Act 1961 would usually exempt the estate from the consequences of this legislation? Secondly, can he confirm that there will not be any evasion of our intentions by those who claim charitable status, except as set out in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967?
Mr. Yeo: In the past, the Crown Estate has undertaken to abide by the consequences of legislation and we will have discussions with the aim of achieving that again in this case. In the second case, charitable housing trusts will not be able to claim any exclusion from the legislation except when, for the purpose of fulfilling their charitable objectives, they have sold property at a discount to its market value to the long leaseholder. In other respects, they will be treated the same as everyone else.
The existence of the right to enfranchise will be a powerful spur to all landlords to maintain higher standards of management, but it will not eliminate disputes altogether. Leaseholders in blocks where the freeholder is responsible for management will still need to be protected, both against unscrupulous landlords and, sometimes, other tenants.
I regret to say that the problems of bad management are not confined to the private sector. The incompetence or worse extends all too frequently to local authority landlords which is recognised by Conservative Members even if it is often vehemently denied by Opposition Members.
Mr. Benyon: Before my hon. Friend leaves the 1967 Act, I must point out that it is apparent from the note in the Vote Office that those who enfranchise themselves under the extension to the 1967 Act in highly priced properties, mainly in central London, will not get: the marriage value or a proportion of the marriage value. If it is equitable for the leaseholders of flats to get that, why is it not equitable for those in such properties?
Mr. Yeo: What is proposed for those properties is consistent with the case of the properties that qualified under the 1967 Act. As my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the point, I undertake to consider it. We have said in the document in the Vote Office that the process of calculating the price is almost identical to the market valuation principle proposed for flats. To the extent that it is different, I will consider my hon. Friend's concerns and reflect on them. My hon. Friend may not be in the House by the time that the legislation goes through. I am sure that he will be here in spirit and I have no doubt that we shall be able to communicate with him as he is a substantial landlord in Hackney. I am sure that the Hackney constituencies will soon become Conservative.
I regret that it is not surprising that Opposition Members are so reticent about the disgraceful behaviour of many local authority landlords, because such landlords are almost invariably Labour-controlled authorities. The principle that landlords can appoint managing agents cannot be easily overturned. I notice that that proposal is included in the Opposition's policyy statement. We have considered carefully whether tenants should be given the right to choose the managing agent or to remove a managing agent chosen by the landlord. To give such a right would create more problems than it would solve. It would present severe practical difficulties if the tenants wanted to take action against the landlord because of poor management. As the landlord is ultimately responsible for the management of the block, he must have the final choice of managing agent.
The Landlord and Tenant Acts already provide for tenants' agents to be consulted over the appointment of managing agents and about their duties. Leaseholders also have the right to be consulted about major works. They
586
have the right to information about service charges, including a summary of the costs and they have the opportunity to inspect supporting documents if unreasonable service charge demands are made.
In answer to the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, I point out that the legislation provides a broadly adequate set of safeguards. Difficulty has arisen because of the reluctance, which may be understandable, of some tenants to enforce the legislation. The House should deliver a clear message to people that there is a framework that can be used to pursue bad landlords who are inflicting the consequences of poor management on their tenants. As Members of Parliament, we should advise and encourage people to go down the legislative route. Only if we find that the legislation proves to be ineffective when it has been tested in court would it be necessary to consider further change. I understand the caution that many tenants would feel about going to the courts and I especially understand the caution that tenants of local authorities may feel because of the danger of harassment.
I condemn the practice of many local authorities, especially in London, of making exorbitant demands for contributions from leaseholders who have exercised the right to buy to the cost of works in the blocks in which they live.
Mr. Summerson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Yeo: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend being so vocal on the matter. In Waltham Forest and in Southwark, there is still great Labour party hostility to home ownership. That is never far from the surface anywhere in the Labour party. That hostility was reflected in Labour's opposition to the right-to-buy legislation when it was introduced. That hostility is reflected in Labour's opposition to rents-to-mortgages, the most valuable extension of right to buy. Even when the right to buy has been established as a statutory right, local authorities such as Lambeth and Hackney continue to obstruct, both by incompetence and by dogma, the process of tenants trying to exercise their right to buy.
Under prodding from my Department and following legislation, Lambeth's previously lamentable performance has improved slightly. The mantle of being the worst performing London borough in terms of processing right to buy applications has now passed to Hackney.
Sir John Wheeler: Before my hon. Friend concludes his excellent speech, will he deal with this point? He may have been as astounded as I and my hon. Friends were to hear the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) talk about the Government "dithering" over the proposals. Will he confirm that this Government set up the Nugee committee of inquiry in 1984 which led to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987? It greatly extended the accountablity of freeholders and managing agents to renting and leaseholding residents.
Will my hon. Friend dwell on another point? Although the Opposition have said that they support the forthcoming legislation, they have proposed in their policy documents the introduction of two taxes that would make the acquisition of freeholds and commonhold an irrelevance. They propose an inheritance tax and the reintroduction of a capital transfer tax.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes two important points. No Government have done more than we have, through a series of measures throughout the 1980s—we will follow that in the 1990s—designed to bring sense and balance in the relationship between landlords and tenants. In the unlikely and tragic event of the Labour party coming to power this year, there is no doubt that few leaseholders would have the resources or inclination to try to exercise the rights that we propose because they would have been taxed out of existence. The danger of the Labour party coming to power is that most householders, through a combination of higher income tax, higher national insurance contributions and, above all, higher community charges, because Labour is committed to abolishing community charge capping, would be struggling to remain where they are now. They will not be able to lay out money to acquire the freehold of their properties.
The Opposition's total silence about the way in which their Labour party allies in the local authorities are denying tenants their statutory rights is revealing. We have listened in vain this morning, as always, for any whisper of condemnation of those disgraceful practices. It is not only that such authorities deny tenants their statutory rights. They waste resources by leaving properties empty and by failing to collect the rents due to them. To know what a Labour Government would be like in practice, one has only to look at the record of the London Labour-controlled authorities.
Let me conclude with a word about service charges.
Mr. George Howarth: The Minister has treated us to a long litany of abuse. As he has widened the debate to housing concerns in general, would he care to spend a few minutes defending the Government's record on homelessness?
Mr. Yeo: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am looking forward to the publication of the next set of homelessness statistics next week, and they will demonstrate the success of our policies.
Let me deal specifically with the point about service charges. We know of contributions requested from leaseholders of £20,000 towards work on flats whose total market value is little more than that. We have heard of demands for advance payments of up to £40,000—even where there is no evidence that the council plans to carry out any work in the near future. At the moment, I am taking up a case with Southwark—brought to my attention through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich—involving a tenant who has been billed every quarter for a contribution of £100 a month towards repairs that the council shows no sign of being ready to undertake. That sum is additional to the charges for day-to-day services and maintenance costs. If that is not an abuse of landlords' power, I do not know what is. It is certainly not acceptable to us. Again, I listen in vain for any condemnation of that practice by the Labour party.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Yeo: No, I must make progress. I am sorry, but I have given way many times.
Tenants are being discouraged from exercising the right to buy because of their fears of excessive charges—fears that are being whipped up by councils providing unjustifiably high pre-sale estimates. They are being
588
warned of—one might almost say that they are being threatened with—liability for repair bills higher than the value of the flats themselves.
On the issue of timing, my hon. Friends will know that I cannot make commitments about what legislation will be included in the first Session of the new Parliament. I can confirm, however, that leasehold enfranchisement and the introduction of commonhold will be a top priority. We have done the work, we have completed the consultation. The Government are committed to the policy.
The Opposition have tried to claim that they would attach a high priority to such a policy—but they have so many priorities. By the time they have introduced legislation to cripple employers and destroy jobs through the introduction of a minimum wage, and to legalise flying pickets, by the time they have renationalised the water industry, abolished fund-holding general practices and scrapped the council tax, I do not know how much parliamentary time will be left in the first five years, let alone the first year.
At least the Opposition list their priorities on housing: there are 16 priorities listed in their policy document on housing, and I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to one of them. Labour would lift restrictions on direct labour organisations. Of course, the Opposition must pay their dues to their masters in the public sector trade unions, but to call the promotion of direct labour organisations a priority is surely unnecessary even by Labour party standards. Let us recognise it for what it is—not a priority but a threat to the pockets of charge payers in London Labour-controlled local authority areas who have benefited so much from compulsory competitive tendering. It is a threat, too, to the tenants, whose repairs are unlikely to be more speedily or effectively undertaken if the direct labour organisation monopoly is restored as the Labour party wishes. The priority for Labour to help its union friends ranks at least equally with the introduction of leasehold enfranchisement. The message is clear: those who want legislation on the statute book quickly need a re-elected Conservative Government. That is what they will get later this year, and I commend the policy to the House.
12.31 pm
Mr. W. Benyon: I had not intended to speak in the debate but as it has been rather one-sided I have decided that I would like to intervene. I must declare my interest as the owner of leasehold property.
No one objects at all to commonhold as an additional form of housing tenure—although the claims made for it are grossly exaggerated, and the sort of instances described by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) show the difficulties that will arise. Commonhold sounds lovely but in practice it will mean a lot of extra money for the lawyers.
It is not that aspect with which I have difficulty, however. What sticks in the gullet is the compulsory overthrow of agreements freely entered into and their extension—quite apart from commonhold—to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The changes will affect the whole concept of the private rented market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norrish) implied in his intervention, that effect could have been avoided, by allowing the right of enfranchisement on change of ownership or where a landlord does not conform to a proper code of practice.

589
Such legislation would remove long leasehold from housing tenure. Nobody would ever again grant a long lease. The opponents of the existing system say, "So what. This is a bad system and we have heard much of its defects today. We have heard a lot about the bad apples in the barrel." But there are grave disadvantages in losing the leasehold system, particularly in areas of high-priced property. Leasehold has always been the halfway house between direct rental and owner occupation. Without it there will remain only two forms of private housing tenure—direct rental on my one hand and owner occupation on the other. I beg my hon. Friends to understand that, as a result of the change, both will become more expensive.
One of the saddest aspects of the current housing scene is the relatively small size of the private rented sector. Compared with our industrial competitors overseas, we are a long way behind, which militates against the mobility of labour. There are several reasons for that—principally, the low return that a landlord receives on rented property largely caused by the tax advantages available to owner occupiers. It is also a direct result of the political uncertainty that has surrounded rented property for so many years. As a result of the compulsion element of the proposed change whereby a Conservative Government proposes that these contracts should be overthrown, landlords will wonder how they can ensure that the same will not happen to ordinary rented properties and will decide to get out now while the going is good. That will be their overriding reaction.
Some of my hon. Friends may say that the number of private rentals is now rising, and I have the figures from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. But that is because of the depressed state of the housing market. As soon as that changes, as it rapidly will, people will leave the private rented sector in droves.
May I raise the issue of compensation, not as a private plea but because it is important for landlords' general conception of renting in the future. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Minister replied to me as he did about the extension to the 1967 Act. But even what is proposed for flats—the market price plus at least half the market value—will give enormous immediate tax-free capital gains to the leaseholder at the expense of the freeholder. There is no way to avoid that. If no change is made to the proposal for extending the 1967 Act, the windfall gain involved will be enormous and will involve hundreds of thousands of pounds per property. That is marvellous for the Government because they do not have to pay a penny, and it will no doubt have a considerable effect on how people vote. But it does make one curious about why all those impoverished people in Eaton square should have that windfall.
Excluding the 1967 Act itself, we must go back to the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII to find an equivalent transfer of property from one section of the population to another.
Sir John Wheeler: I am tempted to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech to say that he may have proved the case for change if he is looking back that far in history.
Mr. Benyon: Henry VIII transferred arbitrarily a large amount of property in this country. My hon. Friend may say that that was beneficial. I am not arguing that point, but it is a curious measure for the Conservative party to
590
aspire to. When the appearance of central London changes out of all recognition, as it will, and when the price of property and rents escalate, we shall know who to blame.
12.38 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and choosing such an interesting motion for debate.
Commercial leasehold has not yet been dealt with in the debate. In a good letting market, a landlord has all the advantages. People fall over themselves to take property at a time of buoyant economy and many people want to run their own businesses from those properties. That means that landlords can include all sorts of conditions in leases, sometimes quite onerous ones that deal with the maintenance of the building and state that there must be rent reviews at regular intervals—indeed, upward-only rent reviews at regular intervals. The landlord is doubly advantaged by privity of contract—a double whammy.
We should ask what privity of contract is—
Sir John Wheeler: Define it.
Mr. Summerson: My hon. Friend asks me to define it, and I am just about to make a gallant effort to do so. In broad and general terms, at the start of a lease there is privity of contract between the lessee and the freeholder. Well on into the lease, where the lease may have been assigned several times, there is privity of estate between the freeholder and whoever holds the lease at the time. In addition, there is privity of contract between the freeholder and the original lessee, who may have assigned the lease and disappeared off into the distance.
If the lease was originally for a term of 25 years, has run for 15 to 20 years, has been assigned several times, and the holder of the lease is unable to pay the rent or comply with the conditions of the lease, the landlord can go back to the original tenant. As there is privity of contract between the two, the landlord can demand of the original tenant that he pays the rent. It could be that, with upward-only rent reviews, the rent will be much higher than it was when the lease was first granted.
I have some examples of what can happen in those circumstances, and shall quote from a publication, "Drapers Record—the Fashion Business". It states:
"Some retailers are facing bills of up to £50,000 for rent arrears run up by tenants to whom the lease has been sold on. By law, previous holders of the lease can be forced to pay the arrears, if the current holder defaults on payment.
Retailers say that they face bankruptcy because they cannot pay the bills.
One fashion retailer in the Midlands, who said he did not wish to be named, said he had just received a demand for £50,000 on a property which he and his wife had left 11 years ago. 'It is causing a lot of hardship but it is the law, and the freeholder is entirely within his rights to do this.'
The retailer is now worried that the landlord will continue to force him to pay the rent until the lease is up in another nine years or until another tenant is found. He added: 'We will have to go bankrupt—there is no way that we can be liable for that sort of figure."
That is what happens with privity of contract.
A report was published by the Law Commission in November 1988, following publication of a consultation paper in 1986. A press notice on the report states:
"Once a tenant no longer owns property, he should not pay for it. The Law Commission, in a report published today, recommends that the responsibilities of both landlords and tenants under a lease should normally end as soon as they

591
dispose of the property. At present, the general rule is that anyone who signs a lease remains liable to comply with the obligations until the end of the lease period, even though he may long since have parted with all interest in the property.
The rule applies equally to landlords and to tenants, of all types of property—residential, commercial, agricultural. But tenants feel the main impact because leases impose more obligations on them. Difficulties arise particularly when the original tenant transfers the lease, the new tenant defaults on the rent, and the original tenant has to foot the bill … The Law Commission found widespread ignorance of the present rule."
We cannot be surprised that there is widespread ignorance of privity of contract.
The press notice continues:
"The first that many people heard of it was when they received a claim.
Although it is now possible to make a contract to vary the position, the Commission reports that 'landlords are often in a dominant position in this market, which either makes it impractical for tenants to negotiate on equal terms or even deters them from trying'.
The Law Commission recommends that liability should normally cease when an owner parts with property let on a lease, but there would be exceptions. The scheme works differently for tenants and for landlords:
Tenants would automatically be released, unless the landlord's consent to a transfer was needed and he could show that it was reasonable that they should guarantee their immediate successor's liability.
Landlords would have a chance to seek a release, but the tenant would have the opportunity to insist on their remaining responsible if it was reasonable that they should be."
The matter was raised more recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who tabled a question answered on 3 March by the Attorney-General, who said:
"In 1988 the Law Commission published its report, 'Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate', Law Com. No. 174. It recommended that all the obligations created by leases should bind the parties who for the time being are interested in the land and that those parties should cease to have any liability when they part with those interests, except in cases in which it is objectively reasonable that their liability contiue. It is envisaged that in many cases a landlord consenting to an assignment by a tenant of his interest will be able to impose a condition that the tenant guarantees the performance of the lease covenants by his successor, but only until any subsequent assignment. The Lord Chancellor is actively considering the report's recommendations and hopes to be able to make an announcement about them in the near future."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 99.]
That is good news, especially since, as we hope, the Lord Chancellor has been actively considering the report's recommendations since 1988, so he will doubtless be full of ideas.
It surely cannot be right that a landlord can bankrupt someone for someone else's debt.
Turning to residential matters, I declare an interest as the owner of some freehold property in south-west London. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich is quite right about the difficulties facing leaseholders. He spoke of rapacious freeholders and declining leases, and no doubt there are problems; but certain difficulties also face freeholders. They will have responsibilities imposed on them for any lease. Usually, those responsibilities will include managing, insuring and maintaining a building. Freeholders, too, can run into difficulties. What if, for instance, a couple of lessees in the block do not feel like contributing to the cost of maintenance? Property maintenance is expensive and sometimes people do not feel
592
like paying up. That puts freeholders in a quandary; they are bound by the terms of the lease and by statute to maintain a property. What, therefore, should they do when lessees say that they will not pay? They may decide that if they do not go ahead they will be breaking the law, so they go ahead and try to recover the money later. If a great deal of work has to be done to the block in question, the freeholder may find himself having to pay out large sums of money which the lessees have refused to pay.
House owners have a choice when it comes to maintenance. If the roof starts to leak and someone is feeling a bit hard up, he can decide to buy a bucket to catch the drips and leave the roof until next year. A block of flats is different, however, because the interests of everyone in it have to be considered and the freeholder may have to carry out the work. I question whether these difficulties will be solved by what we have been discussing today.
Will commonhold solve all these problems? Certainly, it will have certain different effects on blocks of flats. It will mean that other commonholders will be able to put pressure on those who do not feel inclined to pay their bills. On the other hand, some people say, "We want to live in peace with our neighbours and do not feel like knocking on the door of the recalcitrant lessee. If he will not pay up that will make things difficult for everyone else."
However, there are rapacious freeholders, people who do not do their job properly. Some of them terrorise leaseholders, and I use those words in a considered way. My constituency has a large block of flats called Fernhill court and there are many problems there. The first problem is in finding out who the landlords are. I think that the Freshwater group is involved, but the trouble is that it has created a number of intermediate forms of tenure. There are freeholders, head leaseholders, under-leaseholders and sub-under-leaseholders. As a result, responsibility for carrying out the terms and conditions of the leases has become thoroughly obscured.
Whoever the freeholders or leaseholders are in that case, they are certainly good at sending out service charge hills to the lessees, and those bills arrive without reference to any law. They consist of a bald statement to the effect that the person owes £500 in service charge. However, they are certainly bad at maintaining the property. They say, "We refuse to maintain the property until you, the lessees, pay our service charges." That is what I mean by rapacious freeholders. It is unfortunate that such things happen, because they tend to give the whole leasehold system a bad name.
Fernhill court also has the problem of short leases which are down to about 30 years, and many elderly people in the blocks are worried about that. Some of them are worried that they may outlive their leases and others are worried that if they want to move they cannot. How can anyone sell a 30-year lease in a block of flats, particularly where those who are supposed to be maintaining the fabric of the property are not doing their duty and are sending out exorbitant and, I am sure, illegal service charge demands?
We must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water, because there are many well-managed estates. Estates in London, and especially in central London such as the Grosvenor estate, Belgravia and Mayfair, tend to be well looked after and well maintained. If an estate wishes to sell properties on fairly short leases it should have the right to do so. Many foreigners who come to this country for two or three years would like a home of their own and

593
are perfectly willing to pay a premium for a 25 or 30-year lease in a part of London such as Mayfair or Belgravia. They do not wish to buy a 99-year lease, because the difference in the amount that they would have to pay for a 35-year lease and a 99-year lease is considerable. They know that at the end of the time they can sell the lease and return to America or wherever.
We should consider a simpler solution to the problem, which is that ordinary flats should be sold on leases of, say, 999 years. Those who erect blocks of flats or convert a house into flats sell them on 99 or 125-year leases and then scarper because they are not interested in the freehold. If the leases were for 999 years the freehold could be vested in the leaseholders.
I spoke about elderly people with short leases. Is it possible to put in place some sort of system whereby elderly people who have lived in their flats for a long, time but are unable to sell them because of a short lease could sell them on notional 99-year leases? That proportion of the price received that can be attributable to their flats could be passed over to them and the rest passed over to the freeholder, or something like that.
I was rather cross when the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) read out a quote from the Consumers Association because I was going to do that myself. However, although he was good at reading out its reservations, he did not quote one part of the letter, which says:
"In brief, we broadly welcome the developments to date."
I have received a paper, called "A Programme for a New Parliament", from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of which I have the honour to be a fellow. It asks for a better deal for leaseholders and tenants and says:
"Many people in rented and leasehold accommodation have to endure low standards of management and maintenance. The government has tried to help some tenants through its Tenant's Charter. But many tenants and leaseholders in both the public and private sectors still receive a poor service from landlords. Organising even essential repairs can be a major problem.
There is cross-party support for the introduction of a system of commonhold under which leaseholders would be given the right to buy their freehold. Management of the common parts of blocks of flats would then become the responsibility of a commonhold association comprising of all the flat owners. What more can be done?
A statutory code of practice should be prepared for all who manage residential property—whether rented or leasehold, public or private sector. It would lay down a set of minimum standards which all managers would have to meet. The RICS is currently preparing just such a code in close liaison with the Department of the Environment.
A commonhold form of tenure may suit the needs of some people. But introducing it poses many problems. It should only be available with the agreement of both the leaseholders and the freeholder. The needs of many leaseholders may well be better served by giving them a statutory right to extend their leases, a right already enjoyed by commercial leaseholders. This would overcome the difficulty that leaseholders can experience in selling flats with short leases." Those who have been listening to my speech will doubtless be able to point out a number of contradictions in what I have been saying. That just goes to show how difficult and complicated a subject this is. We have to be terribly careful about what we are proposing and doing. Dispossessing good landlords and freeholders of their properties is something which no Conservative Government should undertake lightly.
I emphasise what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Minister about the treatment by the London
594
borough of Waltham Forest of leaseholders who have exercised their right to buy their flats from the council. Waltham Forest council has behaved in the most disgraceful way towards those leaseholders. It has sent out demands for sinking funds—demands that lead to sinking hearts in my constituency. These demands are often undetailed and have figures written in at the bottom in hand. This is a London borough behaving like this.
Some of the service charges are for exorbitant amounts. People get demands for £2,000 on account. As a result, the London borough of Waltham Forest leaseholders' association has been set up. That just goes to show the demand that there is for a voice for these people who feel themselves so pressurised by the council. There are now more than 2,000 members of the association, which has sent delegations to see me and my hon. Friend the Minister. They are looking to us for help. I am grateful for the assistance that he has already given and I look forward to the further assistance that he will doubless give in the future.
12.59 pm
Mr. Steve Norris: First, I make my declaration of interest in leaseholds as chairman of Haven Services Ltd. Secondly, I apologise to the House for being absent during the first part of the Minister's speech. I was carrying the Home Secretary's bag from his office to the House before he delivered his most welcome statement on the national lottery.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on his good fortune in the ballot and on what I am assured was a most lucid survey of the problems of leaseholders in Britain. I wish to enter one or two notes of caution along the lines of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), whose contributions to our debates will be sorely missed by those of us who know him to be one of the most honourable of all right hon. and hon. Members. He has a most distinguished record of contributions to many debates over many years.
The Government are proposing and extremely un-Conservative act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes said, they are proposing to dissieze on a scale which has not been contemplated since—I am sure that the historical researches of my hon. Friend are complete—the dissolution of the monasteries.
We are talking about the right to enfranchise and purchase long leases and the recent announcement of the right to extend leases by providing an extension to the balance of the existing lease plus 90 years. We are establishing a new right to householders who were previously excluded from the terms of leasehold reform legislation to buy their properties, whether or not the landlord likes it, and there is now the new right of commonhold.
My hon. Friend the Minister was right to suggest that there is often confusion over the differences between leasehold enfranchisement and the principle of common-hold. I have no great difficulty with the concept of commonhold, because my hon. Friend made it clear that compulsion was to be absent in deciding when and where commonhold might be appropriate. I believe that he is right. There might be merit—not exclusively but on many occasions—in having a form of ownership of units of occupation within one larger unit or building, which is

595
essentially what we are talking about, of the sort that commonhold seems to represent. I hope that in the next Parliament my hon. Friend, if he has not then moved on to be the Minister of State or the Secretary of State of another Department, will be able to advance that concept. I am sure that it would be generally approved.
With leasehold enfranchisement, we are surely in extremely dangerous territory. We are saying that we, the Conservative party, should require an individual to sell an asset—not that he wants to or has any intention of doing so, and not that he has been anything but the most prudent, decent, honourable and conscientious landlord—merely because the tenant of the property that the landlord owns has decided that he or she would like to make a windfall gain.
Sir John Wheeler: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that Parliament decided upon that principle in 1967. The decision has been made. We are proposing to extend the principle to a few remaining houses, chiefly in central London. Surely he recognises also the impossibility of enfranchising the £1 million flat in Westminster under commonhold but leaving the £1 million house next door to it still subject to the leasehold regime.
Mr. Norris: First, I am surprised that my hon. Friend should regard the occupants and tenants of a £1 million flat as being deserving of our attention as persons in dire need. Secondly, I say that two wrongs certainly do not make a right. The fact that the House, before I became a Member of it, introduced—in my view, unwisely—the concept of forcing people to sell assets that they had no intention of selling does not mean that we should compound the felony by extending the principle still further.
I do not doubt the good intentions of my hon. Friends, but there are at least three significant disadvantages in following their preferred route. The suggestion to extend leases sounds perfectly reasonable, but the idea is that someone who has only the tail end of a lease, which is not easy to sell, should be able to buy the balance plus 90 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) knows, if such a property were a commercial property, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 the owner would have the right not to extend the lease if he intended to use the property himself or to redevelop it. There is no suggestion that that facility will be available under the proposed legislation.
Let us suppose that I have a block of flats. When the leases on that block come to an end, I want to redevelop it—but I cannot do so because I am now told that I must allow the tenants to buy the remainder of their leases and extend them for another 90 years. It does not matter whether I am compensated for that; no amount of compensation imaginable would be adequate to compensate me for the development loss that I would suffer. However, that is what the motion envisages—unless my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene and say that that is not the case. As he appears to be reasonably comfortable where he is sitting, I can only assume that it is the case. It is nonsense. It is a disgrace that a Conservative Government should even think of doing such a thing.
596
Let us consider the difficult business of the person who owns the tail end of a lease. There are not many of us who, when contemplating purchasing property, have not thought about the seductive appeal of getting much more premises for our money, provided that we are prepared to accept a shorter lease. It is a well-known choice, which is available to us all. We can have freehold or we can have a 20 or 30-year lease—but on a much grander property—for the same price.
If someone is prepared to buy a 30-year lease, he knows what he is buying. He knows that the value of the lease will diminish and that, at the end of the 30 years, he will not have an asset. That is why he can purchase the occupancy of those premises, with a much shorter lease, for such a small price.
Even if the person concerned was elderly—and we are all sympathetic to the plight of the elderly—and might have occupied a leasehold property for a great many years, it would be a clear breach of natural justice if we were to say that that person had the right to take from the landlord a further extension of the lease plus the balance of the lease simply because that person's circumstances appeared to require our sympathy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is a good friend of mine. He is a distinguished member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. However, he is wrong to assume that our sympathy for a person who happens to have the tail end of the lease means that we should force landlords to sell for no other reason than that.
My greatest concern is our motivation behind the wish to change the nature of tenure of property. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes that the concept of the lease, short and long, is valuable in the way in which we make property available to people. From freehold to weekly lettings, there is a whole variety of tenures. That is good for the market and we should encourage it. It is clear that the real concern behind the wish to give tenants more power relates to bad landlords. I shall not enter into the argument about whether some Labour local authorities are worse landlords than the worst private landlords.
If one drew up a scale of awfulness, at the very bottom one would find the odd Rachman-like landlord who was cynically ripping off people in an intolerable and unjustifiable way. Above him there would be a whole raft of Labour authorities, which are often just as bad and in some cases even worse. The only justification for their actions is pure political spite. They are prepared to use the poor people whom they claim to represent as political pawns, and outrageously scare and intimidate them to make a cheap political point.
Before my hon. Friend the Minister embarks on the course that he described, I ask him to consider that the majority of landlords are decent and reasonable people. Some of us are very proud of the standards that we observe in managing property. Over the many years that I have been involved in Haven Services, I cannot recall one substantial complaint being received about the way in which we manage the hundreds of blocks that contain more than 4,000 properties.
We should be addressing instead the right that should be given to tenants when the landlord clearly does not meet his obligations. I refer to a failure to repair, or an endeavour to exact unreasonable charges. My hon. Friend the Minister says that that might be difficult to achieve, yet

597
he proposes to take us down a complex, undemocratic, and un-Conservative path to compulsory enfranchisement and commonhold, as if that were a better alternative.
It would not be difficult, building on the Government's excellent work in improving the rights of tenants of blocks of flats that are run by management companies, to provide for a system whereby tenants could, on a number of different grounds, serve a notice on the landlord; and if he failed to respond adequately after a set period, tenants would be entitled to acquire from the landlord the freehold of the property on a basis to be agreed.
In such circumstances, there would not be much argument for giving the landlord a particularly generous deal, and perhaps that is as it should be. I envisage a situation in which the total cost of the landlord's outstanding liability to repair would be deducted from any value attaching to the freehold, so that the landlord received nothing more than the net difference. If that amounted to nothing, there would be every justification for the tenants to say, "We shall take the freehold from the landlord. He does not deserve to own it. He fell down on his obligations"—which could be expressed in a statutory form—"and did not respond to our notice."
I want to place on record, in the marvellously neutral territory of a debate on a private Member's motion, a sentiment that I might have more difficulty expressing in the course of a Government debate, such as a Second Reading introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister. A great deal of uncertain territory remains to be explored. There are profound anti-Conservative, anti-libertarian, and undemocratic issues at stake. I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to consider carefully the alternatives that are available in improving the lot of tenants before embarking on the course that my hon. Friend the Minister described.
1.13 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I propose to be brief, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is waiting to introduce an important debate, to which we shall listen with great interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) will not be surprised if I say that I cannot agree with anything that he said. It echoed from the 16th century. That thought was put into my mind by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon).
The plain truth about leasehold property is that the public no longer have any confidence in it. They have been demanding change. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his marvellous officials will be only too well aware of the quantity of correspondence that I have sent him over the years from the public in the city of Westminster.
I do not find any person—no judge, no distinguished Queen's counsel, no lawyer, no property magnate, no capitalist, no candlestick maker—standing up to defend leaseholds as they are. All the demand is in the opposite direction.
Mr. Norris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Wheeler: No, let me get on. People are saying that the concept is out of date and that they want the right to enfranchise in their higher rateable value properties as Parliament set out in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967
598
when it debated and agreed to the principle of this change in the law. At long last, justice is coming to that important, but relatively small group of people in the city of Westminster and elsewhere in the centre of London.
I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who I know has had to leave the Chamber for a moment, say that the Government have "dithered" over the introduction of the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 13 years that the Conservatives have had the privilege of being the Government of the United Kingdom, we have been at the forefront of reform and change. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in response to my intervention, the establishment of the Nugee committee of inquiry in 1984 led the way to a thorough and detailed investigation of the many problems faced by renting tenants and leaseholders in blocks of flats. It resulted in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which gave the right of first refusal when a freeholder was proposing to dispose of his interest in a block of flats. It greatly extended the ability of leaseholders and others to hold to account managing agents and property owners.
Then came the Lord Chancellor's paper on the concept of commonhold. As my hon. Friend knows, this is an immensely complicated subject. It was right that the Government should consult widely to obtain all views possible. I am glad that I have been able to contribute to this debate, albeit modestly, on behalf of my constituents so that we prepare legislation for introduction into the House in a few weeks' time that will stand the test of time.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on Wednesday the intention to introduce that legislation. I was glad that he could confirm that the Crown Estate would also apply the provisions of the proposed legislation as if it applied to the estate, because the Crown Estate is generally exempt under the Crown Estate Act 1961. I was glad, too, that he could confirm that the principle of charitable property would be as defined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
Some say that this may damage the maintenance and quality of some of the great historic estates in central London. Of course, that is absolute nonsense. These days, historic buildings are protected by a great deal of legislation, and by planning controls when planning consents are required. However, the case for change is overwhelming, not least in the many blocks of flats in central London and elsewhere which are owned by, for example, the Harounis. Any hon. Member who has such properties in his constituency knows the sheer misery that they cause. The properties are not maintained or cared for but every penny is extracted from the wretched leaseholders and renting tenants. It is right that something is at last being done, and I pay a warm tribute to the city of Westminster and the councillors for the way that they seek to enforce the law with regard to such properties.
I also conclude my brief speech with the warmest thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). He is surely a great champion of the rights of leaseholders and renting tenants in his constituency, and he has also done the House and other hon. Members a great service by making it possible for us to hold this debate. I look forward to the introduction of the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill in the next Parliament. I am glad that the legislation is ready to roll the moment the general election is over.
1.20 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on introducing this important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said, some people have bought their leases from the council. A large number of those people—a number growing by the day—have inherited a worrying situation as a result. Such people and those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) are getting together because they have many problems in common.
I associate myself with what my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster, North and for Dulwich said—I am sorry that I missed so much of what the latter said—but especially with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said. He put his finger on the problem facing many of my constituents. I do not need to repeat what my hon. Friends have said, but I wish to make two points which are of great concern to my constituents.
First, I refer to the disappointment of many people who have bought their flat in a block in which there is no prospect of two thirds of the people wishing to become enfranchised. Can the Government show real imagination and find a way in which individual leaseholders can yet be enfranchised? We have always said that where there is a will, there is a way. There must be a way, difficult as it may be. I ask the Minister to recognise the disappointment and, possibly, resentment felt by people who cannot have the same entitlements and rights as others in similar but slightly different positions.
Secondly, service charges, especially to council tenants, are a matter of the utmost concern. So often tenants do not know what they are paying for. When they ask, they are sent a list of what has been done with the money that they have paid, but they are often highly dissatisfied. For example, they are told that the cleaning of common staircases and the mowing of lawns is included, but men tell me that their stairs are never cleaned except by their wives and women say that the lawns are never mown except by their husbands. That, rightly, causes great dissatisfaction.
Another problem with service charges is the iniquity of the difference between charges imposed on people in almost identical properties. People cannot understand why, as their properties are almost identical in layout and value to others, they have to pay different service charges. Should not there be some way in which people could be charged more evenly and more fairly?
Repairs are an issue of great disappointment and dissatisfaction for many people. If they live in a block of flats and the council requires, for example, the replacement of all the windows in the block, they ask to be allowed to get the work done themselves. It may be said that one flat could not be allowed to have different windows because it would spoil the appearance of the block. I have met many constituents who say that they could find a little builder down the road who would use materials almost identical to those used by the men employed by the council and who would do the work at less than one quarter of the cost. Why cannot my constituents do that?
We need to consider people who have bought their flat and who are approaching old age and, sometimes, penury. Some are required by councils to have work done which, in the opinion of many, is not required. The cost may run
600
into thousands of pounds and those people may be in debt for the rest of their lives. That severe problem should be addressed.
I make my comments against a background of knowing that everyone in the categories that I have described is grateful for having been given the right to buy by this Conservative Government. I well remember how, in the 1979–80 Session, the House sat until 15 August to get the right to buy on to the statute book against the bitterest, most wicked and meanest opposition imaginable from the Labour party. Labour has no honest interest in the tenants' right to buy. Let no one say that it has. That is proved by the way in which Labour behaved then and by the way in which it continues to behave when it controls councils. There are many examples, including Ealing between 1986 and 1990. Every possible impediment was put in the way of people who wanted to buy. The evidence for that is in the figures, because the figures for the Labour period of control are very different from the figures for the Conservative periods of control before and afterwards. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
1.27 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Hon. Members have referred to bad landlords, and the whole issue turns on that. Only this week, I have found bad landlords in my constituency. One has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) this morning. Some 400 flats are owned by that firm in my constituency.
The proposed legislation must answer three points. First, is it adequate to protect weak and defenceless tenants when they fall under exploitive landlords? The legislation must be adequate if it is to have my support. Secondly, have all landlords paid their taxes? Have there been checks, especially on the service charges? Thirdly, does the law need to be strengthened so that there is an obligation to provide local accounts of service charges and expenditure, and to maintain proper building insurance? Landlords could not then avoid their responsibilities with impunity.
I am anxious that those three points should be met because many tenants suffer tremendously at present. Good landlords exist; bad landlords must be dealt with. My support for the proposed legislation is conditional upon answers being given to my questions for the sake of my constituents.
1.29 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: We have had an interesting debate on an important subject, during which many good new ideas have emerged. Anyone who has been listening to the debate or who reads Hansard will immediately realise that almost all the discussion has been on the Conservative Benches. The Liberal Democrats have not deigned to turn up to show an interest or to give the matter some thought. With the notable exception of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who raised an important constituency matter related to squatters with which we can all sympathise, we have had no Labour Back-Bench speeches, and the Front-Bench spokesman merely said, "We would do something similar if we had the chance." It is Conservative Members who have instigated the discussion and made the debate.

601
There are differences of view on this important subject and we have been able to expose them to scrutiny and debate. It has been a notable occasion in that we have had the benefit of a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) who may have been making his last speech as a Member of the House. His first speech in the House, to which he drew attention, was on a similar subject. It is evident that his interest, concern and commitment are in no way diminished and his constituents must feel proud to have been represented by him over the years and glad that he has taken such an interest in their concerns.
We have also heard my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I am sure that, although they may not agree with the detail of his argument, hon. Members will recognise his great understanding, experience and expertise in the field and the contribution that he has made to the honourable profession of being a good landlord who takes care of his tenants' interests. It will be a great loss to the House that he will not be here to contribute to other debates on these matters in future. We shall bear in mind the thoughts with which he has left us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes raised the serious question—which might be taken into account by Opposition Members if they would care to listen or attend—of how far it is within Conservative principles compulsorily to acquire an existing interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) drew attention to precisely the same point. It is a matter for debate but the principle has been established—not only in legislation to allow compulsory purchase for the general good and planning purposes, but in the leasehold enfranchisement Act, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
We had notable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—
Mr. Bob Dunn: Wembley.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Brent, North.
Mr. Bowden: Brent, North—of which we understand Wembley to be a part. My hon. Friends have all drawn attention not only to the broad principle but to the particular application that we need to consider in relation to the provisions. Our debate today leaves us in no doubt that there is a crying need for landlord and tenant law to be reformed. The question is whether we should simply tinker with and adjust the existing arrangements or whether what is needed is a major overhaul. From time to time it is necessary—as in 1925—to take a serious look at the law of property. I believe that such a time has arrived once more. Leasehold enfranchisement, the extension of leases and commonhold, provide us with that opportunity. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls for the early introduction of commonhold as a means of effecting necessary reforms in leasehold and freehold tenure.

Education
1.33 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I beg to move,
That this House warmly welcomes Government educational policies to bring back standards of learning in the three Rs in the infant school by an emphasis on phonics in reading, on number and tables in arithmetic and on writing in English, by subject teaching and learning by heart in the junior school and by a variety of secondary school provision providing for the varied interests, aptitudes and ability of pupils, by tests at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 to guarantee to parents that all schools are fulfilling their purposes, by the retention of 'A' level examinations before transfer to university and professional education at 18 while provision is made at the same age for craft and technological examinations which will lead to craft and technical qualifications and by the provision of maximum parental choice of school based on full public information on all schools, including their external examination results; and believes that such policies will ensure maximum advantage to the pupils, the parents and the whole country.
I came to the House this morning in my capacity as a humble—or not so humble—school master, although I intervened in the previous debate because the suffering that was being inflicted on my constituents had been drawn to my attention this week.
According to my definition, quality of education involves taking all pupils—irrespective of their ability—as far as they can go within the context of finite economic resources. It also means the preservation of high culture. Every society should preserve its high culture in literature, music, poetry and religion if it is to claim to be a civilised society.
Educational quality is always improving or declining at any point. I can look back on almost three generations of school masters, from the age of going to school, being a school master and being a head master. Until the 1960s Britain had a system that worked as well as anywhere in the world. In infant schools, children were taught the three Rs and the habits of disciplined learning. That is what infant schools are for. In junior schools between the ages of seven and 11, children were taught a set of subjects—arithmetic, writing, reading, geography, history, literature, science, nature study and religious education. They also learnt by heart. At that age, children enjoy learning by heart, with poetry and Bible readings that they can carry with them for the rest of their lives. In secondary schools, the 11-plus system divided some 20 per cent. of pupils to grammar academic schools, some 5 per cent. to the long-lamented technical schools and some 75 per cent. to secondary modern schools. The system worked.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong indicated dissent—
Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Lady, who lives in another world, may not know that, but we know that it worked. At that time, the standards of education of children aged 14 were equal to any in the world, before the Labour party damaged it by putting its paws all over the system.
The destruction came in the 1960s. The first changes were made in the primary schools. Children cannot discover learning for themselves. If they could, we could do without schools and let children loose, as Dewey and Rousseau said. It would be anarchy. The idea that children could discover things for themselves degraded teachers and that is when the status of teachers started to fall. That system, imported from America, did untold harm in

603
schools. I have never yet met a pupil who could write one of Milton's sonnets during the morning break, learn French subjectives at lunch time and write a Shakespearean play in the evening, without being taught any of those subjects along the way. If such a pupil exists, I shall go on a world tour with him or her. We could pay off the national debt from the money earned through people coming to this country to see such a person.
Mixed ability teaching then came to primary schools and secondary schools. It was the most ineffective method of teaching. Pupils of extremely different abilities being taught together meant that half of them did not know what was going on. In a lesson of 30 minutes, it could mean teaching each child for one minute, which was like going back to hand loom weaving compared to a factory system. We should put together children with the same interests and abilities, and then learning can roar ahead. In an average class of 30 children aged 10, one may have a mental age of five while another has a mental age of 15. To think that those children can be taught together is wrong. Bertrand Russell, who I do not think was ever a member of the Conservative party—he never advocated Conservative policies—once said that to educate bright and dull children together was the height of cruelty, and so it is. The bright become arrogant because they think that they can achieve everything and the dull, whatever they try to do, cannot catch up. It is not a moral issue but the fact that the good Lord made us all different. Just as we differ in the speed at which we can run and the amount that we eat, so we differ in intellectual ability. I do not believe that there is just one type of brain—a class 1 brain that is given to everybody.
The Labour party then introduced its disastrous comprehensive policy. It is always looking for policies and has no initiatives of its own. It killed grammar schools, which were the ladders of opportunity for working-class children, and intends to kill them off further if it comes to power again. It killed the 450 technical schools, which probably did even more damage and broke technical teaching in this country. The Labour party also destroyed secondary modern schools, which were developing extended courses. I was then the head of a secondary modern school and, before that, taught in one.
As a result, the standard of mathematics of a Japanese child of 14 became two years ahead of the standard of the average child in this country. In Germany and France, children are one and a half years ahead of us in mathematics, a subject in which comparisons can be made. We are the only country of the 10 industrial countries in which the standard of mathematics was lower in 1981 than it was in 1964.
In addition, the Labour party disenfranchised working class children. The proportion of working-class children going to university between 1961–63 was 25 per cent.—by 1980, that figure had dropped to 19·4 per cent.
There is no such thing as a comprehensive school; there are comprehensive schools that are different in each region. Middle class districts have grammar schools with CSE streams, downtown areas have secondary modern schools, in which few pupils are studying to go into higher education. That is no slur on the staff working there, but reflects on the system that does not work.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Rhodes Boyson: No, I shall not give way as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has some excellent things to say, which could change the educational system of this country.
The ones who suffered most from the change were not the most able, but the average plus, and the technically innovative children. The destruction of the technical school was probably more damaging than the destruction of the grammar school. For a long time, the Conservative party tried to retrieve standards. We came into power and questioned our position, and where we were going.
I pay tribute to the present Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State, at the Department of Education and Science, who are at last taking hold of the subject by the neck and achieving reasonable standards. Undoubtedly, in five years' time, even the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong)—I am glad that she is wearing red, as she is the only remnant of the Labour party present—will be saying what I am saying today. It is simply that it takes the Labour party a long time to catch up with us. We must be charitable to the Labour party, as we are in our schools.
What must we do? The Labour party and other Opposition parties—were any of their Members present today—would say that we need more money and smaller classes. Japanese classes have 50 per cent. more pupils than ours, as do Israeli classes. I would willingly exchange the system that we have had during the past 30 years for either of those. It is not a question of the size of class or the amount of money, but the calibre of teacher, the correct curriculum, gathering together the right groups of children and having a belief in what one is doing.
We should return to teaching phonics in infant schools. We can also use other methods, but we must teach tables and writing. In junior schools we must encourage learning by heart, including poetry. We need a rich variety of secondary schools, to relate to aptitude, ability and interest. I very much approve of city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and the assisted places scheme—all of which have been introduced by the Government during the past 12 years. Recently, these policies have been more speedily introduced.
We need a much greater variety of secondary schools. Germany and Russia have three types of secondary schools. In Russia, or what was Russia, one third of pupils receive technical education. Russia has boarding schools for languages, mathematics and physics. If the economic system in Russia ever takes off, woe betide us unless we increase our educational standards in this country, as we are now trying to do. Children in Russian schools can study 1,100 crafts, from laundry work to watch repairing. One third of pupils in Sweden attend technical schools and they have a choice of 250 crafts. I have seen the education systems in Sweden, Japan and parts of Russia. In Japan, one third of students can train for technical work, business work, fisheries, commerce. Only here, according to the benighted, non-thinking Labour party, has everyone to go to the same school.
Socialist, mixed economy and capitalist societies all enjoy some form of separate educational institutions. The Labour party alone remains the one-eyed man who believes that he will be king because he cannot see anyone else passing by—I thought that was rather good. I want

605
classical schools, mathematics schools, science schools, sports schools, trade schools and commercial schools. We are a city people; 85 per cent. of us live in towns or cities comprising 100,000 or more people. We should all enjoy a variety of provision, assuming that all schools provide the basic curriculum, as do city technology colleges. Beyond that, much more can then be done—two hours a day on a specialised subject, for instance. Pupils could operate selection as well as external selection policies.
I agree with the seven-plus tests, the 11-plus tests and the 14-plus tests; they may be a little too complicated, but the Government are slimming them down. I agree with retaining A-levels. The Labour party would destroy them on the basis of, "If anything works, pull it down."
I have always supported education vouchers, although I doubt whether they will be included in our manifesto or brought in by the next Government. George Bernard Shaw said that he could suggest improvements when he got to heaven. We could all suggest so much more.
I am worried about the lack of right of parents to decide how much sex education their children should receive, especially in an AIDS age. Despite any worries, however, the differences between Labour party policy and Conservative party policy are vast and they subsume my other anxieties. If the Labour party wins the next election, it will destroy CTCs and grant-maintained schools and it will try to destroy the assisted places scheme. It will destroy the A-level system, which helps to maintain reasonable university entrance standards. I hope that my constituents and those in all other constituencies will vote against the Labour party on the ground of education policy alone.
At the risk of repeating myself—I rarely do so, because I find it rather boring—I reiterate that the present team of education Ministers has done a first-class job. Those Ministers need the support of everyone, if only for what they have done with examinations, tests and the diversification of secondary education. Let the country support the Conservatives on education alone, if not on all our other policies. We cannot afford to allow the Labour party to take power. We have started to build up education standards in this country; it would be a terrible tragedy if the Labour party came in and destroyed them.
1.47 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to have the opportunity once again to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). Following him is the story of my life; I followed him as the Minister for schools, a post that I held from 1983 to 1988. 1 and the present team of Ministers can point to bricks that we have put in the wall that we are building to strengthen and support the country's education system.
The motion touches on a number of aspects which time will prevent me from referring to, but I must point out that the quality of education in this country has improved and it will improve further as long as our education philosophy is underpinned by variety and choice. As my right hon. Friend said, Conservative and Labour Members are a million miles apart on this issue. In 13 years of Conservative Government, many new education policies mentioned by my right hon. Friend have been introduced. We have brought about local management of schools, grant-maintained status, open enrolment and the national curriculum, and there have been many other changes.
606
When I was in the Department of Education arid Science I abolished the Inner London education authority. Many Opposition Members argued against its passing, but they do not do that now. In a speech at that time, I said that the ILEA had a policy on anti-racist sport and that it would not be long before it had a policy on anti-racist mathematics. Within two days of that speech, ILEA introduced such a policy.
I should like to deal with the quality of education in my constituency which is most fortunate in being a part of the 5 per cent. of the country which retains a selective system of education. We have grammar schools and successful single-sex and mixed high schools. We have a successful 13 to 18-year-old comprehensive school in Longfield and a city technology college, a concept which I introduced at the Department of Education and Science some years ago.
We speak about bringing on our young people according to their abilities and about trying to find their talents. The people of Dartford have an education service which is among the best in the United Kingdom's local authority structure, as it was, and within the grant-maintained structure as it is. It is amazing that in such debates Opposition Members, many of whom gained an enormous educational experience from attending grammar schools, choose to support a policy which would destroy them. Fourteen members of the shadow Cabinet, including the Leader of the Opposition, went to grammar schools, thereby benefiting from a system of education which they have denied and would like further to deny to my constituents.
The Labour party's greatest worry is that its empire is breaking up, and they have lost political control of our schools. In the context of education in Kent, we had a visit a few days ago from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Unfortunately, he was not able to make a speech in Dartford as planned. I had hoped that he would speak to the people of Dartford about his plans to pass a death sentence upon our district grammar and high schools, our comprehensive school in its present form, and our city technology college.
I should like Labour to make plain the implications of its policy for the future of Dartford schools. Our well-supported and popular range of schools in Dartford have no future under Labour. All our schools would be turned into comprehensives and there would be an end to parental preference in north-west Kent—a principle which I have fought for years to sustain and retain. Labour is pledged to destroy our schools by law. It will compel the closure of grammar schools. Labour will not say, "Would you mind or can we talk about the matter?" It will be as before. If Labour has its way it will pass legislation to close the grammar schools and will confine all pupils to simple neighbourhood comprehensives, a gamble on success or failure depending on where pupils live and on what housing their parents can afford. Labour will trap people on housing estates, as it has in the past, and there will be no ladder of opportunity to allow young people from difficult backgrounds to make a real contribution to the future of our country.
Of course, Labour will say that the Conservative party has closed grammar schools. That is true, but it occurred because of the infection of socialism many years ago. During the five years in which I was a Minister with responsibility for schools, only 20 grammar schools were closed, and they were not closed because of doctrinaire, dogmatic policies. On the contrary, I fought hard to keep

607
them open, philosophically, but with falling rolls and reorganisation it was necessary occasionally to amalgamate, to change the status and to close some grammar schools. One such grammar school in the west riding of Yorkshire took 65 per cent. of its pupils from across the ability range. But that school was no longer a grammar school and therefore had to close.
The debate is focusing on the deep divide, and we have had that from none other than the hon. Member for Blackburn. At the end of last year I tried to get the hon. Gentleman to put down in writing what he would do to my grammar schools in Kent. Finally, after three letters from me, he said:
"I am astonished that you should have any doubts about the wisdom of ending selection at 11".
I am surprised that he thinks that I have doubts because I do not. He continued:
"We shall end selection at 11 across the country, and we shall legislate to do so…Good grammar and other schools in your constituency will under our plans have an assured future as even better comprehensives."
I have to tell the Labour party that that is the best thing that the hon. Gentleman could have said. It came out clearly and the people of Dartford wanted to hear that Labour party position defined. They know, because I have told them so on many occasions, that our grammar schools will close under Labour or the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Blackburn has spelt it out in a way that even the deaf could hear.
On 26 February last, among reports in the national papers, the Daily Mail had the headline:
"Labour pledges to abolish last of the grammar schools".
There we are. It is clear. There is no question of trying to hide the facts or to fudge as the Labour party does on so many other issues, pretending to be something that it is not. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) can mutter and chunter to her heart's content. It is indisputable that the Labour party will close grammar schools—
Ms. Hilary Armstrong indicated assent—
Mr. Dunn: The House notes that the hon. Lady agrees with me. She is the only person on the Labour Benches who can talk and think at the same time. Once the Labour party realises that, in all the many constituencies which still have them, the philosophy of closing grammar schools and bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator will be electorally unpopular, there will be a change or a fudge.
I shall conclude by quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I have nothing in common with him, but I respect his honesty and integrity. On 30 September last in The Independent, he said:
"If we've changed our mind to win, we could change our mind when we've won. What's wrong with that?"
That will be the caveat that all of us who are concerned about education standards will put to the people over the next few weeks. Undoubtedly, people will back our view that parental preference is the key and that the variety and range of schools that we have in Dartford should be extended across the country. I support the motion.
1.57 pm
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I was interested to read the motion. I hope that hon. Members will read and reflect on Monday's debate about the sittings of the House and the report of the Select Committee from which the debate arose. I am rarely here on Friday because it is the only day that I can spend with my constituents and in my constituency office. I can be here this afternoon only because I have broken constituency commitments. I have a very able person to deputise for me, and my father is this afternoon presenting, on my behalf, prizes to 17-year-olds in Consett who have recently achieved qualifications from the YTS scheme.
We need to look at how we organise business in the House. Private Members' business is important, but because it happens on a Friday, many hon. Members who are not from London constituencies are excluded from debates on it. Today, almost every hon. Member who has spoken has represented a constituency in London or the south-east. The way that we conduct business limits the ability to participate of hon. Members whose constituencies are a long way from here. That is one of the reasons why I was pleased to be a member of a Select Committee which recommended alternative ways to organise the business of the House.
We are here to debate quality in education, and it is clear from the debate that there are real differences about what we mean by quality and how we achieve it. I believe that the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is genuinely concerned about quality in education, but on reading his motion I groaned. I thought, "This is taking us forward into the past." I wish that I could believe in the romantic vision of a past education service that worked. I come from another country; I come from the north of England.
Mr. Dunn: So do I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North.
Ms. Armstrong: Both the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the right hon. Member for Brent, North may come from the north, but it is obvious that they have not been living and working there for some time.
As I have said, I come from the north. I know of many people whose talent has been unrecognised; it has been untapped. Their abilities were wasted because they were pushed into secondary modern schools. I am amazed when Conservative Members talk about choice in terms of a selective system. Nobody has choice in such a system except those who run schools. Parents and pupils have no choice.
When my father was chairman of the education committee in Sunderland I remember only too well the many parents who would tell him, "My child has failed the 11-plus and yet I know that he is capable of pursuing academic interests." That assertion was true. When I began my secondary education in a grammar school I learnt that the school believed that only the top two streams were worth bothering about. Those in the bottom two streams, even though they had passed the 11-plus, were seen as being not quite up to the cream in the other two streams. When the school went comprehensive at the end of my fourth year—my father was still the chairman of the education committee, and this was one of my early political lessons—my English teacher went on over and over again about what my family was doing; that strong

609
memory lives with me. That teacher personalised the issue. He went on about plenty of crops, as he put it, joining the cream, and claimed that the entire system would be corrupted. What a view. What a way to regard those who would be citizens and decision-makers in the town—I am pleased to say that it is now a city—and in the country generally.
Against that background I am enormously disappointed by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Brent, North and the hon. Member for Dartford. I know that many of the 75 to 80 per cent. who were excluded from grammar schools had talent and have talent. They failed the 11-plus but they had enormous talent, which was then wasted.
Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North did not pass the 11-plus and nor did I.
Ms. Armstrong: Many of those who failed the 11-plus had talent which was wasted.
Before I came to the House I worked at a polytechnic and was involved in a mature students' course. All the people taken by the polytechnic had failed the 11-plus and had left school at 15 or 16. Their experience was that they had failed in their education career. We were finding ways in which they could return to education as mature students. The average age of the students on the course that I taught was 34. The work that we did on access before students could apply to take up the course and when they first came on it was mainly directed to giving them confidence in their abilities. What a waste of talent. Britain has wasted the talents of so many people who had an enormous contribution to make but who believed, because they went through a system that told them that they had failed, that they were failures.
We are now in a very different period.
Mr. Lewis Stevens: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Armstrong: No, because I am anxious to get on and I do not want to be distracted. It is important to deal with the claims about the selective system.
When the Secretary of State gives evidence to the Select Committee, he says that the Government bear no responsibility for what happens in schools—yet at the same time they impose almost weekly changes, thought up on the hoof, with each change contradicting a previous change. All the changes have undermined the confidence of teachers in their ability, to the extent that Her Majesty's chief inspector said in his report last year that the manner in which the national curriculum was being centrally imposed risked the deskilling of teachers. What a state to be in.
The Government are concerned not to listen and not to consult. They say, "We know better than everybody else." They impose weekly changes on schools such that that chief inspector said that they run the risk of deskilling our teaching force. The way in which the Government have introduced change has caused incalculable damage.
Much of what is claimed in the motion has been challenged in recent reports. I was interested to hear the comments about phonics. Have hon. Members read the recent report on reading by the National Foundation for Educational Research? It says that the overwhelming majority of all methods include phonics.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: That is right.
Ms. Armstrong: Absolutely. I have not known a school which, during recent years, has not dealt with phonics in some form—even those schools that are using real books. As the NFER says, they represent only 2 per cent. of actual practice.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Armstrong: No, the Minister will have his opportunity in a moment.
What is now being called the WAR report also says that there has been a great deal of rhetoric on teaching methods that is not borne out by the practice in the classroom. It is our responsibility to encourage teachers to identify good practice, to help them to do so, and then to build on that. Much of the Government's rhetoric has undermined rather than reinforced the confidence of teachers.
The motion fails to recognise the changing demands on people, whether academics or skilled workers. No one can enter the work force without having confidence in both their educational and technical abilities. Unless we recognise that as a nation, we cannot tackle the challenges of the future. All those wishing to contribute to our society need to have a grasp of both knowledge and skill. We cannot train technical workers unless they have confidence in their ability to have a basic educational grounding, to learn and to change. We cannot train academics unless they have a knowledge and understanding of some technical skills.
For a short period last year, I had a student who had been to a top public school and who has a first from an Oxford college. When he came to work here last year, I discovered that he had never before laid hands on a computer, and was illiterate in the skills that I needed him have. We do not allow anyone into the Library, and the only way that one can access its information is through the POLIS database. That young man's education had not fitted him for the work of being a good researcher, which is what he wants to be, in modern society. His education was too narrow.
Those of us who are concerned about this country's future needs and its education system—bar the Government—argue that the three A-level model is too narrow. I discussed that aspect with students at Durham, which is supposed to be one of the better universities—although I sometimes wonder, in the sense that it, too, has a narrow intake. Those students were keen to defend the three A-level model, saying, "I could never do modern languages." It sent a shiver down my spine to hear top intellectuals among the next generation say that they are incapable of learning a foreign language. What does that say about their capabilities after leaving sixth form and their confidence in their ability to learn?
If we continue to follow that route and fail to give even the brightest among our 18-year-olds confidence in their own abilities, what does that say about the future of which they will be a part? The Government offer only experimentation, which has changed and shifted, and has largely been unsuccessful. They offer only double standards—which, together with experimentation, are characteristic of the Government's education policy. They have so little faith in the changes that they have wrought on the maintained sector that only one Cabinet Minister is prepared to risk educating his children in it.

611
The greatest example of the Government's lack of commitment to standards and quality is to be found in the lunacy surrounding the Education (Schools) Bill, which introduced the concept that a privatised inspectorate could somehow lever up standards. What an insult.
I am delighted that their lordships rejected that proposal and, as the Minister in another place said, tore out the heart of that Bill. We know, however, that a deal has been done, yet even last night the Department was not prepared to concede that. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will try to reinstate their inspectorate provisions next week? Has a deal been done whereby the Bill will be guaranteed a Third Reading provided that the Government do not try to reverse their lordships' decision?
If the situation is as I understand it, will the Government commit the money that local authorities will need to continue meeting their responsibilities as currently identified in the Bill? Does the Secretary of State intend to keep the local inspectorate privatised? Again, that would go against the spirit of the amendments that have been agreed.
If the Government are interested in raising the standards and quality of education, they will recognise that every single school must have its standards raised. We must have a means of measuring the progress that children make, whichever school they attend. We heard the real answer from the right hon. Member for Brent, North when he said that the quality of schools depended on the sums spent.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I did not say that.
Ms. Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted standards raised in schools, but—
Sir Rhodes Boyson: No. Standards depend on the quality of teachers. They have nothing to do with money.
Ms. Armstrong: I am responding too much to sedentary interventions and I apologise for that.
The Government have said that they can afford to educate only a few well. I reject that, and the Labour party rejects that. We are committed to ensuring that all children, wherever they live and whatever school they attend, get the very best attention. Our education standards commission will lay down national guidelines and national standards. Local authorities and schools will work towards them to ensure that they deliver for every child and every family the highest quality of education, wherever they live and whichever school they attend.
2.16 pm
Mr. David Amess: It is significant that there are no Members present from the two socialist parties, the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, to listen to the splendid speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). Unlike them, I have not been a Minister, but I passed my 11-plus and went to an excellent grammar school. I was in the second year sixth when it went comprehensive and 18 teachers left. If success is gauged against salary, those who went to the technical
612
and secondary modern part of the school received an excellent education as they are all earning more money than I am now.
My hon. Friend the Minister visited Basildon last week and saw at first hand the splendid standards of education that we have. Of my five children, the two oldest attend school. One attends the St. Anne line school and the other the infants school. They receive a splendid state education in Basildon. My hon. Friend the Minister will also be pleased to know that thanks to the intervention yesterday of three Conservative county councillors, Councillor Brin Jones, Councillor David Walsh and Councillor Iris Pummell, we saved Fryerns secondary school in Basildon.
Examination results in all Basildon secondary schools continue to show improvements. Increasing numbers of students are moving on to higher education this year. All schools have successfully taken on the national curriculum. The Nicholas school, in particular, received one of the nationally prestigious, schools curriculum award for involving the community in the curriculum to the highest standard.
My infant and junior schools are all doing splendidly. I regularly visit all our education establishments in Basildon. I thank and congratulate our excellent ministerial team on helping the children in my constituency to enjoy ever-higher standards of education.
2.18 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am delighted to respond to the debate and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on his motion. The whole House recognises his lifelong commitment to improving the quality of education and has noted with dismay the present situation at the school in which he was once a distinguished head master. As he said, the recent HMI report on Highbury Grove school is a shocking indictment of what can happen to a school when it is not properly and adequately led and when it does not retain the traditional values that must be associated with successful schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) talked of the variety of schools in his constituency. There is indeed a unique amount of choice available to his constituents and I know that they value that. I hope that in time other hon. Members may have the same degree of choice available for children in their constituencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) reminded us that only a few days ago I had the chance to meet the headmaster and staff of Fryerns school. I also met a number of pupils who had come in especially to show what they were capable of doing. I am delighted to hear that the school has been saved. I was very impressed, especially by the commitment of the staff who were taking a training day to consider ways of improving the school's image, of attracting more pupils and of ways of using the school's considerable assets to even better effect. I am sure that now that the difficulty is behind it, the school will go from strength to strength.
It was interesting that we heard nothing about the early years from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) who claims to be the shadow Minister with responsibility for that issue. I think that she is embarrassed by the press release that she issued yesterday and probably believed that it was better not to mention it.

613
It contains a most extraordinary announcement about the proliferation of bureaucracy and planning. It tells us that under a Labour Government—if we were ever unfortunate enough to have one—all child-minding will come under the control of the Department of Education and Science. Presumably, if one wanted to drop one's child round at granny's for a few hours while one did the shopping, one would have to ring the Minister for the early years to find out whether granny is registered with the Department. However, it would not stop there.
The Minister for the early years would not have the answer because she would have to consult the Minister for women who would co-ordinate the Minister for the early years. The Minister for women would then have to double check with the Minister for children. Having been double checked, the Minister for the early years would then presumably go back to the new special unit within the Department which would ensure that everything was properly co-ordinated. It would then, presumably, say whether granny was capable of looking after the child, but, before final decision was made granny would be referred to Labour's new quality commission which would investigate granny's skills as well as investigating the skills of the Ministers for the the early years, for children and for women.
I recommend the document to my hon. Friends because it gives an image—
Ms. Armstrong rose—
Mr. Eggar: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. The document gives an image of life under a Labour Government. It would be a marvellous world if one were a woman and wanted to be the Minister for the early years, for women or for children, but we should not get very far in terms of better child care.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose—
Mr. Eggar: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not giving way, but I must deal with several issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North stressed the importance of raising standards still further, of getting back to basics, of concentrating on improving the standards of literacy and numeracy and the understanding of science. I know that he recognises the considerable importance of the national curriculum in improving standards still further.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) does not recognise the importance of the national curriculum. In 1987, the hon. Gentleman said that the national curriculum would lead to
"a monopoly in thought, in ideas, in education".
The hon. Gentleman has learnt something and he has moved on. In December 1991, on "Frost on Sunday" he said:
"We'd keep the national curriculum … the idea of a national curriculum is, in principle, a good one."
The hon. Gentleman's idea of a national curriculum is not ours. It is not the idea that is shared by parents and supported by teachers. Let us see what the Socialist Educational Association believes that the national curriculum should consist of. I quote from its January 1992 document entitled "The New National Curriculum: a socialist view". It said:
"Every institution—including the school—is part of [the] struggle. Disadvantaged students are entitled to expect this to show both in the curriculum itself and in the ways it is implemented."
614
In other words, the Labour party sees the national curriculum as nothing more than a method of social engineering—and an especially nasty method at that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North talked about the importance of improving primary education. I know that he recognises the importance of the recent report on primary education by the three wise men. The report will be widely read and widely discussed in primary schools. It highlights the importance of ensuring that there are phonics in the teaching of reading. It mentions the importance of subject teaching, especially for older primary children. It will be an important report, especially when it is put together with Professor Alexander's examination of what was going on in socialist Leeds. The report recognises that there must be a change in primary schools. That change will be widely recognised and supported by primary teachers.
My hon. Friends have made it clear how important it is to have testing in our schools. That view has been consistently opposed by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Blackburn said in December 1987 that testing is a system which
"sets child against child, which tells them only how to compete against their peers and which labels them as successes or failures at age 11, 14, 16 or seven."—[0fficial Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 788–89.]
The hon. Member for Blackburn has recognised that his view is not shared by parents so he has moved on. As recently as 21 October—this is a remarkable statement from the shadow spokesman who has been here for so long —he said:
"Labour has not made final decisions on how testing would operate under a Labour Government."
Labour simply cannot make up its mind about whether it is in favour of testing.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West made a series of extraordinary assertions about the Education (Schools) Bill. The amendments that their lordships accepted the other day were not only a change from the Government's point of view, but the complete abandonment of all the Opposition's arguments in Committee. The amendments completely contradicted and torpedoed the policy document "Raising the Standard" which had taken a quite different approach. The hon. Lady may well be worried about issues such as the role of the local education authorities. She has realised that the amendments are wholly contrary to her party's policy.
Ms. Armstrong: What are the Government going to do?
Mr. Eggar: I will tell the hon. Lady. Their lordships preferred the selection of inspectors to be made by Her Majesty's chief inspector. That centralises the system and we should have preferred the matter to have rested with governors. However, the amendments can be managed and we are tabling consequential amendments to give practical form to the effect of their lordships' main, amendment. That decision is quite consistent with the aims of the parents charter, and our new inspection system bears no resemblance to the monopoly inspection of schools by local authority inspectors that has been urged on us by the Labour party.
We are determined, through the Education (Schools) Bill to get on to the statute book legislation that will give parents information about the strengths and weaknesses of all our schools, which will publish performance tables of a kind that we have never seen before. We are determined that there should be regular and transparent inspection of

615
all schools because we want to open up the education system to public accountability in a way which we believe is bound to raise standards and extend the influence of parents. I am delighted to have had the chance to debate this important—
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    HEALTH BENEFITS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With the permission of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    BLASPHEMY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    SHOPS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [31 January].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: On behalf of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 13 March.

    COLD WEATHER CREDITS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: On behalf of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    RIGHT TO INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: On behalf of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    TIMESHARE CONTRACTS (TIME FOR RECONSIDERATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On behalf of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    HOUSING (FITNESS STANDARD) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order, for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: On behalf of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: On behalf of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    SEA FISHERIES (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

    YOUNG PERSONS' RIGHTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Dave Nellist: With the permission of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    HARE COURSING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: With the permission of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    NEWSPRINT RECYCLING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Harry Cohen: With the permission of the Member concerned, Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

    ACCESS TO NEIGHBOURING LAND BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time; considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has deprecated the considering of Bills without adequate prior notice.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I detected a note of incredulity in your voice and saw the incredulity on the faces of some hon. Members. It would have been useful if, when the Bill was briefly in Committee, I could have caught your eye to ask its sponsor to explain, in a few sentences, what he wanted the Bill to achieve. Instead, the Bill was rushed through in a matter of seconds. As you correctly said, Mr. Speaker on more than one occasion has said that that should not happen.
    Mr. John Ward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I help by saying that the Bill has been fully considered in the other place and has all-party support? It is a simple Bill to allow somebody whose house is in danger of falling down to repair it, even if neighbours object, although he or she would first have to get the courts' approval.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    HYDATIDOSIS CONTROL BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    EDUCATION (SCHOOL PREMISES) BILL
    Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To he considered on Friday 13 March.

    POLITICAL PARTY FINANCING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
    Mr. Ray Powell: Friday next.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

    COMMUNITY CARE (RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Lord.]
    Committee on Friday 13 March.

    OFFSHORE SAFETY (PROTECTION AGAINST VICTIMISATION) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Nellist.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House again that Mr. Speaker deprecates the taking of remaining stages of Bills without adequate prior notice.
    Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 9th March, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to the First Report from the Accommodation and Works Committee not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and those proceedings may be entered upon or continued after the expiry of the time for opposed business—[Mr. David Davis.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 9th March, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Newton relating to Pensions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of them—[Mr. David Davis.]

Construction Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
2.39 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: I wish that I could bring one or two Bills before the House and see them passed in the few minutes it took us to deal with a worthy measure, which has some bearing on the remarks that I wish to make today. The Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill is designed to limit the amount of victimisation that takes place against safety representatives and workers on offshore oil rigs. There is a need for a similar measure to protect workers on building sites and in the construction industry generally.
At Christmas, the acting head of the Health and Safety Executive for the west midlands stated in a press release dated 11 December:
"Many industrial and construction accidents are being caused by workplace conditions which would have been unacceptable half a century ago".
In the press release, the region's industrialists were challenged to put more effort into managing safety. Last year, in my district of the west midlands, there were 12 fatalities—double the number of the previous 12 months.
Bev McCordall, acting HSE chief, said:
"Inspectors are still investigating accidents in factories and on building sites which they would not have tolerated in the 1930s let alone today when safety awareness should be much more advanced".
As I recall, the last time that the House debated the issue of health and safety on construction sites was almost three years ago in April 1989—little has changed since then. The construction industry still has the highest reported fatal and major injury rates of any of the main sectors of employment. The fatal injury rate is five times that of the average rate in manufacturing industry as a whole, and 10 times that of the service sector.
Today, in one of the last Back-Bench debates of this Parliament—if we assume that the Government intend to call a general election next week—I wish to ensure that health and safety in the building industry becomes an election issue. I want candidates up and down the country to be asked what they would bring before the House in the form of legislation. I shall answer my question at the end of my speech. We want measures to stop the carnage of death and disfigurement on Britain's building sites.
There are about 1·5 million workers in the industry, and during the past 10 years, 1,500 have been killed in accidents. Some 40,000 have died of bronchitis, cancer and other diseases. The number of reportable injuries lasting for more than three days runs into hundreds of thousands. Those are chilling figures in an industry which, perhaps above most, puts profit before public safety.
I do not wish to make a personal accusation against the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, but, as action could be taken to prevent such carnage, the absence of such action must lead anyone to conclude that the Government's attitude towards death and injury in the building industry is largely one of indifference. They have cut the number of inspectors and weakened many of the powers, legal and otherwise, that could have been used.
In addition, during the past couple of years, the problem has been compounded by the recession. A couple of years ago, the Building Employers Confederation calculated that since July 1989, 165,000 jobs in the industry

621
had been lost. In 1990 alone, 4,700 construction firms went bankrupt. There has been a 2 per cent. fall in the overall injury rate due to that. In the past couple of years the recession has turned into the deepest and longest lasting slump for 50 years. Building workers have complained—both to me personally and, more generally, through their organisations, union magazines, health and advice centres and other such organisations—of the pressures now put on workers in the industry to cut corners, finish a job within budget and bring in contracts early, often because of the severe penalty clauses written into them.
Unacceptable and unnecessary risks are being taken in the building industry. Largely, the fault lies with the management. That is not only my view; the then director of the Health and Safety Executive, after analysing 739 deaths between 1981 and 1985, said in June 1988 that management action could have saved seven out of 10 fatalities in that period. So the carnage is preventable in nearly three quarters of all cases of fatality.
The Health and Safety Commission's annual report for 1990–91 listed horrific statistics. On average, a worker is killed in the building industry every three days. On an average day, 59 building workers are reported as injured. The labour force survey, which many regard as offering a more accurate picture of the real number of injuries—not just those reported—suggests that that is only half the actual number. On average, a member of the public is killed by construction activities every month. Search our thesaurus as we may, we can find no other words to bring to bear on this than scandal, horror and carnage.
In the five years to 1990–91, 742 people were killed, 496 of whom were legal building employees and 183—a number that had sharply risen—were self-employed or subbies, who are experiencing more and more problems. Sixty-three were members of the public.
For someone who has worked in the building industry for 20 years, there is a one in 600 risk of dying as a result of an accident at work and a one in two risk of suffering a reportable injury. In other words, for every reported fatal injury, there are 30 major injuries in the industry, many of them potentially fatal.
Half of all injuries to workers in the building industry are caused by falls from a height, as are two fifths of reported major injuries. To anticipate what the Minister may say, I must point out that head injuries have significantly decreased since the regulations were changed in April 1990—a 25 per cent. fall.
What I have not included in this snowstorm of statistics are the figures for those who have died from cancer of the lung or of the stomach, from respiratory diseases and from diseases of the circulatory system—all diseases which kill a far higher percentage of building workers than members of the general public because of the dust, fumes, gases and toxic chemicals with which they are forced to work.
Then there are the biological and physical hazards to contend with: noise, heat, vibration, compressed air and inflammable materials. If those materials do not alone account for the horrific death rates, the stresses of site work, low pay, long hours, poor food and other factors exacerbate the problem. If Ministers think that I am exaggerating, I took that last point from a signed editorial in the September 1990 edition of the British Medical Journal. Many medical practitioners agree with it.
Tragedies in my area are reported in the pages of the local papers. A week before Christmas, my local paper, the Coventry Evening Telegraph, reported a father of four
622
killed when a scaffolding tower on which he was working toppled over and hurled him to the ground. In the same period, Philip Rodgers, aged 29, was killed when the moving arm of a hoist smashed against the rear of the vehicle in which he was operating. In June of last year there was a double tragedy when the husband and brother of a Warwickshire mother of three, Jane Cole, were both killed on building sites—both had worked for the same company. One of the workers was crushed to death by a 4-tonne crane; the second was pinned under a dumper truck.
Because of the make-up of the workers in this industry, a lot of Irish workers are killed. Rather than take up the whole of this debate cataloguing each case, I hope to give the Minister at the end of it, if he can wait for a few seconds, some cuttings from the Irish Post which list 10 or 12 horrific cases of death and serious injury. In the metropolitan areas and especially in London, in the docklands and elsewhere, there was a frenetic building boom, part of the Government's general phoney boom built on cheap credit in the mid and late 1980s. As that building boom went ahead, so did the carnage on the building sites.
Campaigns have been mounted to try to change matters. Unions such as the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and my own union, Manufacturing Science Finance, have tried to organise workers in an attempt to limit death and disfigurement. Campaigns such as those mounted by HAZARDS and the HASAC centres in Birmingham and the Construction Safety Campaign and others have suggested what they see as necessary measures.
In the final third of my speech I shall propose some measures that should be enshrined in legislation. In the dying days of this Parliament we cannot perhaps achieve what was achieved earlier today when a Bill went through in 20 seconds. A priority in the next Parliament should be legislation to reduce the horrific death rate. As I have said before in the House, disasters such as Piper Alpha, King's Cross or Zeebrugge and other dreadful national disasters in which there is a huge loss of life and horrific injuries scar families for life even though they are tragedies of a moment. Hon. Members express regret, and acres of newsprint analyse the causes and suggest how such terrible national disasters can be avoided in future.
Every year in the building industry the same number of deaths and horrific injuries takes place as in any one of those disasters. But they are diffused, not concentrated in a single event, and spread across the country and over a year. Therefore, they do not attract the same media attention as one horrific national tragedy. The Offshore Safety Bill will ensure that by 1994 the Health and Safety Executive will have one offshore safety inspector for every 170 workers on the rigs in the North sea. I welcome that. It is a major step for the protection of workers. If we applied the same ratio to the construction industry, which is more dangerous than the offshore oil industry, there would be not 100 site and safety inspectors, as there are at the moment, but 5,880.
Much attention was paid in the House over the past year to offshore safety following the Cullen report. If workers, and particularly union-organised workers in the construction industry, were able to write and present to the House a report of the depth and scope of the Cullen report, perhaps the House would agree to fund the Health and Safety Executive to enable it to raise the number of

623
inspectors to a far more realistic level. Will it take a Piper Alpha disaster onshore before there are debates, reports and Bills on this matter?
I intend to be in the next Parliament to ensure that legislation is passed. I hope to be able to persuade a Labour Government in that Parliament to pass such legislation, and I hope to be at the parliamentary Labour party meetings to persuade Labour to do that. If that is not possible, I shall present amendments, private Member's Bills or whatever is necessary from the Back Benches.
My final suggestions come from several people who write and campaign on the subject, people such as David Bergman and solicitors such as Louise Christian. Contributions have also been made by UCATT and my own union, MSF, papers such as the Irish Post, centres such as HASAC and HAZARDS and the Construction Safety Campaign. I do not claim that any of those people or organisations necessarily agree with all my ideas, but they all agree with many of them.
The first proposal that the House should consider is that after the death of a worker on a building site, senior company officers should face criminal police investigation. Only if the Crown prosecution service and the police conclude that there is not enough evidence to bring in a charge of manslaughter should the Health and Safety Executive be brought in to prosecute the firm for breaches of health and safety legislation.
We all agree that if anybody is killed or seriously injured on a road by drunken driver, that driver should face a term of imprisonment. I believe that individual directors and managers, as well as companies, should face the prosecution that can lead to terms of imprisonment. If a few employers had been put behind bars for some of those 1,500 deaths in the past 10 years, perhaps managements would view safety in the industry from a different perspective. For that reason, all cases taking place after death and serious injury should be heard in the Crown court. It is ludicrous that magistrates courts should consider these cases.
I know that the Minister will say that, last summer—I think in June—the level of fines was raised from the £2,000 maximum to a £20,000 maximum. However, I am not aware that that has seeped its way through the legal system. The vast majority of fines never even reached the £2,000 level. I remember analysing the average in the mid-1980s and it came out to a fine of about £361 on a firm or employer after a fatality or major injury. When one thinks that that was the average fine for fare-dodging on London Transport, one realises how little it really was. Even if that average climbed to £500 or £600, it would still be only at the same level as that for not paying television licences, and would, therefore, be wholly inadequate.
We need changes in the health and safety law, in coroners' practices and in inquest law so that death by negligence can be brought into play. Bereaved families should have access to all the notes of evidence before the inquest and legal aid should be available for representation at inquests. All these procedures and the others that I would detail if I had time are for after the injury or death by accident.
I began by saying that 70 per cent. of accidents are not, as one Minister said to me in the House three years ago, avoidable, but are preventable by management action.
624
Those two words are different. Why, then does the industry drive workers forward in such a way that these accidents happen and the carnage continues? It is because of the profit motive, which looms even larger in this industry than in industry in general, but it is also because of the weakness of workers' legal rights and organisational strength. Therefore, the other legislative change that needs to be brought about urgently is one that will give workers the legal right to stop an unsafe job without facing the fear of victimisation and blacklisting. If we had had more time, I could have given the House the details of two cases in the past fortnight in London where workers have been sacked after mentioning unsafe work practices to their employers.
The construction industry is not only the most unsafe industry in the country but a prime case for public ownership and accountability. Public ownership of the industry is something that I stood on, along with all other Labour candidates, in the 1983 general election, although it is no longer Labour party policy. The industry should be controlled, and the laws that govern it should be written far more by the workers who have to work within it. Perhaps if that happened the carnage could stop.
In the next four or five weeks, every election candidate should answer the question, "What would you do to stop the horrific death and injury toll in the industry?" The next Government, which I hope will be a Labour Government, should make it a priority in their early months to introduce proposals such as those that I have outlined to lower the accident rate and make the industry a safe one to work in.
2.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on initiating the debate. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done so consistently during his period in the House and for his commitment to the cause of health and safety generally, especially in the construction industry. He should be congratulated and thanked by the many people in the industry for his persistent pursuit of such an important issue.
I join the hon. Gentleman—there is no difference between us—in expressing concern about the numbers of fatalities and injuries that take place in such an important industry. That is common ground in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. However, these matters must be put in context, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I do so. He has used emotive words such as "carnage" and "scandal"—he is entitled to use them—but there are international comparisons to be drawn. The United Kingdom industry has a fatal injury rate of under 10 per 100,000 employees. The rate in what was West Germany is broadly the same. The rates in France, Spain and Italy are about two to three times higher. I say that to illustrate that the industry is a notoriously difficult one in whichever country it is operating. None of the countries that is comparable to the United Kingdom—even those in the European Community—has yet found a satisfactory answer to the difficulties that are experienced in the industry.
Figures similar to those that I have quoted apply to serious injury rates. The recent Health and Safety Commission mapping project, which I have quoted from, shows that our serious injury rates, on the best comparable basis that can be achieved, are significantly lower than

625
those in France, especially, and in Spain. These camparisons show that the solution to what is accepted is a serious problem is a difficult one, and so far an elusive one.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of inspectors available. He referred to a cut in the number of inspectors that the Health and Safety Executive has for the construction industry. He is not correct. In the 1970s, 86 inspectors were employed by the executive for the construction industry; There are now more than 100. On the basis of historical comparison, the number of inspectors has increased.
I concede immediately that the number of inspectors that is appropriate for the construction industry constitutes an important debate. As time is short, I do not want to be diverted into making comparisons between the offshore oil industry, the subject of Lord Cullen's greatly respected report, and the construction industry on shore. There are many crucial differences. Suffice it to say that to suggest that there should be 5,000 or more inspectors is to be unrealistic to say the least. To go from about 100 now to 5,000 is not, I think a practical proposition. There may well be scope for more inspectors—I think that many would concede that, and the matter is even now being considered by the executive—but we must be practical.
Perhaps I might be allowed to make a tiny party-political point. The hon. Gentleman made one or two slight ones. I am not aware that the Labour party has made a commitment to increase the resources that are made available to the Health and Safety Executive that would allow the measures that the hon. Gentleman wants to be implemented.
There is a problem here. The Government have honoured the Health and Safety Commission's requests for funds over the past few years, and the commission includes representatives of trade unions as well as of employers and others. Therefore, there has been an element of cross-party agreement on this difficult subject for some time. I hope that it will continue, even allowing for this debate.
The hon. Gentleman made some play—I understand why—of what should happen when there is a fatality on a construction site. He suggested that there should be immediate police investigations, and he made comparisons with cases of drunk drivers. I think that there is a real difficulty. In a drunk-driving case, there is relative ease in establishing liability. It will involve someone who after drinking has driven a car and been involved in an accident, as a result of which someone, tragically, has died. That example is not comparable since establishing liability or responsibility on a construction site may be extremely difficult. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of construction sites is at least as good as mine—it is almost certainly better—and so I put the difficulty to him.
If there is a fatality on a construction site, it can be extremely difficult to establish whether it was the fault of the employee or operator or of the contractor, his immediate foreman or manager, the directors of the company or the company as a whole. The fault could lie with a combination of those persons. To assume that establishing liability or responsibility is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggested is not, I think, fair or correct.
Two or three weeks ago I spent a day with an inspector on construction sites in London. That was my most recent visit to the sites. I asked the inspector about these matters and he told me that he would be reluctant to be a party to
626
attempts to mount prosecutions of the sort that have been requested by the hon. Gentleman. He told me that he had been engaged in such work for many years and that he felt that it would be extremely difficult to take such a course.
I do not want to rule out the possibility of prosecutions of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The HSE is committed to mounting prosecutions whenever it thinks it prudent and correct to do so. However, to leave the suggestion in the debate and the impression in the House that that is a relatively easy matter would do the subject less than justice.
Mr. Nellist: I said that it is the HSE's own assessment that 90 per cent. of fatalities in the construction industry are preventable and that 70 per cent. could be prevented by management action. If the laws were in place to allow prosecutions to be tested in the courts, I cannot believe that some employers would not go to prison. I am not suggesting that every case can be proved in a matter of minutes or hours, but some employers should serve prison sentences because of their inaction. I want the law to be changed.
Mr. Forth: That is a reasonable point. There is a framework directive, which will be progressed later this year, that moves in that direction. There is another directive, which is progressing on a European level—the hon. Gentleman must accept that many laws are now being taken forward on a European Community basis—that attempts to ensure that management exercises its responsibilities more.
We must distinguish between the practical measures that can be taken in relation to the responsibility of management and individuals on the work site, and the question whether an increased number of prosecutions would have the desirable effect that many assume it would. I do not deny that a prosecution should be mounted where someone can be indicted and where even a prison sentence might be appropriate.
We have increased the penalties available to the courts. The Offshore Safety Act—it was given Royal Assent today—provides for further increases in penalties. The facility already exists for magistrates courts to refer such matters to Crown courts for unlimited fines and imprisonment, if they believe that to be appropriate.
One of the frustrations that all Members of Parliament share—and I suspect that it unites the hon. Gentleman and me—is that this House makes penalties available to the judiciary, but the judiciary—for reasons often best known only to itself—does not take advantage of those penalties. Indeed, the average penalty is about £700 or £800, even though a penalty of £2,000 is available. The judiciary does not use the low maxima currently available; we can only hope that it will think again about using the much higher maxima available under the new Act.
It is an important subject that concerns everyone involved with health and safety, whether in the executive, the Commission, the bodies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman or the Government. The need to move forward is urgent, but it must be done carefully and systematically. These are complex matters and the European dimension must be considered.
There are arguments about resources and about the numbers of inspectors. There is rightly a debate about the level of appropriate penalties. However, in the end the main responsibility lies, on a day-to-day basis, with those

627
responsible for managing the sites, both at foreman and manager level, and with the employees themselves. The fact that most of them are now wearing protective headgear is a major step forward.
Those are undramatic but important ways in which the level of safety will be improved and which will meet the
628
hon. Gentleman's objectives. I thank him for bringing this matter before the House today. I hope that I have answered some of his points. As always, if any are outstanding I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mrs. K. Aidid
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 24 October 1991 from the hon. Member for Woolwich about the case of Mrs. K. Aidid of Chatham house, Rideout street, SE18, reference number K. 427442.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 27 February 1992.

  Prisoners (Ill Health)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances prisoners who have been prematurely released because of ill health are recalled to serve the remainder of their sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A prisoner's medical condition is only one of the factors taken into account when assessing his suitability for release on parole. If a prisoner is released on parole, he may be recalled to prison if he breaches any of the conditions attached to his release on licence: he would not be recalled simply because of an improvement in his medical condition.

  Where a prisoner is released on the ground of serious illness by the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, the sentence is remitted. There is therefore no possibility of being recalled to prison.

  Inquests
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were held into death in prisons, in police custody, psychiatric and special hospitals in the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on inquests on deaths in police custody is published annually. The most recent figures, for 1990, are contained in Home Office statistical bulletin 12/91 and in the annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Figures for earlier years are given in the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.

  The only other information available in my Department is the number of inquests on deaths which occurred in prison establishments, during the last five years. These were:

  Inquests

  1987

  80

  1988

  80

  1989

  80

  1990

  87

  1991

  71

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates have been made of the total volume of acquisitive crime committed to finance addiction for the last year for which such information is available; and what estimates have been made of the growth of this form of offending over the last 12 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Estimates for heroin misusers are published in paragraph 2·4 of the 1991 report "Drug Misusers and the Criminal Justice System Part 1: Community Resources and the Probation Service" by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates for crimes by those addicted to other substances are not available.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 42, whether he will place in the Library estimates of drug-related crimes involving people other than heroin misusers.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are at present no reliable data on which such estimates might be based.

  Bomb Warnings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and by whom, the earliest warning of a bomb planted at London main line railway stations on 28 February was received; and if he will list the times at which the warning was received by(a) British Rail at London Bridge, (b) the Metropolitan police, (c) the British Transport police, (d) the London ambulance service, (e) the London fire and civil defence authority and (f) the press and broadcasting media.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  At 08.20 hours on 28 February the Metropolitan police were notified by Ulster Television that it had received a telephone warning. The Metropolitan police then tasked the various agencies concerned. I understand that Ulster Television received the telephone warning at 08.15 hours.

  Criminal Justice Liaison Committees
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached on the formation of the area criminal justice liaison committees recommended by Lord Justice Woolf in his report on the prison disturbances in 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following consultation with criminal justice services and discussion in the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, the Government have decided that 24 area committees should be set up in England and Wales. The purpose of these committees will be to promote better understanding, co-operation and co-ordination in the administration of the criminal justice system and early tasks are likely to include the overseeing of arrangements for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the pre-trial issues working group.

  Members of the committee will include representatives from the probation, prison, police and Crown prosecution

  297
  services, justices' clerks, magistrates, barristers, solicitors and directors of social services. The committee will be chaired by circuit administrators or, in some cases, court administrators of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Nominations for members of committees will be sought forthwith from representative criminal justice system organisations and invitations will be issued shortly thereafter. The Government hope that the committees will have their first meetings by about May.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Applications (Publicity)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the minimum time he is to allow for local authorities to have the text of the new regulations advising of the arrangements for compulsory publicity for all planning applications before they come into force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We intend to issue the text of the amending order, and guidance on it, as soon as possible.

  Housing (Redundant Service Men)
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to ensure that local authorities accept responsibility for housing redundant service men without requiring evidence of eviction.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has announced a range of measures to help those who will be leaving the forces under "Options for Change". The homelessness code of guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gives specific guidance to local authorities on dealing with homelessness applications from ex-service personnel. It makes clear that authorities should not insist on a court order for possession before considering an application.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what timetable he intends for the divestment by the statutory joint waste disposal authorities of their waste disposal operations; whether he plans to abolish these authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The statutory joint waste disposal authorities will shortly be sent notices of our intention to direct them to establish separate waste disposal companies or, where they are intending to privatise their waste disposal operations, a proposed timetable for this. All waste disposal authorities will then actively be involved in separating their operations from regulation and contract management. The timetable for each statutory authority will depend on individual circumstances, on which authorities will have an opportunity to make representations, but I expect that divestment will essentially be complete by April 1993. This separation is a major advance, introduced in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in support of higher waste disposal standards.

  The changes brought by the Environmental Protection Act and the proposed creation of an environment agency,
  298
  will remove most of these authorities' current responsibilities. I have therefore decided that there is no role, in the medium and long term, for separate statutory joint waste disposal authorities.

  This decision has been reached after consulting each of the six authorities and carefully considering the cases which they have made for their retention.

  I have however been impressed by the concern expressed by each of the authorities that existing beneficial contracts should not be put at risk through abolition. Some authorities have also expressed doubts on whether our current powers for effecting changes to the authorities are satisfactory. Against this background, I shall be seeking an early opportunity for primary legislation to ensure that this reorganisation is achieved in a smooth and effective manner.

  The closer association of waste disposal decisions with those who must meet the costs will, I am sure, lead to more efficient and more responsive waste disposal services for the community.

  Royal William Yard, Plymouth
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are for the future of the Royal William yard and other sites in Plymouth.

  Mr. Heseltine
  After detailed discussion with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, I am today offering the local authorities the possibility of a new urban development corporation (UDC) in Plymouth. The new UDC would be responsible for regenerating parts of the defence estate which are surplus to the Ministry of Defence's operational requirements, together with nearby vacant or run-down areas.

  Provided the local authorities respond positively to our proposals and accept the offer of partnership it involves, the UDC's task would be to promote development in its designated area and to help revitalise the local economy. The Secretary of State for Defence and I propose to make available from our budgets £45 million to the new UDC. In addition, the Ministry of Defence will be handing over to the UDC significant amounts of development land surplus to its requirements.

  The new UDC will take a strategic view of the redevelopment of the area. I will be looking to the UDC to prepare a vision for the future of the area which takes account of the potential for employment, infrastructure, environment and leisure opportunities. The new UDC would need to work closely with its partners in the local council and the private sector to ensure that its objective of regeneration can be met.

  One of the jewels in its crown will be the Royal William yard, which comprises one of the most important surviving groups of historic maritime buildings in the United Kingdom. With the rationalisation of the Ministry of Defence's operations in Plymouth dockyards, I am confident that the future of the Royal William yard and other sites would be best served by the comprehensive approach to regeneration which the UDC would be able to offer.

  Methane Gas
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what inquiries his Department has made into the leakage of methane gas from abandoned coal mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A review of the extent of natural contamination in Great Britain, including methane emissions from coal mines, is being undertaken for my Department by the British Geological Survey and this is due to be completed in the summer of 1993. Research on the planning response to methane emissions from disused coal mines is in preparation and a contract is due to be placed in the summer of 1992.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority dwellings have been reported as vacant in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in each year since 1984; what percentage of the local authority housing stock these figures represent; and what is the comparable percentage in other London boroughs.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: The available information on empty local authority dwellings is as follows:

  Tower Hamlets Borough Council

  at 1 April

  Number

  Percentage of stock

  Other London authorities Percentage of stock

  1984

  1,464

  7·7

  3·7

  1985

  1,534

  8·2

  3·8

  1986

  3,200

  6·6

  3·3

  1987

  2,825

  5·8

  3·2

  1988

  2,526

  5·3

  2·8

  1989

  1,840

  4·0

  2·7

  1990

  1,758

  4·0

  2·8

  1991

  1,895

  4·5

  2·4

  Notes:

  (a) Local authorities report the numbers of their own dwellings that are vacant in their annual housing investment programme returns (HIP1).

  (b) In 1986, dwellings previously owned by the Greater London council were transferred to the boroughs. For 1984 and 1985, all GLC dwellings, including those which were subsequently transferred to Tower Hamlets borough council, are included in the dwelling stock of 'other London authorities'.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of industrial accidents in the Greater London area for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is provided in the following table:

  Occupational injuries1 occurring in the Greater London area reported2 to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities.

  Year3

  Fatal

  4Major

  5Over 3 day

  Total

  1986–87

  52

  3,587

  14,649

  18,288

  1987–88

  66

  3,212

  14,991

  18,269

  1988–89

  66

  2,943

  15,195

  18,204

  300

  Year3

  Fatal

  4Major

  5Over 3 day

  Total

  1989–90

  51

  2,580

  14,605

  17,236

  1990–916 7

  51

  2,312

  13,518

  15,881

  1 Injuries at work to employees, self-employed people and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity.

  2 Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  3 Years commencing 1 April.

  4 As defined under RIDDOR.

  5 An injury causing incapacity for work for more than three days and reportable for employed persons only.

  6 Includes reports made to the HSE's quarries inspectorate.

  7 Provisional.

  A. H. Marks and Co. Ltd.
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the notes compiled by the Health and Safety Executive on the death of Louis Drake at A. H. Marks and Co. Ltd., Low Moor.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Notes made by inspectors are riot equivalent to police note books and are not kept with a view to subsequent disclosure or use in evidence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  The Northern Ireland Civil Service1

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  1

  1

  —

  2

  9

  —

  3

  36

  1

  4

  19

  —

  5

  171

  14

  6

  275

  51

  7

  748

  73

  Deputy Principal

  1,485

  278

  Administrative Trainee

  1

  1

  Staff Officer

  1,781

  538

  EOI

  2,746

  1,082

  EOII

  1,466

  2,041

  AO

  1,882

  5,390

  AA

  1,067

  2,706

  The Northern Ireland Office (Home Civil Service) 2

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  3

  6

  —

  4

  1

  —

  5

  8

  —

  6

  4

  —

  7

  16

  3·5

  SEO

  2

  4·0

  HEO (D)

  4

  1·0

  HEO

  9

  7·0

  301

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  AT

  —

  —

  EO

  11

  10.5

  AO

  10

  14.5

  AA

  5

  8.0

  1 All non-industrial staff as at 1 January 1991.

  2 Non-industrial home civil servants in post as at 1 February 1992 (staff on loan/career breaks are not included).

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No pay and grading reviews have been undertaken in the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments or executive agencies over the last 12 months. Reviews have been carried out in two non-departmental public bodies, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards, both by Hay Management Consultants.

  Criminal Damage Compensation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims have been made for compensation for criminal damage to agricultural property; and how much compensation has been paid in respect of such claims in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number of claims received

  Amount of compensation paid £

  1987–88

  58

  120,759

  1988–89

  56

  201,577

  1989–90

  58

  214,628

  1990–91

  79

  137,378

  11991

  82

  155,449

  1 To 29 February 1992.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that Northern Ireland and objective 1 regions are allocated the full finance as stipulated by the European Commission in respect of the suckler cow premium.

  Mr. Hanley
  The rate of suckler cow premium is being increased by £7·95 to £59·64 per cow in the less favoured areas and £55·38 elsewhere. This rate will apply throughout the United Kingdom. Funding was not available to meet the costs of paying the extra £2·40 to all United Kingdom producers.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many income support claimants there are at each social security office in Northern Ireland; and how many of these are in receipt of sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, unemployment benefit, or retirement pension.
  302
  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman with such information as is available and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people there are in receipt of each income support premium in each social security office in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  I understand from Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of dependants in respect of whom income support is paid to claimants by each social security office in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alex Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. However, I understand that no record is held of the numbers of dependants in respect of whom income support is paid to claimants.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are receiving unemployment benefit from each social security office in Northern Ireland showing how many are or are not in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alec Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency who informs me that no record is held of the number of people receiving unemployment benefit who are also in receipt of income support.

  Political Talks
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what agreements have been reached about future representation of the respective political parties at talks on Northern Ireland's political future.

  Mr. Brooke
  The understanding is that talks would proceed on the basis outlined in my statement to the House of 26 March 1991 at columns 765–66 and involve the four main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures or guidelines apply in respect of dyslexic children under school transfer procedures.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: None. The arrangements are the same for all children except those for whom a statement of special educational needs is maintained. Such children may not take part in the transfer procedure. If any parents think that their child's grade in the tests does not reflect his or her academic ability they can make a case to the relevant grammar school together with any appropriate information and evidence.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Russia (EC Beef)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what administrative and other costs are deducted by the Russians for every kilogram of EC beef sold under the assistance programme at the price of 60 roubles per kilogram on the Russian market.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The local costs of distribution and administration are met by the Russians. In St. Petersburg—but not in Moscow—they are financed by allocating to them 20 per cent. of the roubles received from the sale of EC beef. The remainder is placed in a counterpart fund, set up by the European Community and the Russian authorities, which is used to help the needy.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what value of bilateral education aid is proposed for Vietnam; and how it will be spent.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are discussing an economic reform orientated training project with the Vietnamese Government. The cost is not yet settled, but is likely to be of the order of £1 million over three to four years. We are also continuing our support for non-governmental organisation projects, for which we have committed £1·86 million since May 1990. Many of these NGO projects have a practical training component.

  Women in Development
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid policy in relation to women in development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  To mark International Womens Day on Sunday 8 March we have published a booklet, "Women in Development", copies of which are in the Library. This explains our "women in development" policy and progress in implementing it.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding he proposes to make available to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in 1992–93 through the Overseas Development Administration's joint funding scheme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I propose to increase the allocation to the joint funding scheme by £5 million to £28 million in 1992–93. This represents an increase of about 22 per cent. on the 1991–92 budget and demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to, and confidence in, the contribution made by voluntary organisations to developing countries.

THE ARTS

  Heritage Objects
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his response to the recommendation of the export reviewing committee about the introduction of a list of heritage objects for which export licences would not be granted.

  Mr. Renton
  The Committee's report makes a range of recommendations for improving the system of controlling the export of heritage objects. I have asked for comments on the report to reach me by 31 March. A list was recommended by the committee, but only on the assumption that new sources of funding would not be available. If the national lottery makes available, as I hope it will, new funds that will help keep in this country works of art that are important to our heritage, then a list should not be necessary for this purpose.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office have retained no private sector consultancy firms. The Crown Prosecution Service has retained P E International to advise on the service's market testing programme. This appointment was not the result of a competitive tender.

  Magistrates
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many magistrates are(a) men and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 1 January 1992 there were 16,105 men and 13,336 women sitting as lay magistrates in England and Wales.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months intro the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  The Attorney-General
  My departments have not carried out any such reviews over the last 12 months.

  Judiciary (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to reduce the retirement age for the judiciary.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has today written to bodies representative of the judiciaries in
  305
  England and Wales and Northern Ireland seeking their views on reducing the retirement age of the judiciary to 70. The text of his letter is as follows:
  "I am writing to seek views on the appropriate maximum retirement age for the judiciary. I believe that the time has come to reduce the retirement age for the judiciary, and also to introduce a standard retirement age for all judges and judicial officers. What I would propose therefore is that all judges and judicial officers from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Heads of Divisions downwards should, in future, be required to retire at the latest on their 70th birthdays.
  I intend that the new retirement age of 70 for full-time service should apply to those who are appointed to full-time judicial office after it comes into force. Anyone in full-time judicial office on the relevant day, and who remains in the same office, will be able to retain his or her existing maximum retirement age.
  I would welcome your views on the position of someone holding judicial office on the relevant day who is subsequently appointed to a different, usually more senior, judicial office. The two main possibilities here would seem to be to treat the change of office as a new appointment, with the consequence that the new retirement age of 70 will apply, or to allow the person concerned to retain the entitlement to retire at the present maximum retirement age of the junior office.
  A change in the retirement age will require primary legislation. Subject to the results of this consultation, I would intend to make any changes at the same time as the new judicial pension scheme is introduced.
  I propose that these changes should apply to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland will be consulting on similar proposals for Scotland.
  I would welcome your views on these proposals. It would be helpful if they could be sent to Mr. S. F. Smith, Lord Chancellor's Department, Room 204, Trevelyan House, 30 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BY to arrive no later than 31 March 1992."

  Cases (Abandonment)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultation, and with whom, has to take place before a judge can decide to abandon a case; and whether members of the jury are included in such discussions.

  The Attorney-General
  A trial judge in criminal proceedings may in appropriate circumstances make any one of a range of orders the effect of which is that the whole or part of a prosecution cannot be proceeded with. The most frequently encountered of such orders is a directed acquittal following a submission of "no case to answer" or, under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, where the prosecution has offered no evidence. Trial judges also have some inherent powers to stay proceedings and in certain circumstances may order that some or all of the counts in an indictment lie on the file.

  The relevant parties to the proceedings are entitled to be heard before any such order is made. The making of any such order is the responsibility of the trial judge alone.

  Estates (Winding-up Procedures)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will put forward proposals to impose time limits within which solicitors will be required to complete the procedures for the winding-up of estates, varying the time limits according to the values of the estates concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  The amount of work involved in the administration of estates varies too much from case to case to allow fixed time limits to be imposed for winding 306
  up: the degree of complexity of an estate is not necessarily related to its size. The quick and efficient administration of estates is best achieved by encouraging high standards on the part of solicitors. This is a matter for their professional body, the Law Society, as they are a self regulating profession. The Law Society offers guidance to practitioners on best practice; and has recommended ways in which practitioners might streamline the administration of estates, in their recently published "Probate Practitioners Handbook". Failure to act with due dispatch when dealing with a client's affairs is a ground on which a complaint can be made to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Firms (Coalfield Areas)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about new business support measures to assist small firms in coalfield areas.

  Mr. Lilley
  As foreseen in my statement on 17 February and following the European Commission's approval of the RECHAR programmes on 26 February, I am introducing in the English RECHAR areas a new £14 million scheme for business support measures, which will contribute to those programmes. This is subject to the Commission's approval under the state aids section of the EEC treaty.

  Department of Trade and Industry regional offices will respond flexibly to the needs of each coalfield area, selecting the most suitable assistance from a range of authorised measures.

  This scheme which will be additional to the Government's existing assistance for small firms, will help diversify the economy of ex-coalmining areas by providing assistance for business start-ups and for small to medium-sized companies seeking growth and innovation development.

  The authorised measures are:
  Support for economic promotion agencies and local community initiatives, e.g. local task forces and business clubs and for specialist consultancy support not otherwise provided.
  Support for the provision of common services and feasibility studies relating to the provision of managed workspace and move-on business accommodation.
  Encouragement for innovation in industry and its commercial application in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
  Assistance for risk appraisal by non-profit making organisations.
  Support for the provision of information to SMEs to improve their access to relevant markets.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be inviting the local enterprise companies in Scottish RECHAR areas to promote business development schemes of their own tailored to local circumstances. Such schemes will be eligible for support from the European regional development fund and matching funding will be provided by the Government, under transitional arrangements for 1992–93.

  In addition to the agreed new arrangements for regional innovation grants which will apply to all Great Britain, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be extending regional investment grants into the designated RECHAR areas in Wales.

  Kimberly-Clark Factory, Humberside
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress on Kimberly-Clark's proposed project to build a factory at Barton-on-Humber.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 20 February, Glanford borough council resolved to grant planning permission to Kimberly-Clark to build a factory at Barton-on-Humber unless the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to call it in for his own determination.

  I am very pleased to say my right hon. Friend has now written to say he will not be doing so. The way is now open for the council to proceed.

  Over 770 jobs will be created directly by this project, which was won for the United Kingdom amid fierce competition from other European countries. It is another example of the success of this Government's policies in attracting investment from abroad.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of the regional enterprise grants scheme.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 1 April 1992, subject to European Commission approval, the following changes will be made to regional enterprise grants. There are two types of assistance under this scheme—innovation and investment grants.

  Regional innovation grants (RIN):
  will be extended to Intermediate and EC objective 2 areas not already covered;
  firms will be able to apply for more than one innovation grant;
  grants will now be available to firms employing under 50 people instead of below 25.
  >additional advice will be provided to encourage business planning and the exploitation and marketing of successful projects.

  Regional investment grants (RIG) will be subject to a simple additionality test which will require applicants to show that the grant is necessary if the project is to go ahead.

  Additional signposting and advice will be provided for both grants to encourage business planning and exploitation and marketing of successful projects.

  Regional innovation grants have proved to be cost-effective and an important trigger for new developments. These changes open the doors to many more firms to take up innovation opportunities.

  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the Government's proposals for implementing the tying-in provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have today issued a consultative document setting out the Government's revised proposals for the subordinate legislation required to bring into force the provisions in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 on the tying-in of services to residential property loans. Following suggestions made during the earlier consultation, we propose to supplement legislation under the Courts and Legal Services Act by also making regulations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  308
  Our proposals have two parts. First, lenders and brokers will have to make clear to their customers if there is a link between a loan and the sale of some other service. This information would have to be provided to every customer inquiring about the availability of a loan secured on a home, regardless of the purpose of the loan.

  Secondly, lenders will have to give borrowers a comprehensive statement of the impact of the terms and conditions of the loan of the decision whether or not to take any other service with it. This information would have to be provided with the lender's offer of a loan to buy a home.

  I want to ensure that borrowers are not coerced or misled into buying services from mortgage lenders that they either do not want or would prefer to buy elsewhere.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Music Curriculum
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet a delegation from the Incorporated Society of Musicians to discuss the national music curriculum; and if he will make a statement on his response to their representations.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how long after the close of the consultation period on his proposals for music in the national curriculum final orders will be laid before Parliament;

  (2) whether he intends to amend his proposals for music in the national curriculum to take account of the submission he has received from the Incorporated Society of Musicians;

  (3) how many submissions, and from which organisations, he has received on his proposals for music in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received around 800 representation on his proposals for music in the national curriculum, as set out in the draft order published on 27 January. These have come from a wide range of organisations including local education authorities, educational, subject and professional associations.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet a delegation from the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM). He will make the final order for music in the national curriculum after taking due account of the points made in the responses to the consultation exercise, including those from ISM.

  GCSE
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received criticising the proposed changes to GCSE; how many of these were from parents and governors; what response he has made to the criticisms expressed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I said in my reply of 24 February to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) at column 377, varying views have been expressed in the letters we have received from different interested groups and individuals on the subject. My right hon. and learned

  309
  Friend and I have said that in order to maintain public confidence in GCSE, and given the difficulties of ensuring that course work is conducted under sufficiently uniform conditions and marked against nationwide standards, its course work element needs to be kept within agreed limits.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library correspondence received from the former governors of Stratford school, prior to its change to grant-maintained status, and copies of the formal application for that status made by the persons responsible for the application, together with other official communications made to him, or from him to them, since their assumption of office.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the sums he calculates as being due to him from any London borough, or other education authority, in respect of registered pupils at Stratford school, the sums already paid, or due, from each authority, together with the basis of calculation for each and the method of verification of attendance that they may use.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual maintenance grant (AMG) of Stratford school has been calculated on the basis of regulation 8 of the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1991, (SI 1991 No. 353). The whole of the final AMG for the school of £1,533,311 is a charge on Newham local education authority. To the extent that any pupils at the school belong to the area of another LEA, it is for Newham to recover their costs directly from any such LEA.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the occasions since 1 January when any inspector visited Stratford school together with the purpose and the duration of each visit.

  Mr. Eggar
  HMI makes regular termly visits to the school and keep in close contact with the progress being made. The last such visit was in December, the next will be later this month.

  School Attendance Officers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what person or body has the responsibility of school attendance officer for any grant-maintained school; and what reports they are required to make to him or to the local education authorities from which moneys or fees are due by virtue of a pupil's attendance at such schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for enforcing the school attendance legislation rests with local education authorities to which all schools, other than independent schools for boarders only, have a duty to report regular absentees. It is for each grant-maintained school to keep its register and to decide what action it should take to encourage regular attendance by its pupils.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the legal provisions concerning the power of governors of grant-maintained 310
  schools to nominate a person to whom moneys may be paid by him or from other persons or bodies; and what obligation is placed on any body of governors for auditing of annual accounts; and for what period.

  Mr. Eggar
  Money from the Department is paid direct to each grant-maintained school by placing it in its bank account, not by giving it to individuals. The schools are required to maintain rigorous controls over the drawing down of grant and other funds from their bank accounts. Schools are also required to appoint independent professional auditors and ensure their accounts are audited every year. Audit appointments are made for one year, renewable at the governing body's discretion.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what powers he has given to governors of grant-maintained schools to delegate their authority for appointment of any staff.

  Mr. Eggar
  The governing body of a grant-maintained school has power to delegate its functions under the articles of Government with respect to the appointment of staff. Whether or not the governing body has delegated any of its responsibilities with regard to the appointment of staff, the body or person whose responsibility it is must consider any advice given by the head teacher before determining to appoint any member of staff, except the head teacher's successor. There are of course a large number of statutory requirements which apply generally to the appointment of staff.

  Funding Applications, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South on 25 February,Official Report, column 803, if he will list the deficiencies in the applications from Bradford for central Government funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  The deficiencies I had in mind included Bradford's initial failure to bid for a supplementary credit approval in 1991–92 to support additional capital expenditure on its schools; an initially unrealistic bid against the raising standards in inner city schools activity in the Department's 1992–93 grants for education support and training programme; and a bid for section 11 grant for 1992–93 which required a substantial amount of re-working to meet the new criteria for section 11. I have on a number of occasions made my concerns known to representatives of the authority. However, yesterday I announced that the submission by Greenhead school in Bradford under the technology schools initiative was one of the 21 best bids received by the Department.

  Dental Health Research
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in tabular form details of all dental health research projects receiving funding from his Department; and if he will specify the nature and duration of each project, the name of the principal researcher and the institution at which the work is being carried out.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The main agency through which the Government support

  311
  medical research in this country is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC receives grant-in-aid from this Department, but is an independent body and decides how its money should be spent in the light of its judgment of

  Research institution

  Principal researcher

  Title of grant

  Duration of grant

  University of Bristol

  Professor C. D. Stephens

  Development of an expert system for the planning of simple orthodontic treatment

  1 July 1988 to 30 June 1992

  University of Leicester

  Dr. I. S. Roberts

  Molecular analysis of the effect of b. gingivalis secreted protease on pmnl. function and fibroblast proliferation

  1 November 1988 to 31 January 1992

  London Hospital Medical College

  Dr. H. N. Shan

  Nitrogen metabolism of oral spirochaetes involved in periodontal disease

  1 May 1990 to 30 April 1992

  University of Leicester

  Dr. I. S. Roberts

  Molecular approaches to the study of b. gingivalis capsule in attachment and resistance to host defence mechanisms

  1 October 1989 to 30 September 1992.

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Professor J. J. Murray

  Clinical and laboratory durability studies of glass polyalkenoate cement and composite resin in paediatric dentistry

  1 October 1990 to 30 September 1993

  University of Bristol

  Dr. D. F. G. Poole

  Formation of carious lesions in dental tissues and caries prevention by fluoride

  1 October 1990 to 30 September 1993

  University of Bristol

  Dr. R. P. Shellis

  Saliva/plaque/tooth equilibria and the reduction of dental caries

  26 November 1990 to 25 November 1993

  Queen Mary and Westfield College, London

  Professor K. Brocklehurst

  Characterisation and physiological function of proteinases produced by the key periodontal pathogens

  July 1991 to June 1993

  University of Leeds

  Dr. C. Robinson

  Control of biological apatite crystal growth in a rodent incisor model, implications for enamel hypoplasia

  1 February 1991 to 31 January 1994

  University of Sheffield

  Mr. I. M. Brook

  Ultrastructural and xray microanalytic study of the interface between bone and ceramic or glass ionomer implants

  February 1992 to January 1993

  Utd. Medical/Dental School Guy's and St. Thomas's, London

  Dr. A. M. Edwina Kidd

  Assessment of caries activity related to microbiology at the enamel-dentine junction during cavity preparation

  August 1991 to July 1992

  Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge

  Dr. J. J. Reynolds

  Cellular control mechanisms in the regulation of connective tissue degradation

  1 April 1982 to 31 March 1993

  University of Manchester

  Dr. S. L. Schor

  Fibroblast heterogeneity and the control of epithelial-mesenchymal interactions in the oral mucosa

  1 February 1989 to 31 January 1992

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Dr. R. B. Russell

  Dextranases and dextranase inhibitors of mutans streptococci

  26 November 1990 to 25 November 1993

  University of Manchester

  Dr. P. T. Sharpe

  Hox 7.1 Gene expression and tooth development

  August 1991 to July 1994

  University of Dundee

  Mr. G. R. Ogden

  Identification of cytokeratin in oral disease, using exfoliative cytology

  July 1991 to June 1992

  312
  priorities, opportunities and quality of research applications. MRC is supporting the following dental research projects:
  313

  Research institution

  Principal researcher

  Title of grant

  Duration of grant

  Institute of Dental Surgery, London

  Dr. Patrizia Ferretti

  A molecular approach to the study of jaw regeneration in urodeles

  October 1991 to September 1993

  Royal College of Surgeons of England, London

  Dr. C. T. Teo

  Epstein-barr virus genomic activity in the oral cavity of normal and HIV infected individuals

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1994

  University of Liverpool

  Professor O. H. Petersen

  MRC secretory control group

  1 October 1988 to 30 September 1993

  University of Manchester

  Professor R. M. Case

  Bicarbonate transport and the anionic basis of salivary secretion

  1 July 1989 to 8 November 1992

  The MRC also supports dental research on a longer term basis at its dental research unit directed by Professor N. W. Johnson at the London Hospital medical college, and through a group of dental researchers on its external scientific staff at the University of Bristol. Their research has been focused as follows:

  MRC dental research unit
  IGG antibodies to bacteroides gingivalis, b. intermedius, fusobacterium nucleatum and wolinella recta in patients with severe destructive periodontitis.
  Detection of IGG antibodies in human sera to outer membrane components of bacteriodes species with reference to protease activity.
  Perification and characterisation of bacteroides proteins identified as possible markers of periodontal disease susceptibility or activity.
  Interaction of polymorphonuclear leucocytes and specific IGG opsonins to b. gingivalis in patients with severe destructive periodontitis.
  Identification of markers of disease activity in gingival crevicular fluid.
  Responsiveness of human gingival epithelial cells to inflammatory stimuli.
  Statistical methods for data from periodontal research.
  A longitudinal cohort study of the natural progression of periodontal breakdown in adults.

  MRC dental group (Principal Researcher Dr. D. F. G. Poole)
  Fluoride in the oral environment for controlling the initiation and progress of carious lesions.
  Physiochemical and biochemical equilibria in the salivaplaque-tooth system.

  Research, including dental health research, is also conducted in universities using grants from the Universities Funding Council which is funded by the DES.

  Details of specific projects are not held centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 27 March 1990,Official Report, columns 165–66, to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), concerning the numbers dependent on income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Number of claimants in receipt of Income Support.

  Year

  Great Britain

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1989

  4,161,000

  3,429,000

  246,000

  486,000

  1990

  4,180,000

  3,451,000

  248,000

  481,000

  314

  Number of partners and dependent children of claimants in receipt of Income Support

  Year

  Great Britain

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1989

  2,862,000

  2,381,000

  167,000

  313,000

  1990

  2,843,000

  2,370,000

  177,000

  296,000

  Notes:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not therefore sum.

  The figures for 1989 may differ from those previously given. The earlier figures were based upon provisional estimates from the quarterly statistical enquiry for May 1989.

  Source:

  Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries, 1989 and 1990.

  Staffing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 16 March 1990,Official Report, columns 406–7, concerning the number of staff per 100,000 claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of staff administering the social security programme per 100,000 receiving benefits for the years 1979–80 to 1990–91 is in the table.

  Number

  1979–80

  384

  1980–81

  372

  1981–82

  353

  1982–83

  339

  1983–84

  325

  1984–85

  311

  1985–86

  316

  1986–87

  314

  1987–88

  326

  1988–89

  326

  1989–90

  307

  1990–91

  295

  Seafarers (National Insurance)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost in a full tax year of restricting the employer's national insurance contribution to the level of the employee's contribution in the case of United Kingdom seafarers.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of(a) doubling and (b) quadrupling the premium payable to pensioners over the age of 80 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The gross extra cost of doubling and quadrupling the retirement pension age addition would be £28 million and £84 million respectively. These costs do not take into account the savings in income-related benefits.

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement regarding the further replacement of resettlement units.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The development of replacement provision for the resettlement units at Stormy Down in South Wales and Southampton are considerably advanced. During the next 12 months the proposals for each of these units are expected to be complete. I have therefore agreed that our direct operation of these units should cease by 31 March 1993. As with all replacement schemes we will need to be satisfied, at that date, that sufficient suitable alternative accommodation is being provided.

  Together the proposals for these two units will produce over 200 bed spaces which is far in excess of those in the respective units.

  This announcement together with my earlier one, on 5 February at column 210, on the transfer of the units at Camden and Newbury also by March 1993 will considerably advance our intention to withdraw from the direct operations of resettlement units.

  National Insurance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much would be raised by abolishing the ceiling on national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jack
  We estimate that if the upper earnings limit for employees' contributions was abolished, the revenue yield for 1992–93 would be about £2·7 billion. If the self-employed upper profits limit was also abolished the additional yield would be about £0·5 billion.

WALES

  Usk Bypass
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding proposals for an Usk bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. This is a county road matter and one for Gwent county council as the local highway authority.

  Usk (Heavy Lorries)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding a ban on heavy lorries through Usk and over the River Usk in Usk.
  316
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has recently received a letter from Usk town council. This is a county road matter and one for Gwent county council as the responsible highway authority.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in the Clwyd South-West constituency among school leavers in the 16 to 19 years age range.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In January 1992 there were 314 unemployed claimants in the Clwyd, South-West constituency aged under 20 years. A separate count of school leavers is not available.

  Latchkey Children
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent in Wales on pilot schemes to cater for the care of latchkey children in 1991–92; and how much is budgeted to be spent in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In April 1991, under the Department's scheme of support for child and family services, a grant was awarded to the Kids Clubs' Network for a new out of school care development project in Wales. The project development officer was appointed on 22 July 1991 and grant paid in 1991–92 amounts to £24,022. On 19 February 1992, I announced a grant award of £40,812 for this project in 1992–93.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales now considering applying for trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There is increasing recognition from within the national health service in Wales that NHS trust status is the natural organisational model for the delivery of patient services. The Pembrokeshire NHS trust will become operational on 1 April. The statement by the hon. Gentleman at the Welsh Labour conference that Pembroke NHS trust would be brought back within the NHS under a Labour Government betrays either extreme ignorance of the fact that such trusts are, as their name implies, part of the NHS or an attempt to mislead the people of Wales.

  In addition, 14 health units have been invited to prepare applications for NHS trust status from April 1993. The details were given by my right hon. Friend on 19 December 1991. The eventual decision whether to submit a formal application is a matter for the individual hospital or health unit in the light of local circumstances.

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many proposals for special protection area designation have been formally submitted to his Department by the statutory conservation agencies or transferred from the Department of the Environment and not yet progressed to designation; and if he will list the dates on which those submissions were made.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The department has four proposals for special protection area designation which
  317
  have not yet progressed to designation. They were all transferred from the Department of the Environment on 13 January 1992.

  Local Government
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he had received by 2 March in favour of amalgamating the borough of Wrexham and the district of Alyn and Deeside, as a result of his recent consultation on the future of local government in Wales; how many of these representations were from individuals; and how many were from representative bodies.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Nine of which four were from local branches of the Conservative party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party and five from community or town councils. No representations were received in favour of this proposal from the Labour party.

  Roads
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will respond to the first report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1991–92, "Roads in Wales", House of Commons paper 89.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that the response has been published today as Command Paper 1851.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which hs been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Maples
  Touche Ross has been appointed to provide the private sector input to the study being undertaken to determine the scope for further market testing in Treasury in accordance with the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", (Cm. 1730). The appointment was made following the evaluation of proposals from six firms.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had proposing changes in the law to enable rural post offices to provide banking services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  I have not received any representations along the lines described. Post offices already provide banking services on art agency basis for Girobank. There are no plans at present to further extend the Post Office's powers in this area and the Government are reluctant to see any extension of the public sector, not least because of concern for fair competition.

  Investment and Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in detail the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to encourage investment and research.

  Mr. Mellor
  The key role played by the Government in encouraging investment and research is a commitment to a stable, low-inflation environment, to free and open markets and a lack of burdensome social and industrial regulation. There is, however, a role for Government support where there is evidence of market failure.

  Full details of the Government's schemes for encouraging investment and research can be found in the recently published departmental reports for 1992–93 and in the annual review of Government-funded research and development, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  PSBR
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the public sector borrowing requirement each year since 1974 at 1992 values; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures requested are set out in the table. Between 1974–75 and 1978–79, the PSBR averaged 6¾ per cent. of GDP. Since 1979–80, by contrast, it has averaged 1¾per cent. of GDP.

  Public sector borrowing requirement (£ million)

  Cash

  at 1991–92 prices1

  1974–75

  8,001

  38,939

  1975–76

  10,251

  39,765

  1976–77

  8,263

  28,234

  1977–78

  5,381

  16,172

  1978–79

  9,174

  24,857

  1979–80

  9,926

  23,040

  1980–81

  12,519

  24,559

  1981–82

  8,631

  15,447

  1982–83

  8,904

  14,877

  1983–84

  9,678

  15,454

  1984–85

  10,134

  15,411

  1985–86

  5,622

  8,102

  1986–87

  3,559

  4,966

  1987–88

  -3,406

  -4,508

  1988–89

  -14,657

  -18,097

  1989–90

  -7,932

  -9,197

  1990–91

  -465

  -498

  1991–92

  210,500

  10,500

  1 Using the GDP deflator

  2 Autumn Statement forecast

  Income Tax
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the yield from income tax against the basic rate for each year from 1985–86 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is in the table:
  319

  £ billion

  Tax liability

  Year

  Total tax liability

  At the basic rate

  At the higher rate

  Of which excess over the basic rate

  1985–86

  38·8

  33·5

  5·2

  2·1

  1986–87

  42·8

  36·2

  6·6

  2·8

  1987–88

  45·3

  37·4

  7·9

  3·7

  1988–89

  46·5

  38·0

  8·5

  3·2

  1989–90

  53·4

  43·0

  10·5

  3·9

  1990–91

  59·4

  46·8

  12·6

  4·7

  1 Latest estimate based on a projection of the 1989–90 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the reduction in disposable income in an average size constituency in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) the United Kingdom, assuming average levels of income from savings and employment as a result of (i) introducing a 9 per cent. surcharge tax on (ii) all savings and (iii) savings over £30,000 and (iv) increasing the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent;

  (2) what would be the increase in disposable income in an average size constituency in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) the United Kingdom, assuming average levels of income from savings and employment as a result of (i) increasing all tax allowances by the rate of inflation and (ii) reducing the rate of income tax by 1p.

  Mr. Maude
  Available estimates at 1991–92 levels of income, which exclude any behavioural effects which might result, are given in the table. I regret that separate data for England, Scotland and Wales are not available.

  Total change in disposable income in United Kingdom (£ billion)

  Average change per constituency1 (£ million)

  9 per cent. surcharge on all investment income

  -2·6

  -3·9

  9 per cent, surcharge on income from savings of over £30,000

  -1·3

  -2·0

  Increase in higher rate of tax to 50 per cent.

  -3·3

  -5·0

  Increase in all income tax allowances and thresholds by 4·5 per cent.

  + 1·5

  + 2·3

  Reduction of lp in basic rate

  + 1·9

  + 3·0

  1 Column 1 divided 650— the number of parliamentary constituencies.

  "Next Steps"
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the progress of "next steps" in the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On 1 April the Inland Revenue will be setting up within the Department 34 executive offices covering the whole of its operational work in assessing and collecting taxes, and also important internal support services. This follows the establishment of the Valuation Office as an agency last year. As a result, the Inland Revenue will then be operating on "next steps" lines, with 96 per cent. of its staff working either in the Valuation Office Agency or in the 34 executive offices. This will mean less direct involvement from the centre, and 320
  more responsibility and accountability for heads of executive offices and their local managers. The purpose of these changes is to give taxpayers a better service, and to organise work more efficiently.

  As a part of its major programme of change the Revenue set up two teams to review its organisation and structure and its management and grading. The principal aims were to achieve significant further improvements in service to the public, in operational effectiveness and in cost efficiency, and to ensure the fullest commitment of those who work in the Department. They have now completed their work. Copies of a summary of their reports will be placed in the Library.

  The review teams envisage a slimmer and rather differently organised Department. Their proposals are designed to carry forward the policy set out in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement of 16 May 1991 on the Fraser report, in the Citizen's Charter and in the White Paper "Competing for Quality."

  A number of the changes, if implemented, would take several years to complete. As a result, in 10 years time the Department might be 10 to 15 per cent. smaller than it is now. Further detailed planning and consultation will, however, be required before the future shape of the Department, and the way it does its work, can finally be settled. In addition to consultation with staff, the Inland Revenue is undertaking a major survey of taxpayers' views to ensure that the new arrangements properly reflect their priorities.

  Meanwhile, however, there are a number of specific changes which we shall be carrying forward now.

  First, the Inland Revenue is already engaged in introducing or testing a number of changes which are designed to improve the service it provides. We shall want to expand on this by examining proposals for moving, over a period of years, towards a new office structure. Taxpayer assistance offices would provide better local facilities, where the public could get inquiries dealt with, and problems resolved, on the spot. Other offices would deal with specialist and compliance work. And service offices would bring together, in a more efficient way, the bulk of the day-to-day work. Our aim is to move towards a single point of contact for every taxpayer. These changes will build on the existing experiments designed to remove the need for separate tax and collection offices in the same area.

  Secondly, the Department will be taking forward for wider consultation—and, where appropriate, negotiation —proposals for a new performance and reporting system for staff of the Inland Revenue, and, linked to it, a new system for pay and grading, with a larger proportion of pay depending on an assessment of performance. These proposals would be consistent with moving to a single staff group, within the civil service, for most Revenue staff.

  Thirdly, there will be a number of important changes to the relationship between the Department's head office and the new executive offices, in accordance with "next steps" principles. These include enhancing further the delegated authority and responsibility of managers; identifying opportunities to improve efficiency through market testing and internal charging; shortening lines of accountability and management; and making changes in management and reporting arrangements, including bringing operational functions more closely together.

  Fourthly, to assist the Board of the Inland Revenue in managing the new departmental structure, a new

  321
  management board will be formed, comprising the existing board members, other senior managers, and a number of members from the private sector in a part-time capacity. These last will impart valuable management expertise, experience and advice.

  These changes represent together an important new beginning for the Inland Revenue. It will become a slimmer and more effective organisation, more interesting and satisfying to work for, providing ever better service to the public.

  Overnight Subsistence Allowances
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis standard overnight subsistence allowances are calculated for civil servants travelling abroad.

  Mr. Maples
  Overseas subsistence allowances reflect the costs of accommodation, breakfast, lunch and dinner (including service charges and taxes) plus a small element to cover extra incidental expenses. Rates are based on the cost of reasonable quality and acceptable hotels in the particular locality and reflect discounts which are negotiated for visiting officials.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the standard overnight subsistence allowance expressed in pounds sterling which is payable to a civil servant of(a) grade 5, (b) grade 3 and (c) grade 1 travelling on official business to (1) Berlin, (2) Bonn, (3) Brussels, (4) Lisbon, (5) Luxembourg, (6) Madrid, (7) Paris, (8) Rome and (9) Washington.

  Mr. Maples
  Overseas subsistence allowances are calculated in local currency and the sterling equivalent depends upon the exchange rate available at the time of an official's visit. The table gives the current rates for the grades in question, together with approximate sterling equivalents.

  Local currency

  £

  Berlin

  DM

  249

  (86)

  Bonn

  DM

  209

  (73)

  Brussels

  BFr

  6,610

  (111)

  Lisbon

  Esc

  21,600

  (87)

  Luxembourg

  BFr

  7,080

  (119)

  Madrid

  Pts

  20,100

  (1ll)

  Paris

  FFr

  996

  (102)

  Rome

  L

  242,000

  (112)

  Washington

  US$

  161

  1(92)

  Washington

  US$

  185

  2(105)

  1 Grade 5.

  2 Grades 1 and 3.

  Child Care Tax Allowance
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer in a full tax year of introducing a child care tax allowance on the first(a) £1,000, (b) £2,000 and (c) £5,000 of taxable income for (i) working single parents and (ii) couples where both spouses are working.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the cost of introducing allowances against taxable incomes of (i) working single parents and (ii) the higher earner in a two earner family for 1992–93 are as follows:
  322

  Cost (£ million)

  Allowance of

  £1,000 per year

  £2,000 per year

  £5,000 per year

  Working single parents

  60

  120

  220

  Higher earner in a two earner family with children

  900

  1,800

  4,300

  Cost of Living (European Community)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the comparative cost of living in the capital cities of the EC member states.

  Mr. Maples
  Following are the comparative costs of living in the capital cities of EC member states as of October 1991 (London = 100).

  Comparative cost of living

  Copenhagen

  111·0

  Rome

  104·1

  Paris

  101·7

  Madrid

  101·1

  Brussels

  100·8

  London

  100·0

  Dublin

  96·8

  Bonn

  95·0

  Athens

  93·2

  Luxembourg

  89·3

  The Hague

  88·7

  Lisbon

  88·4

  Source: P-E International of Egham, Surrey.

  Profit-related Pay Schemes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average income and the distribution of income of those in profit-related pay schemes, in the United Kingdom, since the schemes began.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The estimated average annual earnings of participants, including those working part-time, in registered profit-related pay schemes, in each year since schemes began are as follows. Information on the distribution of earnings is not available.

  Live registered

  Average annual earnings of participants (£)

  March 1988

  12,700

  March 1989

  12,000

  March 1990

  12,500

  March 1991

  11,500

  January 1992

  13,300

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Overnight Subsistence Allowance
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the standard overnight subsistence allowance expressed in pounds sterling which is payable to an hon. Member travelling on official business to (1) Berlin, (2) Bonn, (3) Brussels, (4) Lisbon, (5) Luxembourg, (6) Madrid, (7) Paris, (8) Rome and (9) Washington.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The standard overnight subsistence allowance payable to an hon. Member travelling on official
  323
  business is the class A rate payable to senior staff in the home civil service. The rates are fixed by Her Majesty's Treasury and are regularly reviewed; they are normally expressed in the currency of the country to which they refer. For the current rates, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce waiting lists at hospitals in the East Anglia region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Provisional figures show for January 1992 that since last March, East Anglian health authority, backed by £1·36 million from the waiting list fund, has reduced the number of patients waiting over two years by 75 per cent. and the number waiting over one year by 43 per cent. in January alone the number of patients waiting over two years fell by 51 per cent. The authority expects to have no patient waiting over two years by 31 March.

  Dentists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what survey has been undertaken by his Department in the London borough of Wandsworth of dentists who practise in the borough but who no longer provide dental treatment under the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Last September we asked family health services authorities to conduct on our behalf a sample survey of 20 per cent. of dentists on their dental lists. All the dentists on the Merton Sutton and Wandsworth dental list who took part in the survey indicated they would continue NHS treatment.

  Vitamins and Minerals
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to limit the supply of any vitamins and minerals by making them available only on prescription.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. Hague) on 27 February at column 611.

  A number of vitamin and mineral preparations are currently licensed medicines, some of which are already available only on prescription. There are a small number of essential vitamins and minerals sold as food supplements, which may have adverse effects when consumed in excess. We believe that, for these substances, safety concerns may indicate a need for limitations on the maximum freely available dose.

  A United Kingdom outline proposal for a possible EC directive notes that the relationship between supplements sold as foods and those sold as medicines, including medicines on general sale, may need to be addressed. It is not yet clear whether this will form part of any EC measure.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present number of registered drug addicts in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Home Office maintains an index of people notified by doctors as addicted to one or more of a range of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The number of new and renotified drug addicts in the Greater London area notified to the addicts index was 5,500 in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Patients, Huddersfield
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide for the Huddersfield health authority for each year since 1979(a) the numbers of in-patients trea ted and (c) the number of out-patients treated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the table. In addition, the number of day cases treated in Huddersfield district health authority over the period 1979 to 1991 increased by 26 per cent. from 1,951 to 2,459.

  NHS hospitals Huddersfield District Health Authority

  Year

  In-patient waiting list at 31 March

  In-patient cases treated

  New out-patients

  Total out-patient attendances

  1979

  3,863

  121,289

  26,859

  153,470

  1980

  2,731

  122,581

  28,143

  162,182

  1981

  2,159

  123,196

  28,510

  159,268

  1982

  2,044

  122,126

  29,204

  153,846

  1983

  2,920

  124,351

  30,866

  163,206

  1984

  2,655

  125,075

  32,578

  158,091

  1985

  2,770

  126,710

  32,268

  160,868

  1986

  2,697

  127,637

  33,122

  161,506

  1987

  2,175

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1,793

  130,869

  35,150

  152,706

  1988–89

  2,215

  128,544

  38,841

  165,550

  1988–89

  2,215

  232,364

  38,841

  165,550

  1989–90

  2,153

  230,785

  36,304

  168,607

  1990–91

  1,982

  233,704

  36,873

  171,110

  1 Hospital discharges.

  2 Finished consultant episodes.

  Crutches and Walking Frames
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost of equipment such as crutches and walking frames which are not returned to hospitals by patients; and if he will make it a requirement for those using this equipment to pay a refundable deposit before being allowed to remove it from hospital grounds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost to the NHS of unreturned equipment is not collected centrally. As with other services, it is the provider units themselves who are responsible for managing effectively the supply and control of such equipment.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average general practitioner list size in South Derbyshire district and Trent region in 1982 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 1 October 1982, the average general practitioner list size in Derbyshire family
  325
  health services authority's area was 2,289 and the figure for Trent region was 2,251. At 1 April 1991, (the latest year for which figures are available) the average list size for Derbyshire family health services authority was 2,004 and the Trent region was 1,985. Figures are not available for the South Derbyshire district alone.

  Hospital Statistics Bulletin
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he published last year's national health service hospital activity statistics bulletin;

  (2) when he received the draft of the new national health service hospital activity statistics bulletin; and when he intends to publish the bulletin.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The bulletin containing statistics of NHS hospitals activity and facilities in 1989–90 was published on 12 December 1990.

  I received the draft bulletin giving comparable figures for 1990–91 on 19 February, and intend to publish it shortly, as drafted.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were removed from waiting lists(a) by admission for treatment and (b) for reasons other than treatment in each district in each of the four Thames regional health authorities in each six month period since September 1988;

  (2) when the honourable Member for Peckham may expect a substantive reply to her question on waiting lists of 10 February.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: We do not routinely collate information on all district health authorities centrally. For the relevant information at regional level, I refer the hon. Member to

  NHS directly employed staff in post by specific staff groups as at 30 September 1986 England by regional health authorities Whole-time equivalent1

  Region

  Nursing and midwifery2

  Medical and dental3

  General managers

  Admin and clerical staff

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Northern RHA

  27,390

  2,820

  40

  6,220

  9,200

  1,400

  Yorkshire RHA

  30,290

  2,970

  30

  6,990

  9,870

  1,640

  Trent RHA

  37,120

  3,780

  50

  8,850

  12,970

  1,970

  East Anglia RHA

  15,590

  1,590

  30

  4,000

  4,490

  770

  North West Thames RHA

  28,670

  3,310

  30

  7,710

  7,790

  490

  North East Thames RHA

  34,340

  4,170

  30

  9,760

  11,060

  590

  South East Thames RHA

  30,370

  3,510

  50

  8,900

  10,110

  960

  South West Thames RHA

  24,350

  2,540

  20

  5,890

  6,410

  670

  Wessex RHA

  23,060

  2,060

  30

  5,410

  6,620

  990

  Oxford RHA

  16,950

  2,030

  20

  4,640

  4,480

  810

  South Western RHA

  26,980

  2,630

  30

  6,710

  8,060

  1,470

  West Midlands RHA

  42,520

  4,400

  60

  11,220

  13,190

  1,940

  Mersey RHA

  22,330

  2,230

  30

  5,280

  6,700

  950

  North Western RHA

  37,860

  4,040

  60

  9,510

  11,640

  1,670

  London post graduate special Health Authorities

  4,880

  1,160

  10

  1,670

  1,490

  —

  England Total4

  402,690

  43,250

  510

  110,840

  124,270

  18,970

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalent.

  2 Includes agency staff.

  3 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Differences in the sum of numbers of staff for all regions are due to duplication of staff holding appointments in more than one region. Such staff are included separately in each region.

  4 Includes staff at the Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London Ambulance Service, and Family Practitioner Committees.

  Source: Department of Health (SMI3) annual census of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.
  326
  the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 29 January at columns 599–602. In the three years to March 1991, nearly 2·1 million patients were admitted from waiting lists in the Thames regions. In the same period the names of a further 290,122 were removed for other reasons, for example, because they had already been treated, had moved, or no longer needed treatment. This is good practice in line with the Royal College of Surgeons guidelines.

  NHS Staff
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) each regional health authority and (b) each district health authority the number of (i) nurses and midwives, (ii) medical staff, (iii) general and senior managers, (iv) administrative and clerical staff, (v) ancillary staff and (vi) ambulance staff for 1986 and for 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Regional health authority data are shown in the table. District data could not be produced without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The new grades of general and senior manager were introduced following the recommendations of the 1983 Griffiths report to strengthen accountability for the delivery of health authority objectives. An expansion in numbers occurred from 1989 following the extension of senior manager arrangements beyond the most senior posts in regions and districts and their introduction to units and family practitioner committees. Staff employed in these grades generally hold posts which were previously occupied by staff in other groups such as administrative and clerical or senior nursing grades.
  327

  National Health Service directly employed staff in post by specific staff groups as at 30 September 1990 England by Regional Health Authorities

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Region

  Nursing and midwifery2

  Medical and dental3

  General and senior managers4

  Administration and clerical staff

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  27,310

  2,990

  550

  6,940

  7,330

  1,320

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  30,140

  3,120

  930

  7,870

  7,000

  1,560

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  38,220

  4,170

  600

  10,120

  10,760

  1,890

  East Anglia Regional Health Authority

  16,420

  1,810

  480

  4,070

  3,920

  790

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  27,560

  3,480

  80

  8,160

  5,460

  540

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  34,170

  4,250

  1,030

  10,450

  8,290

  550

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  30,110

  3,800

  780

  10,030

  8,020

  860

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  23,070

  2,650

  520

  6,340

  4,390

  660

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  23,690

  2,540

  610

  5,840

  5,360

  940

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  17,310

  2,180

  420

  5,150

  3,470

  800

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  27,490

  2,780

  610

  6,980

  6,370

  1,460

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  43,220

  4,800

  1,060

  11,950

  11,100

  1,850

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  21,180

  2,440

  500

  5,810

  4,690

  880

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  37,120

  4,450

  690

  10,070

  8,020

  1,580

  London Post-graduate Special Health Authorities

  4,970

  1,380

  130

  1,840

  1,080

  —

  ENGLAND TOTALS5

  402,070

  46,900

  9,680

  120,040

  95,690

  18,130

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Census of National Health Service medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalent.

  2 Includes agency staff.

  3 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Differences in the sum of numbers of staff for all regions are due to duplication of staff holding appointments in more than one region. Such staff are included separately in each region.

  4 Senior managers were progressively introduced from 1987.

  5 Includes staff at the Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London Ambulance Service, Family Practitioner Committees and other Statutory Authorities (eg. public Health Laboratory service and the Health Education Authority).

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Health in the last year for which figures are available, what was the number of patients awaiting cataract operations in England and Wales; and what percentage of them had been on the list for(a) six months, (b) a year, (c) two years and (d) more than two years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Waiting time information for specific conditions is not collected centrally. The latest information available centrally for the ophthalmology specialty as a whole in England is given in the table. This shows that fewer than 2 per cent. of patients had been waiting more than two years for ophthalmology treatment and 87 per cent. waited less than one year. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ophthalmology waiting list at March 1991

  England—All cases March 1991

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Total waiting

  95,210

  100

  0–6 months

  58,125

  61·0

  6–11 months

  24,454

  25·7

  12–24 months

  11,094

  11·7

  Over 24 months

  1,537

  1·6

  Hospital Beds, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute and (b) long-stay hospital beds York health authority had open in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: Figures relating to acute beds are given in the table. Information relating to long-stay beds is not collected
  328
  centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Pratt, the chairman of York district health authority, for details.

  National health service hospitals, York health authority

  Total number of

  Year

  Average daily number of acute available beds

  In-patients

  Day cases

  1979

  763

  27,296

  4,444

  1980

  767

  28,085

  4,658

  1981

  771

  28,330

  4,548

  1982

  750

  27,071

  3,796

  1983

  743

  29,641

  4,444

  1984

  726

  30,020

  4,469

  1985

  725

  31,646

  4,801

  1986

  716

  32,596

  5,686

  1987–88

  691

  34,062

  4,549

  1988–89

  689

  134,176

  5,523

  1988–89

  —

  238,184

  5,523

  1989–90

  673

  39,434

  5,626

  1990–91

  652

  39,530

  5,425

  1 Discharges and deaths.

  2 Finished consultant episodes.

  Notes:

  In-patients 1979 to 1988–89 discharges and deaths.

  In-patients 1988–89 to 1990–91 finished consultant episodes. 1990–91 figures provisional.

  Between 1979 and 1990–91 in York health authority the numbers of in-patient cases treated in the acute sector increased from 19,460 hospital discharges to 26,726 finished consultant episodes, an increase of 31 per cent. on a comparable basis, and for all sectors increased by 30 per cent. from 27,296 hospital discharges to 39,530 finished consultant episodes.

SCOTLAND

  House Completions
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses were completed in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of new houses completed in Scotland for each year since 1978 is set out in the following table.

  New dwellings completed in Scotland

  Year

  Total

  1978

  25,759

  1979

  23,782

  1980

  20,611

  1981

  20,015

  1982

  16,423

  1983

  17,931

  1984

  18,838

  1985

  18,411

  1986

  18,637

  1987

  17,711

  1988

  18,272

  1989

  20,172

  11990

  19,906

  1 Figures include estimates.

  Housing
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by district council the number of council houses sold since October 1980; if he will also show this as a percentage of total stock at the start of that period; and if he will show the number of new build houses in that period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information by district council on the number of council houses sold since October 1980, expressed as a percentage of the total local authority stock, is set out in the following table.

  Information on new building within each district is regularly published in the statistical bulletin—"Housing Trends in Scotland", available in the Library. The latest information is in table 5 of the bulletin HSG/1991/7.

  Number of dwellings sold' by local authorities
  October 1980 to 30 June 1991

  Local Authority District

  Total sales

  Percentage of stock2

  Total, all local Authorities

  171,858

  19·2

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  725

  25·4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,290

  25·9

  Roxburgh

  1,337

  21 3

  Tweeddale

  394

  24·2

  Central

  Clackmannan

  1,952

  20·4

  Falkirk

  6,996

  20·8

  Stirling

  2,891

  22·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,429

  27·9

  Nithsdale

  2,305

  26·5

  Stewartry

  782

  30·1

  Wigtown,

  1,163

  24·3

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  6,170

  26·5

  Kirkcaldy

  6,323

  24·0

  330

  Local Authority District

  Total sales

  Percentage of stock2

  North East Fife

  2,844

  35·2

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  5,787

  14·9

  Bun IT and Buchan

  3,053

  23·9

  Gordon

  1,633

  26·7

  Kincardine and Deeside

  83·1

  22·7

  Moray

  3,001

  27·3

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  400

  36·7

  Caithness

  888

  20·6

  Inverness

  1,650

  23·1

  Lochaber

  935

  26·8

  Nairn

  269

  24·3

  Ross and Cromarty

  997

  15·8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  200

  27·4

  Sutherland

  310

  17·9

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  4,294

  26·4

  Edinburgh

  14,744

  26·2

  Midlothian

  3,686

  27·9

  West Lothian

  3,956

  17·9

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  1,516

  18·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  532

  29·2

  Clydebank

  2,428

  20·5

  Clydesdale

  1,510

  15·5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  884

  20·1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,471

  14·2

  Cunninghame

  4,247

  18·6

  Dumbarton

  1,883

  14·3

  East Kilbride

  497

  30·6

  Eastwood

  545

  27·3

  Glasgow

  23,274

  13·4

  Hamilton

  4,515

  19·6

  Inverclyde

  2,478

  12 5

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2,948

  16·1

  Kyle and Carrick

  4,662

  25·5

  Monklands

  4,088

  14·3

  Motherwell

  4,938

  12·4

  Renfrew

  7,522

  19·0

  Strathkelvin

  2,642

  23·9

  Tayside

  Angus

  3,243

  22·2

  Dundee

  6,977

  17·4

  Perth and Kinross

  4,395

  26·8

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  425

  28·1

  Shetland Islands

  417

  16·7

  Western Isles

  586

  23·7

  1 All sales of dwellings by local authorities.

  2 Stock of local authority dwellings as at 30 September 1980.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 478, on the treatment of candidiasis and myalgic encephalomyelitis, what is the annual cost of treatment by each health board after such patients are referred by general practitioners.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As stated in my previous answer of 25 February, at column 487, costs for the treatment of these conditions cannot be identified separately.

  Scottish Office Superannuation Division
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce his decisions on the recent report by management consultants on the Scottish Office superannuation division.

  Mr. Lang
  The consultants made a number of recommendations about the future status, organisation and management of the Scottish Office superannuation division. One of these was that the division should be designated as an executive agency within the Scottish Office under the Government's "next steps" programme. I have now decided that that recommendation should be accepted, with a view to launching the new agency by the autumn of this year. I shall announce a firm date in due course. Other recommendations from the review are at various stages of consideration and implementation.

  NHS
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish gross domestic product was spent on the national health service in each of the last 25 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on a consistent basis is readily available only for the financial years 1974–75 to 1989–90 and is set out in the following table:

  NHS expenditure as percentage of GDP

  1974–75

  6·4

  1975–76

  6·8

  1976–77

  6·6

  1977–78

  6·6

  1978–79

  6·8

  1979–80

  7·1

  1980–81

  7·9

  1981–82

  8·2

  1982–83

  8·1

  1983–84

  8·0

  1984–85

  8·1

  1985–86

  7·9

  1986–87

  7·7

  1987–88

  7·7

  1988–89

  7·8

  1989–90

  7·8

  Planned gross expenditure on the national health service in Scotland for 1992–93 is £3,725 million. This represents a real terms increase in expenditure on the NHS in Scotland of 44 per cent. since 1979–80.

DEFENCE

  Royal Fleet Reserve
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for replacement of missing or inadequate items of home retention scale of kit, as presented by Royal Fleet reservists, consequent on the abolition of the annual reporting bounty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  When the annual reporting grant was withdrawn with effect from 1 November 1991, kit replacement was suspended. In the event of call up any replacement kit will be issued to reservists at their mobilisation centres.
  332
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he introduced the system of annual reporting for(a) Royal Fleet reservists and (b) army reservists; what bounty has been payable in each case, and for how long; and what is the purpose of (i) annual reporting and (ii) the bounty payable.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Annual reporting was introduced for Royal Fleet reservists in 1986 and for Army reservists in 1981. Since 1986, those reservists serving in their first year of the Royal Fleet Reserve (Special Category) received a payment of £100 before tax for attending the Reservist reporting unit. Those serving in the second and third year of the Royal Fleet Reserve (Ordinary Category) received a payment of £80 before tax. Since 1981 all Army reservists who took part in the annual reporting exercise (ARCEX) received a payment of £100 before tax although ARCEX is currently suspended. The purpose of annual reporting is to ensure that health, kit and personal details of each reservist could be properly checked and updated so that reservists can be mobilised quickly and effectively when required. The purpose of the payment of the annual reporting grant was to (i) compensate those reservists who(a) had to take time off work without pay to report and (b) needed to purchase replacement kit; and (ii) provide an incentive for reservists to report to ensure that the purpose of annual reporting described above was achieved.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Royal Fleet reservists attended their annual reporting centre in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what proportion of annual reporting bounties payable have been withheld to cover the cost of replacement kit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proportion of Royal Fleet reservists who reported to the reservist reporting unit in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Percent

  1987

  85·2

  1988

  85·5

  1989

  83·2

  1990

  85·3

  1991

  80·5

  Approximately 1 per cent. of the annual reporting grant was withheld to cover kit replacement costs, over the last five years.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and for what reason he decided to cease payment of the annual reporting credit to Royal Fleet reservists; what was the total of Royal Fleet reserve annual reporting grant in the last year for which figures are available; and what effect he expects it to have on attendance of Royal Fleet reservists at annual reporting centres.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The annual reporting grant was withdrawn with effect from 1 November 1991. The total of the annual reporting grant paid out to the Royal Fleet Reserve in financial year 1990–91 was £474,804·58 after tax and after abatements for replacement items of kit. Since the annual reporting grant was withdrawn attendance of Royal Fleet reservists reporting to the reservist reporting unit has fallen.

  Defence Establishments, Germany
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all United Kingdom-owned defence establishments in Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Generally, facilities for visiting forces in Germany have been provided by the host nation. Exceptionally, buildings were purchased by the Ministry of Defence from the private sector to meet the accommodation requirements at the following establishments:

  Vehicle Workshops, Redcar Barracks Bielefeld.

  Material and Medical Depot, Bielefeld.

  United Nations Peace-keeping Operations
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel have been killed or wounded in action while participating in United Nations peace-keeping operations in each year since 1961; what memorials exist to commemorate those British service personnel who have served with the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Redundancies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 675, if he will list the public announcements of redundancies referred to in the answer, giving the date, the name of the company involved and the number of redundancies announced.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The announcements referred to are those made by the companies concerned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kenya
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold talks with the high commissioner for Kenya on the detention of Dr. Josephat Karanja and others.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Dr. Josephat Karanja is one of a number of Kenyan citizens arrested for alleged participation in a press conference held on 10 January at which President Moi was accused of planning an imminent military coup.

  Dr. Karanja has been charged with publishing false rumours under section 66 of the Kenyan penal code and has been released on bail. There are no grounds for raising the case with the Kenyan authorities.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings of the Council of Ministers there have been since the beginning of 1990; and if he will list the Ministers who attended each of these meetings.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There have been 177 meetings of the Council of Ministers since 1 January 1990. The United Kingdom is represented in the Council by the Secretary or Minister of State responsible for the subject matter under discussion.

  Brussels (Secondees)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were seconded to the United Kingdom's permanent representation to the European Community in Brussels in 1990 and 1991; and if he will break these figures down by Department of origin.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In 1990 and 1991 there were 22 seconded staff in addition to the 18 diplomatic service staff at the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Community, as follows:

  Department

  1990

  1991

  DTI

  7

  7

  MAFF

  4

  4

  Treasury

  2

  2

  Employment

  1

  1

  Environment

  1

  0

  Customs and Excise

  2

  2

  Agriculture (Northern Ireland)

  0

  1

  Scottish office

  1

  1

  Transport

  1

  1

  ODA

  1

  1

  NIO

  1

  1

  Bank of England

  1

  1

  22

  22

  From the end of 1991 there have been additional temporary secondments in preparation for the United Kingdom presidency in July to December 1992.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 2 March.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Trade and the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 March.

  The Commission Vice-President, Mr. Andriessen, reported to the Council on his recent visit to several states of the former Soviet Union. The Council agreed that the Commission should continue its exploratory talks on enhanced trade and co-operation agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. It also agreed that the role of the EC task force monitoring the distribution of EC food aid should be expanded and the the EC should participate in the proposed international science and technology centre for retraining and redeploying nuclear scientists from the former Soviet Union.

  Ministers agreed on the need for an early conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round and invited all participants to speed up negotiations.

  President Delors presented the Commission's future financing proposals for 1993 to 1997. Member states gave their initial reactions. I questioned the Commission's proposals to increase the ceiling on our own resources and on agricultural spending, drawing attention to the extra funds that would in any case be available between now and 1997 within the existing limits on the Community's own resources.

  The Council reviewed the negotiations on a European economic area in the light of the Commission's request to

  335
  the European Court of Justice for a second opinion on the revised draft agreement. The Council expressed the hope that the court's opinion would be made available as soon as possible.

  Ministers discussed EC relations with Morocco and invited the Commission to make proposals on economic and technical co-operation and the Political Committee to examine ways of strengthening political dialogue.

  Ministers issued a statement condemning the recent violence in Sarajevo following the referendum on the future status of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They agreed that the Commission should begin exploratory talks with Slovenia on a trade and co-operation agreement.

  The fifth meeting of the EC/Tunisia Co-operation Council was held in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council.

TRANSPORT

  Roads
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the High Court challenges to road schemes that have been heard in each of the past five years, with the date when the motion was served in each case, and the date on which the action lapsed or was determined;

  (2) what is the average, greatest and lowest number of sitting days in the High Court taken by challenges to the Secretary of State for Transport on road schemes in the past five years.

  Mr. Chope
  We do not hold such information. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he gives to local authorities about the maintenance of retaining walls of roads under their control.

  Mr. Chope
  Retaining walls are included within the scope of the Department's procedures for the inspection and maintenance of structures on motorways and other trunk roads. Local authorities are encouraged to adopt these procedures in maintaining retaining walls on their own roads.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the proposals for United Kingdom legislation: relevant to EC directive 89/684 EEC and the content of the necessary training courses needed to meet the requirements of the directive to be finalised by the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I expect to receive recommendations for regulations from the Health and Safety Commission shortly. Requirements for course content were notified to interested parties on 20 February. Further copies are available from the Health and Safety Executive.

  Railway Investment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what British Rail investment plans for new trains and rolling stock Her Majesty's Government 336
  (a) have authorised and which are awaiting completion and (b) are currently considering; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail projects for new train and rolling stock builds, authorised by the Government and yet to be fully completed, are as follows:

  Class

  Number authorised

  Diesel multiple unit vehicles:

  158 (tranches 2 and 3)

  200

  159/165

  69

  165

  180

  165/6

  59

  Electric multiple unit vehicles:

  4651

  588

  466

  86

  Diesel locomotives:

  60

  100

  Electric locomotives:

  92

  37

  High speed train sets:

  Channel Tunnel Services

  21

  Loco-haul coaches:

  Mark IV for ECML

  31

  CT Night Services2

  139

  1 188 have not yet been ordered by British Rail.

  2 This is total order—BR's share is likely to be some 85 coaches.

  The only investment scheme currently under consideration by the Department is for 550 car-carrying wagons for Channel tunnel freight services.

  Rail Modernisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much state aid there will be on track and train modernisation on the west coast main line to Glasgow.

  Mr. Freeman
  We would expect British Rail's proposals for the moderation of the west coast main line to Glasgow to earn an 8 per cent. return. They should not. therefore, require subsidy.

  Car Engine Capacity
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cubic capacity of engines of cars registered in the last year for which figures are available, for(a) United Kingdom-produced cars and (b) imported cars.

  Mr. Chope
  The information, as requested, is not available.

  However, the distribution of cars first registered in Great Britain in 1991 by engine size is as follows:

  Cars first registered in 1991

  Cubic capacity

  Great Britain produced thousands

  Imported thousands

  up to 1000

  32

  71

  1001 – 1200

  106

  61

  1201 – 1300

  65

  74

  1301 – 1400

  153

  94

  1401 – 1500

  1

  21

  1501 – 1600

  191

  106

  1601 – 1800

  53

  173

  337

  Cubic capacity

  Great Britain produced thousands

  Imported thousands

  1801–2000

  95

  199

  2001–2200

  0

  4

  2201–2500

  11

  31

  2501–3000

  4

  31

  over 3000

  14

  9

  Total

  726

  874

  Average c.c.

  1492

  1606

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of children he estimates travel in cars without wearing seat belts as required by law.

  Mr. Chope
  Children under 14 travelling in rear seats are required to use a seat belt or a child restraint appropriate to their age and weight only where one is fitted and available to be used. The latest survey of wearing rates, conducted by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in October 1991, found that 12 per cent. of children were unrestrained in post-1987 cars—those fitted with seat belts at manufacture.

  All front seat passengers are required to be restrained. The wearing rates for children and adults are very similar. Only 5 per cent. of children travel unrestrained.

  Nuclear Transport Ships
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what notification his Department has received from Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. over the intended transfer of the Pacific Crane nuclear transport ship to sail under the Japanese flag.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Any shipping company transferring a ship from United Kingdom registry is obliged to notify the registrar of the ship's home port. No such notification has been received.

  Adviser

  Purpose of employment

  Period

  Mr. D. Walker

  Department's adviser on market testing

  February to March 1992

  Mr. P. Davies

  Department's purchasing adviser

  1987 to 1992

  Samuel Montagu

  Advice on privatisation of British Rail

  November 1988 to date

  Price Waterhouse

  Appointed to advise Secretary of State on the privatisation of the National Bus Company

  1985 to date

  Mr. A. Thorning

  Seconded from the Civil Aviation Authority to advise Ministers and the Department on civil aviation safety matters and a range of related technical issues

  1 April 1992 to 31 December 1993

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Advice on various technical issues concerning aircraft noise and missions

  Ongoing

  Warren Springs Laboratory (DTI)

  Advice on technical issues concerning aircraft emissions

  Ongoing

  Defence Research Agency (MOD)

  Advice on technical issues concerning aircraft noise and emissions

  Ongoing

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on privatisation of Trust Ports

  July 1991 to date

  British Rail
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman or representatives of the board of British Rail on the future of British Rail; what issues were discussed; what future meetings are scheduled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the future of BR. We shall publish our proposals as soon as we are ready.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the future of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. friend regularly meets the chairman of British Rail to discuss a range of issues. We shall publish proposals for the future of BR as soon as we are ready.

  Advisors
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the main advisers employed by his Department, the purpose for which they have been recruited and the period for which they have been employed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In common with my predecessors, I have a political adviser who is employed by the Department on terms approved by the Treasury. My present political adviser, Mr. P. Miller, was appointed on 2 January 1991.

  The following list shows the other main advisers currently or recently employed by my Department. A wider range of advice is also acquired as and when needed through a number of consultancy contracts. The devolved nature of the Department means there is no central record of consultancies, and that information could only be assembled within the timescale at disproportionate cost.

  ScotRail
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the future of ScotRail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations about ScotRail's services.

  Bus Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve safety in England and Wales for school pupils transported by bus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Draft regulations are being finalised which will require all buses in Great Britain, when carrying children to or from school, to display a distinctive sign. This will indicate to other road users that children are present and may be crossing the road in the vicinity of these vehicles. These proposals will also permit the use of hazard warning lights, in conjunction with the signs, when children are boarding or alighting.

  We intend to put these regulations before Parliament shortly.

  London Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in tabular form(a) London Transport's fixed asset investment for each year since 1962, at current prices and (b) the total grant, the total capital grant, and the total revenue support grant paid to London Transport in each year since 1962, at current prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following table shows London Transport's investment and grant from 1974 until 1991–92. Information is not available in the form requested prior to 1974.

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  All crimes

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,583

  1990

  1,275

  1,280

  1,383

  1,177

  1,225

  1,467

  1,543

  1,314

  1,291

  1,298

  1,286

  1,106

  15,645

  1991

  1,397

  1,112

  1,513

  1,340

  1,511

  1,355

  1,436

  1,268

  1,120

  1,073

  1,126

  1,041

  15,292

  Assaults on staff

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  14

  20

  12

  6

  10

  6

  11

  12

  13

  1104

  1990

  12

  13

  11

  10

  9

  12

  9

  14

  8

  21

  9

  12

  140

  1991

  13

  8

  12

  9

  14

  7

  17

  11

  13

  9

  15

  10

  138

  Assaults on passengers

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  49

  51

  55

  52

  48

  39

  56

  58

  77

  1485

  1990

  54

  64

  67

  43

  34

  39

  55

  35

  48

  47

  36

  47

  569

  1991

  31

  44

  46

  37

  46

  34

  32

  39

  45

  43

  43

  34

  474

  Indecent assaults

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  31

  39

  28

  23

  26

  22

  15

  21

  14

  1219

  1990

  21

  23

  30

  21

  31

  32

  23

  23

  15

  18

  21

  17

  275

  1991

  18

  13

  14

  14

  17

  25

  30

  19

  18

  22

  16

  8

  214

  Rape

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  14

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1991

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Robberies

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  58

  60

  53

  59

  78

  58

  73

  52

  41

  1532

  1990

  54

  46

  58

  50

  50

  67

  48

  37

  44

  48

  37

  48

  587

  1991

  75

  38

  56

  50

  46

  45

  45

  43

  56

  31

  48

  30

  563

  1 April to December.

  340

  London Transport investment and grant

  £ million (1990–91 prices)

  Investment

  Grant

  Revenue

  Capital

  Total

  1974

  218

  112

  212

  324

  1975

  209

  348

  196

  544

  1976

  241

  282

  233

  515

  1977

  181

  178

  135

  313

  1978

  168

  129

  163

  292

  1979

  224

  113

  216

  329

  1980

  231

  166

  209

  375

  1981

  249

  135

  222

  357

  1982

  199

  286

  194

  480

  1983

  250

  257

  241

  498

  11984–85

  244

  208

  147

  355

  1985–86

  280

  166

  262

  428

  1986–87

  308

  85

  293

  378

  1987–88

  356

  56

  234

  290

  1988–89

  344

  44

  192

  236

  1989–90

  473

  51

  255

  306

  1990–91

  634

  84

  451

  535

  21991–92

  559

  114

  503

  617

  115 month period.

  1Forecast Outturn.

  London Underground Crimes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the total number of(a) crimes, (b) assaults on staff, (c) assaults on passengers, (d) indecent assaults, (e) rapes and (f) violent robberies which have occurred on London Underground, (i) in each month since April 1989 and (ii) in each year since 1971.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from London Underground that the information is as follows:
  341

  Year

  All crimes

  Assaults on staff

  Assaults on passengers

  Indecent assaults

  Rape

  Robberies

  1971

  4,918

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1972

  7.766

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1973

  8,163

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1974

  11,410

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1975

  10,557

  —

  1383

  78

  —

  144

  1976

  10,189

  —

  1254

  60

  —

  118

  1977

  11,692

  —

  1335

  56

  —

  173

  1978

  12,342

  —

  1373

  67

  —

  207

  1979

  16,562

  —

  1578

  65

  —

  222

  1980

  16,150

  —

  1519

  71

  —

  307

  1981

  18,614

  —

  1480

  105

  —

  402

  1982

  14,937

  —

  1535

  115

  —

  453

  1983

  15,073

  —

  1599

  101

  —

  361

  1984

  15,552

  —

  1747

  87

  —

  606

  1985

  15,979

  —

  1837

  87

  —

  694

  1986

  16,217

  —

  11,014

  160

  —

  685

  1987

  19,136

  —

  11,045

  182

  —

  883

  1988

  16,387

  —

  11,165

  194

  —

  1,128

  1989

  15,583

  135

  673

  300

  4

  476

  1990

  15,645

  140

  569

  275

  2

  587

  1991

  15,292

  138

  474

  214

  3

  563

  1 Reported as violence against the person.

  n/a = Not avaiable.

  The statistics for assaults on passengers between 1975 and 1988 also include assaults on staff. The same situation applies to indecent assaults and rapes. The statistics for robberies cover instances where only threats were used as well as cases of violence.

  Footway Parking
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to amend the Road Traffic Act 1974 to enable local authorities to designate areas in which footway parking can be prohibited.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The provision in the Road Traffic Act 1974 was repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991. We are committed to seeking effective alternative powers to enable local authorities to deal with the problem of parking on footways when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Meanwhile, general parking restrictions and in some cases local Act provisions, can offer a remedy. The use of high kerbs and other road engineering measures such as bollards can also prove a highly effective deterrent to footway parking, provided proper provision is made for the needs of pedestrians with disabilities.

  A6 (M) Bypass, Stockport
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet a deputation from the Stockport metropolitan borough council in connection with the proposed Stockport north-south A6 (M) bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: We are considering a request from Stockport MBC for a meeting and will be contacting the council shortly.

  Badgers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions are being made by his Department for the construction of badger crossings.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: I have been asked to reply.
  342
  The provision of badger crossings on trunk roads in England is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Our aim, where possible, is to design trunk roads to avoid interfering with badgers. Where setts or runs may be affected advice is obtained from English Nature and local badger groups about steps to be taken to move badgers or maintain their runs. Badger-proof fencing alongside the road and badger culverts under the carriageway are provided where appropriate.

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for the provision of badger crossings on roads for which they are the highway authority. For local roads, responsibility lies with the relevant local highway authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out by local authority, at 1991–92 prices(a) the transport supplementary grant and (h) the total capital allocation for each year from 1987–88 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: The information requested is not available at a fixed price base but is as attached with the price level appropriate to each year.

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations London Boroughs—1987–88

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  City of London

  0·479

  1·320

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·800

  2·590

  Barnet

  0·475

  1·340

  Bexley

  0·451

  1·835

  Brent

  0·311

  1·120

  Bromley

  0·429

  1·710

  Camden

  0·107

  1·430

  Croydon

  0·202

  1·180

  Ealing

  1·911

  5·145

  Enfield

  7·413

  1·6325

  Greenwich

  1·980

  5·160

  Hackney

  0·200

  1·675

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·118

  0·360

  343

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Haringey

  1·478

  3·400

  Harrow

  1·609

  4·130

  Havering

  1·284

  3·510

  Hillingdon

  2·421

  7·300

  Hounslow

  0·623

  1·960

  Islington

  0·103

  0·800

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·261

  0·710

  Kingston upon Thames

  4·737

  9·770

  Lambeth

  0·288

  1·140

  Lewisham

  0·299

  1·840

  Merton

  2·719

  7·780

  Newham

  1·164

  3·510

  Redbridge

  1·048

  2·800

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·205

  0·920

  Southwark

  0·734

  2·970

  Sutton

  0·843

  2·180

  Tower Hamlets

  0·169

  0·970

  Waltham Forest

  1·091

  2·670

  Wandsworth

  2·442

  6·880

  Westminster

  0·383

  2·360

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations Metropolitan districts—1987–88

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Bolton

  2·050

  4·600

  Bury

  0·332

  1·140

  Manchester

  2·275

  6·600

  Oldham

  0·270

  1·360

  Rochdale

  0·250

  1·010

  Salford

  3·301

  6·880

  Stockport

  0·284

  1·240

  Tameside

  0·247

  0·900

  Trafford

  1·446

  3·492

  Wigan

  1·650

  3·710

  Knowsley

  0·143

  0·630

  Liverpool

  2·267

  6·190

  St· Helens

  0·150

  0·630

  Sefton

  0·207

  1·060

  Wirral

  0·377

  1·300

  Barnsley

  0·473

  1·990

  Doncaster

  0·226

  1·310

  Rotherham

  0·167

  1·290

  Sheffield

  2·105

  6·020

  Gateshead

  0·800

  2·440

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1·715

  5·720

  North Tyneside

  0·421

  1·390

  South Tyneside

  0·970

  2·440

  Sunderland

  1·100

  2·750

  Birmingham

  3·913

  10·980

  Coventry

  1·626

  4·100

  Dudley

  0·644

  2·600

  Sandwell

  0·595

  2·440

  Solihull

  0·275

  0·990

  Walsall

  1·370

  3·940

  Wolverhampton

  2·844

  6·790

  Bradford

  4·579

  1·0150

  Calderdale

  0·120

  0·840

  Kirklees

  0·773

  2·480

  Leeds

  0·553

  2·770

  Wakefield

  0·180

  1·000

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations Metropolitan districts—1987–88

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Avon

  1·973

  6·550

  Bedfordshire

  2·616

  6·660

  Berkshire

  3·102

  9·110

  Buckinghamshire

  2·035

  4·610

  344

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Cambridgeshire

  4·474

  10·030

  Cheshire

  1·905

  5·800

  Cleveland

  2·211

  7·080

  Cornwall

  1·488

  5·500

  Cumbria

  0·775

  3·080

  Derbyshire

  0·748

  5·600

  Devon

  3·185

  9·502

  Dorset

  5·377

  13·990

  Durham

  2·409

  6·420

  East Sussex

  0·964

  5·290

  Essex

  8·050

  19·780

  Gloucestershire

  0·942

  2·600

  Hampshire

  4·248

  13·650

  Herefore and Worcester

  1·690

  5·680

  Hertfordshire

  1·800

  8·800

  Humberside

  1·967

  7·360

  Isle of Wight

  0·883

  2·130

  Kent

  5·813

  18·640

  Lancashire

  6·375

  16·510

  Leicestershire

  4·425

  11·150

  Lincolnshire

  1·750

  4·80

  Norfolk

  2·155

  5·130

  Northamptonshire

  4·357

  12·660

  Northumberland

  1·075

  2·970

  North Yorkshire

  3·552

  8·870

  Nottinghamshire

  1·850

  5·700

  Oxfordshire

  0·801

  4·890

  Shropshire

  1·294

  4·290

  Somerset

  1·287

  3·580

  Staffordshire

  3·015

  10·000

  Suffolk

  0·899

  5·010

  Surrey

  3·058

  8·260

  Warwickshire

  1·459

  4·300

  West Sussex

  3·089

  7·200

  Wiltshire

  1·429

  4·100

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations London boroughs—1988–89

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  City of London

  0·183

  0·720

  Barking and Dagenham

  2·836

  6·210

  Barnet

  0·400

  1·110

  Bexley

  0·649

  2·870

  Brent

  0·436

  1·370

  Bromley

  3·883

  8·S80

  Camden

  0·131

  0·710

  Croydon

  0·234

  0·800

  Ealing

  1·938

  6·820

  Enfield

  11·255

  15·550

  Greenwich

  0·816

  3·460

  Hackney

  0·427

  1·910

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·065

  0·285

  Haringey

  3·662

  8·475

  Harrow

  3·578

  9·690

  Havering

  0·320

  1·330

  Hillingdon

  1·957

  10·710

  Hounsiow

  0·758

  1·050

  Islington

  0·072

  0·480

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·069

  1·170

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·331

  5·690

  Lambeth

  0·247

  0·850

  Lewisham

  0·970

  2·530

  Merton

  2·529

  6·850

  Newham

  0·343

  2·850

  Redbridge

  0·403

  1·980

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·186

  0·850

  Southwark

  0·997

  4·470

  Sutton

  0·778

  2·830

  Tower Hamlets

  0·068

  0·740

  Waltham Forest

  0·494

  1·870

  Wandsworth

  0·554

  2·800

  Westminster

  0·210

  1·840

  345

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations Metropolitan Districts—1988–89

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Bolton

  1·343

  4·150

  Bury

  1·010

  2·330

  Manchester

  3·145

  8·135

  Oldham

  1·120

  5·540

  Rochdale

  0·285

  1·550

  Salford

  3·846

  8·790

  Stockport

  0·180

  1·270

  Tameside

  0·310

  1·220

  Trafford

  0·642

  2·130

  Wigan

  2·315

  4·810

  Knowsley

  0·242

  1·210

  Liverpool

  1·235

  3·740

  St. Helens

  0·635

  1·780

  Sefton

  0·171

  1·910

  Wirral

  1·230

  2·930

  Barnsley

  0·400

  2·040

  Doncaster

  0·471

  2·110

  Rotherham

  0·223

  1·340

  Sheffield

  0·380

  3·080

  Gateshead

  1·995

  4·450

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2·285

  5·630

  North Tyneside

  0·380

  1·080

  South Tyneside

  0·360

  1·870

  Sunderland

  1·577

  4·000

  Birmingham

  3·903

  10·670

  Coventry

  1·942

  4·710

  Dudley

  0·692

  3·155

  Sandwell

  0·917

  2·340

  Solihull

  0·510

  1·320

  Walsall

  1·578

  5·300

  Wolverhampton

  3·461

  8·130

  Bradford

  1·686

  4·630

  Calderdale

  0·210

  1·560

  Kirklees

  1·319

  3·880

  Leeds

  1·523

  4·840

  Wakefield

  0·263

  2·110

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations Countries—1988–89

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Avon

  4·306

  10·600

  Bedfordshire

  3·249

  7·110

  Berkshire

  2·688

  10·540

  Buckinghamshire

  0·707

  2·890

  Cambridgeshire

  2·255

  7·220

  Cheshire

  1·364

  4·830

  Cleveland

  3·162

  9·320

  Cornwall

  2·270

  7·320

  Cumbria

  1·400

  3·720

  Derbyshire

  0·683

  5·960

  Devon

  3·501

  11·280

  Dorset

  4·320

  10·690

  Durham

  1·938

  4·800

  East Sussex

  2·121

  7·180

  Essex

  8·730

  19·320

  Gloucestershire

  1·077

  4·720

  Hampshire

  4·115

  11·620

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·976

  4·740

  Hertfordshire

  3·095

  8·860

  Humberside

  4·518

  12·479

  Isle of Wight

  0·727

  2·060

  Kent

  9·255

  21·441

  Lancashire

  4·683

  16·320

  Leicestershire

  4·945

  14·460

  Lincolnshire

  1·139

  3·830

  Norfolk

  2·150

  5·500

  Northamptonshire

  3·235

  1·1180

  Northumberland

  0·544

  1·940

  North Yorkshire

  1·925

  6·440

  Nottinghamshire

  2·037

  5·850

  346

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Oxfordshire

  0·713

  4·920

  Shropshire

  1·750

  5·810

  Somerset

  3·211

  9·370

  Staffordshire

  2·822

  8·670

  Suffolk

  1·753

  4·940

  Surrey

  2·236

  7·998

  Warwickshire

  1·746

  4·470

  West Sussex

  2·730

  7·460

  Wiltshire

  0·361

  2·770

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations London Boroughs—1988–89

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  City of London

  0·194

  0·630

  Barking and Dagenham

  1·895

  4·580

  Barnet

  0·291

  0·790

  Bexley

  1·118

  2·780

  Brent

  0·450

  1·190

  Bromley

  3·833

  8·580

  Camden

  0·086

  0·810

  Croydon

  0·294

  1·110

  Ealing

  2·820

  6·450

  Enfield

  11·958

  24·120

  Greenwich

  0·023

  2·590

  Hackney

  0·410

  1·550

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·142

  0·410

  Haringey

  5·812

  11·592

  Harrow

  3·050

  8·980

  Havering

  0·207

  0·960

  Hillingdon

  4·530

  3·262

  Hounslow

  0·714

  1·630

  Islington

  0·148

  0·530

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·633

  1·570

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·661

  4·120

  Lambeth

  0·182

  0·610

  Lewisham

  5·314

  5·955

  Merton

  4·280

  9·400

  Newham

  0·497

  3·620

  Redbridge

  0·339

  0·900

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·163

  0·610

  Southwark

  1·952

  5·610

  Sutton

  0·682

  2·930

  Tower Hamlets

  0·070

  1·020

  Waltham Forest

  0·476

  1·500

  Wandsworth

  0·433

  3·940

  Westminster

  0·750

  2·270

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations Metropolitan districts—1989–90

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Bolton

  0·043

  2·020

  Bury

  1·698

  3·620

  Manchester

  1·328

  4·985

  Oldham

  1·097

  2·700

  Rochdale

  0·263

  1·160

  Salford

  2·791

  4·900

  Stockport

  0·018

  0·600

  Tameside

  0·566

  1·775

  Trafford

  1·765

  4·240

  Wigan

  0·998

  3·210

  Knowsley

  0·273

  0·750

  Liverpool

  1·762

  4·420

  St. Helens

  2·304

  4·700

  Sefton

  0·327

  1·020

  Wirral

  0·709

  2·610

  Barnsley

  0·545

  1·730

  Doncaster

  0·661

  1·900

  Rotherham

  0·688

  2·020

  Sheffield

  0·585

  2·330

  347

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Gateshead

  2·050

  4·760

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2·763

  6·258

  North Tyneside

  0·310

  0·830

  South Tyneside

  0·215

  1·290

  Sunderland

  0·965

  2·740

  Birmingham

  3·954

  11·700

  Coventry

  3·053

  6·500

  Dudley

  0·368

  1·905

  Sandwell

  0·943

  2·550

  Solihull

  0·526

  1·270

  Walsall

  1·072

  2·352

  Wolverhampton

  1·548

  4·300

  Bradford

  2·928

  6·240

  Calderdale

  0·084

  1·670

  Kirklees

  0·500

  1·840

  Leeds

  1·541

  4·300

  Wakefield

  0·308

  1·300

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations Counties—19,1989–90

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Avon

  4·196

  10·140

  Bedfordshire

  4·103

  9·050

  Berkshire

  1·195

  4·880

  Buckinghamshire

  1·229

  2·730

  Cambridgeshire

  2·298

  5·710

  Cheshire

  2·776

  6·310

  Cleveland

  4·492

  9·720

  Cornwall

  1·743

  4·390

  Cumbria

  0·640

  2·005

  Derbyshire

  1·515

  4·730

  Devon

  1·743

  4·900

  Dorset

  3·102

  7·540

  Durham

  1·915

  4·640

  East Sussex

  2·482

  6·720

  Essex

  5·074

  15·469

  Gloucestershire

  1·563

  4·180

  Hampshire

  4·832

  9·800

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·346

  2·300

  Hertfordshire

  3·050

  7·950

  Humberside

  5·221

  11·920

  Isle of Wight

  0·525

  1·470

  Kent

  11·256

  23·920

  Lancashire

  6·035

  12·820

  Leicestershire

  3·971

  9·440

  Lincolnshire

  1·189

  3·030

  Norfolk

  1·416

  4·160

  Northamptonshire

  4·125

  9·340

  Northumberland

  0·363

  2·380

  North Yorkshire

  2·653

  7·330

  Nottinghamshire

  2·054

  5·830

  Oxfordshire

  0·023

  3·560

  Shropshire

  1·679

  4·050

  Somerset

  3·785

  8·680

  Staffordshire

  2·992

  7·910

  Suffolk

  1·935

  4·350

  Surrey

  4·684

  11·400

  Warwickshire

  3·209

  7·422

  West Sussex

  1·526

  3·300

  Wiltshire

  0·109

  1·430

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations London Boroughs—1990–91

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  City of London

  0·101

  0·461

  Barking and Dagenham

  1·748

  3·622

  Barnet

  0·161

  0·571

  Bexley

  2·134

  2·869

  Brent

  0·007

  0·736

  348

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Bromley

  3·834

  4·328

  Camden

  0·189

  1·095

  Croydon

  0·888

  1·890

  Ealing

  2·429

  4·913

  Enfield

  4·881

  6·909

  Greenwich

  0·019

  1·149

  Hackney

  0·186

  0·791

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·148

  1·303

  Haringey

  2·721

  3·441

  Harrow

  3·214

  5·668

  Havering

  0·215

  0·568

  Hillingdon

  2·742

  7·214

  Hounslow

  0·279

  0·819

  Islington

  0·168

  0·549

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·285

  0·694

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·566

  1·881

  Lambeth

  0·154

  0·280

  Lewisham

  1·987

  3·081

  Merton

  7·100

  7·282

  Newham

  1·791

  2·869

  Redbridge

  0·134

  0·598

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·172

  0·633

  Southwark

  0·249

  1·701

  Sutton

  0·590

  3·198

  Tower Hamlets

  0·091

  1·007

  Waltham Forest

  0·056

  0·726

  Wandsworth

  1·011

  3·429

  Westminster

  0·367

  4·589

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations Metropolitan districts, 1990–91

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Bolton

  1·342

  1·945

  Bury

  0·849

  1·315

  Manchester

  4·816

  8·385

  Oldham

  0·614

  2·443

  Rochdale

  0·189

  1·036

  Salford

  2·548

  3·882

  Stockport

  0·458

  0·959

  Tameside

  0·403

  1·438

  TrafFord

  0·389

  2·188

  Wigan

  0·872

  2·065

  Knowsley

  0·896

  1·397

  Liverpool

  0·750

  2·506

  St. Helens

  2·941

  3·257

  Sefton

  0·369

  0·951

  Wirral

  0·450

  1·519

  Barnsley

  1·574

  4·142

  Doncaster

  0·707

  1·897

  Rotherham

  1·243

  1·908

  Sheffield

  5·546

  6·426

  Gateshead

  0·972

  1·991

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·062

  2·920

  North Tyneside

  0·153

  0·542

  South Tyneside

  0·700

  1·242

  Sunderland

  0·847

  3·033

  Birmingham

  7·895

  11·564

  Coventry

  1·474

  2·362

  Dudley

  0·575

  2·481

  Sandwell

  0·752

  2·672

  Solihull

  0·428

  1·325

  Walsall

  2·751

  1·067

  Wolverhampton

  2·842

  3·818

  Bradford

  2·467

  4·242

  Calderdale

  0·096

  1·428

  Kirklees

  0·060

  0·735

  Leeds

  2·632

  3·953

  Wakefield

  0·157

  2·457

  349

  Transport supplementary grant and capital allocations Countries— 1990–91

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Avon

  6·714

  7·305

  Bedfordshire

  2·591

  3·791

  Berkshire

  1·882

  5·962

  Buckinghamshire

  1·153

  2·087

  Cambridgeshire

  1·932

  4·316

  Cheshire

  4·154

  6·174

  Cleveland

  5·442

  6·351

  Cornwall

  2·797

  4·670

  Cumbria

  2·326

  3·326

  Derbyshire

  0·582

  4·353

  Devon

  3·394

  8·029

  Dorset

  2·866

  4·544

  Durham

  2·410

  2·932

  East Sussex

  3·071

  5·742

  Essex

  6·686

  11·906

  Gloucestershire

  1·933

  3·215

  Hampshire

  7·639

  8·126

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·338

  2·585

  Hertfordshire

  3·025

  4·700

  Humberside

  5·312

  7·677

  Isle of Wight

  0·414

  1·202

  Kent

  12·550

  18·722

  Lancashire

  12·873

  16·496

  Leicestershire

  3·047

  4·558

  Lincolnshire

  1·574

  2·481

  Norfolk

  5·673

  7·317

  Northamptonshire

  2·849

  5·115

  Northumberland

  1·481

  2·265

  North Yorkshire

  3·444

  4·909

  Nottinghamshire

  1·914

  3·986

  Oxfordshire

  2·462

  5·352

  Shropshire

  1·566

  3·540

  Somerset

  3·156

  4·486

  Staffordshire

  2·913

  4·390

  Suffolk

  3·187

  5·782

  Surrey

  6·330

  10·402

  Warwickshire

  0·492

  2·412

  West Sussex

  4·532

  6·045

  Wiltshire

  2·985

  4·714

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations London Boroughs—1991–92

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  City of London

  0·309

  0·455

  Barking and Dagenham

  1·835

  2·255

  Barnet

  0·515

  0·803

  Bexley

  1·250

  1·858

  Brent

  0·693

  2·557

  Bromley

  3·055

  4·404

  Camden

  0·644

  1·220

  Croydon

  0·769

  1·452

  Ealing

  1·586

  2·690

  Enfield

  4·500

  4·666

  Greenwich

  0·000

  0·521

  Hackney

  0·524

  1·143

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·429

  0·859

  Haringey

  1·066

  1·577

  Harrow

  3·283

  6·651

  Havering

  0·639

  0·903

  Hillingdon

  6·352

  9·537

  Hounslow

  0·472

  0·926

  Islington

  0·362

  0·953

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·230

  0·890

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·613

  1·184

  Lambeth

  0·298

  0·421

  Lewisham

  4·270

  8·371

  Merton

  0·009

  1·651

  Newham

  0·815

  2·948

  Redbridge

  0·416

  0·727

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·408

  0·620

  350

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Southwark

  0·449

  2·530

  Sutton

  0·991

  2·330

  Tower Hamlets

  0·495

  1·277

  Waltham Forest

  0·389

  0·687

  Wandsworth

  2·174

  2·963

  Westminster

  0·846

  4·384

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations Metropolitan Districts—1991–92

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Bolton

  1·264

  1·468

  Bury

  0·433

  0·578

  Manchester

  9·395

  10·074

  Oldham

  1·948

  2·864

  Rochdale

  0·464

  0·605

  Salford

  1·569

  3·064

  Stockport

  1·740

  1·844

  Tameside

  0·690

  1·309

  Trafford

  0·138

  1·531

  Wigan

  1·846

  2·800

  Knowsley

  1·670

  1·806

  Liverpool

  0·000

  2·711

  St Helens

  7·781

  8·740

  Sefton

  0·619

  0·823

  Wirral

  0·000

  1·298

  Barnsley

  2·671

  3·236

  Doncaster

  2·292

  4·474

  Rotherham

  0·662

  0·908

  Sheffield

  5·012

  8·680

  Gateshead

  0·756

  1·042

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·989

  2·829

  North Tyneside

  0·315

  0·409

  South Tyneside

  0·961

  1·097

  Sunderland

  1·913

  2·542

  Birmingham

  10·256

  15·524

  Coventry

  2·793

  3·301

  Dudley

  1·444

  2·522

  Sandwell

  1·180

  1·557

  Solihull

  0·442

  1·752

  Walsall

  0·440

  2·120

  Wolverhampton

  6·160

  7·486

  Bradford

  2·280

  3·442

  Calderdale

  0·367

  0·491

  Kirklees

  0·949

  1·605

  Leeds

  1·987

  3·260

  Wakefield

  1·213

  2·745

  Transport Supplementary Grant and Capital Allocations Counties— 1991–92

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Avon

  8·855

  10·568

  Bedfordshire

  3·228

  3·481

  Berkshire

  2·707

  4·779

  Buckinghamshire

  1·849

  2·385

  Cambridgeshire

  1·870

  2·606

  Cheshire

  5·501

  6·797

  Cleveland

  3·689

  4·804

  Cornwall

  3·958

  5·512

  Cumbria

  3·312

  3·634

  Derbyshire

  1·158

  6·332

  Devon

  5·062

  6·838

  Dorset

  2·770

  3·687

  Durham

  3·659

  4·060

  East Sussex

  5·231

  6·963

  Essex

  6·448

  8·569

  Gloucestershire

  2·091

  2·840

  Hampshire

  12·179

  13·099

  Hereford and Worcester

  3·227

  3·981

  Hertfordshire

  3·253

  5·655

  351

  Authority

  Grant paid £ million

  Capital allocation £ million

  Humberside

  5·589

  8·307

  Isle of Wight

  0·971

  1·282

  Kent

  37·229

  39·538

  Lancashire

  11·232

  13·594

  Leicestershire

  5·643

  6·532

  Lincolnshire

  1·840

  3·530

  Norfolk

  4·732

  6·326

  Northamptonshire

  3·864

  5·098

  Northumberland

  3·143

  3·993

  North Yorkshire

  6·157

  9·321

  Nottinghamshire

  5·555

  7·267

  Oxfordshire

  2·984

  3·998

  Shropshire

  4·355

  5·621

  Somerset

  3·013

  4·166

  Staffordshire

  3·927

  6·182

  Suffolk

  9·298

  11·715

  Surrey

  5·121

  8·947

  Warwickshire

  0·951

  2·765

  West Sussex

  4·126

  4·882

  Wiltshire

  2·688

  4·429

ENERGY

  Colombian Coal
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with British Coal on whether to refer the importing of Colombian coal to the European Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. I am aware that British Coal has submitted a complaint to the European Commission about dumping of coal by Colombia, United States of America and China.

  (a)EC expenditure in public storage

  £ million

  January to December

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Cereals

  672

  865

  377

  888

  989

  Rice

  3

  8

  43

  40

  24

  Oils/fats

  44

  60

  33

  -17

  1-13

  Wine

  46

  459

  230

  147

  176

  Tobacco

  19

  19

  69

  63

  38

  Milk and milk products

  716

  499

  328

  726

  723

  Beef

  708

  805

  367

  648

  1,604

  Pigmeat

  34

  29

  41

  52

  12

  Delayed reimbursement for disposal of 1988 stocks

  —

  841

  945

  966

  555

  1 Represents sales out of intervention at a price greater than the depreciated value.

  Sources:

  1987–90: EAGGF Financial reports.

  1991: Provisional outturn.

  (b) United Kingdom expenditure on public storage

  £ million

  April to March

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Cereals

  -29·0

  33·2

  -22·5

  15·3

  19·6

  Butter

  128·8

  -53·6

  -11·8

  55·6

  8·3

  Skimmed milk powder

  -17·5

  -1·1

  -0·1

  9·0

  -5·2

  Beef

  66·3

  17·7

  -1·2

  297·4

  300·7

  Others

  —

  -0·4

  —

  1—

  1—

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made for the introduction of veterinary supervision at slaughterhouses; what agreements have been reached on the subject at the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 29 July 1991, the Council of Ministers adopted a directive (91/497/EEC) introducing common public health rules, including rules on veterinary supervision, for all slaughterhouses with effect from I January 1993.

  The Department will shortly be consulting publicly on the draft regulations which will implement this directive in Great Britain.

  Storage
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on public storage and food aid and for each commodity in(a) the EC and (b) the United Kingdom, for each year since 1987, including 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is given in the following tables.

  It should be noted that the tables for expenditure on public storage in the EC and the United Kingdom are not compatible because EC budget costs cover depreciation losses, whereas member states pay out the full buying-in price and carry the depreciated value until sale.

  Expenditure on food aid cannot be broken down by commodity, and the EC total figure for 1987 cannot be provided within the time available. Figures for 1991 are not available.
  353

  1— Figure is less than £50,000.

  Source: Appropriation Accounts 1987–88 to 1990–91 and Spring Supplementary Estimate 1991–92, for Class IV. vote 1, 1987–88 to 1989–90 and Class III, vote 1, 1990–91 to 1991–92.

  Notes:

  Expenditure includes intervention purchases, incidental costs (including storage) less sales. At times sales receipts are greater than payments.

  This expenditure excludes receipts from the EC budget for depreciation on entry, losses on sales, etc.

  (c) Expenditure on food aid

  £ million

  January to December

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1900

  1991

  United Kingdom total

  21·6

  19·3

  31·4

  15·9

  28·7

  EC total

  —

  333

  292

  341

  N/a

  N/a—Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures for 1987–90 taken from British Aid Statistics. The figures for 1991 are provisional

  United Kingdom figures do not include United Kingdom contributions to EC food aid which are reflected in EC figures.

  EC Regulation No. 866/90
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the implementation of EC regulation No. 866/90 in the United Kingdom, including the type of projects which have received assistance and the amount spent.

  Mr. Gummer
  EC regulation 866/90 has been fully implemented in the United Kingdom and the first round of awards was approved by the Commission on 13 December 1991. This allocated grants totalling £15·2 million to 53 marketing and processing projects in the redmeat, pigment, milk, horticulture, potatoes, cereals, protein crops, poultry and egg sectors. The first claims for grant have only recently been received and are now being checked before payment.

  Commodity Prices
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the prices, in £ per tonne, in the United Kingdom for the main agricultural commodities for the latest available date.

  Mr. Gummer
  United Kingdom market prices for the main agricultural commodities are set out in the table.

  Selected average market/wholesale prices United Kingdom Prices are for week ending 29 February 1992 unless otherwise stated

  £/tonne

  Wheat (Grower to merchant price, all purchases, England and Wales)

  1128

  Barley (Grower to merchant price, all purchases, England and Wales)

  1120

  Sugar (Refined bulk granulated)

  605

  Butter (GB salted)

  2,066

  Liquid Milk

  1174

  Cheddar Cheese (English mild white creamery)

  2,430

  Fat Cattle (GB all clean cattle, liveweight)

  11,063

  Fat Sheep (Estimated dressed carcase weight)

  2,154

  Fat Pigs (All pigs, deadweight)

  1,217

  Poultry Meat (Broilers, liveweight)

  556

  Eggs (Size 3, packer to producer price)

  493

  Potatoes (Maincrop)

  98

  1 W/e 20 February: prices are inclusive of co-responsibility levy.

  2 Provisional average price for the month of January.

  3 W/e 22 February.

  Note: A wide range of price quotations exists for individual
  354
  commodities depending on quality, presentation, stage of marketing etc. Those shown arc intended to be illustrative of prices paid by wholesalers or received by producers. Some prices are highly seasonal.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the latest figures available for(a) the levies applicable in the United Kingdom and (b) the notional world prices for the main traded agricultural commodities in £ per tonne.

  Mr. Gummer
  The concept of "notional world prices", as represented by the lowest offer prices underlying the Commission's calculations of variable import levies, is misleading. Such prices reflect, among other things, the particular level of supplies on the residual international market encouraged by agricultural support policies pursued throughout the world. They cannot be viewed independently of existing support policies. If support policies did not exist, I would expect "world prices" to be higher. Subject to these important qualifications, "lowest offer prices" are shown in the table, together with the information requested on import levies.

  Levy applicable in the United Kingdom and "lowest offer price"1 on 5 March 1992 for the main traded agricultural commodities

  Levy2 applicable in United Kingdom £ per tonne

  "Lowest offer price" £ per tonne

  £ per tonne

  £ per tonne

  Common wheat

  115

  79

  Barley

  114

  63

  Maize

  103

  73

  Rice

  303

  153

  Sugar

  3362

  149

  Olive oil

  578

  993

  Butter

  41,966

  659

  Skimmed milk powder

  924

  626

  Cheese (Cheddar)

  1,753

  1,003

  Beef and veal

  51,988

  1,087

  Pigmeat

  530

  760

  Sheepmeat

  6 n /a

  n/a

  Poultrymeat

  281

  910

  Eggs

  275

  685

  1 "Lowest offer prices" have been calculated by subtracting the levy applicable on 5 March 1992 from the threshold/guide price. The beef price is also adjusted for duty. In the case of pigment, poultrymeat and eggs, the "world" price has been taken as the sluicegate price for the headings defined in 2 below. The resulting estimate has been converted from ecu/t at the appropriate market rate of exchange £0·812568 = 1 ecu.

  355

  2 The rates of levy vary for different tariff headings. The rates quoted are: beef and veal—carcase; pigmeat—carcase; poultrymeat—70 per cent. chickens; rice—husked long grain; olive oil—virgin lampante; eggs—in shell.

  3 In practice the United Kingdom's imports from third countries are normally covered by the Lome convention and enter the Community levy-free.

  4 A special lower rate of levy is applicable to imports of butter

  356

  from New Zealand.

  5 Most imports of beef from third countries are subject to special arrangements allowing entry at reduced levy rates.

  6 Imports of lamb under voluntary restraint arrangements with principal suppliers and related agreements enter free of charge. Any imports outside these arrangements are subject to levies which cannot exceed the 20 per cent. tariff bound in the GATT.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
payers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Bingo Act,

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act,

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act,

Further and Higher Education Act,

Local Government Finance Act,

Offshore Safety Act,

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, Coal Industry Act,

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

Local Government Act,

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act,1

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

The Ozone Layer
11.6 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case, as expressed by English Nature, that a significant hole in the ozone layer may be developing over Europe and what guidance they propose to give to the public in the immediate future.
Earl Howe: My Lords, while there has been an underlying decline in the total amount of ozone of between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. over Europe during the past decade, there is no ozone hole over Europe and no indication that one will develop this Spring. We do not therefore propose to change the basis of existing public health advice on minimising exposure to sunlight.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Perhaps I may put the Question again. I am trying to get a very simple answer to a very straightforward question. Is my noble friend saying that the Government do not think that there is any possibility of a hole developing over the northern hemisphere or, to put it another way, of there being any depletion of ozone in the foreseeable future? If so, then we are in conflict with other countries such as the United States, Canada, Denmark, Germany, and so on, and we shall be out of step. The second part of my Question asked what advice the Government propose to give to the public. The countries I have mentioned are getting a great deal of advice and information.
1100
They are probably interested but not necessarily alarmed. Do the Government propose to take any action on public information?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there has been some considerable misunderstanding of the issues in recent weeks. I shall say again, very clearly, that there is no Arctic ozone hole and there is no indication that one will develop this spring. However, the possibility of some area of enhanced depletion forming temporarily in future years in the northern hemisphere cannot be ruled out entirely. Turning to the second part of my noble friend's question, the real public health issue is that of exposure to sunlight generally, particularly sunbathing. In relation to that, the Health Education Authority has published a leaflet entitled Are you Dying to get a Suntan? and I have a copy with me. It deals with the health risks of exposure to sunlight. Copies of that leaflet were distributed to pharmacies through the pharmacy health care scheme in July last year, and copies are also available in the Library.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that at the recent United Nations Conference in Brazil, the United States Academy for Sciences and the British Royal Society issued a very serious statement to the effect that the earth's future is in grave danger. With the population increasing as fast as it is, the situation might be extremely dangerous in 20 years time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government take these issues very seriously. The scientists studying the Arctic stratosphere are in constant direct contact with the Government. They report that the conditions they have observed are not progressing to extensive enhanced ozone depletion. Ozone levels have increased, and they are now within the normal range of values that are expected over the UK at this time of year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it accepted that such a diminution of the ozone layer as my noble friend has mentioned is due to atmospheric pollution, which causes sulphur-dioxide and carbon-dioxide to enter the atmosphere? If that is so, are the Government keeping a careful eye on the need to reduce atmospheric pollution?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Atmospheric pollution is thought to play quite a considerable part in the ozone depletion that we are now experiencing. That is uppermost in our minds.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that government scientists have already reported that over the past decade the ozone layer over the United Kingdom has diminished by 8 per cent? Is it not the case that the United Nations environmental programme has reported that if there is a sustained 10 per cent. ozone depletion, there will be over 300,000 additional skin cancers; at least 4,500 extra cases of melanoma; 1.7 million eye cataracts; and up to 150,000 people made blind? In addition to that, it is

1101
believed that this can also cause a great increase in the depletion of immunity with the possibility of an increase in diseases such as HIV.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the health problems associated with exposure to ultra violet, including skin cancer, cataracts and other skin and eye defects and the depression of the immune system. However, it remains the Government's view that the main risk to public health arises much more from people's lifestyles—in other words, the propensity of members of the public to expose themselves to sunlight during the summer. That is a much more acute risk than any risk of depletion in the immediate future in the ozone layer and the resultant levels of UV increase.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify another point in this area about which there is some doubt and misunderstanding? Are not CFCs one of the largest threats to the ozone layer? If CFCs used in refrigeration are contained and disposed of correctly and not released casually or deliberately into the atmosphere, is it correct that they will not damage the ozone layer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are very aware of the issues raised by my noble friend. As I am sure he will know, the Montreal Protocol obliges us to cease production of the most harmful chemicals. In the case of some, this will be done by the end of 1995, and, in the case of halons in particular, by the end of 1994. These are very important matters. We are doing our best to ensure that the phasing-out of such gases takes place at the earliest possible moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, do I understand the noble Earl aright? Is he saying that English Nature is wrong in stating that a significant hole in the ozone layer may be developing over Europe? Secondly, have the Government studied the experience in New Zealand, where a significant hole in the ozone layer has caused serious health problems? The government there have taken some fairly dramatic action to prevent the effects of what is in fact an ecological problem.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there has, I think, been some misunderstanding about these questions. United States and European scientists pointed out last month that the Arctic stratosphere exhibited the conditions that lead to enhanced ozone depletion. But those reports were unfortunately misinterpreted as announcing actual or imminent ozone holes of Antarctic proportions over the northern hemisphere. That is where the message has become a little twisted.
With regard to the experience in New Zealand, I am afraid to say that what is being experienced there and in Australia arises from the different atmospheric conditions that prevail over the South Pole, conditions which, for a variety of reasons, are not replicated over the northern hemisphere.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is it not the case that ozone is a greenhouse gas and that, should a hole develop in the ozone layer, it would cool down the
1102
world a little? Can my noble friend kindly tell us whether ozone depletion might have some positive spin off?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting issue because it is now thought that the ozone depletion caused by CFCs has a cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere that may partially offset the very strong global warming properties of CFCs themselves. But much more research is needed to produce precise estimates of the effect.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, we have to be careful to safeguard the interests of other noble Lords who have put down Questions.

Water Resources, Eastern England
11.16 a.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the prediction by the National Rivers Authority of a severe water shortage this year in the east of England and whether they will ensure that no further licences are issued for the abstraction of water from natural reserves.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we cannot predict with certainty that there will be severe water shortages in the east of England this year. However, the unusually dry weather in eastern England over the past three or four years makes water shortages likely unless persistent, above average rainfall is experienced over the next two or three months. The grant or refusal of abstraction licences are matters for the National Rivers Authority.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I venture to say that I can predict with certainty that there will be a fearful shortage of water in the east of England. Does my noble friend realise that the National Rivers Authority is constantly under great pressure to issue new licences? It comes under pressure from vested interests and also, if I may say so, from government departments. Is he aware that the NRA must somehow be strengthened and informed that it has absolute authority to handle this matter regardless of pressures brought to bear on it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, an application for an abstraction licence must be made to the NRA, which will consider the environmental effects, the possible effects on other licence holders and other relevant matters. Conditions may be imposed on the quantity to be abstracted and the duration of the licence. There are also seasonal conditions which may be imposed. Objections to the application can be made and these could result in it being determined by the Secretary of State. I stress that these are matters which Parliament has established for the NRA to handle. It must be, in the end, a matter for the NRA.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in answer to a supplementary question attached to the first Question of my noble friend Lord Buxton he used the interesting phrase "extensive enhanced ozone depletion"? Is that not precisely what is happening to water levels in the south-east of England? When will the Government encourage the water companies to apply to the planning authorities to build reservoirs to overcome this problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, groundwater levels in the Anglian region are currently very low. Surface reservoir levels vary but are generally more than half full. At present, the levels of surface water are not giving as much cause for concern as the groundwater levels. If there is one thing the Government cannot do it is to bring about rain.
Noble Lords: Oh?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is the succession of dry years, and in particular dry winters, which has caused the acute problems that we are now experiencing.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not satisfactory for the Government to wash their hands of this question? The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, made a telling point when he referred to pressure on the NRA to give such licences. It is not even simply a question of the amount of rain. Even in these drought years Britain has had enough rain. The heart of the problem is the balance between extraction through boreholes and the retention of surface water. What we need is less abstraction from the water table. Noble Lords will know that abstraction is creating a major problem in East Anglia. Older trees are beginning to die because in age they cannot push their roots further down as the water table shrinks. What is needed is a policy of much greater construction of surface retention reservoirs and much greater limitation on the capacity of the companies to abstract through boreholes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord's question was.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the government not pretend that it has nothing to do with them when the National Rivers Authority complains that it is under pressure from departments? Further will they make it clear to the water authorities that they want greater construction of retention reservoirs and less boreholes into the water table?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we continue to urge the conservation of water resources. Officials meet with water companies and the NRA to discuss the contingency planning required in the event of a continuing drought this year. There have been a number of major projects designed over the past few years to increase the supply of water resources over the country. They are progressing.
Lord Morris: My Lords, following on from the last two, if I may say so, excellent supplementaries, is my noble friend aware that the scandalous lack of action in this regard is perfectly illustrated in the area where
1104
I live where, since before the last war, the building of a reservoir north of Canterbury has been discussed but shelved continually? Is he also aware that, as a direct result of that, for the fifth year in succession a hose-pipe ban has been imposed on the area in the middle of winter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I can be more specific on the last answer that I gave. Water undertakers now operate water resource systems in an integrated way so far as is possible to maximise yields and minimise costs. If anything, those are lessons which have been learnt from the droughts of 1976 and 1984. Several major new schemes have been completed including Roadford Reservoir in the South West and Carsington Reservoir in Derbyshire. New schemes are proposed in many areas such as those for north Kent at Broadoak and the Upper Thames Valley.
Lord John Mackie: My Lords, referring to the level of reservoirs, I live 20 miles from here. Is the Minister aware that the reservoirs are so low that we have to pump out our water from the mains at the end of the road and have had to do so for many years now?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was not aware of that specific fact, but I thank the noble Lord for raising it.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that agriculture is not the fundamental problem in this respect? However, the public perceives it to be so because people see great hoses spraying over fields. But that is only a small percentage of the usage. Is he aware that, fundamentally, it is industrial and residential development that causes the problem? Is he further aware that in many cases the advice of the NRA is not taken and that, statutorily, it does not have to be taken, by local authorities?
Earl Howe: My Lords, both the water undertakers and the NRA distribute publicity on the subject of water conservation, which is a serious matter. My noble friend is quite right to say that such problems arise in part from increased demand. I simply point out that a casual householder who leaves a sprinkler running for hours ought to be aware that in one hour at least as much water can be used as an average family uses in a single day, without necessarily benefiting his garden.

Former Soviet Union: Assistance
11.25
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with humanitarian and know-how assistance to the former Soviet Union and to former communist states in central and eastern Europe.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the know-how fund for central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is going well. We have so far committed some £55 million to over 400 projects. Other western governments are using our know-how fund as a model for their own. Our humanitarian aid is also much appreciated. We are helping to meet the

1105
immediate needs for food, medicines and animal feed for the former Soviet Union. We are also providing emergency assistance to Albania and Yugoslavia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, can he say a little more about the criteria that he used in deciding how assistance should be given? Further, how is the balance being made between sharing skills and technological knowledge on the one hand and assistance in kind on the other which, if not sensitively handled, can smother local initiative and production? Can the Minister also tell the House what is happening about Albania which does not have as much political significance as some of the other countries but whose situation is desperate in human terms?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the know-how fund budget has more than trebled since 1990. Indeed, as I said, for 1992–93 it is £50 million. Britain has committed about £80 million for technical assistance to meet immediate needs for humanitarian assistance in the former Soviet Union. There is £50 million for the know-how fund and £20 million for feed grain for St. Petersburg, £8 million for the Chancellor's financial sector training initiative and £2 million for emergency medical assistance. But the main effort is with our partners through the EC. Britain is contributing £300 million towards the European Community's £1.57 billion programme of food aid credit and food aid grants.
The noble Lord raised the question of Albania. As part of the initial European Community effort, Britain contributed £2.2 million worth of medical aid and wheat to Albania. We are also supporting initiatives to the British NGOs and relief agencies in Albania. So far a total of £180,000 has been given to Feed The Children, £200,000 to the British Red Cross and £35,000 to Oxfam.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the need for this humanitarian assistance exists right now? If reports, which indicate that the allocation and distribution of European Community aid is subject to chronic delays, are true, can he say what progress is being made in that respect and also what the Government are doing to help co-ordinate and implement the aid?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been delays. I believe that the noble Baroness is possibly referring to the delay regarding beef. It was stored for longer than we would have wished. In fact, I think that it is more a question of misunderstanding with the European Community over labelling. Such problems have been resolved.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that parliamentary delegations have recently visited the Baltic states? If that is so, can he say whether such matters have been discussed there? Further, in view of Finland's possible accession to the
1106
European Community in the reasonably near future, can my noble friend say what aid will be going to Estonia which is very near the Finnish border?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that I would need notice of such a question. However, I shall endeavour to find out the information and write to him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of Britain's very generous contribution—as evidenced by the figures the Minister has just given to the House—which makes us all feel good, have we therefore not a right to ensure that, within the United Nations and the EC, distribution is dealt with efficiently and that the contribution we are making is not wasted?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are contributing a six-man team to the EC task force to ensure that the aid distribution is properly monitored.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the greatest humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Nagorno Karabakh? Can he say what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government through the European Community or through the United Nations to try to bring peace to an area where thousands of people are suffering and dying?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises a very germane point. The tragedy in Nagorno Karabakh beggars description. I have had a first-hand account of the situation from my noble friend Lady Cox who, I believe, may well be in the region now. I am sure that the House would wish me to pay tribute to her incredible personal courage in what she has done. Britain makes a significant contribution to the EC budget for emergency food aid for which Armenia and Azerbaijan are both eligible.
The Commission has just announced a £250,000 emergency aid package for Nagorno Karabakh. Britain also contributes towards the excellent work of the International Red Cross which has just been allowed to become involved in the region. However, I do not under-estimate the desperate problems of the region.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to endorse and support the remarks he made about the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will realise that he will receive a great deal of support from all sides of the House when responding to the needs of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but will he take this opportunity to assure us that everything that is being done is additional and is in no way at the expense of our response to the even greater needs of the third world in terms of both financial and other resources, and the intellectual and administrative input into the work that is being carried out?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I was also grateful yesterday to hear him acknowledge the work of my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker. Perhaps I may

1107
take this opportunity to confirm that the aid to Central and Eastern Europe and to the former Soviet Union is separate from and additional to the aid to the developing countries.

Orimulsion
11.30 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the import and burning of orimulsion.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the type and quantity of fuel used by the electricity generators is an operational matter for the companies concerned, subject to emission limits imposed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it true that a half a million tonnes of that fuel were burned last year and that PowerGen and National Power have contracted for another half a million tonnes? Is it not the case that the Government's own pollution watchdog and the National Rivers Authority have forecast that, if that fuel continues to be burned, it will both poison the rivers and gravely increase the amount of acid rain?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, without the necessary safeguards, it may indeed be the case that orimulsion would have the effect that the noble Lord describes, but it is for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to make sure that nothing is burned that would have the effect that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that there is particular concern about the burning of that fuel in Pembroke, where the Government have been advised of forecasts that, if that fuel is burned at the Pembroke station, many of the most beautiful areas of our country will be despoiled through the increase in acid rain? Do the Government intend to do anything to protect both the countryside and the people before rather than after that happens?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about Pembroke. Under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, National Power applied for consent from the Secretary of State to fit electrostatic precipitators. I cannot comment in too much detail on that as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in deciding the application. National Power also requires an authorisation from HMIP before it can burn orimulsion at Pembroke. An application has been made and HMIP has served a formal notice on the company requiring further information to be provided. The Government have established a strong regulatory framework under the Environmental Protection Act. It would be wrong for them to second-guess that body and we should be open to criticism if we did so.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in addition to the important environmental considerations that have been raised by my noble friend Lord Hatch—and the acid rain threat to Wales and the high sulphur emissions over Pembroke cannot be over-emphasised —does the Minister not agree that the power generating companies' longer term proposals to import up to 10 million tonnes of that tacky substance are part of the deeper problems of sourcing the United Kingdom's energy consumption? Are not the policies of the privatised generating companies, such as the proposed massive imports of orimulsion, the massive imports of foreign coal and the dash for gas, short-term and contrary to our national interests? Does the Minister agree that basically they arise from the lack of a national energy policy? Do we not need planned distribution of energy use in this country, with a diversified portfolio of sources, to include domestic coal with cleaner technology?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have discussed coal at length recently. We wish to have the largest coal industry that is compatible with that industry being economic. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, says that we do not have an energy policy, but I should have thought that our policy was fairly concise. We have liberated the generators to seek the best markets and we have strong regulations to control them. The party opposite seeks to increase energy prices without any long-term environmental benefit, which, besides having a debilitating effect on the economy, shows a certain disregard for the poorer members of our community.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has given me a very fair answer and I am glad that the Government are aware of this matter. However, given that the Minister has referred to the inspectorate and to the provisions that it observes, does he accept that those provisions and safeguards were set before the extent of acid rain was known?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is perfectly true. Some of the provisions pre-date the Act, but they have been increased. Perhaps it will help the noble Lord if I write to him about the conditions that HMIP would impose for the burning of orimulsion, which are too long to speak about now.

Business
11.35 a.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, after the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on a national lottery that has been made in another place.

Education (Schools) Bill
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch.

1109
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Clause 5,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Clause 6,

Clause 3,

Clause 7,

Clause 4,

Clause 8,

Clause 9,

Clause 14,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 3,

Clause 13,

Clauses 15 to 21,

Schedule 4,

Schedule 5.—(Earl Howe)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
11.36 a.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill but an important one for both Houses. Before describing its provisions, I owe the House a short explanation of its origins, which lie in the Ibbs report to the House of Commons Commission in 1990. Sir Robin Ibbs and his group proposed a radical change in the way services are provided for the House of Commons, in particular that it should take over responsibility for its own works and printing services. Noble Lords will be aware that we subsequently decided to follow suit and a number of steps have already been taken to give effect to the proposals.
The Offices Committee has restructured itself. New financial management proposals have been put in hand. A Director of Works for both houses has been appointed. We are well on the way to ending the allied service arrangements under which the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's Stationery Office previously looked after our works and printing. I am glad to record the welcome co-operation which we have received from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Controller of HMSO in moving towards an orderly transfer of Vote provision for those services, the target date for which is 1st April.
I am also glad to say that the two Houses are moving closely in step. One of the more notable events
1110
has been the drawing up of an agreement between the two Houses about how joint works services are to be financed and managed. Copies of this Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees from this House and Mr. Speaker from the other place, have been placed in the Library.
This development is in fact a logical extension of the agreement of 1965, under which the House assumed control of those parts of the Palace of Westminster occupied by the Lords. The Lords and Commons are now taking on responsibility for the maintenance of the building; but it remains a Royal Palace and it has therefore been necessary to ensure that Her Majesty the Queen is content with what is proposed. Her consent on Second Reading, which I announced before I began my speech, is in this instance no mere formality and I am grateful to Her Majesty's advisers for their assistance in bringing the scheme to the stage it has now reached.
I should emphasise that, although full Vote control will pass to the two Houses on 1st April, the works services themselves will be taken over physically at a slightly slower place. Arrangements have to be made for the transfer of the Parliamentary Works Office from the Department of the Environment to Parliament and for some recruitment. This process will be complete by the end of the next financial year at the latest. For pay and rations purposes, the staff will become part of the Department of the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons, but for all practical purposes, they will be staff serving both Houses equally.
I now come to why we have to have a Bill. With the two Houses in control of their own accommodation and works services we shall become the owners and leaseholders of property, not the Palace itself of course but buildings like Abbey Gardens and Norman Shaw and the parts of Millbank that we are going to lease. There will be work contracts to enter into, and we may wish on occasion to sue contractors —they may even wish to sue us.
That is where we get into deep legal waters: and the fact of the matter is that neither House constitutes a legal persona, able to do the sort of things one inevitably has to do as the owner of property. It is not an entirely new problem and I have to concede that up to now we have somehow managed to muddle through. Clerks of Parliaments have for instance entered into contracts making themselves personally liable, which has been very brave of them.
But it is agreed by all who have studied the problem that a proper solution must be found before major services can be taken over and valuable properties acquired on behalf of both Houses. Various possibilities have been canvassed. The one that has finally commended itself is to establish a corporate body for each House in the form of what is known as a corporation sole. The appropriate office holder in this House to have that responsibility is the Houses's senior permanent Officer and Accounting Officer, the Clerk of the Parliaments. In another place the

1111
Corporate Officer will be the Clerk of the House of Commons, or the Under Clerk of the Parliaments, as he is correctly described in the Bill.
The accounting officer duties of the two Clerks will be burdensome and all legal documents will be in their names but under the Bill their functions as Corporate Officers may be carried out by the Clerk Assistant or any other Officer of the House authorised by the Clerk, including in particular the Director of Works.
The establishment of the two corporations is the heart of the Bill, but later clauses provide for the making of the necessary transfers of property and of the rights and liabilities connected with it. There is also a provision to limit the effect of Section 21 of the Crown Lands Act 1851, which is the piece of legislation by virtue of which the Secretary of State exercises his present functions within the Palace of Westminster.
There is another part of the Bill which needs some detailed explanation. Clause 4 rectifies an anomaly which has been encountered in other contexts where civil servants have been transferred to new undertakings in the public service. Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, purely technical redundancies can arise for people who, to all intents and purposes, will be doing the same job under essentially the same terms of service. Here, employees of the Parliamentary Works Office in the Department of the Environment are to be transferred and become employees of Parliament, and Clause 4 extinguishes any resulting technical redundancy rights. I can assure the House that the clause will have no effect at all on actual terms of service or on pension rights, and if by any chance any transferred employee were later to become redundant his rights would not be affected in any way.
I shall now go very briefly through the clauses. Clauses 1 and 2 establish the two Clerks as corporations sole, and I congratulate the Clerk of the Parliaments on his corporation —I mean, incorporation. Subsections (6) and (7) of each clause make it clear that the Corporate Officers do not enjoy Crown immunity unless Her Majesty provides otherwise by Order in Council.
Clauses 3 and 5 provide for the Secretary of State to make a scheme or schemes for the transfer of property, including rights and liabilities, from the Department of the Environment to the two new Parliamentary Corporations. Clause 4 contains the employment provisions which I described a few moments ago.
Clause 6 ensures that gifts expressed as gifts to the House of Lords or the House of Commons have effect as gifts to the Parliamentary Corporations. Clause 7 contains transitional and consequential provisions, including the one limiting the effect of Section 21 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 which I have already described.
This may be the moment to acknowledge our debt to those who over the centuries have cared for the Palace of Westminster, beginning with the Clerk of the King's Works who 600 years ago was the predecessor of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Coming to the present day, we should express our gratitude to
1112
all the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office who keep this business in good order through storm and sunshine.
Finally, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this, although procedurally a government Bill, has all-party support and in another place was unusual for having as supporters, except for Mr. Speaker, every member of the House of Commons Commission.
I am sure that the whole House will welcome this Bill and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Waddington.)
11.45 a.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for explaining a short but complicated Bill. As he said, it is a step in the implementation of the Ibbs Report. We are indebted to Sir Robin Ibbs for guiding us along the road to a more modern system. As the noble Lord said, a number of important steps in relation to services have already been taken.
My first reaction on reading the Bill was to ask why legislation was necessary to readjust the responsibilities for the various services, but, as the noble Lord has explained, works contracts, leases and property must be someone's responsibility. The obvious person to undertake that responsibility is the Clerk of the Parliaments in this House and the Senior Clerk in another place.
The point is especially relevant in the House of Commons, which has a changing Membership which ceases to exist when Parliament is dissolved. We are on the threshold of such a proceeding at present. They have coped up to now because the Secretary of State for the Environment has held the property. As the noble Lord explained, in the Bill we are giving the respected Clerk of the Parliaments new responsibilities and a new title. He is to become a corporation sole. Let me say at once that he does not look like a corporation sole. We shall continue to think of him and refer to him as the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The noble Lord took us through the clauses, and I should like to ask him some brief questions. First, what is the purpose and significance of the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 which refer to Crown immunity? I note Clause 1(6) in particular. It would be helpful if he could give us some short clarification. I turn to another point; namely, the control of the Palace of Westminster under the new system. The powers of the Corporate Officer are listed in Clause 1(3). The words:
"for any purpose of the House of Lords",
are used. We note that the building—the Palace of Westminster—remains the property of Her Majesty the Queen. It is the appurtenances and responsibilities we find in Clause 1 which fall upon the shoulders of the corporation sole.
The noble Lord will confirm that until now the Secretary of State for the Environment has been involved and interested in all the matters we are now discussing. He has been responsible for the maintenance of the property, the contracts and so forth. The House must assume that when the Bill

1113
becomes law the Secretary of State for the Environment will have no responsibilities here. The Clerk of the Parliaments and the Members of the House will have all the responsibility. Is that not the core of the Bill? In that case, this is a welcome step forward, for it must be right that Members of both Houses, not the Executive, should be responsible for their respective parts of the building.
We are of course worried about the effect of the Bill on the staff of both Houses. Here, Clauses 4 and 5, dealt with by the noble Lord, are relevant. Will the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office become members of the new Parliamentary Works Directorate? I listened carefully to the noble Lord and I assume that he can confirm that the Transfer of Employment Regulations will apply here.
As concerns costs and expenditure—and this is a matter of central interest to all of us—I understand that the House of Commons will bear 60 per cent. of the costs and that this House will bear the remaining 40 per cent. That will be of interest to noble Lords.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to the history of the Clerk of the King's Works and said that the Bill brings 1,000 years of history to an end in the sense that the Royal Servants will no longer bear the responsibilities. As regards the Clerk of the King's Works, 600 years of history terminate with the Bill. If that is so, it means that in a small and technical Bill we are writing a footnote in parliamentary history.
On behalf of my noble friends, I welcome the Bill as a step forward in the right direction. I was a member of the House of Commons Commission when it was set up in 1975 and I am glad to he associated in a small way with the passage of the Bill. I must stress, however, that I support the noble Lord in what he said, namely that it is crucial that if the Palace of Westminster is to be run efficiently and properly, then the two Houses must go forward hand in hand and in complete understanding. Otherwise, the roof of the building may fall in. I wish the new arrangements all success and the Bill a fair passage.
11.51 a.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall be brief in dealing with this short but in its way important Bill. It is based on the Ibbs Report, as both the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said. Judging from what the Ibbs Report had to say, it changes our long overdue financial arrangements. The report states:
"Good financial management systems … do not exist.
The House lacks most of the financial management tools which are now common throughout both the private sector and the public service. Full costs are not brought together, nor are comprehensive budgets prepared for the various activities. Heads of Department are not required to work towards financial targets. Forward plans, long or short term, are not regularly prepared; and there are no reports of achievement against requirement. Financial management information is not routinely provided in a … usable form. There is no professional financial advice available".
This relates to an organisation which is never slow to criticise the financial management of other organisations with which it deals. So something along these lines is plainly long overdue. It is surely a step in the
1114
right direction. It is much in the spirit of the present Government and of us on these Benches to put the responsibility on to people who are directly concerned and who should carry that responsibility.
Thus we must welcome the change which brings control over the building—not the fabric of the building but all else —into the hands of the people who will use it. We welcome the new role of the Clerk of the Parliaments as the corporation sole. Is it spelt S-O-L-E or S-O-U-L? I am not sure. In any case, we welcome his introduction and installation in this new position. I hope that it will not land him in any more personal liabilities. We know of the liabilities that are now under the Charities Bill being pushed, for example, on to voluntary trustees. Are similar liabilities being put on to the Clerk of the Parliaments? If he goes wrong and runs into any kind of debt or gets into trouble under employment law, who is responsible? Is he personally responsible? Are we all responsible? Or what happens?
It is good that we shall have direct control over our physical environment. Since we are talking about the physical environment, I shall not lose this opportunity to ask that when we obtain control a high priority should be given to doing something about the appalling ventilation in this Chamber? I am not the only person, I am sure, who finds that after an hour and a half in the Chamber I run out of oxygen, if not out of steam. I have to go out—but not into the bar —to recover; outside I recover in a quarter of an hour. It is not the impact of your Lordships' speeches; I am sure that it is the impact of the lack of oxygen in the Chamber. I do not believe that it would pass under the health and safety regulations. We talk a great deal about the health and safety of workers and do precious little about ourselves. Now that we have control, I hope we shall do something quickly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we all note the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I have a great deal of sympathy with what she said. The Clerk of the Parliaments will have no doubt whatever as to what will be one of his first duties after taking on these onerous responsibilities on 1st April. The office is spelt like a fish, S-O-L-E, I am pretty sure.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his comments on the Bill. I understand why he began by wondering why it was necessary to have legislation at all. The Government started by wondering whether legislation was necessary but the noble Lord explained very clearly indeed why it is. I mentioned in the course of my remarks what a bizarre situation it was that Clerks, when entering into computer contracts and the like, take the responsibility entirely on their own. Of course any sensible person would know that they were not standing on their own; somebody was standing behind them. But in law they were standing entirely on their own.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about Crown immunity. I am glad that he did. The provision in the Bill appears as a result of an amendment moved in another place by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, Mr. Ray Powell, who is a Member of Parliament. The reason why he moved it is that present planning law does not

1115
apply to this Royal Palace. Of course when one thinks in terms of new parliamentary buildings, whether they are on Bridge Street or anywhere else, without a provision like this one would be in a position where planning law did not apply to the main parliamentary building but it did to the offshoots. It seems sensible that the same procedures which are designed to avoid any conflict with the planning authorities should apply in the case of any new buildings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, the Secretary of State for the Environment has been responsible for the maintenance of the building. From now onwards we shall be responsible. That seems entirely right. The staff who are now employed by the Department of the Environment will become employees of the Parliament Works Directorate. The provisions in Clause 4 are merely designed to avoid a technical redundancy taking place when staff cease to be employees of the Department of the Environment and become employees of the directorate. But they will be employed on precisely the same terms of service and will not be disadvantaged in any way at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to 600 years of history. First of all, it was the monarch, then a servant of the monarch and then it was the Clerk who looked after this Royal Palace and took on wider responsibilities. Eventually it became a Minister of the Crown. There was the arrival of the Ministry of Works at the beginning of the war which later became part of the Department of the Environment. All that long history has come to an end and we ourselves are now taking responsibility for these matters, and quite rightly so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was absolutely right to remind us of the stinging criticisms of the way in which some of our affairs are managed. None of us here had any doubt at all of the wisdom of the proposals made by Sir Robin Ibbs and his committee. As was said earlier, we have wasted no time in taking all the necessary steps—apart from this step of legislation—to implement his proposals. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness for their comments. I am glad that the Bill has received the warm welcome it deserves.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can help me as regards Clause 6 of the Bill. The question I am asking may be irrelevant, in which case the noble Lord will tell me so. On the matter of gifts to the House of Lords, I should be interested to know whether, as regards pictures or gifts of that kind, the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords will have charitable status. That makes a considerable difference to the donor.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am advised that he would not have that status.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that is rather a serious state of affairs.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister as I did not realise we were going to discuss this Bill today. The Bill seems to impose responsibility on the Clerk of the Parliaments for everything. Is that reasonably fair? Will he not have an advisory board or
1116
some general board to direct him? I refer to an example that I have used before. The situation over car parking at the House of Lords is unreasonable. If one does not arrive two hours before the House sits, one cannot park one's car. The issue has been raised on many occasions. It is purely a matter for the works and buildings committee. I doubt whether it should be the responsibility of the Clerk of the Parliaments. There should be other mechanisms to deal with those matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an idea of how these matters will be managed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can satisfy my noble friend's query. At the present time the Clerk of the Parliaments only acts in accordance with our wishes as expressed through the various committees of the House. We have restructured our committees to make them more effective and to bring them more in line with the Ibbs proposals. However, the situation will not really change. The Clerk of the Parliaments has always done his level best—I do not believe he has ever failed—to reflect the wishes of noble Lords. When he acts as a corporation sole, he will in effect act in accordance with our wishes as expressed by Members of the relevant committees of this House.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I wish to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about trying to obtain what most of us have been trying to obtain for a long while. If anyone wants to come and sit beside me he will have to sit in an appalling blast of cold air. When the House is full, there is a blast of hot air. The heating is the wrong way round. There is a lift out in the corridor that we have complained about for years. However, nothing has been done. There is a room along the corridor that we gave to the House of Commons. I do not know how long ago it was when that occurred. The House of Commons has now acquired an enormous palace across the road and has never inquired whether we want our room back. If we now have the power to sort out these matters, we should get on and do so.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the right thing for me to do is to ensure that the noble Lord's remarks are conveyed to the relevant committees of the House which are responsible for the various aspects of the running of the House to which the noble Lord referred.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Lottery
12.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the national lottery White Paper which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about the Government's plans, set out in a White Paper being published today, to introduce a national lottery for good causes. As honourable Members will know, we have been considering for some time the merits

1117
of a national lottery. It raises a number of complex practical issues, but the potential benefits are substantial. In the past in our own country a lottery funded the foundation of the British Museum. More recently, in Canada, a lottery also helped to fund the Olympic Games. A lottery helped to fund the building of the Sydney Opera House.
"Many other countries have long been using the proceeds of national lotteries to fund a wide range of projects which improve the quality of life of their people. Every other country in Western Europe has a national lottery. In the years ahead it will become increasingly difficult in practice to prevent their lottery tickets being sold in this country. Without a national lottery of our own, other countries rather than our own will benefit.
"In the light of all these considerations, and bearing in mind the opportunities it will give us to raise substantial sums for the public benefit, the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery to be promoted throughout the United Kingdom. We propose that the national lottery proceeds should be used to support projects of lasting benefit to the nation. The good causes to be funded will be sports, arts, our heritage and charities. This means that sporting facilities could be further improved and new ones provided; a whole range of additional facilities for young people could be developed; our historic buildings, houses, museums, galleries and cathedrals could be restored and worthwhile new buildings constructed; art treasures could be purchased for our national collection; and a wide range of other charities could be supported.
"A national lottery could be operating by 1994, but it will take some time to become fully established. Once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion a year for good causes. I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes. Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the National Health Service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community and must continue to be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way.
"We have concluded that a single national lottery is the best way forward. This would allow major prizes to be offered and it would maximise the potential funds which could be raised for good causes, while minimising the risk of fraud or mismanagement.
"The White Paper sets out the broad framework for the operation of the national lottery. There will be an independent National Lottery Board whose task will be to distribute the proceeds of the lottery. The day-to-day operation and management of the lottery will be undertaken by the private sector under contract and subject to strict regulation.
"Today's White Paper sets out a number of practical issues, and on some of them we want to consult interested parties. We are aware of the
1118
concerns of the football pools companies and others. We intend to discuss their concerns with them and to assess the possible effect of a national lottery on their activities. In the light of these discussions we shall consider whether there is a case for any changes in the controls under which they operate at present.
"Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the lottery. But we still need to consider how best to protect their interests, both in the allocation of the proceeds and the effect on their income from existing small lotteries. We would welcome the views of all charitable organisations on both these points.
"A national lottery will be a popular development of great significance. It provides a unique opportunity to improve in a lasting way the quality of our national life. I look forward to its early introduction".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that it seems an absurdity to come before the House in the dying days of a Parliament with proposals to establish a national lottery which could and perhaps should have been made months if not years ago. We can be forgiven if we feel that this measure has something more to do with the imminence of a general election than the establishment of a great new national institution which will be of lasting benefit to the arts, sport, the heritage, small charities and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I only express the hope that the party opposite has banked the cheques from Messrs. Littlewoods and Vernons into its war chest for the election. If that has not been done, who knows what effect this measure might have upon the balance sheet of the party opposite.
Quite apart from the timing of this measure, if I may say so, this is the most extraordinary way to proceed. As late as January, as my right honourable friend the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Hattersley, pointed out, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office said no fewer than seven times that a decision on these matters could not be taken without careful examination and consideration. He was particularly precise about the need to examine the impact on the pools industry
"to give those directly affected a chance to express their views".
Have they been given the chance directly to express their views? So far as I know, virtually no consultation has been undertaken.
A decision has been made. Paragraph 3 of the White Paper is quite clear about that. It says that the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery.
That is putting the cart before the horse. One takes the decision, and having taken the decision, one then proceeds to consult those bodies which will be most affected and which one had promised would be consulted before the decision was taken. I am reminded of the Red Queen in "Alice"—sentence first, verdict afterwards.
One could go on about that decision. Have the Churches been consulted? Have the Chapels been

1119
consulted? I am sure that where I come from the Chapels and the Churches will have distinct views upon the morality of introducing a national lottery. Have the Government had the benefit of that religious input? Have they consulted the industries which will be most affected? Not as far as I know.
I want to make two points about the Statement itself. It is very important that any money which is raised by a national lottery which goes to sport, the arts, the national heritage and what-have-you, should be genuinely additional money. The Government should not he surprised if we make that point with some vehemence in view of the way in which the issue of additionality in relation to payments from the European Social Fund and the European Regional Fund have been treated by the Government. Any money raised by a national lottery must not be an excuse for the Government to reduce public expenditure.
The Labour Party position is perfectly clear. We made it clear in a policy document which was published some months ago. We shall give serious consideration to the establishment of a national lottery. On one side, there are certain benefits which may well flow from a lottery, but we are not prepared to introduce a national lottery before we have consulted those interests which are most affected. We shall not, as the Government are doing, take the decision first and consult afterwards.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend on the lottery. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, although, at the end of the noble Lord's statement I was not entirely clear about the Labour Party's position except that it will consider the matter and, I suppose, keep it under permanent review.
The issue is one which gives rise to certain obvious questions. It is one thing to tolerate gambling but it is quite another for the Government positively to encourage it. It is on that aspect which the chapels to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred may have a point to make. Yet that is what the Government will have to do if the lottery is to collect the sums which the Government have in mind, namely, £1 billion a year. It is rather odd for this Government of all governments to nationalise gambling, which is a well-known addiction like alcoholism or drug taking. One can become addicted to gambling.
I shall always remember the answer given by a Liberal politician and Member of Parliament, Sir Harcourt Johnson, of somewhat Whiggish views, when asked whether he was in favour of gambling. He said that he was not. When asked why in that case he gambled so much himself on the racecourse—which was well known—he replied that he could afford it. That seems to me to be a perfectly rational answer. Gambling is an addiction and is accepted to be an addiction and it is odd that the Government should positively encourage it.
The Statement indicates that the sum raised will be devoted to almost every good cause which has
1120
occurred to the Home Secretary in reaching the decision. Despite the fact that the Government do not intend that the money should provide a substitute for existing programmes, there is a danger that that is precisely what will happen. It will be used as an excuse to divert funds from causes which warrant, deserve and should have overt government support. It will reduce the Government's responsibility for funding such services as the arts. That suspicion is confirmed and made apparent by the Statement itself, in which it is said that the lottery should not be a substitute for existing programmes:
"Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the National Health Service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community".
One can only conclude from that that the Government regard the arts as a service which is not of fundamental importance to the community.
It is precisely that overt implication in the Statement of first and second-class categories of importance which worries me. It seems to me that we can take it from the Statement that the arts are not to be regarded as a service of fundamental importance to the community in the eyes of the present Government. It is for that reason that I find the Statement a source of very real anxiety.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have never heard such a muddled welcome as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to this proposal. He accused the Government of various things but his own reply was the most muddled I have heard on the subject of a national lottery. In respect of his remarks concerning his party's policy, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Lloyd, made it clear that the Government warmly welcomed the idea of a national lottery and he consulted on how best to proceed. That is what we are doing now. The White Paper is a consultation document. That is obvious. We said that we would consult and we shall consult those concerned. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been in touch with the pools companies and the pools promoters and we shall consult them in the future.
Both noble Lords mentioned additionality. The best that I can do is to draw their attention to paragraph 41 of the White Paper, which says that:
"Under standard conventions the disbursements of a national lottery will be classified as public expenditure in the national accounts. The Government does not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways".
That is obvious.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned gambling. I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said in his report on gambling in 1978 that a lottery was a harmless entertainment providing a rare opportunity to improve the quality of British life.
I also draw the noble Lord's attention to how much we have spent on the arts. Arts spending in 1991–92 is 56 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. The

1121
Office of Arts and Libraries programme of expenditure for 1990–91 is £560 million. That is a very real commitment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down—and I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate, who was about to get to his feet—will he look at paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which states very firmly:
"It is against this background that the Government has now decided"?
It does not say that the Government are consulting as to whether they should take that decision but that the Government have now decided. The noble Viscount may rubbish what I said but there is no question that the decision has been taken and consultations are to follow.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is perfectly clear. We produced the White Paper so that we are able to consult. That is what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said earlier this year.
12.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I found the Minister's Statement melancholy listening. I recognise that the desire to be rich is fairly low in any list of vices and does not do a great deal of harm. But it is vice: "Thou shalt not covet" and greed. It is human experience that makes it one of the seven deadly sins.
At present we hear many calls for a moral lead in the nation. I am one of those who believe that moral leads are too important to be left to the pulpit. They need to be indulged in by those who have power and authority and by governments, to whom the power to rule has been entrusted, in one sense, by God. It can be left to private enterprise to meet the needs of private vices. That is surely not the job of government.
I listened with interest to the various good causes which the lottery will support. However, over and over again we return to the issue that those good causes are either worthy of public munificence and private charity or they are not. If they are not, then to feed them in such an underhand way, by pandering to people's weaknesses, seems to me to be degrading, even though cathedrals come on the list of those who will benefit. It is a degrading way to do things.
I hope that wiser thoughts will eventually prevail. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, gave mortal offence in this Chamber by describing Macmillan's premium bonds as a squalid lottery. I find the same words in my mind this morning.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate does not support the lottery. I point out to him that we are the only country in western Europe which does not have a national lottery. Indeed, until quite recently we were the only country in the whole of Europe, apart from Albania, that did not have a national lottery. To be left in that class with that nation seems very odd.
There are many lotteries in Europe which will extend over national boundaries. Therefore the last thing one wants is for people in this country to buy
1122
lottery tickets for a benefit that goes somewhere else and not into the many good causes in this country. That is important.
Lotteries are not new in this country. The first recorded lottery in England took place in 1569, to raise money for the repair of the Cinque Ports. There have been lotteries in this country for a number of years. The last one took place in 1826. Before then lotteries had raised a great deal of money for special purposes. For example, the first Westminster Bridge was built with funds from lotteries in 1739. I believe that a national lottery will enable many good causes in this country to benefit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the success of a national lottery depends on popular support? Can he tell the House what representations the Home Secretary has received from the public for or against a national lottery? My noble friend Lord Richard brought up the subject of consultation. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Government will withdraw the proposal, if consultation shows adverse reaction to a national lottery?
I ask the noble Viscount quite seriously what has made the Government change their mind quite radically. He may recollect that two years ago there was a debate in this House about the virtues of a national lottery. Perhaps I may just quote one or two lines from the response of his noble friend Lord Ferrers. He said:
"No other country which is comparable to ours appears to have as varied a gambling industry as we have with which any new gambling enterprise would have to compete. It is commonly assumed that a major lottery would divert current spending, in particular away from the football pools. I suggest that there must be a limit to the amount of money which is waiting to find a home in the general area of gambling … There is certainly some concern that the lotteries would nevertheless draw from a pool of money which charities as a whole could otherwise tap directly and more cost-effectively". —[Official Report, 28/2/90; col. 802.]
It is therefore of interest that the Minister's presentation of the Statement today did not bring up any of the anxieties that the Government had before. It would be interesting to learn how they resolved those anxieties in order to bring forward this highly enthusiastic Statement presenting a national lottery.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may draw her attention to paragraph 33 of the White Paper about the effect on charities:
"One of the concerns most frequently voiced about the impact of the national lottery is that charities will lose income from existing small lotteries and from charitable donations generally".
It goes on:
"The Government want to consult widely with major charitable interests and will pay careful attention to their views".
We have received many representations and letters from members of the public in support of a national lottery. There has been support for a national lottery on both sides of another place. That is why the decision was made to bring in the White Paper to consult on a national lottery.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Viscount withdraw the White Paper if the consultation shows an adverse reaction from those with whom the Government consult?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question and I could not possibly answer it.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I support my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I may make just one comment. In the past 20 minutes I have never in the whole of my life heard more smug rubbish spoken.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support, provided that his remark about smug rubbish was not addressed to this side of the House but to the other side.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be willing to hear a word in favour of joy and liberty? I ask myself whether the worry about consultation is as necessary as has been made out. For years we have been talking openly in public and in the press about a national lottery. The Rothschild Report went into the matter with enormous thoroughness, but nothing was done.
We know fairly clearly the arguments against and in favour of this measure. Listening to some of the comments today, and especially the words of the right reverend Prelate, I was reminded of President Coolidge. On returning from church he was asked what the sermon had been about. He said that it had been about sin. Then: "What did the preacher say, Cal?"—"He was against it."
That is a perfectly natural reaction from people who feel sincerely that gambling is a great evil and should not be encouraged in any way. I do not share those views. I believe that it is one of the minor joys, although like alcohol it can bring great evils in its train. I feel that people should be free to engage in a national lottery. I should prefer to see the profits of such a venture go into the arts, sport and other good causes rather than into the pockets of the directors of Littlewoods. The pools have had it too good for too long without sufficient competition.
I am amused by the fact that the Government have produced competition, but in this case competition is provided by the state. I very much welcome the initiative of the Government. I am sure that they will listen to reactions to the White Paper. I feel that we ought to welcome it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for this initiative. Many times in arts debates over the past few years he and I have discussed the possibility of a national lottery. Indeed, on many occasions I have been pressed for the formation of a national lottery. I am particularly delighted to be able to come forward today to announce that that will happen. Obviously, together with sport, charities and the heritage, the arts will be an important area of funding. We shall be able to look at museums, galleries and the possibilities of raising money through the lottery for buying pictures of great national importance. There are many areas in which a national lottery can be used.
1124
With regard to football pools, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already been in touch with the pools companies and pools promoters. We do not believe that a national lottery will necessarily be detrimental to them. We hope very much to consult with them. Indeed, a national lottery might be run by them: they could be one of the private companies that bids to run a lottery.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will clarify one point. I have not seen the White Paper. However, I gather that it states that it is the intention of the Government that funds raised by the lottery should be additional to, and not substituted for, existing sources. What safeguards and insurance can one have to that effect? It seems extraordinarily difficult in practice to make sure that the lottery is not a substitute for existing sources rather than additional to them. How will that be achieved? How shall we know that the sums are additional? If the Government fail to increase their input one year, how shall we know that it is not because they feel that that input is being substituted by the lottery? What means have the Government of ensuring additional funds?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can only draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to paragraph 41 of the White Paper on additionality, to which I have already referred. It is important that it will not be the Government who hand out the money. It will be the National Lottery Board which hands out the money in the four areas I indicated.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Viscount enlighten me on two points? First, during the debate on racing last year it was clearly stated by the Minister that it has been public policy, implemented by successive governments, that government should not encourage gambling. How does he reconcile that with the decision to go ahead with a lottery? Secondly, what makes him come to the conclusion that the late Lord Rothschild's views on the morality of gambling are conclusive? One gives him all credit for the work that he did on the commission for gambling.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in answer to the question about the late Lord Rothschild's views, very simply it is a matter of reading his report. The national lottery is not hard gambling. There is a great difference. In effect it is a flutter, and not a very big flutter. We believe that tickets sold will probably cost in the region of 50p or £l. It is not a huge amount of money.
As I said, sports will be one of the areas to benefit. The noble Viscount may care to consider that, should Manchester be successful in the year 2000 in attracting the Olympic Games, a national lottery will by that stage be in operation. That could benefit Manchester.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. I support him for the simplest of reasons. I am chairman of a small charity which, in the past year, has received quite a lot of money from, I believe, the only existing lottery company in Britain; it is called UK Charity Lotteries Limited. The company

1125
has attempted to operate in a small way. But very small and unfashionable charities, such as the one of which I am chairman, cannot raise money easily. If it were not for that small charity company, this year we would not have been able to survive. I know of quite a few other charities in the same position. The company has been operating for about a year or 18 months. A total of about £6 million has been contributed to small charities.
It becomes harder and harder to raise money. The right reverend Prelate rightly said that if a charity were worthy and if a cause were a good cause, then government, public funds or charitable donations should allow it to continue. That is a very good theory; but in practice it does not work. Many smaller charities which do good work but do not catch the public imagination or attract grand and influential celebrities to raise money for them simply do not receive money.
I strongly support a lottery for the simple reason that it will raise more money for charities which do not receive funds. That cannot be a bad thing. It would be a peculiarly British irony if it were money from gambling that funded places which provide treatment for a gambling addiction. I have spent much time trying to raise money from producers of alcoholic drinks and from the drug companies to fund treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts. Those producers have been rather reticent in coming forward. Yet they seem to do well out of the people which my organisations treat. If there is any way in which that position can be turned round slightly, I welcome it enormously.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support. He speaks with great experience about charities, in particular medical charities. We believe that medical charities will be one of the important recipients from the lottery. On charities and charitable giving, we believe that most people continue to support their favourite charities. Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the national lottery. We are prepared to consider proposals to help existing charitable lotteries so that they do not suffer.
Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that we have, all of us, at times indulged in a lottery. How many times have we been to village fetes? How many times has the right reverend Prelate been asked to buy a lottery ticket in order to support a specific cathedral? All of us in many ways regularly buy lottery tickets for the support of charities. Many organisations have benefited, whether they be charities, medical charities or possibly churches.

Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992
12.37 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 14 draft orders standing on the Order Paper in my name all relate to matters of valuation and rating in Scotland. They conveniently divide into two groups and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall deal with them in this way.
The draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 and the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 would set the level of industrial derating to apply in Scotland next year at 25 per cent. That is a reduction of five percentage points from the current level and is consistent with the Government's intention of phasing out industrial derating in parallel with the moves towards a national rate in Scotland at the level of the national non-domestic rate in England. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced a reduction in non-domestic rates next year of £60 million, and this allows a further reduction in the level of industrial derating to 25 per cent.
There are 12 draft orders relating to the rateable values for 1992–93 of the so-called formula valued industries. These are mainly public utilities which are not valued for rating by the regional assessors in the usual way but for which the rateable values are prescribed. The draft orders before the House today simply revise the rateable values prescribed for this year to take account both of the new level of industrial derating and also of material changes affecting the value of each industry's property holdings.
The orders in the main merely update for 1992–93 existing provisions which apply in respect of this financial year. I commend the orders to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I thank the noble Lord for introducing these technical measures and explaining them so clearly. They are purely technical and we have no objection to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1992
12.40 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the order that we are debating today is to set up the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation. Historically, the heartlands area has been the industrial powerhouse of Birmingham—a teeming mass of manufacturing firms in the traditional engineering fields for which the West Midlands is rightly famous. In the early 1980s it suffered, together
1128
with so many other parts of our inner cities, from a significant loss of manufacturing capacity; and although that shake out brought with it a regrettable loss of jobs it also brought an opportunity to remodel this part of the city by reclaiming and redeveloping a number of major vacant sites. In 1986 no less than 300 acres of land in the heartlands area was statutorily derelict and a great deal more was neglected or under-used. Indeed, it was considered as a serious candidate for UDC status in 1986 at the time when the second generation development corporations were being set up.
But Birmingham City Council made very strong representations to allow the council, working in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of developers, to launch a homegrown alternative to an urban development corporation. We acceded because there was such evidence of local good will and genuine co-operation between public and private sectors in Birmingham at that time; and after a lengthy period of negotiations between the partners, Birmingham Heartlands Limited came into being in March 1988.
It is a tribute to the partners in that heartlands initiative that their commitment to the cause of East Birmingham has not faltered. But they will freely admit that, despite their great enthusiasm, the pace of redevelopment has fallen far short of the hopes in 1988 and there is so much still to do. As a percentage of the workforce, unemployment in the area currently stands at 27 per cent. About 10 per cent. of the heartlands area is statutorily derelict and about 100 vacant sites, which vary in size from 60 to many under two acres, remain in need of reclamation or redevelopment.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken a very close interest in the heartlands experiment to date. He made a number of visits during 1991 to assess the progress and problems on the ground. He was, therefore, sympathetic to the case put to him formally by Birmingham Heartlands Limited and Birmingham City Council in September 1991 that statutory UDC status for the heartlands area of East Birmingham would now bring considerable regeneration benefits. The Secretary of State has therefore agreed that a statutory UDC for the Birmingham heartlands area be set up.
We envisage that the lifetime of the Birmingham Heartlands UDC will be five years. Much valuable preparatory work has already been done and a basic development strategy, based on an original study by Roger Tym and partners in 1987, has met with general acceptance locally. The heartlands plan is already widely understood by the development industry.
The Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation will have resources committed from the Department of the Environment of £50 million during a five-year period from April 1992. For year one, when inevitably there will be some time in the early part of the year before the corporation is at full working strength, we propose to set aside £8.5 million.
The development corporation will have powers to assemble land using compulsory purchase where necessary. It will be able to undertake land reclamation, provide serviced sites for development

1129
and offer grants to the private sector to secure the regeneration of its area. It is also intended that the development corporation takes over the role of planning authority for its area from the city council. To this end a planning functions order has been prepared and will be made immediately after the constitution and area order which we are debating today comes into force. It will be laid as soon as possible thereafter. We believe that it is desirable for a UDC to be a one stop shop for planning purposes. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in the atmosphere of co-operation that exists in Birmingham there will be scope for agency arrangements to enable the city council to carry out much of the preliminary work on development control.
The Secretary of State will be appointing Sir Reginald Eyre as chairman of the new development corporation. Your Lordships may be aware that Sir Reginald has been chairman of Birmingham Heartlands Limited since its inception, and he will bring invaluable local expertise to the new UDC. It is also our intention that Sir Richard Knowles, currently deputy chairman of Birmingham Heartlands Limited and leader of Birmingham City Council, should be appointed deputy chairman of the UDC. There will be a further 10 members appointed—five from the city council and five from the private sector. The structure of the board, therefore, with strong local authority representation, will recognise the unique quality of partnership between the public and private sectors in East Birmingham.
I should emphasise that there have been extensive discussions locally about the proposal. All the interested parties in Birmingham support the creation of an urban development corporation which can operate along the lines that I have described.
By approving the order today the House will bring new confidence in the future to the heartlands area of East Birmingham. Those involved in the heartlands Venture since 1988 have had the foresight to see that sustainable regeneration for this part of Birmingham depends on having clear powers, reliable resources and the right structure. A UDC will be able to tackle the problems of East Birmingham with a balanced programme. It will link development opportunities to the employment needs and wider aspirations of local residents. It will offer wider housing choice, a greener environment and a better business climate. It will offer, quite simply, a brighter future for the people of East Birmingham. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1992 Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1992 European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1992 Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1992
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 14th, 17th 19th and 21st February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall be brief. These draft regulations and orders are straightforward and uncontroversial, and I hope not to detain the House too long in consideration of them today.
The draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations amend regulation 64 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 to take account of changes made by the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations perform two different functions. First, they apply the provisions of the draft regulations which I have just described and which cover only parliamentary and local elections to cover European parliamentary elections as well. Secondly, they apply for the purposes of European parliamentary elections certain technical changes made by the Representation of the People Act 1991 concerning the recovery of returning officers' charges at parliamentary elections. They also apply to European parliamentary elections the provisions of the Transfer of Functions (Returning Officers' Charges) Order 1991 which transferred the functions of the Treasury in connection with such charges to the home departments.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations perform the same two functions in respect of Northern Ireland.
Finally, the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order increases the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary and local government elections throughout the United Kingdom to take account of inflation.
I commend these draft regulations and orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 14th, 17th 19th and 21st February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will readily understand the brevity of the noble Viscount's introduction of the orders. However, they are important and one should say a few words about them. That is part of our democratic process. I divide the contents of the orders into three parts. The first is the technical changes to which the noble Viscount referred in respect of the recovery of the recovery officers' charges in certain elections. The second is the change relating to absent voters. All noble Lords will appreciate any improvement in the provision for absent voting. In this case account is taken of the new disability living allowance.
I am sorry that I did not acquaint the noble Viscount in advance with these questions. In the absence of a reference number which applies to the mobility allowance, will there be attestation of an application to be made for this new order? We are now making quite clear in the orders that the new living allowance will not have a reference number whereas previously there was a reference number. The order says that despite having no reference number there will be no problem. But will that mean that there must be attestation?
The other important change is the increase in parliamentary and local government election expenses. I have calculated that that is a 4.5 per cent. increase all round. That seems reasonable. I should like to know whether there has been general consultation with the political parties on this matter. We give all the orders our full approval.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that in the European context my noble friend referred to the transfer of certain functions from the Treasury to the Home Office. Will he explain to the House what those functions are and why they are being transferred?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I understand that instructions will be sent out containing all the necessary information.
I should say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there have been consultations between the two departments and elsewhere. It was decided that the functions were best joined to the specific home departments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has not said what the functions are.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the functions are for the recovery of returning officers' charges at parliamentary elections. Those functions are to be transferred from the Treasury to the Home Office.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
12.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February he approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of an additional £49.2 million for the current financial year. This brings the total Estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services this year to some £4,725 million. The second purpose is to authorise the Vote-on-Account of some £2,140 million for 1992–93. This will enable services to continue until the 1992–93 main Estimates are brought before the House later this year.
The Northern Ireland public expenditure allocation has faced significant resource pressures this year, with expenditure on a number of demand-led programmes such as health and education being higher than anticipated. Extra demands placed on the law and order programme have also contributed to this but are not part of the Estimates we are considering today. In order to accommodate those new demands, a temporary pause on spending on new capital contracts was announced on 9th December. While this means that some projects are being deferred for a few months, the effects of this short delay will be marginal and will not adversely affect the delivery of services. Indeed the moratorium is already effectively drawing to a close. Departments are planning to release the projects which will not now involve expenditure until the 1992–93 financial year. Departments will also release projects selectively where resources permit.
I should like to set the Estimates in the context of the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy which has weathered the recent recession remarkably well. Unemployment, although higher than any of us would wish, has risen by a much smaller extent in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months than in the UK as a whole. It now stands at 14.3 per cent. of the workforce, an increase of less than one percentage point over the past year and well below the peak of 17.7 per cent. in October 1986. Similarly, employment and output levels have held up better in Northern Ireland than in the remainder of the United Kingdom. We are nevertheless not complacent and efforts to strengthen the economy remain high on the Government's list of priorities. The indicators provide encouraging evidence of the resilience of the Northern Ireland economy and should mean that it is well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the order, starting with the Department of Agriculture's Vote 1. An additional £2.3 million is required for payments under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme and £4.4 million for the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Scheme, reflecting increases in rates of allowances and in the numbers of eligible animals. These increases are, however, offset by reduced requirements elsewhere in the Vote.
In the Department of Agriculture's Vote 2, additional provision of £4.1 million is required, including £2.3 million for the disease eradication programme. The increases are fully offset by savings elsewhere in the Vote, resulting in a token increase of £1,000.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development. In Vote 1, which covers expenditure on industrial support and regeneration, £3.9 million is sought for expenditure on custom-built factory premises. In Vote 2, a net increase of £5.7 million is sought for a range of services, including an additional £1.1 million for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The last few years have seen a welcome upturn in Northern Ireland's tourism, and we expect that 1991 will show a record figure of over 1,150,000 visitors.
Vote 3, which covers expenditure by the Training and Employment Agency, seeks a further £1.4 million for the youth training programme and £0.1 million for the community volunteering scheme. This will enable the number of full-time posts supported by the scheme to increase from 600 to 700.
The Department of the Environment has supplementary estimates in four Votes. In Vote 1, an additional £4.5 million is sought, including £1.3 million for roads and bridges, £0.5 million for road lighting and £0.7 million for payments to Northern Ireland Railways.
In Vote 2 £5.4 million is sought overall and £12.3 million is for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, mainly to enable it to repay loans. This is offset by additional receipts from housing associations and by a fall in the number of applications under the co-ownership scheme.
In the Department of the Environment's Vote 3 an additional £3.4 million is sought for consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage capital schemes. Over the next three years, approximately £87 million will be directed towards improving the already high quality of drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland in line with the relevant EC directives.
In Vote 4 an additional £3.3 million is sought. This includes £3.7 million for community economic regeneration schemes. Funds continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need.
For education a net increase of £10.7 million is sought for Vote 1. Additional provision includes £11.8 million for grants to education and library boards and £8.7 million is for mandatory student awards, reflecting the increasing numbers of school-leavers who enter higher education.
Moving to the Department of Health and Social Services, in Vote 1 an additional £2.5 million is sought
1134
for grants to health and social services boards to meet increased costs. An additional £15 million is required for expenditure on the family health services, arising mainly for payments under the new general practitioner and dental contracts.
Finally, in Vote 4, covering social security, an addition of nearly £15 million is sought to meet a revised estimate of claims for a wide range of benefits, including income support and disability benefits.
I hope that the House has found this very brief summary of the main components of this order helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved.—(Baroness Hooper.)
1 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to a Northern Ireland debate and regret that I have been unable to provide her with a larger audience. I thank her for explaining so clearly the significance of the order and its main provisions.
Like all Members of your Lordships' House, I welcome the assurance of the Minister that the moratorium announced last December on new capital contracts will come to a close at the end of this financial year. Regrettably, its effect may be worse for a little while to come. That is a point made several weeks ago in your Lordships' House, when the noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the question of its effect on the housing executive.
The main estimates will come before the House later in the year, and this afternoon I propose to confine my comments and questions to four areas. We heard from the Minister that the first main vote is that of the Department of Agriculture. We will do well to remind ourselves that this industry accounts for 10 per cent. of civil employment in Northern Ireland, and 7.5 per cent. of the total GDP. I have read the annual report of the Department of Agriculture for 1990–91, and my noble friend Lord Gallacher, to whom we on these Benches look for guidance on agricultural matters, confirms that the report reveals good performances over the wide area of agricultural interest covered by it. I am sure that that is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, as a former agricultural Minister in Northern Ireland, will be happy to confirm.
The Minister referred to the agricultural vote and I shall be grateful if she can throw some light on four specific matters. First, as two-thirds of Northern Ireland's agricultural output is exported, why were the grants for co-operation in agriculture and horticulture withdrawn last May? Was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the agricultural Minister consulted about that? If so, were they in full agreement with the proposal?
Secondly, although additional provision is made for the disease eradication programme—that is something to which the noble Baroness specifically referred—will any of the additional funding be allotted to pay for the costs of processing and disposing of fallen animals, which is estimated to cost around £200,000 a week? I have a feeling that the

1135
noble Baroness will not be able to give me a favourable reply to that question. However, the department will know that the issue of the disposal of fallen animals has been a subject of much anxiety, and that anxiety has been particularly expressed by the Local Government Action Group which represents 22 out of the 26 district councils. Moreover, the action group warns that the UK may be in breach of the EC directive on animal waste disposal. The group recommends that there should be an insurance fund set up to meet that risk. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can tell the House how the Government respond to the anxieties of the Local Government Action Group.
Thirdly, as agriculture is predominantly grass based in Northern Ireland, and almost 70 per cent. of its gross output comes from beef, sheep and dairying, can the Minister say how the proposals for the EC CAP restructuring are likely to affect that area? I understand that they are considered to be severe in a United Kingdom context. I should like to know how those proposals are likely to affect Northern Ireland. Again, can the Minister confirm whether or not consultation took place with the Northern Ireland Ministers by their British counterparts prior to and following meetings of the agricultural council.
My fourth point on the agricultural Vote concerns whether the Milk Marketing Board, or its counterpart in Northern Ireland, intends to table proposals for converting itself to a voluntary co-operative of producers. I understand that the Milk Marketing Board in England and Wales announced such proposals and that it will convert itself to a voluntary co-operation of producers by Easter. I understand that that is in response to pressures from the EC but with the encouragement of the Ministry. Does the Minister know whether a similar change of legal status is contemplated in Northern Ireland?
I move on to the second main Vote—that of the Department of Economic Development. We approve the additional provisions specifically referred to by the Minister. The Industrial Development Board plays a leading role in the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland. While I am loathe to criticise the board, and while I also appreciate that conditions have been difficult over the past couple of years, one has to ponder over a number of recent findings indicating that the board may not in the past have addressed the underlying causes of Northern Ireland's economic weaknesses.
That criticism came out most strongly several weeks ago in a letter by two members of the Department of Economics at Queen's University and published in the Financial Times. It seems to me that the Government will do well to ponder the letter, particularly as the post of chief executive of the IDB has become vacant. We hope that the opportunity will be taken to find a chief executive with the expertise and vision to measure up to the challenge and provide the vigorous leadership necessary.
Before I leave that main heading of expenditure, I should like to say that we on these Benches have been greatly heartened by the growing evidence that leading businessmen, both in the north and south of Ireland,
1136
now see that there is a close identity of interests between businesses north and south of the Border. We read with great satisfaction the joint report of the CBI and the CII on transport. A week ago the Irish Times carried a report of the powerful address of Dr. George Quigley, the chairman of the Ulster Bank. Dr. Quigley proposed that Ireland, north and south, should become what he described as an,
"'island economy', supported by the EC and with a special budget for economic development to be allocated by agreement between the Irish and British Governments".
He also proposed a Belfast-Dublin "economic corridor"—his words—to increase business and economic development between the two cities. It seems to me that that would also help to achieve the one "island economy", although I am not quite certain that he presented the corridor on that basis.
That is a refreshing approach and surely must be the modern approach. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government are listening carefully and with sympathy to what business people such as Dr. Quigley are saying. I hope also that they are considering in what way the two governments—and clearly it is a matter which concerns the two governments—can help to create the conditions which will enable these new ideas to come to fruition.
A deputation came to Westminster about a month ago to press the case for increased funding for the Northern Ireland community-based workshops. These workshops are providing a training service to young people who are particularly disadvantaged. I accept that the standard of training may be questioned. Nevertheless, like other noble Lords who met the deputation, I listened with great anxiety and sympathy to the message which the deputation brought to Westminster. Yesterday the Association of Community-Based Training Organisations issued a press statement from which I am very pleased to note that the department has come up with some short-term relief, but I believe that the longer term needs of the workshops remain unresolved.
According to the press statement, the Prime Minister is to be asked by the three party leaders in Northern Ireland to review the funding and the long-term role of the community-based workshops and their standard of training. I also note from the statement that the association is setting up a study group to investigate the funding and the possibility of approaching some of the European youth programmes.
This morning I received a letter from the department from which I was very pleased to note that the department has given considerable support to the workshops. Mr. Needham tells me that the youth training programme already attracts support from the European Social Fund to the tune of about 65 per cent. Yet I am glad that this matter is to be placed on the agenda of the meeting with the Prime Minister and that the discussion will lead to a review of the community-based workshops and their place in the youth training programme in Northern Ireland.
We have been reminded by the Select Committee of this House that the EC has a number of programmes to help young people of the ethnic communities within the EC. The problems of disadvantaged young people

1137
in Northern Ireland are just as acute as those of the ethnic communities in Europe. However, I am encouraged to learn that the department may be exploring other opportunities of obtaining assistance from the EC programmes.
We see from the few examples which I have just given that many of the specific problems of Northern Ireland have also to be seen in context of the general development of the European framework and institutions. We see very clearly the need for a strong regional voice within the Community. Perhaps I may venture to ask whether the department is satisfied that it is well equipped to develop the case in Brussels with an eye particularly on the needs of Northern Ireland. That is not to say that Northern Ireland must look to Brussels or to London for all answers to all its problems. That would be to ignore the problems that are well within the power of Northern Ireland, relying on assistance from the UK, to put right.
From these Benches we have given every credit to the Government for having supported the principle of integrated education. But when I read the report of the debate on the order in another place, I became painfully aware that the nursery schools which are feeding the integrated primary schools are in some financial difficulties. If the integrated nursery schools were to fail, it is impossible, in our view, to exaggerate the damage that will be done to the integrated primary schools and the integrated secondary schools further up the line. I hope that if there is a problem here—I should not care to quantify that problem—the department can find the resources that are required to finance the integrated nursery schools, although I accept that this may require particularly careful presentation, given opposition in certain quarters.
I shall touch very briefly on another subject. Within the competence of the Northern Ireland Office is the National Health Service in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that Northern Ireland has the most efficient, effective and humane health service possible. That is an issue to which we shall have to return on another date.
This is the last appropriation order which we shall discuss before the general election. Therefore we are very pleased to read and to hear that the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have expressed their willingness to resume the discussions whatever the outcome of the general election. That is encouraging news.
1.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches feel a dissatisfaction (which is not confined to any one quarter of the House) with the way that Northern Ireland business is at present scrutinised at Westminster. I recall the debate in this Chamber on the education reform order for Northern Ireland in 1988. That was an enormous measure. We rushed through it in half of an afternoon. We have before us a piece of business of considerable importance, and in the regrettable and unavoidable absence of my noble
1138
friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham I cannot do justice to it the way I should wish. But we should pause and think a little longer about it.
The noble Baroness did her best with her case. There was perhaps a slight Panglossian element in some parts of it. I may say that as a Liberal Democrat I speak as a representative of the only political party which has to any extent any democratic "plain-speak" for voters of Northern Ireland. We are in partnership with the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, and speak in conjunction with them and with information from them.
At all times unemployment in Northern Ireland has been higher than unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom. At present it is approximately 4 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom; a figure of 14 per cent. over the population as a whole; 25 per cent. in some areas in which there are considerable difficulties. Those are significant figures. Looking at them, I am reminded of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in the days when he was Home Secretary. After visiting the Province, he recalled the proverb about the devil finding work for idle hands to do. In seeing a link between unemployment and crime, as almost all governments have done in almost all centuries, I am tempted to see that multiplied in Northern Ireland.
We on these Benches feel a quite profound regret about the capital freeze which the noble Baroness mentioned. We are pleased to hear that it is drawing to a close. We hope it is doing so very rapidly, and we hope that it will not need to recur in the near future. We are particularly concerned at the freeze in the use of improvement and repair grants. The construction industry is one in which unemployment is quite peculiarly cyclical. We are also well aware that repairs postponed are repairs whose magnitude increases. If building repairs are put off, a great deal more work is created in the long run and that is not in the public interest.
We are also very anxious about the justification that has been given for the freeze. We have been told that it is because of the cost of terrorist attacks. It is our contention that that cost, unavoidable as it regrettably is, should not be taken out of ordinary budgets. That should be a separate account and should not hold back the carrying on of ordinary business. If it does, it is yielding a vital point. It is interfering with the principle of business as usual.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions. How much of the £35 million recently made available to increase the Social Fund—a welcome amount, if small—will go to Northern Ireland? With an eye on the long-term development of the Northern Irish economy, are there any plans in progress to have a rail link leading from the Channel Tunnel to one of the ports which serve Northern Ireland? In the long term, for the future of the Northern Irish economy, that question is a vital one. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the EC and the future of the Northern Irish economy. We sympathise with the approach, but if it is to be made effective there must be trade routes as fast as we can manage stretching from Northern Ireland through to the

1139
Channel and through on to the Continent of Europe. I very much hope that that will be taken into account. With those words, I shall leave it there for the moment, but the business needs more scrutiny than it is getting here.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest, albeit an indirect one, because my company owns a small amount of property in the area to which I am about to refer.
Under the heading of Department of Economic Development, we wish that the Industrial Development Board could make an extra special effort to attract industry to the area of South Down. I know that it is difficult to attract industry to anywhere in the United Kingdom at this time of economic recession and in Northern Ireland I know that it is easier to attract industry to the periphery of Belfast, to the satellite towns such as Bangor, Newtownards, Lisburn and Carrickfergus. Perhaps there is a false perception about South Down—that it is a rural area and one that is not suitable for any industrial development at all. That is not the case. Sites have already been identified where, without detriment to the countryside or rural environment, industry could be located. We feel that perhaps South Down has been allowed to become something of a backwater and that not enough effort has been made to attract industry to that area.
It was for that reason that I was privileged on Monday to be able to attend the launch of a new completely voluntary enterprise, though with input from the Down District Council. I refer to the Down Economic Development Agency. This is a marvellous example of self-help and of people voluntarily trying to do what they can to improve prosperity in the area. But being realistic, all they can do is promote the area, publicise it, give information and encouragement and try to influence affairs. However, at the end of the day it is the IDB which has the staff and which can go overseas to negotiate. Above all it is the IDB which has the funds to be able to put together an attractive package to provide an incentive for inward investment to be brought to the area. If we wish that the IDB and the Department of Economic Development would work harder in favour of South Down, we sincerely wish that the Department of the Environment would work less hard against South Down.
Downpatrick, the county town, has been strangled for years by traffic congestion. It is getting worse every year. For years the possibility of an urban through pass has been mooted. That would not solve the problem. It might ease it temporarily but experience has shown on many occasions that carving the centre out of a town for the sake of the traffic is counterproductive. Not only does it wreck the personality of the town but it tends to attract more traffic, so it defeats itself in the end. The only answer is to keep through traffic out of the middle of the town.
For this reason a bypass road for Downpatrick was suggested by myself and others more than 20 years ago. More recently, in the past few years it has been under active consideration and we were promised not long ago that a decision was about to be reached. Now we have been told that the ring road has been
1140
postponed indefinitely. When all is said and done, a great deal has been said but nothing has been done. Why does the Department of the Environment spend money on an urban regeneration scheme for Downpatrick when in fact it is causing degeneration, not regeneration, by allowing the town to be strangled by traffic congestion and is providing a disincentive to inward investment to the area?
Under the heading of Department of the Environment, there is shortly to be a reorganisation of the water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. I understand that a new company is to be formed which will be wholly owned by the Government through the Department of the Environment. Unlike Great Britain, it will be a single company covering the entire Province, which means that there will he no competition. That makes it all the more important that regulation of that company should be as efficient and as powerful as possible. The way things are at the moment I understand that regulatory powers may be vested in the very same department, the Department of the Environment. That is not satisfactory.
We have already seen how the Department of the Environment can grant itself planning permission to build what seems to be a completely inappropriate building beside one of the most historically and architecturally important churches in Belfast; St. Malachi's. If the department can do that kind of thing, if it is self-regulatory, the public will have no confidence. It is very important that there should be maximum consultation before any decisions are made. The public and those who represent the public and the various interests throughout the Province should have every opportunity to make an input during the consultative period before any decisions are made. It would seem that the Northern Ireland Consumer Council would be as good a body as any to act as an agency for this purpose and perhaps to be the regulatory agency at the end of the day.
In what I am afraid is mainly a rather whingeing speech, it gives me great pleasure, as they say, to be able to pay tribute to the Department of Education for its far sighted attitude towards integrated education in Northern Ireland. I was in at the start when in 1981 Lagan College was formed with 28 pupils. Last Autumn I was privileged to go to the 10th birthday party of Lagan College when it had not 28 pupils hut 750 of them. It has been a real success story. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, knows, integrated schools have been established all over the Province since that time. It is a movement that has really got off the ground. Credit must be paid to Her Majesty's Government and to the Department of Education for the way in which they have facilitated that, and in recent years actively encouraged it.
I turn now the Department of Health and Social Services. I read that £37.2 million of extra aid was recently approved for assisting in the running costs of hospices in Great Britain. That means that 50 per cent. of the running costs of hospices in Scotland are met from public funds and that 42 per cent. of those costs in England and Wales are met from public funds. But if what I read is correct, Northern Ireland hospices still receive only 33 per cent. There may be some other

1141
factor involved in the equation about which I am unaware. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to let me know, I should be most grateful. On the face of it it seems to me to be inequitable; but perhaps I have got it wrong. I honestly think that the Northern Ireland hospices ought to receive the same level of grant aid towards their running costs as do those in England, Scotland and Wales.
Finally, I have something to say under the heading of the Northern Ireland Assembly, although I hesitate to say it. I preface my observation by saying that ever since the introduction of direct rule about 20 years ago, I have found every Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, whether Labour or Conservative, to be unfailingly courteous, sympathetic and as helpful as they could be within the limitations of what they were able to do. I have found everyone of them to be friendly and congenial.
Therefore, it is with some hesitation that I ask whether it is in keeping with the dignity of their office that Northern Ireland Office Ministers should indulge in local party politics? I should say the same if we were to have a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. That is not inconceivable; indeed, after the next election, it may even be the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Moreover, if they were to campaign on behalf of the Alliance Party I would regard it equally as being unseemly. Therefore, is it right? After all, in a colony the governor may have been a prominent politician since retired, but as soon as he enters Government House he leaves his politics behind him. He is above all that. I suggest that the same should apply to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not wish to cause offence, but I feel that it would be more in keeping with the dignity of their office if they were right above politics.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene after the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I should like first to congratulate my noble friend the Minister for getting her toes wet on an occasion such as this on Northern Ireland affairs. Who knows, after a possible election, she may well find herself—judging by her previous performance in your Lordships' House—handling all the responsibilities to which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and other Members of the House referred? Looking into the background of the order before the House today, I must say that it is rare for us to have the opportunity to discuss—certainly in the depth that has been possible today—the affairs of Northern Ireland, let alone to delve into some of the details. I take the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we should use such opportunities to raise all kinds of points.
What has not been mentioned—it may have been touched upon briefly by the noble Earl—is the question of terrorist violence which is, alas, still with us. Today of all days, I should like to pay my personal tribute and express my respect and congratulations to the members of the security forces—namely, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—and also to the people of Northern Ireland who, once again, after an enormous bomb went off in Lurgan yesterday, have, with good humour, swept up
1142
and carried on business. The one thing that marked my five-and-a-half very happy years serving in the post which my noble friend now holds in Northern Ireland was indeed the immense support I received and which all Ministers in your Lordships' House and in another place receive from everyone in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that your Lordships will find it normal if I raise one or two points on the agricultural sector in the two Votes in the order before the House today. I was ignorant in a certain aspect; indeed, it shows that I had not kept up with the entire details of the Northern Ireland Office. I had one or two questions on drainage. I spoke to the Minister responsible for the Northern Ireland agriculture department. He said that I was a little out of touch, but typically, and in tribute to me, he said, "Why use one word when three would do?" I understand that that division is now known as water course management. Certainly, I recall that water course management occupied much of the time of government output when I served in Northern Ireland.
I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm—not necessarily today, but perhaps after raising the matter with our noble friend and indeed with the Ministers responsible for these activities in another place—something about the Blackwater drainage scheme. That was well under way during my career in Northern Ireland. It was a scheme of such complexity that it even outlasted my career. I believe that the programme should be complete by now. Can my noble friend confirm that all the tidying up and repairs which are associated with the enormous works carried out on that section of drainage in Northern Ireland have been completed? I hope that all the work has been cleaned up and indeed that the professional tidying up and restoration of all the facilities and the sites has been carried out to the very professional standard which the water course management division would seek to aspire to.
Can my noble friend also check that all the wetlands areas, which I recall were endemic, have been restored and are in the kind of order which they should be. I recall that one of the wetlands caused considerable embarrassment in my office as the typewriter misprinted the name of one particular inhabitant who may well have inhabited the area spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath; namely, the area around Downpatrick. I remember that he took me to visit the areas to which he referred. I was informed that in the wetlands, especially the Blackwater area, there was an inhabitant known as the green and white fronted goose. I put down a note saying that I was not aware that this was the "ocine" sector of the Celtic supporters' club but that I wondered whether they could pay a visit to various places in south Belfast which I thought might be particularly good. An official said, "No, no, Minister. There is something called the Greenland white-fronted goose". Apparently, it took its roost in a particular area of the Blackwater.
I hope that my noble friend can confirm that all the assurances that were given in those far off days have been carried out and that the wetlands work in that

1143
area and in the programme has indeed been completed. Perhaps she may also be able to confirm at a later date—or at least verify—that, as regards all the capital grants mentioned in both Schedules 1 and 2 of the Votes to the Department of Agriculture, her honourable and right honourable friends in the Northern Ireland Office will continue to push for the very best treatment for Northern Ireland farmers. I recall that one motto which used to appear regularly was, "Act fast while grants last." That was not exactly the watchword of the department as it was keen on a high take up; but, all the same, I hope that all the grants—for example, for the concreting of floors of fairly simple sheds within the Northern Ireland agricultural sector—are going through.
I hope that my noble friend will insist upon sound support for marketing. That is mentioned in both schedules of the agricultural Vote. As my noble friend will know, there is an enormous food fair which takes place every other year; that is, every even year. This year there is a huge fair in Paris. I hope that my noble friend will insist that either the Secretary of State or a Minister attends that exhibition to push the interests of the Northern Ireland food industry.
Finally, I believe that I heard my noble friend say that the Government were directing their efforts as a priority towards the veterinary service—towards both the chief scientific officer's department and the veterinary research laboratory—in an attempt to continue the great struggle in Northern Ireland to achieve a high rate of animal health and hygiene as well as what my noble friend referred to as "disease eradication". I hope that she will convey my comments and my best wishes to her right honourable and honourable friends in the Northern Ireland Office as well as to all those who are involved in supporting Northern Ireland's primary industry.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, perhaps I may first extend a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her first incursion into Northern Ireland affairs. I was not surprised to find her at the Dispatch Box because, of all the Ministers of State in this House, the noble Baroness has proved most versatile in speaking for one ministry after another. Given her Liverpool background, I am sure that she will not feel entirely out of place discussing Northern Ireland.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, alleged that it is almost a ritual for this side of the House to complain about the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted. Over the years I have found that this House spends more time discussing the affairs of Northern Ireland than the elected House. It is obvious when one reads the Hansard reports of Northern Ireland debates in another place that Members of Parliament are in a great rush to cover as many topics as possible in the short period of an hour and a half that is allowed for the debate. According to one Hansard report, only five Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland constituencies participated. From reading their speeches, it is obvious that they had to apologise for taking so long to make their points. I repeat that they had to rush to make their remarks in an hour and a half.
1144
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that neither this House nor another place is the best place to discuss an appropriation order for Northern Ireland. We are now discussing an appropriation order for £4,725 million for the present financial year for services in Northern Ireland. I recall the many years that I spent as a Member of Parliament at Stormont and at the Assembly. The old Stormont Parliament had 52 Members of Parliament and the Assembly had 70. Discussion there on an appropriation order of this dimension would have lasted at least one full day, if not two or even three days. In that time, all the relevant constituency problems, which are the everyday concerns of elected representatives, would have been covered in great detail. It has been said in another place that some of the issues raised in Parliament in these debates seem rather parochial to the outsider, who is not be aware of the names or problems of the towns in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said that he has met with unfailing courtesy from all the Northern Ireland Ministers sent from this House to administer the affairs of Northern Ireland—be they Conservative or Labour. I, too, have found the same—dating right back to the first such Minister, the noble Viscount. Lord Whitelaw, in 1972, to the Ministers of the present day. However, I find it sad that, having gained such vast experience of Northern Ireland by actually living there, all the former Secretaries of State and Ministers of State for Northern Ireland seem to lose interest when they come to this House. At present, five former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are Members of your Lordships' House. Those people have been involved in the administration of the Province throughout the past 20 troubled years. I had hoped that they would maintain their interest in the Province and be present in the Chamber during our debates to give us the benefit of the knowledge that they have gained during those years. They might have been able to add something to our debates. That is not a criticism of your Lordships' House but of the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted.
I am sure that I will be in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, when I say that the best place for a discussion of Northern Ireland affairs—be it an appropriation order or anything else—would be in an Assembly at Stormont, in a devolved Parliament on the 1974 model, which was representative of all the communities in Northern Ireland. Whatever talks may be held in the immediate future, I hope that Northern Ireland's politicians will concentrate their minds on trying to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland so that these issues can be discussed by representatives who have first-hand knowledge of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the possible privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. I believe that many of your Lordships may have received a circular on this. Perhaps I should add that Northern Ireland is not as short of water and does not have the same problems

1145
with water as some oilier areas, such as Wales. I stress, however, that water is of vital importance to the people of Northern Ireland.
I have absolutely no doubt that if the Government continue to pursue their current thinking on privatization—that is what it amounts to—I shall be standing here in the future talking about the new company that will be set up. Initially, such a company would come under the control of the Department of the Environment, but I have absolutely no doubt that the provision of the service will be privatised within a few years. There is no question about that. There must be maximum consultation before any steps to set up such a company are taken. The views of the General Consumer Council in Northern Ireland—a body that acts with government support—should be sought now before the publication of the White Paper because, once a White Paper is published, it is difficult to change its provisions. We need to have the maximum consultation now on this important development.
The Estimates include a vast sum of money for electricity. Again, that has been allocated with the intention of privatising the electricity undertakings in Northern Ireland and selling off the power stations. However, every elected representative from every constituency in Northern Ireland has expressed opposition to the proposals to sell off Northern Ireland's electricity undertakings to a private enterprise.
Only yesterday, I was amazed to read in The Times of London that, perhaps for the first time, the economics of Northern Ireland may have considerable bearing on the Budget. The article suggested that in seeking to sell off the four electricity power stations in Northern Ireland, the Government hoped to raise billions of pounds with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to reduce income tax by 1p in the pound. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will be very interested to know that the sale of their electricity undertakings might lead to a reduction in income tax. So we have it—the threatened privatisation of water and what might be described as the almost fait accompli privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies referred to the new appointment that is about to be made by the Industrial Development Board. The IDB in Northern Ireland is of such crucial importance to the whole economic outlook of the Province that the person who gets that job should be enthusiastic about it. The job should not be given to someone simply because he has spent so many years in the Civil Service and the post is regarded as simply another step up the ladder, with the view being taken that that person is entitled to it and that, as a result of it, he may be entitled to a knighthood in the future. The man who gets the job must be dedicated to making it a success. Considerable stress should be put on that by the Government when making that appointment. I reinforce everything said about it by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
The Minister may not have the answers to the questions I am about to ask, but I was happy to read
1146
in the Estimates that two advanced factories are about to be built in West Belfast. As one who represented that sorely deprived area for many years, that was good news. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication of how large those two factories will be; whether there have been offers from people outside the Province who want to invest in them; what type of industry will be carried on in them; and how many people will be involved. The Government and the Opposition will admit that the last time that that type of activity was tried in Northern Ireland under John DeLorean, when a car factory was set up in West Belfast which failed tragically for all sorts of reasons, the one thing that it proved was that there was a skilled workforce there.
That factory was set up on a greenfield site under the aegis of my noble friend Lord Mason. There was no question but that the labour and skills were available. That was one of the great industrial successes I saw during my period as a Member of Parliament for that area. I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to push ahead and expedite the setting up of those two factories, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, when idle hands are available they can be exploited.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was one of the longest serving Ministers in Northern Ireland. I come from an urban background and do not understand agriculture very well, but I can tell him that he was much admired for what he tried to do for the rural communities in Northern Ireland.
Those of us who have spoken do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said that the Liberal Democrats have a link with the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland. The Labour Party also has a link, because it says that it has a sister party in the SDLP. The Government will say that they have a candidate in North Down. Everyone can claim to have some connection with Northern Ireland. The one who has the greatest connection with Northern Ireland is the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, because he lives there. Unfortunately I do not live there. I do not live over here for any particular reason. My home in Northern Ireland was burnt by terrorists and I had to take up residence in this country. Hardly a day goes by when I am not telephoning or receiving calls in my office from Northern Ireland; so I am well aware of the position that exists there.
As I said, the Estimate of £4.725 billion represents a major sum of money. It should be given maximum consideration by the Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have welcomed me to this position for the first time. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that thanks to him the first mention of my presence in your Lordships' House recorded in Hansard was as a result of a debate such as this on Northern Ireland through which I happened to sit, which fact was commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
This is an important subject. The quality of the debate far outweighs the anxieties expressed about the length of time given to scrutiny procedures. That is always true of these debates in your Lordships' House.

1147
I hope to answer the main questions that have been asked, especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who kindly gave me some advance notice of the areas of his interest.
I shall start by responding to my noble friend Lord Lyell who talked about agriculture and the need to ensure that capital grants and the marketing of agricultural products were given sufficient emphasis. He put considerable energy into that during his term of office in the Northern Ireland Office. I feel sure that my honourable friend who now stands in his boots —perhaps I should say wellies—will be displaying similar energy.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about agricultural and horticultural co-operation. I can confirm that Northern Ireland Ministers were consulted before any decision was taken to withdraw those grants in 1991. The Government believe that the producers themselves should take decisions on collaborative marketing, in accordance with commercial considerations. The benefits of such marketing are clear, and the food industry should not need grant aid as an inducement to do what is in fact plain commercial good sense.
On the issue of' the reform of the CAP, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of course one of the four United Kingdom Ministers with responsibility for Agriculture. He is closely involved in the development of the UK response to the CAP reform proposals. The Government's aim is to promote proposals which will benefit agriculture throughout the whole of these islands, including of course Northern Ireland.
It was said that the Local Government Action Group has expressed anxiety about animal waste disposal and the European Community directive. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has negotiated an arrangement with a rendering plant in the Province for a collection, rendering and disposal service for fallen animals at a cost to the farmer. Alternatively, fallen animals can be disposed of adequately and safely on the farm by burial, provided that that is done in accordance with the advice provided by the department.
There are serious difficulties associated with the Local Government Action Group's proposals for an insurance fund, a subject mentioned by the noble Lord. New primary legislation would be required to effect it. The proposals involve the imposition of a levy. That could not be applied to the large numbers of livestock which are exported live each year from Northern Ireland and would therefore impact unfairly on other farmers. A levy would have to be subject to European Community approval. I believe that the noble Lord understands that fully. I also understand that the Ulster Farmers' Union has rejected proposals for a levy and an insurance fund.
On the subject of the Milk Marketing Board, and whether the Northern Ireland Board intends to follow the boards in England and Wales in moving towards a voluntary co-operative system, it is generally recognised that the present arrangements need to change if the dairy industry is to meet the challenges and opportunities of the single market. On 6th
1148
December 1991, the Northern Ireland MMB announced its intention to move to voluntary co-operative status. All the boards in the United Kingdom are currently preparing proposals which will be forwarded to Brussels as soon as possible. All interested parties will of course be given an opportunity to comment before final decisions are taken.
I shall move away from agriculture to the IDB and its performance, especially that relating to attracting inward investment, a subject mentioned by a number of your Lordships. It has to be said that this is a long-term process, and it would clearly be wrong to judge performance on a one-year snapshot.
Over the past three years, the IDB has provided over 5,000 jobs from inward investment, and to the most recent figures should be added around 300 new jobs arising from the recent Royal Mail decision to set up its returned letter centre in Belfast. I understand that the IDB is currently negotiating with several foreign companies. This could lead to a further significant number of jobs in the near future. Obviously we all wish that the figures were higher. We must recognise the impact of the current worldwide recession and the special difficulties that the IDB faces because of the adverse effect of Northern Ireland's image abroad. However, I believe that the board deserves credit for the progress it continues to make. I should add that the post of chief executive has been advertised and it is expected that an appointment will be made within the next few months. In the meantime, I shall ensure that the comments made today by your Lordships will be drawn to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends. This is a significant and important post.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about recent comments by the chairman of the Ulster Bank on the subject of a one-island economy in Ireland. The Government also welcome the fact that businessmen north and south are thinking about the opportunities offered by the single market. We are listening and considering carefully what they have to say.
Dr. Quigley's ideas are an interesting contribution to the debate. The advantages of close co-operation are widely recognised and the Government are already working to develop this in areas which are economically beneficial to Northern Ireland such as tourist promotion, transport and energy links. No doubt it could also include the issue of the rail link from the Channel Tunnel raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I know that in my days as a Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool much thought and effort were given to the issue on this side of the Irish Sea.
Also in the context of the Industrial Development Board, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, drew our attention to the needs of South Down. Like him, I welcome the launch of the Down Economic Development Agency as evidence of the important aspect of self-help. I trust that it will succeed in co-operating successfully with the IDB, whose role is to present a more national image.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the recent deputation from Northern Ireland on the

1149
position of community-based workshops. In many cases we fully recognise that they carry out valuable work within the Northern Ireland youth training programme by providing training services to young people, especially those in disadvantaged areas. They are relatively well funded compared with the rates which apply in Great Britain, but we need to ensure that they offer a consistently high quality of training. To that end, a system of funding has been introduced which requires workshops, as well as other trainers, to raise their standards and improve their cost-effectiveness. The funding of workshops will continue so long as those standards are met. The Government are also exploring the opportunities for further EC funding for certain training programmes and will bring them to the attention of the community workshops.
On the question of provision of integrated nursery schools —another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies —the Government's commitment to integrated schools is well known and has been commented on by others in the debate. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the support which your Lordships' House has given to these developments. There are now 16 such integrated schools, with a total of 3,000 pupils, so it is clearly moving very much in the right direction. I understand that about 45 per cent. of three and four year-olds in Northern Ireland are in nursery or primary education, which is broadly in line with the position in local authorities in Great Britain.
The Government recognise the case for more nursery schools, not only in the integrated sector but more generally. However, these have to be considered against other demands on education resources.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, specifically asked me about the £35 million for the Social Fund. I can tell him that this is a commitment for Great Britain. Northern Ireland has a separate Social Fund budget and its size for 1992–93 has still to be determined. We expect the budget to show a significant increase over 1991–92.
The noble Earl also expressed concern about the possible effects of the capital moratorium, and this was touched on by other noble Lords. A number of extra demands arose this year in the Northern Ireland block, including significant pressures in relation to education and training and the family health service provision, as I said in my opening remarks. Those were not just extra costs arising from terrorist violence. It was therefore necessary to impose a short delay on the release of certain expenditure, but the Government have always made clear that the moratorium would not extend beyond the end of the financial year. My honourable friend the Secretary of State recently confirmed this and indicated that the moratorium is being brought to an end. Any projects delayed will be reconsidered in the year 1992–93 and in most cases will be slotted into the programme fairly quickly.
Perhaps I may stress that there has been no reduction in the overall level of public expenditure in the Province. The adjustments required amount to less than 0.5 per cent. of the total block, which currently
1150
stands at £6.5 billion. Nor has there been any direct or lasting effect on the quality of services provided to the people of Northern Ireland. Within the substantial resources available to the Province, perhaps I may also assure the noble Earl that the Government give high priority to measures to strengthen the economy and reduce the levels of unemployment which he mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked a specific question about hospices. In Northern Ireland we have already met the Government's commitment to fund agreed services at around 50 per cent. The recent announcement of an additional £37 million being made available in England is intended to bring the English end nearer to the 50 per cent. target which already pertains in Northern Ireland. While we keep the position under review, the Government have no immediate plans to provide a further injection of additional funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also referred to the new water company and its regulation. I understand these regulatory functions will be the subject of an Order in Council which will come before your Lordships in due course. Your Lordships will therefore be able to examine the regulatory framework in that context and ensure that it is sufficiently robust. The noble Lord, and others, raised a number of interesting matters including industrial development, the traffic problems in Downpatrick and environmental services. I know he has a deep interest in those matters. I can give an assurance that my noble friend Lord Belstead will study the record of the contributions made today and will write not only to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, but also to any other noble Lord whom I have failed to respond to.
Before I offend my noble friend Lord Lyell on this point, he asked a specific question about the Blackwater drainage scheme. I understand that the final contract of the scheme was completed in the autumn of last year. The department is still in negotiation with some landowners as regards compensatory works. Measures to compensate for the loss of river habitats and to provide environmentally positive features are also being undertaken.
I conclude by saying that it has been of considerable interest to me to be able to participate in this debate and to concentrate on many issues which are familiar to me in the GB context and to compare them with things that are happening in the Province. I understand the feelings that have been expressed about the importance of all these issues. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable and honourable friends also understand those feelings. They are carrying out their duties and that is also the reason why my noble friend Lord Belstead has been unable to be present at the Dispatch Box as he would have wished.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration (Land and Deeds) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
2.11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main aim of the order is to simplify the procedure for the registration of the ownership of land by the Land Registry of Northern Ireland. The opportunity has also been taken to amend and streamline the procedure for registration of certain documents in the Registry of Deeds.
The two registrars are branches of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and perform different functions. The Registry of Deeds notes the existence of deeds and other documents affecting land so that persons making a search in the registry can ascertain what documents affect a particular plot of land. The Land Registry interprets the effect of the documents, sets out on an official register concise details of the ownership and burdens affecting each registered holding and maintains maps showing the extent and situation of each holding.
As a result of concern about the delay and expense involved in registration of title, the department in 1989 put forward the Land Registry as a candidate for scrutiny by the Efficiency Unit. The scrutiny team's report which followed resulted in an action plan, the implementation of which commenced early in 1990. There has been a significant improvement in the Land Registry's performance since early 1990 but more remains to be done. This draft Order in Council has been prepared as a direct result of the proposals contained in the plan.
Part II—the main part of the draft order—contains provisions which will enable the Land Registry to become still more efficient. For example, Article 6 abolishes the different classes of register in the Land Registry in favour of a single "title register".
Article 14 in particular facilitates increased reliance by the Land Registry on solicitors' certificates. That will reduce significantly the amount of checking of dealings which has to be undertaken by Land Registry staff. Article 29 extends the power of the Registrar of Titles to rectify mistakes in the register or registry map. Article 30 provides for the winding up of the Land Registry Insurance Fund with compensation claims for registration errors being met by the department out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Articles 31 and 32 provide for the determination by the Lands Tribunal of disputes about compensation arising out of registration errors and revise the circumstances in which the department may seek recovery from certain persons of compensation that is paid out as a result of such errors. Article 36 and other provisions enable maps, registers and indices to be kept in a computerised form and generally help to simplify the procedures and reduce the amount of checking and therefore the expense involved in registration of title generally.
Generally, the land registration amendments and the resultant simplification and speeding up of the
1152
registration process will enable more work to he undertaken by the existing staff and pave the way for the introduction of a programme of extension of compulsory registration of title, on an area by area basis, to all land in Northern Ireland.
When the Land Registry was set up in Ireland, its main task was to register farmland which had been bought out compulsorily by tenants from their landlords under the land purchase acts. Accordingly, the title to most farmland in Northern Ireland is registered but the bulk of the buildings in urban locations is not. It is estimated that the title to about one half of the total number of properties in Northern Ireland is registered in the Land Registry while the other half remains subject to the registration of deeds system. We feel that it is undesirable that such a high proportion remains subject to that registration of deed system since it is a more time-consuming system.
Since the purpose of the order is to simplify the registration of title system so that registration can be completed more quickly and at a reduced cost, the full advantages of the land registry system should be more widely appreciated. Nevertheless, the introduction of a programme of compulsory registration of title will not have the immediate result of making the Registry of Deeds obsolete. Part III of the order therefore introduces amendments to the Registration of Deeds (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. Those changes include provisions which, for example, would facilitate computerisation of the records and indices maintained in the Registry of Deeds and permit regulations to be made providing for the registration of documents which are lodged by post.
The remaining provisions of the draft order are of comparatively minor significance and generally technical and include consequential amendments.
The proposal for the draft order has been circulated for comment to a wide variety of interested parties, including district councils, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Law Society of Northern Ireland and other relevant representative bodies. Comments received have been taken into account in drafting the order which is now before your Lordships. I believe that what we suggest is both sensible and necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the order and for pointing out the principal advantages to the conveyancing practitioner and the consumer of legal services in Northern Ireland.
In the course of preparing my notes for this discussion, I too learnt that the system of registration of title was first introduced in Northern Ireland a century ago as part of the policy of agrarian reform which has influenced so many other aspects of Northern Ireland life. That explains why until recently the system of registration of title was confined to the rural areas. A high percentage—the noble Baroness said about half— of the total population did not have access to the registration of title system with its declared objects of simple, cheap and speedy

1153
conveyancing. The noble Baroness explained that the order will give the population at large access to the new registration of title system before very long.
Another declared object of registration of title is to give finality and certainty to a title so that it is good against the world. Mindful of that objective, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the wording of the first two lines of Article 14, as I understand that there may he grounds for speculation as to the meaning. However, I should be very surprised if the wording means that the registrar does not have to be satisfied before he approves the title. No doubt the Minister will confirm that.
There is a small point which worries some practitioners. Will the Minister confirm that a copy of the filed plan will be bound up with a certificate of title or the charge certificate as is the practice in England and Wales? Some practitioners believe that they may have to rely too often on verbal description alone, though I believe that Article 28(2) is reassuring on that point.
The Minister explained that the insurance fund backed by the consolidation fund is to be wound up and henceforth compensation will be borne on the department's vote. That is fine and we understand it. Nevertheless, there is some concern among practitioners that the criteria for determining compensation are being changed in a way that may adversely affect the practitioner. For the record it would be helpful if the Minister could give further guidance about the way in which Article 31 will operate. I should be interested to learn why it is left to the Lands Tribunal to determine the question of indemnity and the amount. What will be the position if the question of indemnity turns on an important principle of law? Has any guidance been issued as to practice and procedure before the Lands Tribunal? Another small point but one which is very important for the practitioner is whether compensation includes the recovery of costs.
The Minister has been helpful. She explained the relationship between the two registers. Am I correct in assuming that the deeds register will eventually disappear with the extension of compulsory registration of title throughout Northern Ireland? I also assume—I believe that the Minister confirmed this —that the registration will be extended piecemeal area by area under Article 11 procedure. Currently the extension is by an Order in Council, which is subject to affirmative resolution and takes effect six months thereafter. Under the new procedure the order will be subject to negative resolution and will take effect three months thereafter. Again, I must place on record that practitioners in Northern Ireland fear that three months will not give them sufficient time to prepare for the change.
For my part, although I have no evidence from Northern Ireland to show concern there, I regret that the negative resolution has been substituted for the affirmative resolution. Like many Members of your Lordships' House, I have been persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
1154
of Glaisdale, and the Select Committee on delegated legislation that the House should not be in a hurry to endorse the substitution.
Article 11 is immovable. I should like to ask the Minister where the Land Registry or the Registry of Deeds will be located in future. Under the 1970 Act the Land Registry consists of a central office in Belfast and local offices, but that statutory provision will cease to have effect henceforth. Does that mean that the Land Registry will be centralised? It is interesting on the other hand that under the Deeds Act, the Registry of Deeds is to be situated in Belfast; but that provision also ceases to have effect. Does that mean that the Deeds Registry will follow the Land Registry? Perhaps the Minister can give some assistance on that point.
I come to my last point. I note that some practitioners in Northern Ireland have expressed concern that their lien for unpaid costs cannot be registered. I have a sense of solidarity with lawyers in Northern Ireland. It is a point that I ought to bring to the Minister's attention. Nevertheless, I believe that their fears may be unfounded and that their interest can be protected by a mere notice or caution. Does the Minister agree?
We support the order. It will assist by giving the consumer speedy access to an effective legal service.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the beneficial effects of the order. I shall endeavour to respond to some of the points that he raised. If I fail to reply to them all at this stage, both I and my noble friend Lord Belstead will scrutinise the issues and write to him.
The noble Lord referred to the somewhat puzzling first two lines of Article 14. I am inclined to agree with him. However, there is an explanation in paragraph 14 of the explanatory memorandum which gives guidance on the order. If a person has suffered as a result of an incorrect registration—and he has not caused or substantially contributed to the loss or been fraudulent—he will have a right to claim compensation from the department. In turn, the department may bring a claim to recover compensation from the person who caused or substantially contributed to the error provided that he has been either negligent or fraudulent.
The draft order permits the Lands Tribunal to hear both claims at the same time where that is appropriate. Presumably it would also be open to a person to whom a solicitor owes a common law duty of care to sue the solicitor for negligence. But I believe it more likely that a claim will be brought by such a person against the department. Of course the usual professional misconduct procedures can be carried out by the Law Society of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord referred to Article 28. He raised the issue of large holdings of land. It is possible that an area might be omitted. But there is no reason to suppose that the registrar will ignore good conveyancing practice. The purpose of the amendment in so far as it relates to areas is to give greater flexibility in describing plots of land. That relates also to the point made by the noble Lord about file plans being attached to every land certificate. I understand that

1155
that is a matter for Land Registry rules which could be made under Section 79 of the 1970 Act or for administrative action rather than primary registration. From the practical point of view, official copies of the land registry map relating to a registered holding can be obtained from the Land Registry, and the owner and legal practitioners should, where possible, keep them with the associated relevant land certificates.
With regard to Articles 31 and 32, whether or not increased acceptance of solicitors' certificates will lead to an increase in premiums depends on members of the profession doing their job properly. It is not the proper role of the Land Registry to operate a quality control system for members of the legal profession. A solicitor, or indeed anyone else, would be liable to reimburse the department only if he had been guilty of fraud or lack of proper care, or to the extent of any advantage that he might have gained. That is entirely fair and appropriate. The Lands Tribunal president is a county court judge. There is a prescribed procedure which will cope once the time comes and if it is seen to be fit and necessary.
A lien on a land certificate arises under Article 25. Unlike a deposit of land certificate it confers no rights in relation to the land as opposed to the land certificate itself. Since LR deals with the registration of title to land, it is not appropriate to permit the registration of a mere personal right relating to the custody of a land certificate.
This is a fairly complex area and I am not sure that I have picked up all the questions that were raised by the noble Lord. If I have not done so I shall take the opportunity to write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1992
2.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall debating last December four sets of regulations setting out the detailed provisions for disability living allowance and disability working allowance. The regulations before the House today make a number of minor, purely technical corrections to the disability living allowance regulations which were debated then.
I apologise to the House for bringing forward amendments to the regulations which are of a purely technical nature. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on the ground the introduction of the new benefit is going extremely well. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations, which
1156
are entirely technical. Before the debate commenced I told the noble Lord that I wished to ask about the position of the members of the disability appeal tribunals with an experience of or interest in disability. People in receipt of benefits are serving on such tribunals. It appears that if they do so, they are at risk of losing their benefits or may be taken as capable of work. I shall not go into detail because I have mentioned the matter to the Minister. However, I know that RADAR is most anxious about the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we welcome the regulations. We agree that they are minor and technical; but we are not certain that all the changes concerned are minor in their ultimate significance. The references to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 arise from the fact that the original regulations forgot about Scotland. I am not sure that we are entitled to describe that as a minor defect. It should have been noticed. But I say that knowing that I live in a glass house because we should have noticed it too. Again, I wonder whether Westminster is the best place to consider Scottish legislation. There are other aspects of the original regulations Nos. 9 and 10 which could have been clarified. I shall not pursue them now.
I wish to raise the anxieties of the disabled, many of whom are interested in serving as panel members for appeal tribunals. It is possible that their expenses may be classified as income and make them ineligible for benefit. That would defeat the intention which we all have. Provisions exist for local authority councillors which would be satisfactory here. We hope that they can be so applied.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat the apology I gave for these minor technical amendments. I also make an apology for forgetting about Scotland. I do not believe that this is the time or the place to enter into a debate on the Union other than to reaffirm that my party is committed to the Union of the two countries.
On the substantive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman about the effect of service on disability appeal tribunals on the benefits of the disabled, we are fully committed to ensuring that disabled people play an active role in the assessment and adjudication process of DLA and the attendance allowance. That includes ensuring that, wherever possible, a member of the DAT is a disabled person.
I very much take the point made by the noble Lord and my noble kinsman. I assure them, first, that we are aware of the issues facing disabled people receiving various incapacity benefits who wish to serve on the tribunals; and, secondly, that we are actively considering—and I stress actively considering—what can be done in that area. At present I can go no further than that. However, I hope that we shall shortly be able to move forward in a way which will have the approval of the noble Lord and my noble kinsman.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1992
2.37 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations deal with the special contributions for share fishermen.
As I am sure all noble Lords will know, they are normally regarded as self-employed for national insurance purposes, but in recognition of the hazardous and sporadic nature of their employment, share fishermen are able to receive unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits, unlike other self-employed people.
For share fishermen the normal self-employed national insurance contribution of £5.35 a week is enhanced on advice from the Government Actuary's Department according to the general cost of providing unemployment benefit.
The effect of the draft regulations is that the maximum cost to a share fisherman in 1991–93 for his unemployment benefit cover will be 52 times the weekly addition of £1.65, that is £85.80. The weekly rate of unemployment benefit will be £43.10. The share fisherman who receives unemployment benefit will therefore be able to recoup his extra contributions in less than two weeks. The chances are that he will receive more in benefit than he pays in extra contributions, particularly when some 13,000 share fishermen made an average of over 2,500 claims for unemployment benefit in 1991.
Given what I have said, I am confident that the House will see the need for this adjustment and recognise that, despite the increase in the rate, the share fishermen's contribution still remains a valuable feature of the scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations and for explaining them so lucidly. They are increases which are quite significantly above the rate of inflation. The Minister explained that the contributions were enhanced according to the general cost of unemployment benefit. Is my noble kinsman telling me that the share fishermen are paying for rising unemployment nationally or in their own industry, or in what particular context? I am not sure that that is an altogether satisfactory arrangement. It makes it in order to ask what share fishermen will receive in return for those contributions.
Unemployment benefit is related to a period of unemployment. The period is normally defined by weeks. Share fishermen have a tie-up period—eight days during which they do not fish. It very often happens that that tie-up period is divided between two weeks so that they receive unemployment benefit for neither of those weeks. That is a matter of anxiety to
1158
my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood and a great many people in Scotland. I hope the Minister can tell us that some change is in prospect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I too shall be grateful if my noble friend can tell us when the contribution was last increased and whether the increase proposed under the order is not substantially more than can be attributed to any change in the index of retail prices. As I understood what he said, it did not relate to changes in the value of money or changes in the value of the payment, but related to the costs of unemployment benefit.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked how that was assessed; whether it is based on the number of people unemployed and whether the contribution is being increased because there are more unemployed. What is the justification for what appears to be a substantial increase in the contribution? My mathematics are never very good but I shall be grateful if my noble friend will tell us what is the percentage increase in raising the figure from £6.20 to £7.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my questions have already been asked by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I therefore await the Minister's answers with interest.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that the increases are above inflation. As I said when moving the amendments, we increased the special extra amount for share fishermen in line with estimates produced by the Government Actuary as to what he expects the costs of unemployment benefit to be in the coming year. That is not the cost of unemployment benefit paid purely to share fishermen; it is the cost nationally. Because share fishermen are more likely to have more than two weeks on unemployment benefit in a year, they are receiving a good deal. That is unlike all other self-employed people, who are not entitled to any unemployment benefit and simply pay the flat rate of Class 2 contributions. On this occasion the special scheme for share fishermen is increased in line with the Government Actuary's estimate. It has nothing to do with the level of RPI or whatever.
Turning to the question of the new tie-up rules, as mentioned by my noble kinsman, we have entered a period of different European tie-up rules. Rather than the eight-day tie-up of each calendar month, fishing vessels caught by the rules must remain in port for a total of 135 days in the 11-month period from 1st February to 31st December 1992. Whatever else may be said about that rule, I am sure that the greater flexibility which it allows will be widely welcomed by the industry.
Fears have been expressed that the eight-day tie-up rule will force fishermen to go out during periods of bad weather. It has also been felt that the value of community and family life, in areas where Sunday is traditionally observed, may be undermined as fishermen may feel constrained to use the remaining 22 or 23 days of each month to the full extent. Such fears should not arise under the new rule.
At this stage there is no reason to think that the change in the tie-up rules will necessarily affect the

1159
number of unemployment benefit claims from share fishermen. Nor is there any reason to assume that there will be any change in the proportion of claims which are disallowed. It remains the case that share fishermen can claim income support or family credit, depending on their average hours of work. A share fisherman who averages 16 or more hours of work a week from 7th April and has responsibility for one or more children may be entitled to family credit. On the other hand, if his average hours of work are less than 16 a week, he may be entitled to income support.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether there is any other national insurance contribution which is based on a calculation of the cost of the specific benefit to the specific class of person? Can he also answer my question, which he obviously did not take on board, regarding what is the percentage increase and when was the last increase?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will understand that the national insurance scheme is entirely self-contained. Therefore, when my right honourable friend considers increases in contribution rates he must consider how much will go out every year. That, I accept, is somewhat different from the rest of the national insurance scheme, in that my right honourable friend has to look specifically at the cost of unemployment benefit as a whole and then increase the Class 2 contributions that share fishermen pay.
Share fishermen are in a special position, in that they are entitled to unemployment benefit despite the fact that they are self-employed. My noble friend also asked in what previous years the rate was increased. I understand that it was increased in 1987–88 and in 1988–89.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what about the percentage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the precise percentage at the moment. If he would like me to write to him about the percentage increase, I shall. However, I would say again that we
1160
reckon that share fishermen are receiving a good deal. They are paying an extra £80 or so a year and need only two weeks of unemployment benefit to recoup their extra costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not see what is the difficulty in giving the percentage. What is 80p as a percentage of £6.20?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend asks what is the difficulty. I do not happen to have a pocket calculator on me and I cannot give him the precise figure.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe it is 12½ per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has a great staff of officials in the Box, at least some of whom must be competent in elementary mathematics.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am advised that the figure is 13 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps my noble kinsman will send me a copy of any letter that he sends to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I too am concerned about the basis of the calculation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to write to my noble friend since I have answered his specific point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Ulster Bank Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before three o'clock.

  IRANIAN MILITARY PROCUREMENT OFFICE
  IRANIAN MILITARY PROCUREMENT OFFICE
  IRAN: DEFENCE EQUIPMENT SALES BAN
  IRAN: DEFENCE EQUIPMENT SALES BAN
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WEU PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLIES: REPORT OF UK DELEGATION
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WEU PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLIES: REPORT OF UK DELEGATION
  JUDICIARY: RETIREMENT AGE
  JUDICIARY: RETIREMENT AGE
  TREASURY OFFICIALS AND ADVISERS: QUALIFICATIONS
  TREASURY OFFICIALS AND ADVISERS: QUALIFICATIONS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL: PROMOTERS' AGREEMENT
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL: PROMOTERS' AGREEMENT
  AREA CRIMINAL JUSTICE LIAISON COMMITTEES
  AREA CRIMINAL JUSTICE LIAISON COMMITTEES
  SMALL BUSINESSES IN COALFIELD AREAS: SUPPORT
  SMALL BUSINESSES IN COALFIELD AREAS: SUPPORT
  COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990: TYING IN PROVISIONS
  COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990: TYING IN PROVISIONS
  REGIONAL ENTERPRISE GRANTS
  REGIONAL ENTERPRISE GRANTS
  EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS: SUNDAY SCHOOL FUNDS
  EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS: SUNDAY SCHOOL FUNDS
  STUDENTS: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  STUDENTS: FINANCIAL SUPPORT