Sitting of 9 February 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Hong Kong Military Service Corps (Passports)
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the right to a British passport of members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for defence and I have received a number of representations about the allocation of passports to locally entered uniformed personnel serving in the military garrison in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Alexander: Bearing in mind that we are dealing with members of a unit of the British Army, many of whom have served up to 22 years, during which time they have paid British taxes, and bearing in mind that we are talking about a maximum of 1,300 individuals, most of whom would not want to come here in any case, should we not make an exception in their case?
    Mr. Hamilton: As my hon. Friend will know, there is a residual number of passports, of which we hope to secure a high proportion for many of these people, who I agree have given dedicated service to the Crown. I very much accept what my hon. Friend says and we should like to do everything that we can, within the allocation, to get as many of the passports as we can for those locally entered personnel.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread support throughout the House for the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander)? Those personnel have loyally served the country and feel threatened by the changes in Hong Kong in 1997. They are in a very different position from other people such as prison officers or the police. I ask the Minister seriously to consider their request.
    Mr. Hamilton: I very much accept what the hon. Gentleman says. They are indeed in a different position, and one of the things that make their position different from that of the police, prison officers, and so on is that their jobs will not continue after 1997. As I have already said, we are doing our best to secure as many passports as we can from the remaining tranche available. I take the point that many of those people do not want to come to this country, but they want the guarantee so that their
    808
    futures will be secure. We hope that their fears of persecution when the Chinese take over in Hong Kong are unfounded, and we have every reason to believe that they will be very fairly treated.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the regulations concerning the payment of local overseas allowance for British troops serving in the former Yugoslavia.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Local overseas allowance is a tax-free addition to pay designed to compensate service personnel for the extra cost of serving in countries where day-to-day living expenses are higher than in the United Kingdom. This does not apply to British troops in former Yugoslavia who, in any event, do not pay local food and accommodation charges. Troops deployed there from bases in Germany nevertheless continue to receive a proportion of their local overseas allowance—70 per cent. for married personnel and 40 per cent. for single personnel—in recognition of continuing financial commitments in Germany.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that, forgetting his lawyer's logic, the people of this country find it quite extraordinary that soldiers going into what is effectively a war zone in Yugoslavia are taking a pay cut and equally astonishing that those troops under fire are facing redundancy notices? When will he do something about that?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman really has not examined the matter properly. He should know perfectly well that British troops serving in Yugoslavia come from Germany and the United Kingdom. Those who come directly from the United Kingdom would not have been receiving an overseas allowance. Those who come from Germany receive an allowance to pay for the higher costs of living in Germany. It would be absurd to pay an allowance that is paid for one purpose in a territory where that purpose simply is not met; the hon. Gentleman should realise that before putting his rather foolish proposition.
    Mr. Conway: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's reply because it is important that he remains flexible on that issue. It is undoubtedly very important to those serving in war zones, or however we may describe them, that their families are not at a financial disadvantage. Those who have been stationed in Germany, in particular, and whose wives and families remain there, still have serious financial commitments to meet. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the flexibility of which he has assured us will therefore be greatly welcomed by the wives and families who remain in Germany?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, it is a very flexible policy. If the Opposition had listened to my original answer they would realise that. Under current policy, personnel who have come from Germany and who continue to have commitments there will be paid 70 per cent. of the allowance if they are married and 40 per cent. if they are single. It would be absurd to pay them the full allowance,

    809
    which is partly to cover the cost of food and accommodation, when those serving in Yugoslavia receive food and accommodation completely free.

    NATO
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of NATO in a future European security policy.
    Mr. Rifkind: NATO will remain the principal mechanism for the promotion of collective security and stability throughout the Atlantic area and the forum for agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence commitments of its members.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, indefinite though it is. Does he agree that the success of NATO over 40 years was based on the imperative of defence and that, although the alliance had political structures, they were very much secondary and subordinate to that imperative? As a consequence, NATO was often much bigger and more effective than the sum of its parts. In the absence of that imperative, and with political differences and difficulties coming to the fore, might there not be a serious possibility that NATO could be fatally weakened and undermined?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that, with the ending of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the circumstances in Europe for which NATO was originally designed have changed radically. We cannot assume, however, that all risk has disappeared. Clearly, Russia remains a nuclear super-power and while—at the moment—it has a friendly Government seeking to introduce democracy and western values, we cannot assume that to be a policy which will be achieved with great success in the foreseeable future. In addition, NATO must find ways of making available its valuable and expensive assets in order to contribute to other problems of security, as it is currently doing in, for example, former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any plans for extending operational sea training facilities to other NATO navies? If so, will he produce some nice glossy brochures to sell the services of Portland rather than promoting the virtues of spending £600 million on new office blocks for Ministry of Defence civil servants?
    Mr. Rifkind: I fully understand my hon. Friend's natural concern about that issue. As he will be aware, over the years we have already provided opportunities for sea training for other NATO countries. The United Kingdom is seen as a valued source of such training, and I am sure that it will continue to be so wherever sea training takes place.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Secretary of State confirm the importance of Britain's amphibious programme to future European security. In particular, will he repeat in the House what he said on "Newsnight" last week—that the Navy's new helicopter carrier is not to be cancelled to pay for the Army changes that he announced last week?
    Mr. Rifkind: Amphibiosity continues to be a useful asset for the armed forces and, although it has not been used in recent years, it is, nevertheless, an important capability.
    810
    As for the landing platform helicopter, I repeat what I said in the House some time ago. We are continuing to evaluate the tenders that we have received. There is no question of cancelling the order to pay for last week's announcement about Army manpower. The continuing need for the LPH must be properly assessed on its merits, and that is how we shall proceed.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the changes in NATO have meant that there is an even bigger role for the amphibious forces? Important though the landing platform helicopter ship is, so are the replacements for the landing ships for the Royal Marines, who are probably the most efficient and cost-effective armed forces in the world. Can we ensure that they have the means with which to get to the places where they are required to work?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly entitled to point out that the present reliance on the landing platform docks to develop an amphibious capability continues to be important. We do not have an LPH at present, and we have not had one for several years. It is a question whether we should enhance the amphibious capability by proceeding with that order. My hon. Friend is right to draw that point to the attention of the House.
    Dr. Reid: Here we are, five years and more after the end of the cold war, and today the Select Committee on Defence has illustrated once again what the Opposition have said for the past two years: the Government have no strategy on defence, no policy on security and no idea where they are going. How on earth can the Secretary of State pretend to fashion European defence policy when he has not a clue how to fashion British defence policy? Would he not do better to save himself another U-turn and a lot of time and trouble by telling the House today that he will instigate a full defence review? Alternatively, does he intend to go on as he has over the regiments and the dockyards, staggering from pillar to post and doing a disservice to himself as well as to the country and to the armed forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman could not even present his point with a straight face, which is not surprising as he represents a party which has done a complete somersault on nuclear disarmament and whose party conference—
    Mr. Skinner: We are in a nuclear-free zone here.
    Mr. Rifkind: I entirely concede that there are at least three Labour Members to whom my criticism does not apply. The Labour party conference continues to call for massive 25 per cent. reductions in the defence budget, so the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who speaks from the Front Bench, should start to convert his own party supporters before he tries to instruct the Conservative party on a proper defence policy.

    Defence Exports
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution to the economy of defence exports.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Britain's defence exports for 1992 were £4.5 billion, representing 20 per cent. of the world market.

    811
    Those were record figures. In the month of January 1993, British companies won orders in the middle and far east with a value approaching that of our worldwide defence exports for the whole of 1992, so we now expect that 1993 will be another record-breaking year. We regard this as a satisfactory contribution to our economy.
    Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his tremendous work in securing the important Tornado order and for safeguarding thousands of jobs in this country? Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating HE, a company in my constituency of Chelmsford, on its important work in the building of Tornado?
    Mr. Aitken: First, I am glad to confirm that HE, the admirable high-technology company in my hon. Friend's constituency, is likely to benefit from the large Tornado order. I make the point that all round the country approximately 150 British subcontracting firms will benefit from the order, in addition to British Aerospace, the main contractor. As my hon. Friend has said, all those companies have good reason to be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his superb negotiating skills which won the order.
    Mr. Hutton: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Defence has no current plans to sell any of the four Upholder class submarines which are due to enter service in the Navy in the near future? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House that those four submarines have an important role to play in the Navy's submarine service?
    Mr. Aitken: I can certainly confirm that there are no current plans for the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The question concerns defence exports generally. Whatever any one product may be, our disposals branch plays a useful role in selling unwanted defence equipment to overseas buyers.
    Mr. Trotter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role that he played in obtaining the very valuable aircraft and tank export orders. May I draw his attention to the potential for naval exports and particularly, in this unstable world, the need of foreign navies for amphibious ships? If we proceed with the landing platform helicopter order in this country, which was recently described by the Commander-in-Chief Fleet as critical to the Navy's capabilities, it could lead to export orders which would help to maintain our defence and industrial base.
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is a formidable champion of the interests of his constituency, where there is a great shipyard. He has been most helpful in pressing us to make efforts to achieve export orders for naval vessels, and there have been many successes in recent months. I certainly hope that, with my hon. Friend's help, we will continue to win orders in this important matter.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Instead of promoting the sale of weapons of mass destruction to undemocratic countries overseas, would not the Prime Minister have spent his time more successfully in taking a leaf out of the book of the Taiwanese Government and investing in our civil aerospace industry?
    Mr. Aitken: The Prime Minister, on his recent trip, batted for Britain splendidly on civil and military matters and won orders for both. I am amazed by the hon. Lady's attitude, which conflicts with that of the many hon. Members who keep writing to me on behalf of their constituents asking us to fight for export orders. The hon. Lady reflects the confusion which was sown so excitably by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 24 November, when he said that we should not be selling defence equipment to anyone other than non-military dictatorships. We are all waiting for clarification as to which regimes have the Labour party's seal of approval. Should we send back the orders in the meantime?

    Germany
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of maintaining British forces in Germany; and what will be the likely number stationed there in 1994.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The defence budget provision for 1992–93 for the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany was £1,740 million. There will be around 36,000 troops stationed in Germany in 1994.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically full and complete reply. Does he agree, however, that there would be less strain on the Exchequer if British troops were stationed in the United Kingdom rather than in Germany, particularly as there is no longer any threat from the Warsaw pact? Would my right hon. Friend care to say why it might be thought that 23,000 troops in Germany is the right figure to maintain an American presence in NATO in Germany?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend says that there will be less strain on the Exchequer. In fact, there would be a greater strain on the Exchequer because if we brought those troops back we should have to spend a lot of money on barracks and so forth to relocate them in this country. It would help the balance of payments, but that would be very much outweighed by other costs.
    I do not share my hon. Friend's view that there is now no threat from the east. We have to be very careful about Russia's capacity to regenerate its military power. I do not think that we should be complacent about that. Russia remains a major power in the world and we have to be very careful, because the political uncertainties in Russia are very great indeed.
    As regards our contribution to NATO, it is extremely important that if we expect the Americans to continue to play a role in European defence through NATO we should make our contribution with forces overseas as well.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give a clear assurance that there is no prospect of the local overseas allowance paid to British forces in Germany being cut or removed altogether?
    Mr. Hamilton: No, we continue to review the local overseas allowance which is paid to forces all around the world and therefore has to take into account the different costs of living in different parts of the world. We intend to continue that. The local overseas allowance is regularly updated as well.

    Nuclear Warheads (CIS)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of fully operational nuclear warheads available to each country of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
    Mr. Rifkind: We estimate that the former Soviet Union had some 27,000 or more nuclear warheads. All the tactical warheads are now in Russia. Of the strategic warheads, we believe that there are some 7,500 in Russia, 1,500 in Ukraine, 1,200 in Kazakhstan, and 80 in Belarus. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming the ratification by Belarus on 4 February of the START 1 treaty and her commitment to accede to the non-proliferation treaty.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Ukraine is selling nuclear weapons to whoever will buy them? Is it not time that we had a fifth Trident submarine? Will he assure me that he will not listen to the CND crackpots opposite? They do not care about jobs and they do not care about defence. All that they care about is the lack of defence of this country. Will he answer a direct question? Will they knock £6 billion off their defence budget? Let us have a simple answer: yes or no.
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that I can happily endorse my hon. Friend's observations. The Labour party campaigned against the Trident programme and sought to denude Britain of its nuclear deterrent, and at its party conference it continues to call for massive reductions in our defence forces. That policy is matched only by the inconsistency of Labour Front-Bench Members simultaneously calling for more soldiers, more defence spending and more regiments. The Labour party's policy has only to be described to be seen as totally unworthy of any support from any reasonable source.
    Mr. Cohen: The Secretary of State will know that the United Kingdom has offered to supply 250 containers and 20 transporters to the countries of the CIS to help them destroy their nuclear weapons, but is it not the case that the transporters have not yet begun to be delivered and will not be there until the end of 1994? Is it not also the case that the design of the transporters is chronically unreliable? If they break down on British motorways, are they not likely to break down on the pot-holed roads of the Soviet Union as well?
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Until they are manufactured, it is difficult to deliver them, and they are in the process of being manufactured at present. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the design will be of a sort that will be suitable for the purpose for which they are being sent.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that the President of the Ukraine is in the United Kingdom this week and therefore may well have heard the question of my hon. Friend for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)? Will he also note that the problem of the continuing possession of nuclear weapons by the CIS is a matter of concern and underlines the importance of maintaining NATO and safeguards and encouraging the Americans to maintain their presence within NATO at the current level rather than switching to the rotation concept which has quite a lot of support among the Democrats?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the President of the Ukraine does not need to be in the Chamber to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). We do not have any evidence which shows that the Ukraine is selling nuclear weapons. Indeed, it does not have physical possession of the weapons on its territory: they continue to be in the control of the officers of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
    Some weeks ago, we had a visit by the Ukrainian Minister of Defence, who gave an assurance that the Ukraine remains committed to removing all nuclear weapons from its territory. All tactical nuclear weapons have already been removed, and we look forward to its ratification of the START treaty in due course.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State realise that almost the whole world, with the exception of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), approves of the START 1 and 2 treaties, which will bring about a reduction of nuclear warheads throughout the world, including the CIS? Can he give the House an assurance that when he deploys Trident Britain will not buck the trend and increase the number of nuclear warheads on its submarines from 192 to 512?
    Mr. Rifkind: Unlike both the former Soviet Union and the United States, our determination of the size of our nuclear deterrent has never been based on principles of either parity or superiority. We have always sought to identify the minimum size of deterrent which is capable of ensuring the ultimate protection of these islands. We shall continue to apply that principle. It is the only sound principle with regard to the defence of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Barry Porter: While I cannot match the elegance or eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), he elicited from the Minister some frightening figures about the nuclear presence and power of those countries that comprised the Soviet Union at one stage. Would not it make sense for the Minister to consider that Britain's submarine capacity would be better served if a warship yard of proven ability such as Cammell Laird were given at least some breathing space to see whether it can provide the defence that the Minister obviously considers desirable?
    Mr. Rifkind: We attach continuing importance to ensuring that our shipyards are able to meet the needs of the Royal Navy. Those needs change as the years go by, but it is crucial not only that our naval requirements should be met within the United Kingdom, but that the principle of competition should apply wherever possible to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer is kept to an absolute minimum.

    WE177 Nuclear Bomb
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.
    Mr. Rifkind: The WE177 is expected to remain in service well into the first decade of the next century. We are studying a range of possible options for its eventual replacement; I will make an announcement at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the WEI77 replacement will cost £3 billion? Will he accept the advice of the former hon. Member for Beckenham, who, on 22 November 1991, asked the Government to halt the replacement of that most expensive and unnecessary system?
    Mr. Rifkind: I certainly cannot confirm the figure that the hon. Gentleman used, which I do not recognise. We are looking at a series of possible replacements for the WE177 which could either be an alternative free-fall bomb or another means of achieving a sub-strategic capability. It would be unwise to assume that there is no need for any intervening level of capability between conventional forces and the full power of our strategic Trident system. The whole basis of NATO defence policy, including our policy, has been to allow for the possibility of a graduated response in times of crisis. The hon. Gentleman should also take account of that.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in an era of potential nuclear proliferation around the globe, it remains important for the United Kingdom, if it is to be a significant nuclear power in the future, to deploy a sub-strategic deterrent that is both credible and visible? In that connection, is not it sensible to have an air-launched system such as the one that the French and the Americans will be deploying?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly important to ensure that any system that we might choose is credible and reliable. An air-launched system is one option that has to be considered seriously. There are other possibilities and it would be wrong to foreclose any of the options until the work has been done. As I mentioned to the House a few moments ago, our current sub-strategic system will be available until well into the first decade of the next century. Therefore, we can study these matters with the care and detail that they obviously deserve.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity today to exclude the tactical air-to-surface missile as one of those alternatives, because the need for it was conceived when NATO's nuclear doctrine was one of flexible response? Now that NATO's nuclear doctrine is that those weapons are weapons of last resort, what possible justification is there for a tactical air-to-surface missile, not least when a sub-strategic alternative could be achieved by the use of a single missile and single warhead on the Trident D5 system?
    Mr. Rifkind: It would be wrong at this stage to exclude any of the options until the work has been done. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct that the strategic situation has changed, as NATO continues to believe that flexible response is an important ingredient and that it is necessary to ensure the sub-strategic system in addition to strategic nuclear weapons, these matters must be considered with all the care that the issue clearly requires.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Once my right hon. and learned Friend has had time, as I am sure he will, to read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and, I hope, act upon today's report from the Select Committee on Defence, will he note that the most spine-chilling piece of evidence was that nuclear material and weapons are leaching out of Russia into European, Arab and Muslim countries and that 163
    816
    countries have now obtained them? Will he state definitely to the House that we will ensure that our capabilities to deal with such weapons are sufficient to deter their use by countries that have unstable Governments and are within reach of Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: The proliferation of nuclear weapons must be a matter of serious concern. At a time when the Soviet Union—the world's second-largest nuclear superpower—is disintegrating, it is an important priority to ensure that the transition of the Soviet Union into its successor states is accompanied by the removal of all nuclear weapons from countries other than Russia and to assist Russia in the dismantling and destruction of surplus nuclear weapons. We must do so partly to prevent the disposal of weapons or their components to other countries.
    Mr. Martlew: Yesterday the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that we needed to review the welfare state because public expenditure was out of control. Today we have a damning indictment of the Government by the Select Committee on Defence, which says that we must spend more money on the Army. The answer must be for the Government to abandon their plans for a new nuclear bomb. We would save £3 billion if we scrapped the tactical air-to-surface missile. The Labour party would scrap TASM tomorrow. It is an embarrassment internationally and it has no military capability for the future. I predict that the Conservative Government will scrap TASM. Why does not the Secretary of State tell the House now that he will cancel it?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that a Labour Government would scrap TASM tomorrow. It is worth remembering that the same Labour Government would have scrapped Trident yesterday. That speaks for itself on the inadequacy on Labour thought on those crucial issues.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that we never know from where an attack may come? [Interruption.] Yes, even from the Opposition Benches. Does he agree that if we have a nuclear deterrent it must be updated? In the CIS nations inflation is running at 1,000 per cent. People cannot afford coffins to bury their dead. Hospitals cannot afford replacement needles. That group of nations has all the ingredients for another revolution. We must forget what is happening in the rest of the world and make sure that we can defend our nation.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of those considerations. It is worth remembering that in 10 years' time, even if it has fully met all its obligations under the START and successor treaties, Russia will still have more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads and will still be the world's second-largest nuclear super-power.

    Nuclear Test Veterans
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in 1993 about compensation for nuclear test veterans.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: A small number of representations have been received so far this year.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that thousands of former British troops such as my constituent, Mr. Anderson, who was exposed to radioactive fall-out in the

    817
    clean-up of Christmas island, still await justice and compensation from our Government, whereas their counterparts in the United States and Canada have received just compensation from their Governments? When will the report that the Prime Minister mentioned on 14 January on compensation for those Army veterans be published? Will he confirm that the cases of constituents such as Mr. Anderson will be included in that report?
    Mr. Hamilton: Most of the people who witnessed the explosions that took place as part of the atomic experiments were not exposed to any radiation whatever. A minority of those who were close to the explosions were exposed, but the radiation did not reach dangerous levels. The current problem, which has been revealed by a previous report of the National Radiological Protection Board, is that people who get older are more likely to contract cancer. It is reckoned that possibly a third of people may contract cancer at some time during their life. The latest NRPB report said that there was no link between those who had attended atomic tests and cancer. We are waiting for the next report to appear which I am told should be some time later this year.
    Mr. Allason: With respect to my hon. Friend, is he aware that that reply might be misinterpreted as appalling complacency on the part of the Government? Does he further agree that the claimants for compensation who witnessed those tests in the Pacific are dying and that there should be no further delay in settling their very legitimate claims?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend describes it as complacency, but the fact is that we have ways of checking doses of radiation and if people have not received any radiation, there is nothing that I can do to alter it. The fact remains that there was no evidence of radiation spreading very widely from the areas of those explosions. As I have already explained to the House, people get cancer as they get older—and that happens widely across the whole population, whether they have witnessed nuclear tests or not.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not the case of the nuclear test veterans demonstrate two things: first, the callousness of the Government's attitude to the victims and, secondly, the grave dangers of the deployment and use of nuclear weapons? Why do not the Government acknowledge that a contribution to peace would be for the Government to get rid of nuclear weapons and to honour their obligations, which they have consistently breached, under the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Will the Minister confirm that 150 nations are pledged not to manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons? Why do not the Government support them?
    Mr. Hamilton: The one thing on which I will congratulate the hon. Gentleman is consistency. During times when his party has changed its policy radically on the question of nuclear weapons, he always advocates that we should get rid of them. He knows, however, that the policy of this Government is and will continue to be to keep nuclear weapons. We believe that they do not put people's lives at risk in experimentation or anywhere else. They have saved many lives in terms of the deterrent provided.

    Yugoslavia
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what number of British armed forces personnel are currently deployed onshore and offshore in support of United Nations actions in the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Rifkind: The number of British armed forces personnel currently deployed, onshore and offshore, in direct support of United Nations operations in the former Yugoslavia is about 3,000. Additionally, there are some 320 personnel deployed for possible reinforcement or evacuation action on HMS Ark Royal and other British vessels in the area.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not it transparent that the extra turn of the screw in reducing Army numbers, now reversed, was always Treasury-driven and not a military judgment; that the idea that substantial savings could be made while continuing to meet our likely commitments—the so-called peace dividend—was in part and in practice a delusion; and that the cancellation of the helicopter landing platform, the intended centrepiece of our amphibious capability, would be a contradiction of the rapid reaction role on which our new policy is to be based?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have always said that it would be necessary to review requirements in the light of the changing international situation, but I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the main thrust behind "Options for Change" remains unchallenged because the United Kingdom, with the United States, France, Russia, and every other country of NATO and the former Warsaw pact, must make substantial reductions in the overall size of its armed forces. The cold war is over. As the cold war was the single most important reason for the level of defence expenditure that we have had over the past 40 years, it would be unrealistic to believe that it should continue regardless of the changes that have occurred. That is a factor which I believe will commend itself to the House.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Ark Royal is so short of facilities and so overcrowded that members of our armed forces have to sleep under their planes and by their equipment? Does not this show that we are overstretched in the Navy as well as in the Army and does not it also call into question the need for a helicopter landing ship? Will he tell the House this afternoon that he intends to proceed with that order?
    Mr. Rifkind: As for HMS Ark Royal, the hon. Gentleman is being foolish. Ark Royal is in the Adriatic for a specific and limited purpose. It is perfectly able to provide proper, indeed excellent, accommodation for its normal crew, but on a temporary basis it is carrying additional personnel. The suggestion that that is evidence of overall underprovision is very silly.
    As for the helicopter landing ship, as I told the hon. Gentleman, the tenders in respect of that order are under consideration and we shall make an announcement as soon as we can.

    Job Transfers
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence how many civilian and military jobs have been transferred from Yorkshire and the north of England to other locations, resulting from the review of defence establishments.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: To date, no posts have yet been transferred out of Yorkshire and the north of England as a result of "Britain's Defence for the 90s". A number of proposals have been made to date, however, that will enable my Department to make savings by rationalising posts and closing establishments.
    Mr. Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I recognise the need for rationalisation, but will he place serious emphasis on the retention of jobs in Yorkshire and the north? Does he recognise the concern of my constituents, whose civilian jobs in the RAF Support Management Group are to be transferred to Cambridgeshire under his review? Will he reconsider that decision, in the light of the decision not to locate the Junior Leaders Regiment at the Army apprentices college—an excellent set of buildings which would be ideal to house the support group?
    Mr. Hamilton: A substantial number of defence jobs is being maintained in Yorkshire, because Catterick remains a major garrison for our troops. As for my hon. Friend's proposal that the RAF support group should be moved to the site of the Army apprentices college, we are currently considering that and I shall contact him about it; but I remind him that the period of consultation on the proposal to close the college is still in operation.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Amess: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on launching a fundamental review of all Government spending, just as Conservative-controlled Basildon is currently doing? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure the best possible value for every pound of taxpayers' money that is spent?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend so often reminds the House, where Basildon leads others tend to follow.
    I welcome yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Government spend over £250 billion a year of taxpayers' money. I believe that it is necessary to look very closely at the way in which that money is spent and at where it is spent and to ensure that we obtain the best possible value for every pound that is spent. It is for that reason that we are conducting the review.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made during the election campaign only
    820
    10 months ago? He said that the Government had no plans and no need to extend the scope of value added tax. Does he stand by those words?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that we are near to the Budget. She must wait.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister made just that promise to the British people when he needed their votes. Why will not he make it now?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that we are close to the Budget. She must wait.
    Mrs. Beckett: At the time of the election, the Prime Minister and all his colleagues promised no change in VAT, no other new taxes or charges and no cuts in the public spending plans that they had put before the British people. Is not it clear from the Prime Minister's refusal to answer a simple question that all his promises had a sell-by date of 9 April?
    The Prime Minister: It is not remotely clear from that. What is clear is that we are close to the Budget and the hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget to find out what it contains.
    Mr. William Powell: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the article by Robert Fisk in yesterday's edition of The Independent which describes systematic rape in Bosnia? Has not the time come for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal, so that those responsbile for the perpetration of such foul crimes can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that, under the authority of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, hut, as he will know, we have been considering that matter in concert with the United Nations for some time.
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in my constituency, in the once-prosperous city of Nottingham, is now higher than in any Scottish or Welsh constituency, having risen by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992? With three out of 10 males now unemployed, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect unemployment to start to fall?
    The Prime Minister: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's concern about unemployment, but I would respect it more if he did not support policies that would deliberately put people out of work—[Interruption.]—rather than back into work. He and his party have consistently argued for a national minimum wage and even the Fabian Society has recognised that
    "an inescapable part of a"
    national minimum wage
    "policy is increased unemployment."
    Perhaps that is another policy which the Labour Front Bench could ditch.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government support the Owen-Vance peace plan and that they will continue to keep up their pressure on the warring parties to comply with that plan? In the meantime, will he confirm British support for the humanitarian aid now going to Bosnia?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I confirm both points. The Government's policy is fully to support the Owen-Vance peace plan, which was developed out of the conference that I chaired in London last August. We also wish to maintain the conditions in which our forces can support the United Nations humanitarian effort, without which many thousands of people alive today would otherwise have been dead. But we believe it to be necessary to increase the pressure on the parties to help seek a solution. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for tightening the operation of sanctions across the Danube and for increasing the isolation of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs if their aggression persists. I hope that that policy will be supported throughout the European Community and the United Nations.
    Mr. Austin-Walker:: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Prime Minister find time today to examine the effects of land contamination on job creation? In particular, will he examine the position of the Woolwich Arsenal site, which once employed 80,000 people in a single factory, but which now lies derelict in an area where male unemployment tops 62 per cent? Will he give a categorical assurance that, as the contamination was caused by the Ministry of Defence, the Government will meet the full cost of decontamination on that site and the neighbouring Thamesmead area?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Defence will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, will examine the matter and will respond to him.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great teaching profession clearly welcomes higher standards through the national curriculum, but appears to be flinching from achieving them through standard assessment tests? Does he further agree that it is vital, above all in the interests of our nation and our children, that the tests go ahead without delay?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that we need national tests to raise standards and it is our intention that they
    822
    shall go ahead. They are and remain a vital part of the national curriculum. Children need them, parents want them and I expect teachers to supervise them.
    Mr. Llwyd: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shortly to discuss his disgraceful betrayal of British farmers with the proposed cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances—despite the promise, fewer than 18 months ago, that they were safe in his hands?
    The Prime Minister: I meet my right hon. Friend many times a week, but, regardless of the cut in HLCAs to which the hon. Gentleman refers, hill farmers' incomes will be between £60 million and £70 million higher as a result of increased sheep premiums, the green pound devaluation and other market factors.
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while any convert to conservatism is always welcome, if that conversion is coupled with a continuing opposition to British Rail privatisation, grant-maintained schools, GP fund-holding practices and compulsory competitive tendering, it shows that the conversion is insubstantial and entirely unreal? Is not that now the position of the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome all conversions to conservatism, especially death-bed conversions—but they must be genuine conversions, not conversions that use the language of conservatism but remain wedded to the instincts and policies of socialism. Until the right hon. and learned Gentleman formally drops his commitment to clause 4, his opposition to privatisation and his idiotic proposal for a windfall tax, no one will take his conversion seriously.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell the President of the Board of Trade to get round the table with the Leyland DAF receiver, the management and the unions, in an attempt to save the van factory in Birmingham, which has a highly skilled and motivated work force of 2,000 people?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the receivers.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.
    Mr. Forman: When my right hon. Friend is considering new measures to help the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, will he give careful consideration to the idea of relaxing the social security rules that affect availability for work, so that it is possible for people to do more than 24 hours a week of voluntary work and more than 21 hours a week of educational study—to their benefit and that of the country?
    The Prime Minister: We have looked and are looking at a range of measures that might encourage people back into

    823
    work. I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular undertaking on the point that he makes, but we are looking at a range of ways to assist.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: The Prime Minister's record is not a good one. Since he came to office in 1990, more than 1 million people have joined the unemployed queues and more than 100,000 training places have been lost. Is this the vision of Opportunity Britain, or is it a sign of the growing army of jobless whose lives have been wasted by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: What we have sought to do and are doing is to put in place the economic circumstances that will create genuine and lasting jobs. That is why we have cut inflation to its lowest level for six years, brought interest rates down to their lowest for 15 years and put in place the most comprehensive training programme ever seen in this country. That is the only way to secure long-term, permanent jobs—not the quick fixes so beloved of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

    Cleethorpes
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend's constituency among them.
    Mr. Brown: I am delighted to hear that reply. Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he and I used to travel on the train to Cleethorpes, which used to stop at Huntingdon? Is he aware that if he makes his official visit to Cleethorpes by train, after May this year he will have to change at Newark and hang around on the platform catching flu for hours on end because British Rail is taking away the direct train service to Cleethorpes? Does he agree that it is vital that British Rail should continue that service at least until the Railways Bill is on the statute book, when we can take advantage of the franchising opportunities of privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: I recall those journeys with my hon. Friend with great pleasure, but British Rail's monopoly service means that it decides what services to run in the light of its view of passenger demand. I stress to my hon. Friend that British Rail's reluctance to change its service now is no bar to subsequent changes. The privatisation proposals will break British Rail's monopoly and will bring in private sector operators and I believe that part of those franchises will provide a better, cheaper and more effective service for the commuter.

Constitutional Separation
3.30 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a constitutional framework within which separation from the United Kingdom may be achieved by England or Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland.
I stand—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly please, so that we may proceed with the business before us? I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North can now make himself heard.
Mr. Walker: I stand before you, Madam Speaker, wearing the dress of highland Scotland—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members please leave the Chamber and not hold conversations here? Would those hon. Members who are holding conversations at the Bar please do so quietly or remove themselves?
Mr. Walker: I stand before you, Madam Speaker, wearing the dress of highland Scotland. I do so because I have no wish to be described as a little Englander; nor do I wish there to be any confusion with the black shirts of west central Scotland.
As a committed monarchist and unionist, I am presenting a Bill which I believe will strengthen the Union of the United Kingdom. I also believe that, if enacted, it would flush out the minority separatists and demonstrate clearly how little support they enjoy throughout the United Kingdom.
For far too long, the separatists in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have created massive political, constitutional and security problems. Successive United Kingdom Governments have tried to buy off support for the separatists by introducing devolution measures and power-sharing proposals. That has been done piecemeal at different times in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sometimes it has been done in unison, but more often than not in isolation, and almost always with little consideration for the likely impact on other parts of the Kingdom.
Government proposals to introduce single-tier local authorities in Scotland, Wales and England are to be commended. Those all-purpose authority proposals should be implemented in Northern Ireland. If that were done, we would have similar local authority structures and powers throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that, if they were alive, Airey Neave and Ian Gow would endorse such proposals, because, like me, they would view this as a measure to bring constitutional government nearer to the people and thus reduce the political appeal of separatists.
Commendable as the local authority changes would be, they would not, in my view, completely address the problems created by the separatists, which is why my Bill, a constitutional Bill designed to address the gap in the constitution, is needed. Without such a Bill, a minority of dedicated separatists can and will continue to attract media attention—attention which is out of all proportion to the support enjoyed by the separatists within the electorate.
Although I am opposed to the establishment of an assembly in Edinburgh, that is not the issue covered by my
826
Bill. It is designed to create a constitutional framework within which any part of the United Kingdom, if the vast majority of the people so wish, could achieve separation. Consequently, I would not expect those who support the maintenance of the United Kingdom, but who wish to do so by way of establishing a federal structure or by way of devolved assemblies, to oppose my Bill.
If, however, support for an assembly, be it in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, is seen as a first step towards separation, I will not be surprised, of course, to find those who hold this view opposing my Bill.
My Bill calls for the separatists in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland to present, in the first instance, a petition to Parliament demanding separation of that part of the United Kingdom from the rest of the United Kingdom. If 50 per cent. plus one of everyone entitled to vote in the general election were to sign such a petition, the Government of the day would organise a first ballot in that part of the United Kingdom, and only in that part of the United Kingdom. The ballot would have a single question on the paper. If it were Scotland, for instance, the question would be: "Do you wish Scotland to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom—yes or no?" It would be a straight question.
If 50 per cent. plus one, or more, of those entitled to vote at a general election were to vote yes, there would follow a two-year period in which the true costs and the true benefits would be properly evaluated. In other words, the family assets and the family liabilities would be apportioned accordingly. That would include whether, in Scotland, Yarrow shipyard would continue to receive orders for frigates; what would happen to all the military bases in Scotland; indeed, what would happen to the Rosyth dockyard. All that would have to be decided, and of course the share of the national debt would be properly apportioned.
When that two-year exercise had been completed, there would be a requirement for a second ballot. The question again would be: "Do you wish Scotland to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom—yes or no?" Again, if 50 per cent. plus one, or more, voted yes, separation would take place.
The Bill would also contain a clause which would place a 25–year moratorium on that part of the United Kingdom which had exercised the constitutional act but had failed to reach the 50 per cent. plus one in either the petition or either of the two ballots. The 25-year moratorium is designed to ensure that good local government measures and central Government administration could be carried out effectively, without having to be diverted constantly by media-oriented publicity and political activity of the separatists.
I believe that this unitary Parliament and the United Kingdom, with its unwritten constitution and single-Member constituencies, is far from perfect. Every day, I find things that require improvement. Even so, I still believe that we are most fortunate to live in the United Kingdom. Our constitution, although unwritten, gives us flexibility not enjoyed by countries with written constitutions. Citizens' rights are protected by the fact that Parliament is not bound by decisions made by previous Parliaments. If we get something wrong, as, we often do, we can rectify it the following year, which is one reason why I oppose ceding further powers to Europe. Also, a Member's right to ask questions and the right to have the

827
questions answered, when linked to parliamentary privilege, is the citizen's cost-free route to having wrongs righted.
Because I wish my children and my grandchildren to enjoy the benefits of the United Kingdom, the Westminster Parliament and the unwritten constitution, and because I do not wish them to lose that inheritance by default, constitutional change involving separation must and should require the support of the vast majority of the people, whether in England, in Scotland, in Wales or in Northern Ireland. If 37 Members elected on a ticket to come to this House were to sit in Edinburgh and say that it was a Scottish Parliament, we would have a constitutional headache of immense proportions, and we would have separation by default. Therefore, constitutional change should have the support of a vast majority. That is why we need the Bill.
3.40 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I rise as one of the red check shirts from the east coast of Scotland. I cannot speak for the black shirts; Conservative Members have more familiarity with black shirts than I do.
There are any number of reasons why we should oppose the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Indeed, there are many in Scotland who would ague that the fact that the Bill has been presented by the hon. Gentleman is in itself sufficient reason for opposition. After all, he was one of the foremost proponents and defenders of the poll tax in Scotland, and he remains to this day a keen supporter of water privatisation in Scotland. He might even be described as a Thatcher loyalist, someone who would revisit the Baroness on Scotland and on the rest of the United Kingdom. So I would argue that he could not be trusted with the constitutional arrangements for a bowling club, never mind those for one of the most ancient, historic nations in the continent of Europe. I refer to Scotland—which, as you know, Madam Speaker, preceded the birth of the United Kingdom by many centuries.
There are reasons other than the obvious shortcomings of the hon. Member for Tayside, North as to why the Bill should be opposed. First and most important, it is based on the idea that the House can tell Scotland what it must do to achieve independence. I do not want to get into an argument about the differences between the policy of the SNP on independence in Europe and the Labour party's policy of home rule within the United Kingdom; it is sufficient to say that both argue for a Parliament within the union. One would be within the European union and the other would be within the union of the United Kingdom.
The Bill assumes that sovereignty over Scotland—
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: and Wales.
Mr. McAllion: — and Wales—rests with a majority in the House. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sovereignty over Scotland rests with the Scottish people and only with the Scottish people. Sovereignty over Wales rests with the Welsh people and only with the Welsh people, as sovereignty over England rests only with English people. (HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is not just my view; the "Hear, hears" from my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members show that it is the general view of the Opposition parties.
828
That has always been the view of the Scottish National party. Since the claim of rights for Scotland has been supported by the Labour party and the Liberal Democratic party, it is their view as well. Therefore, it can be argued that it is the view of 75 per cent. of Scottish voters in the most recent general election.
There exists in Scotland a massive majority opposed totally to the thinking behind the Bill proposed today. Even more, the Bill reeks of double standards and humbug. The hon. Member for Tayside, North said that, before Scotland and Wales could vote to separate themselves from the United Kingdom, a petition signed by 50 per cent. of those entitled to vote, plus one, would have to be presented to the House. That means 50 per cent. of those on the electoral register plus one.
Such support has never been achieved by any party this century. It is clearly meant to be a blocking mechanism to prevent any of the countries from moving away from the union. Indeed, the hon. Member belongs to a political party that readily accepted in last April's general election in Scotland that, had 37 Scottish national party Members of Parliament been returned, that would have been a mandate for separation from the United Kingdom.
As you know, Madam Speaker, 37 Members can be elected from Scotland on less than 40 per cent. of the vote —or less than one third of those whose names are on the electoral register. It seems neither sensible nor reasonable, therefore, to argue that less than a third of those entitled to vote in an election represent a mandate for separation, yet in a wholly unreal situation such as a ten-minute Bill that is going nowhere in the House to argue that, for separation, there must be a majority of 50 per cent. of those entitled to vote. The Bill adds nothing sensible or reasonable to the future government of Scotland and should be ignored for that reason.
But perhaps worst of all, Scotland is currently governed under constitutional arrangements that have the support of only 25 per cent. of those who voted at the last general election. Indeed, they have the support of only 19 per cent. of those whose names are on the electoral register in Scotland. I refer to those who voted for the Tories and for the constitutional status quo.
By the standards of his own Bill, the hon. Member for Tayside, North is arguing that the Tory Government do not have a mandate to run Scotland. Indeed, according to the mandate requirements of his Bill, the only parties that have a mandate to run Scotland are those that support a directly elected Scottish Parliament. Those parties received three out of every four votes at the last election and the support of more than half of those on the electoral register.
If the hon. Member for Tayside, North were being true to the proposals in the Bill, he would have joined Scotland United and would be taking part in a vigil outside the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh. He would have stood side by side with Opposition Members on top of an open-deck bus proclaiming Scotland's right to self-determination since the last election in April.
But this is not a serious Bill; it is a parliamentary stunt that does nothing for democracy and nothing for the right of the Scottish people to self-determination. Nor does it do anything for the very real problems that face far too many Scots in the hard lives that they must endure under a Government they did not elect.
A new generation has grown up in Scotland during a period in which Scotland has been rendered powerless by the Westminster system of government. That generation,

829
and other generations of older Scots, are no longer prepared to accept or tolerate that situation. They recognise that all the rights that they regard as important —the right to a decent education, to proper training, to a job, to a living wage, to decent housing and to decent health care—do not grow on trees but spring from the system of government under which people live.
They are no longer prepared to tolerate a system that gives no voice to what they have to say in the government of their own country. They are no longer prepared to tolerate being told what they can or cannot do by those whom they did not elect. They are no longer prepared to tolerate parliamentary stunts such as that which the hon. Member for Tayside, North has tried to pull off this afternoon. We, the elected representatives of that majority in Scotland, are here to ensure that this Parliament will pay attention to the just demands of the Scottish people for self-determination.
Madam Speaker: The Question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill. As many as—
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggested that he was in highland dress: he is in nothing of the kind. He misled the House, and I have reason to believe that he is wearing little red pants under his kilt.[Laughter.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I have had enough colourful descriptions for one day. I shall now put the Question.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :—
The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 180.

Division No. 144]

[3.48 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Cran, James

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Spink, Dr Robert

Dicks, Terry

Stern, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Fry, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Trimble, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Hawksley, Warren

Whittingdale, John

Hunter, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marland, Paul

Sir George Gardiner and

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Mr. Christopher Gill.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Blunkett, David

Adams, Mrs Irene

Boyce, Jimmy

Ainger, Nick

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burden, Richard

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Alton, David

Cann, Jamie

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Armstrong, Hilary

Clapham, Michael

Austin-Walker, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Battle, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Clelland, David

Bennett, Andrew F.

Coffey, Ann

Berry, Dr. Roger

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Betts, Clive

Corbyn, Jeremy

830

Corston, Ms Jean

Macdonald, Calum

Cox, Tom

McFall, John

Cryer, Bob

Mackinlay, Andrew

Cummings, John

McLeish, Henry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McMaster, Gordon

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

McNamara, Kevin

Dafis, Cynog

Madden, Max

Dalyell, Tam

Mandelson, Peter

Darling, Alistair

Marek, Dr John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Martlew, Eric

Denham, John

Meale, Alan

Dixon, Don

Michael, Alun

Donohoe, Brian H.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dover, Den

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Dowd, Jim

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Eagle, Ms Angela

Morgan, Rhodri

Eastham, Ken

Morley, Elliot

Enright, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mudie, George

Faulds, Andrew

Mullin, Chris

Flynn, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Olner, William

Foulkes, George

O'Neill, Martin

Galloway, George

Pickthall, Colin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pike, Peter L.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gordon, Mildred

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Primarolo, Dawn

Grocott, Bruce

Radice, Giles

Gunnell, John

Raynsford, Nick

Hain, Peter

Redmond, Martin

Hall, Mike

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hanson, David

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hardy, Peter

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rooney, Terry

Henderson, Doug

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Heppell, John

Salmond, Alex

Home Robertson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Hood, Jimmy

Sheerman, Barry

Hoon, Geoffrey

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hoyle, Doug

Simpson, Alan

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster North)

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Soley, Clive

Hutton, John

Spearing, Nigel

Illsley, Eric

Spellar, John

Ingram, Adam

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Steinberg, Gerry

Johnston, Sir Russell

Stott, Roger

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Straw, Jack

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Turner, Dennis

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tyler, Paul

Jowell, Tessa

Vaz, Keith

Keen, Alan

Watson, Mike

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Khabra, Piara S.

Wigley, Dafydd

Kirkwood, Archy

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Leighton, Ron

Wilson, Brian

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Winnick, David

Lewis, Terry

Wise, Audrey

Litherland, Robert

Worthington, Tony

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wray, Jimmy

Llwyd, Elfyn

Wright, Dr Tony

Loyden, Eddie

Lynne, Ms Liz

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Bill Etherington and

McAvoy, Thomas

Mr. Ian Davidson.

McCartney,Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order
3.59 pm
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not given to making specious points of order, but, during exchanges in Prime Minister's Question Time, I distinctly heard, and I have no doubt that you did also, the word "pillock" being used by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) from a sedentary position—not once, not twice, not thrice but four times. I was not sure whether it was a generic term of abuse of the Government Front Bench or a specific term for the Prime Minister.
As I was brought up in a fairly genteel society, I am not sure what the word means, but even if it means what I think it means, could I have your ruling, Madam Speaker, whether "pillock" or "pillocks" is an appropriate parliamentary term? I raise the matter only because there are times when we might resort to the language of ladies and gentlemen rather than to the language of hooligans.
Madam Speaker: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. From time to time, our language deteriorates. However, the hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in one aspect. I certainly heard no such word used; otherwise I would have called it to the attention of the hon. Member who used it. I do not know what the word means—I do not wish to know what the word means—but I find it rather ugly, and I prefer it not to be used.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was sitting much closer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) than the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) was. 'When the Prime Minister was talking about a matter for the receivers, my hon. Friend and others, including myself, shouted "hypocrisy" several times at the Prime Minister, and we meant it. I believe that to be in order, but I did not hear the other word. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not confession time. We must move on now.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has just dashed into the Chamber, in an attempt, no doubt, to defend himself. Of course I must hear his point oforder.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand that certain words were attributed to me during Prime Minister's Question Time. I am not absolutely certain what words were used, but I put it to you, Madam Speaker, to the House and to the country that, when the Prime Minister treats the workers of Leyland DAF in such an offhand, arrogant way, anybody of reasonable mind would accept any words that werespoken.
Madam Speaker: Whatever the exchanges in the House, English is a very rich language. I hope that we select it very carefully, however upset and excited we might become in ourexchanges.

Orders of the Day

  Housing and Urban Development Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair.]
  Ordered,
  That the Housing and Urban Development Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 8, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 9 to 11, Schedule 3, Clauses 12 to 22, Schedule 4, Clauses 23 to 28, Schedule 5, Clauses 29 to 30, Schedule 6, Clause 31, Schedule 7, Clause 32, Schedule 8, Clause 33, Schedule 9, Clauses 34 to 36, Schedule 10, Clauses 37 to 38, Schedule II, Clauses 39 to 52, Schedule 12, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 13, Clauses 58 to 61, Schedule 14, Clauses 62 to 91, New Schedules relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 92 to 104, Schedule 15, Clauses 105 to 107, Clauses 118 to 119, Clauses 125 to 129, Clause 108, Clause 130, Clause 109, Clause 131, Clauses 110 to 114, Clauses 132 to 134, Clauses 115 to 117, Clauses 120 to 124, Clauses 135 to 138, New Schedules relating to Part II, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 140 to 141, Clause 139, Schedules 16 and 17, Clause 142, Schedule 18, Clauses 143 to 150, Schedule 19, Clauses 151 to 166, New Schedules relating to Part III, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 167 and 168, Schedules 20 and 21, Clause 169, New Schedules relating to Part IV, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules.—[Sir George Young.]

New Clause 13

  TENANCIES TERMINABLE AFTER DEATH OR MARRIAGE.
  "Right to enfranchisement only in case of certain tenancies terminable after death or marriage.
  `.—(1) The following section shall be inserted in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 after the section IA inserted by section 59 above—
  1B. Where a tenancy granted so as to become terminable by notice after a death or marriage—

  (a) is (apart from this section) a long tenancy in accordance with section 3(1) below, but

  (b) was granted before 18th April 1980 or in pursuance of a contract entered into before that date,

  then (notwithstanding section 3(1)) the tenancy shall be a long tenancy for the purposes of this Part of this Act only so far as this Part has effect for conferring on any person a right to acquire the freehold of a house and premises."
  (2) In section 3(1) of that Act (meaning of "long tenancy")—

  (a) after "and includes" there shall be inserted "both a tenancy taking effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage) and"; and

  (b) in the proviso (which prevents certain categories of tenancies terminable after death or marriage being long tenancies), for the words from "if either" onwards there shall be substituted "if—

  (a) the notice is capable of being given at any time after the death or marriage of the tenant;

  (b) the length of the notice is not more than three months; and

  (c) the terms of the tenancy preclude both—

  (i) its assignment otherwise than by virtue of section 92 of the Housing Act 1985 (assignments by way of exchange), and

  (ii) the sub-letting of the whole of the premises comprised in it.".'.

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.8 pm
  The Minister of Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 55, 76, 56, 78 and 79.
  I draw the attention of the House to Government amendment No. 56, which refers to line 22. There is a misprint; it should read "line 12". I make that point so that it need not be mentioned again.
  Sir George Young: I repeat an interest which I have declared on previous occasions. I am the owner of a 999-year lease on a flat in my constituency, although it is not a lease that terminates on the death of the Prince of Wales, which is the subject of new clause 13.
  When we debated the matter in Standing Committee, I undertook to reflect on the case for retrospectively bringing within enfranchisement lessees who are presently excluded by the so-called Prince of Wales clause. It is a blatant avoidance device used by some landlords, and its use was blocked prospectively by the Housing Act 1980. Leaseholders persuaded us that, in practice, many of their number would have been unaware of the effect of that clause in their leases, and no landlord groups have made any representations in favour of the clause. In the light of that, we have decided that it would be contrary to the aims of our reforms to leave that small group of leaseholders high and dry.
  This new clause, with its associated group of amendments, will amend the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by adding a new section and modifying the existing section 3. It will enable a leaseholder who was granted a long lease on a house before 18 April 1980, which would qualify under the 1967 Act except that it contains a clause which renders it terminable by notice after the death of, for example, the last survivor of any issue of King George V alive at the time of the grant—hence the name of the Prince of Wales clause—to acquire the freehold interest.
  The valuation basis will be the higher of the two in the 1967 Act —the so-called special valuation base. That is consistent with our policy expressed in the Bill, that leaseholders who are given new rights should pay the market price for the interest that they can now purchase.
  Nothing in the new clause will prevent landlords from continuing to grant bona fide life tenancies to, for example, former employees.Such leases will continue to be unenfranchiseable. Houses which were previously excluded from enfranchisement because of a Prince of Wales clause will be eligible for inclusion in an area subject to an estate management scheme set up under chapter IV of the Bill.
  I hope that the House will recognise that this new clause signifies the Government's desire to he fair with the leasehold reform package. The new clause reforms an anomaly which is no longer defensible, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. John Battle: We welcome the new clauses which the Government have tabled on the Prince of Wales clause. They signify some give, after efforts were made in Committee. While the Government's intentions to extend enfranchisement to leaseholders are reflected in the
  834
  clauses, what we have before us in the amendments and the new clauses do not satisfy all the promises which the Minister gave in Committee.
  While we welcome the Minister's shifting of the direction of enhancing and extending leasehold, we would—as we said in Committee—push further: we want commonhold. At least the Government have given us an assurance that we shall get commonhold. We look forward to the Government introducing a commonhold Bill so that we can proceed with that.
  Some small measure is provided in the Government's clauses which we are immediately discussing. I hope that the three quarters of a million leaseholders who think that they will be enfranchised under the legislation actually will be, because there is still a danger, despite the new clauses, that the Bill is hedged with exemptions. As we know, some of the clauses before us today will push through even more exemptions, so that those who think that they will be enfranchised will find in practice that they are not.
  We welcome the shift on the Prince of Wales clause. In the further discussions on the shift, as it were, on the low-rent test for flats and houses which the Minister promised to re-examine, we look forward to the operation of the two-thirds rule in smaller blocks as well. I hope that we can make progress tonight to enhance and extend the rights of leaseholders to enfranchisement, rather than restrict them and hedge them with exemptions, which the Government still seem to be doing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
  `(1) Nothing in Chapters I and II shall be taken to confer a right upon the tenant of a flat to acquire a leaseextension unless the tenant occupies the flat as hisprincipalresidence.
  (2) In relation to a claim for collective enfranchisement under Chapter I such a claim shall not be valid unless not less than half of the participating tenants occupy flats in the relevant premises as their principal residence.
  (3) In this section "principal residence" means a flat which a tenant—

  (a) occupies as his main or only residence; and

  (b) has so occupied for the last three years or periods amounting to three years in the last ten years.'—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
  No.5, in clause 5, page 5, line 40, after 'rent', insert 'and

  (a) occupies the flat as his principal residence, and

  (b) has so occupied the flat for the last three years or periods amounting to three years in the last ten years.'

  No. 10, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—
  `(7) In this section "principal residence" means a flat which a tenant occupies as his main or only residence.'.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: It is a matter of considerable regret to me that the Bill is modelled on a Labour precedent, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That Act was passed only after its opponents on the then Conservative benches, led by Mr. Anthony Barber, forced major concessions and amendments on the Government.

  835
  A number of us find it difficult to accept that a Conservative Government are retabling a socialist measure which has been described by Professor Wade QC, who is acknowledged to be the United Kingdom's foremost administrative lawyer, as a form of
  "expropriation (which) can scarcely be said to have been for public purposes, since its object was merely to enrich certain tenants at the expense of their landlords."
  However, we must accept that the principal motivation behind the Bill—to deal with abuses by landlords on leaseholders of flats—was contained in the 1992 Conservative manifesto, and neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends seek to renege on that promise. We seek a solution that is fair and equitable to all. The Bill is not. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it is unjust.
  On page 33 of the Conservative manifesto for the last election, under the title "Home Ownership", there is a preamble which outlines Conservative policy on housing:
  "Conservatives have extended the right and opportunity to own a home and pass it on."
  I am sure that we all agree that that is one of the most important rights that an individual has in a free society.
  In that context, the manifesto commits this Conservative Government to
  "giving residential leaseholders"—
  I underline the word "residential"—
  "living in blocks of flats the right to acquire the freehold of their block at the market rate."
  Those who see the matter in a different light have been quoting the manifesto at me, but the manifesto specifies residential leaseholders.
  Similarly, the 1967 Act gives the right to enfranchise to tenants and leaseholders who occupy the property as their genuine home, and the 1966 Conservative general election manifesto committed Conservatives to providing choices for a ground leaseholder of residential property who had occupied the house as his principal residence for at least the last five years. One of the choices was the right to buy the freehold, but here Conservatives made it clear that the freehold should be purchased on the basis of full compensation to the freeholder.
  In stark contrast, the Bill gives the right to enfranchise to any long leaseholder of a flat. It will therefore be possible for absentee leaseholders, corporations, foreign companies and speculators forcibly to acquire a freehold property at a discount. The Bill, as I propose to discuss later, offers inadequate levels of compensation to freeholders and allows leaseholders, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, to acquire
  "an asset worth more than the price paid."
  So the Bill goes much further than the Conservative manifesto. Its provisions are even more confiscatory than the 1967 Act and, perhaps most disturbingly, it sets a dangerous constitutional precedent by giving rights of confiscation not to genuine home owners who may in late life regret having willingly entered into a leasehold contract, but to any investor with an interest in leasehold property.
  The Bill does not set out to nationalise property—after all, the beneficiaries are private persons—nor does it bestow the right of eminent domain, which would enable the compulsory purchase of property for a public purpose or public interest such as building a road. No public interest is served by the collective enfranchisement of leaseholders, many of whom will be corporations, absentee overseas leaseholders and speculators. I cannot believe that Opposition Members really believe that it is sensible
  836
  to pass legislation that benefits those classes of people. Instead, the interests of one set of private persons, the leaseholders, is served by the expropriation of the interests of another set of private persons, the freeholders.
  Let us not imagine that all freeholders are dukes, vast estates or charities; many freeholders are single individuals who have invested in a block of flats or a house or have inherited the same. I have received a number of pathetic letters from people who will be seriously disadvantaged by the Bill, people against whom nobody could have any serious political angst. It is seriously wrong.
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of poor freeholders, almost as people used to talk about "poor widows" when Rent Act protection was being discussed. Is he aware that one of the richest people in the country—sometimes described as the second richest person in Britain—the Duke of Westminster, has waged a campaign, obviously not among Labour Members but among Conservative Members? He has tried to do what he possibly can to persuade a sufficient number of Conservative Back Benchers to vote against the Bill. Is not the Duke of Westminster someone who has an interest in the matter and would feel much aggrieved if the Bill became law?
  4.15 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman cannot make a case based on one individual, any more than I can make the opposite case based on another individual. The fact of the matter is that, if confiscatory legislation is introduced, surely the House should protect the rights of the individual, whether duke or pensioner. It has been a principle of long standing of the House that it protects the rights of individuals. It would be a great mistake for us to depart from that principle simply because one individual or case did not fit.
  I should add that I have never heard the Duke of Westminster or his estate accused of being a bad landlord. But I am aware that many small landlords seriously abuse the law. Those are the people whom the Bill should get at. It should not seek to break up big estates or take people's property, at whatever level.
  Britain has signed a European protocol which enforces certain rights and freedoms not included in section 1 of the European convention. Under article 1 of that protocol, the signatory Governments have agreed that
  "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law".
  The Bill deprives natural and legal persons of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions—their freehold properties. If the Bill is to be accepted by the House, it must be amended to prevent a challenge under the first protocol.
  The new clause sets out to achieve the aims that I have described. It includes the requirement that enfranchisement or lease extension will be limited to individuals who occupy the property solely for residential purposes and as their principal residence. Furthermore, he or she should so have occupied the flat for the past three years or for a period amounting to three years in the past 10 years.
  In reply to anxieties properly expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), the Government argued that the residential qualification

  837
  "would considerably reduce the effectiveness of the proposals, not least because it would make it harder to achieve a two-thirds majority of qualifying tenants."
  At the same sitting on 17 November, the Minister of State said:
  "It is not the object of the Bill to enable one investor in a property to enfranchise against another. Alternatively, such a person could block enfranchisement by other qualifying tenants in the building if the number of flats for which he was the qualifying tenant ensured that the requisite majority was never reached without his involvement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 November 1992; c. 103, 113.]
  The new clause ensures that, if the principal private residence qualification interferes with the majority needed for enfranchisement to be agreed, lessees who occupy as their genuine home should be given the right to a new long lease. It is a fair and sensible new clause, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) seeks Labour support, but I have to disappoint him and say that we cannot offer him support for this clause because we believe that enfranchisement should be extended and not hedged by further exclusion clauses. We wholly reject the contention that enfranchisement should be limited to leaseholders who have owned the property as their principal residence for three or more years.
  If we can refer back, as we did in Committee, to the Consumers Association report. although it revealed that there is no uniform profile of leaseholders, it showed that a large proportion, about 90 per cent., of leaseholders had bought their flats in the past 10 years, and that three quarters of those surveyed had purchased their flats in the past five years. In other words, the practical import of the new clause is that, at a stroke, it would effectively render by far the majority of long leasehold flat owners ineligible to take part in an enfranchisement bid.
  We think that the Government enfranchisement proposals are already too restrictive, but the knock-on effect of this clause would be arbitrary and unfair, and it would totally undermine the Government's intention in extending leaseholder enfranchisement. We have for a long time argued for leasehold enfranchisement,and we shall continue to argue forit—to be extended to everybody, not agreed in principle, as it were, giving a kind of rhetorical assent to a right and extending it as a rhetorical right and then undermining it by hedging it with more and more extensions. We see this new clause as further exemption, which would undermine the intention to enfranchise leaseholders.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I must first declare an interest, in that I own some domestic property which is let, but I am advised that none of it comes within the provisions of this proposal.
  I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) in moving this new clause. This is the second time I have intervened in proceedings on the Bill. On the first occasion, the Secretary of State for Environment was kind enough to give way and I can do no better than repeat what I said then, that I can bring myself to agree, after much heart-searching, to legislation which forces people to sell their property when they do not want to. That, clearly, sometimes has to be done.
  838
  I am also just prepared to agree that, where people have entered freely into agreements without any pressure upon either side, those agreements freely entered into can be torn up, but my principal concern is about the level of compensation. We shall come to that a little later. But I do not like the proposals in this Bill. I find them basically offensive, and we shall come to the main reason why I find them offensive later.
  I certainly find the provisions which are dealt with in new clause 2, together with amendments 5 and 10, very offensive, but that is because I do not see why it should be necessary at all to give a vast overnight windfall profit to people who have entered into agreements perfectly freely in the past. I cannot see why it is necessary for there to be a great moral crusade to allow the sort of bodies my hon. Friend referred to—corporations, investors, overseas residents, speculators and any others who happen to have a main residence elsewhere—to make vast overnight profits. We are all aware of foreigners who have houses or flats in London, for instance, and come to use them for relatively shortly periods of the year.
  It is an injustice that those people should make, or in some cases, as the Bill stands, would make, vast overnight windfall profits just through the provisions of this Bill. I can think of no sensible argument, and have heard no sensible argument, that would justify giving such people of the opportunity presented by the Bill.
  I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for West-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has said. Opposition Members are usually the first to seek to clobber speculators, overseas residents, investors and the like; I was astonished by the attitude of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), and I cannot understand why the Opposition do not support the new clause.
  The provision in the Bill was not properly thought out. I understand that it was shuffled into the manifesto at the last minute, with the minimum of consultation and discussion. I do not think that it should have been included, but it is there and we shall have to honour it. I feel, however, that the House is perfectly entitled to trim it in the way proposed in new clause 2, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Let me spell out the simple, straightforward and fundamentally just reasons for proceeding with leasehold enfranchisement at a far more energetic pace than the Bill allows. We are talking about dismantling an archaic and unjust form of tenure which has disappeared almost everywhere in the world except in this country. Here, its continued existence buttresses the privileges of certain exceptionally wealthy people, who have been able for many generations to live on the money that they have extracted from land that they happen to own, on which other people's efforts built houses and other people's money paid rent.
  Lest the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has any doubts, let me remind him that, as long ago as 1889, fear of the possibility ofleaseholdenfranchisement—then much in public debate—made the first Duke ofWestminster and his board decide not to renew leases. The writing was on the wall in 1889; it is sad that it has taken more than 100 years to reach this point, at which we are taking a significant step to dismantle an archaic and absurd form of tenure which has allowed a small number of people to become fat and wealthy at the expense of many others.

  839
  Let us look at the reality of the leaseholder's position. As the Bill stands, many leaseholders will find it impossible to exercise their right to enfranchise, because of the hurdles that they must overcome to qualify. They will have to establish that they themselves have a qualifying tenancy: that involves serious tests which we shall probably debate later, notably the low rent test, which may well prove an obstacle. They will have to establish that an appropriate percentage of the occupants are also qualifying tenants —in fact, two thirds ofresidentsintheblock—before they can proceed. They will have to establish that two thirds are willing to proceed with the enfranchisement; that no more than 10 per cent. of the accommodation is in non-residential use; and that there is no resident freeholder. All those serious tests will have to be passed if leaseholders are to benefit from the Bill, which is nowhere near as simple and straightforward as it should be.
  If leaseholders negotiate those hurdles successfully, they must pay a significant price, allowing freeholders to obtain half the marriage value of the process for nothing. Let us hear no more cant about the poor unfortunate multi-millionaires who have lived off their landholdings for generations, and are now being required to dispose of them as part of the process of leasehold enfranchisement. We want a far more energetic pursuit of enfranchisement, and the removal of many of the obstacles that we shall discuss later. I sincerely hope that the House will dismiss this wrecking amendment for what it is—an attempt to impose yet another obstacle on leaseholders who deserve the earliest possible opportunity of enfranchisement.
  4.30 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) because on this occasion I agree with him and disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and those who support the new clause. But then, I would, considering the constituency that I represent.
  On the face of it, the proposed new clause looks sensible, and there must be many hon. Members who consider it to be a reasonable condition to place on those seeking to enfranchise. But some of the most dangerous things in life are disguised to look the most harmless. Anyone who knows anything about the housing market, particularly in central London, will be aware that, far from being an innocuous addition to this part of the Bill, the new clause would effectively wreck it.
  I am sure that its proposers are not unaware that, if the new clause were adopted, the vast majority of leaseholders, certainly in my constituency, would be prevented from enfranchising. So we would be passing a piece of legislation that enabled leaseholders to gain control over their homes in principle, but prevented from doing so in practice. It would be a worthless piece of legislation.
  The enfranchisement of blocks of flats is a collective action. A certain number of leaseholders must meet the criteria set out in the Bill if they wish to get together and exercise their right to enfranchise. By dramatically extending the scope of the criteria that must be met, the new clause would severely limit the number of cases in which sufficient qualifying leaseholders existed.
  As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, hon. Members with first-hand knowledge of the need to reform the leasehold system feel that the hurdles that those
  840
  wishing to enfranchise must cross are already too high. They must have leases of over 21 years; they must pass the ridiculous and indefensible low rent test, a subject which we shall discuss later; they must have at least two thirds of the flats in their block enfranchiseable; they must not have more than 10 per cent. of the floor space in commercial use; they must have a two-thirds majority in favour of enfranchising; they must pay a disproportionate amount of the marriage value to the freeholder; and they must buy up excess flats if the freeholder so demands.
  All those hurdles already combine to exclude many genuine long leaseholders from the provisions of the legislation. Consider the effect that the new clause would have. Westminster city council, which has virtually nothing but leasehold property in the city, is an ardent campaigner for leasehold reform. Unlike some of my hon. Friends who do not have leasehold properties in their constituencies, Westminster city council knows only too well the misery and hardship caused by the perverse leasehold system and is clear that the proposed additional hurdle would exclude the vast majority of leaseholders from enfranchising.
  The reasons why the new clause would emasculate the Bill are simple. For example, it would exclude from the equation those who have not yet lived in their long-lease flats for over three years. But the housing market is never static, particularly in central London. There will always be a sizeable portion of leaseholders who have lived in their flats for one, two or just under three years. No sooner will one flat owner have crossed the three-year mark than another will move out, and the new leaseholder will again count against in the enfranchisement equation. Add the flats owned and used by businesses and the second homes of people working in London, of whom there are many in Parliament, and one appreciates how difficult it would be to cross the proposed new hurdle.
  The danger of the new clause is that it would prevent those identified in it from enfranchising and would make it impossible for those who meet all the stated requirements to do so. These leaseholders would simply not be able to assemble the required proportion of qualifying leaseholders.
  I realise that some of my hon. Friends may not want businesses to be able to buy and sell freeholds for speculative gain, but that has already been dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is arguing a case which I contend would wreck the Bill. The amendment accepted in Committee would prevent any person or corporate body that owned two or more leases in the same block from taking part in any collective enfranchisement. That amendment stops property speculation. The new clause will virtually stop all enfranchisement, even by genuine long leaseholders. I urge the House not to support it. It is a wrecking measure, and it should be stopped.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), because I endorse wholeheartedly the points that they so eloquently made about the new clause.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who spoke about individuals, that Opposition Members who served on the Committee are unstinting in their praise for the groups that have

  841
  furnished us with evidence about what it is like being a long leaseholder under the present law. I should like to list some of them. Under the heading of the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee, there are six organisations: the Commonhold Flats Campaign, the Consumers Association, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Federation of Private Residents' Associations, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association and the National Consumer Council. All of them are concerned that the present law, which is inequitable and almost feudal in its exercise, should be changed.
  We are much concerned that the Government's proposals are far too narrowly drawn. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare regards the Bill as a measure of expropriation. I have received a copy of a letter written by someone who really knows what expropriation is about. She came here as a refugee from Hungary in 1948, and she says:
  "Good God, how different that was from the expropriation threat to the Duke of Westminster".
  She and her family had everything taken away from them:
  "You woke up one morning and found that you had nothing,"
  not even the coat on one's back. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) described the Bill as offensive. The lady who came here as a refugee from Hungary finds the low-rent test deeply offensive, as do Opposition Members.
  What is it really like for people who are leaseholders, for instance, on the Cadogan and Grosvenor estates? The Cadogan estate had every intention of evicting a leaseholder after she had been in her home for 43 years—despite her repeated but unsuccessful appeals to the estate for a negotiated settlement. Once legal proceedings started, she claims that the estate obstructed her at every turn, wore her down to the point of extreme exhaustion and landed her with annihilating costs—to such a degree that she was eventually forced to withdraw from the case.
  A leaseholder on the Grosvenor estate carried out extensive building improvements. This is a recurring theme in all the evidence that we have received from associations and individuals. Leaseholders are responsible for the upkeep of their property; for the repairs, decoration and security of their homes. In many instances, they pay large amounts—
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that the hon. Lady is incorrect in citing those two cases. Even under existing law, all leaseholders are protected by the Rent Act 1977 and there is no way that the lessor could throw out either of those lessees.
  Ms. Jackson: The hon. Member for Weston-superMare said that it was a battle between equals. I was attempting to point out that it is anything but that. It is a battle between leaseholders and the might of the major estates. In the second instance that I referred to, the lease was running out and because the estate categorically refused to consider an extension, the lessee submitted that evidence.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Surely the hon. Lady agrees that in my opening remarks I ceded the argument about landlords who abuse their tenants and that something had to be done
  842
  to put that right. Does she not agree that her argument has failed on one important point of information—that the lease is a voluntary contract for every leaseholder?
  Ms. Jackson: Wherein lies the equality in entering an agreement freely, when the definition of what constitutes the contract inevitably lies in the hands of the freeholder?
  Despite his intervention, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. The estates are financially immensely powerful and can employ the best that the legal profession is able to offer, which is not the case for the leaseholder.
  The leaseholder on the Grosvenor estate had carried out such extensive building improvements to his home that he could have been eligible to apply for the freehold. As in so many cases, the estate decided to fight the application. The leaseholder had limited resources and a family of five and had to abandon all thoughts of taking action. That is why the Opposition oppose the new clause. The requirements for enfranchisement drawn on the fact of the Bill by the Government are infinitely too narrow and restrictive, but the new clause would make a mockery of the Bill and of the House.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to add my voice to those who oppose the new clause and, although I am advised that it is not an interest, I must mention that I own a leasehold flat in my constituency.
  To take up the argument of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson), like anyone who tries to acquire a flat, I had no choice when I entered into the contract because I could not obtain a freehold. I share that burden with people who live in England, Wales and Hawaii, as those are the only countries which have the leasehold system—not even our friends the Scots have ever gone down the leasehold route in the way that we have done.
  I fervently support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who said that this is a wrecking new clause. I agree that it would emasculate this new, important and useful Bill, and that it is totally contrary to the spirit of the legislation. I should be doing a disservice to my right hon. and hon. Friends who tabled the new clause if I did not suggest that they were well aware of that when they tabled it.
  Many people have leasehold flats in constituencies such as Eastbourne and other resorts along the south coast. Many use them as holiday properties or have them in mind for their retirement. Often people of slender means have invested their money in those new homes. Under the new clause they would be told that they are not allowed to purchase control—the freehold—of their homes and they would not even be entitled to an extension of the lease. The new clause would effectively make them second-class citizens, despite an enormous capital outlay to purchase the leasehold and to pay for maintenance and repairs. Many people want to buy such homes, particularly for their retirement, and would like to own the freehold.
  Given the collective nature of enfranchisement in blocks of flats, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said, the new clause would prevent enfranchising by leaseholders who might meet all the relevant criteria but would be unable to assemble the proportion of flats required for a block to enfranchise.

  843
  4.45 pm
  Retirement flats will count against the other leaseholders, which will discriminate against my constituents and those of my colleagues who represent towns on the south coast. Leaseholders who moved in to their flats one, two or three years ago will count against them —and think how many people in any one block will not have lived there for three years. The housing market is such that there will always be some flats in a block that are owned by people who have not lived there for the length of time proposed in the new clause. All flats owned by businesses will count against them, as will flats whose owners have rented them out for the short term arid flats owned by people who are temporarily working abroad.
  One can readily see why the new clause would bring such comfort to people who are fundamentally opposed to the concept of enfranchisement. The clause would exclude not only people who could not claim their flats to be their principal residences—perhaps for the best of reasons—but most of those people who can.
  Dame Jill Knight: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument carefully, but I do not understand why he thinks that someone who has lived in a flat for three years and has established it as his or her principal residence, would be unable to apply for the freehold under the Bill. By then, the leaseholder would have met all the conditions necessary for the purchase.
  Mr. Waterson: Given the constant turnover in a block, there are bound to be people who have not lived there for the requisite amount of time, and a majority is required.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend seems to have a fair point. Many people want to move within three years. If there were no time qualification, but merely a statement that the flat should be occupied as a main residence, it would tie in with the manifesto on which we both fought the last election. It seems to me that the removal of that qualification might cheer up my hon. Friend. Would he care to comment on that?
  Mr. Waterson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a cheerful sort of fellow and that might give me a modest amount of cheer, but I still have a fundamental objection to the new clause, with or without the three-year restriction.
  Even Opposition Members have grudgingly accepted that the legislation is important and beneficial for leaseholders, and I believe that as many people as possible should be able to reap the benefits.
  Mr. Battle: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we are grudgingly supporting leasehold reform. We are actively campaigning for it. We have been looking forward not only to the hon. Gentleman's speech on the new clause, but to his voting for our new clause to widen and enhance leasehold enfranchisement.
  Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to accept support from wherever I can find it in the House. I wonder whether I can take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that, unlike on Second Reading, he and his hon. Friends will vote for the legislation on Third Reading. The hon. Member is uncharacteristically silent on that issue. No doubt we shall hear more from him later.
  The point I was making was that the new clause would exclude not only those who could not claim their flats to
  844
  be their principal residences, but most of those who could legitimately do so. Its ramifications reach far beyond those who are mentioned in the new clause. I believe that if it were allowed to pass, it would wreck this legislation.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare speaks of socialist legislation, confiscation, and so on, he is, I believe, missing the fundamental point. This issue is not really about the great London estates; it is about individual, often retired, folk in places such as Eastbourne who have put all their savings into a piece of property which is, in effect, a wasting asset; people who, like myself, when they came to acquire a flat in that constituency had no choice but to take leasehold.
  As I have said, this applies only in England and Wales and, I think, Hawaii. It has always been an indefensible system and I am delighted that this legislation will sound its death knell.
  I am therefore happy to oppose the new clause on behalf of my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
  Mr. Nicholls: I start by declaring my interest in Port Enterprises Ltd., the Waterfront Partnership and Howard de Walden Estates Ltd., and the fact that I have a flat in London on a long lease.
  One thing that has become starkly obvious in the debate is that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have found themselves deriving comfort, and indeed votes, from some strange quarters. It must have been obvious to all of us that, although the Opposition are apparently entirely behind the Government in opposing this new wrecking clause, they are working to a different agenda and marching to a different tune.
  I know why I am in favour of the Bill and why I voted for it on Second and Third Readings. The reason was set out in a very straightforward manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who opened the debate. I thought that this was all about ensuring that residential home owners were enabled to buy their own homes. That carries with it some rough justice, because ultimately it means that some people will be deprived of their property against their will. As a Conservative, I do not particularly like that, but politics is an imperfect trade and this is an imperfect world, and sometimes one has to balance interests. It certainly seemed to me that the greater Conservative interest was met by home owners being able to own their own homes. So far, so good.
  What we heard from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was an entirely different tune. He is in the business of reversing history. He has a jolly, romantic and completely ridiculous view of history. He wants to divest dukes. That is what he thinks this is all about: robbing the robber barons. I dare say his view is sincerely held, but it is quite potty. When my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench suddenly find that hon. Gentlemen are all in favour of opposing this clause, I hope that they will pause and reflect that, although misery is supposed to acquaint one with strange bedfellows, it is a bit odd to have to rely on that sort of support to get legislation through.
  I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the care that they have taken in listening to the representations that I have made in recent months. It must be said—I hope that this will not embarrassthem—that

  845
  they have come a considerable way towards meeting the substance of the objections that we have been hearing from these Benches this evening.
  As long ago as 14 August, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote a very helpful letter to me. In view of some of the remarks that have been made in this debate, I ask whichever of my right hon. or hon. Friends will reply to confirm that this is still the position. My hon. Friend said in his letter:
  "You were concerned that the present proposals would enable long resident leaseholders, including corporate bodies and professionals, to enfranchise. I explained that we had already decided that commercial tenants would not be qualifying tenants for the purposes of enfranchisement."
  I have no reason to doubt that that remains the position. I have come to the House today believing that to be so and if by any chance it is not, I hope that that will be made clear in the winding-up speech.
  It was clear that, even after that undertaking, there was a risk that one form of commercial investor would be able to enfranchise against another form of commercial investor. I put that point to my right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading and he was kind enough to say that he would look into it.
  Subsequently, in Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) tabled an amendment that dealt almost entirely with the point. I commend my hon. Friend, because it was a remarkable piece of draftsmanship. Interestingly, it accorded exactly, it would appear, with the Government's thoughts on the matter after my intervention on Second Reading. In Standing Committee, that clause was accepted and the substance of it was that a head lessee cannot be the qualifying tenant of more than one flat in a block for the purpose of enfrachisement. It is a lawyer's point, but none the worst for that. It took some time for that to come; it arrived because of representations made throughout the month, and it is very welcome.
  It seems to me that it is only a small step from there to asking whether anything needs to be done, in addition to my hon. Friend's amendment, to tidy things up a bit. The way that I would have tidied it up is in amendment 115, which, for reasons of I know nothing, finds itself in a forlorn position further down the list of amendments, perhaps because of the way in which I tackled it. In substance, if not in reality, it belongs in this group of amendments.
  I was seeking to achieve the acceptance of a residual qualification that the home must be a person's principal or primary residence. That would seem to accord exactly with what was in the manifesto, because it talked about residential home owners. This is in no sense a novel concept; it is known already. It is known for the purposes of MIRAS and of the capital transfer tax laws. It is also known for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1967, which, to some extent in our deliberations, has now achieved a status close to that of a bible. People dine a la carte on it where it seems to be in their interest to do so. Therefore, I will do the same and commend the 1967 Act in this respect at least, because it makes the case and accepts the concept of a principal primary residence.
  What can be the objections to that concept? I know what the objections will be from the Opposition; they have been expressed with great eloquence and sincerity. I also
  846
  appreciate that some constituency pressures may produce a particular approach to it in other parts of the Chamber. But, from the point of view of the manifesto that we walked the streets of England, Wales and Scotland advocating, what could be wrong with the concept of principal primary residence? I know that in due course my hon. Friends will be telling me what the objections are. Happily, in the light of correspondence that I have had with them, I can perhaps give an answer in advance to some of their objections.
  The proposal is supposed to be novel and complicated. Well, it is not. A more serious and worthwhile objection that certainly must be addressed is that there is no doubt that some people in a block would find it harder to enfranchise, and I accept that that is a problem that must be dealt with. I made that point on Second Reading and I said that there would be lots of time for officials, with all the resources of intellect and ingenuity available to them, to come up with a solution to that problem.
  I even, as a humble country lawyer from the backwoods, suggested one way in which they might proceed. They could say that, if a person in a block was unable to enfranchise because of this proposal, he should be entitled to a long lease. That would not have been quite the same as full ownership, but it would have been very much further towards it and would have made sure that the policy objective set out in the manifesto would have been achieved. If that is not feasible for some reason, I look forward to hearing why. The point is that there has been sufficient time to think how that might be taken forward.
  What other objections might there be? One suggestion, as I understand it, is that it is really all a bit of a misunderstanding, because, if people are conducting a business when they are essentially in a residential context, they must be in breach of a planning law. If that were the case, one could tootle along to the local planning authority and say that those people are not really residential, but are running businesses. Perhaps one could, and perhaps one could not; I neither know, nor, frankly, do I care.
  I do not see why one should have to use the planning laws as an instrument of property protection. It is perfectly clear that, a long time before there was any such thing as planning laws, head lessees sold leasehold interests in property. We are now in the business of home ownership, yet we find that there are places where there are no homes at all. Let us take, for instance, a Harley street doctor. For the purposes of equality, I suppose I had better talk as well about the Manor House hospital which prominent trade unionists use; I would be out of order in going too far down that road, so I will leave it.
  5 pm
  Anyone who has ever been to see a Harley street doctor does not believe that he actually lives in his house in Harley street. He is into hot bunking; he is virtually into revolving brass nameplates outside. It is a rabbit warren. It has nothing whatever to do with residential accommodation and everything to do with business accommodation. It does not matter what the planning laws say; the reality is that someone who is a business person will suddenly find as a result of the legislation that he will be in a position to enfranchise. I cannot believe that that was the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends when they introduced these proposals.

  847
  On my final point 1 must part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. Someone who can move within three years these days is lucky, but there could be a problem about setting a three-year qualification period. The way to address the problem is simple, although it would make things harder for the landlord. Let there be a qualification without time limit, so that, the instant someone buys, it becomes the principal private residence. That would take care of the practical abuse.
  When we have gone to the country with a commitment to do something to help residential home owners, I do not understand how business use can get in on the side. The Government have done so well in listening to the representations, in making the concession that was made in correspondence in August, and in dealing with the point made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), that it would not take very much for them to get it exactly right. Were they to do that, they would know that they have done the right thing because of the undying abuse and criticism of the Opposition. I should like to think that they would feel consoled when they heard that.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Many points have already been made in the debate, so I shall be brief. May I disabuse those Opposition Members who believe that the Bill is about getting another kick at nasty landlords? That has come through clearly in their speeches. The socialism of envy has been prominent on the Opposition Benches, particularly from the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is no longer in his place.
  A number of people—not a large but a significant number—on retirement, perhaps after selling a small business or after saving for a number of years, invest their savings funds not in a leasehold flat but in freehold reversions. That is not illegal, or even immoral. It was a way of investing money over a long period to provide a fixed income through what was regarded as a safe investment.
  The reason why I and some of my hon. Friends are doubtful about some aspects of the Bill is that we can see the life savings of those small investors being significantly devalued by the provisions of the measure. While I accept the principle of the Bill—I voted for it on Second Reading and I shall support it on Third Reading, because it increases the availability of freehold property to a substantial number of people—we should be wary of confusing that principle with using the power and force of Government to make financial adjustments between landlord and tenant. That is why I look forward to a discussion later on the extent to which marriage value is to be divided between the two.
  I raise the point on the new clause because there has been much discussion about the meaning of residence. All of us have different views about the extent to which residence as such, or residence over a period, needs to be a qualification under the Bill. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on one detail of the proposed new clause, in that I know of many people, some of them hon. Members, who live in flats in London during the week and in homes in their constituencies at the weekend, but who for tax or whatever purposes regard their constituency home as their principal private residence. I can see no reason why such
  848
  people should be debarred from enfranchisement under the Bill, despite the fact that technically the flat that they are trying to enfranchise is not their principal private residence.
  When I lived in a block of flats in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I found that on the two floors where I knew the tenants well—the floor that I lived on and the floor beneath—I was the only tenant who was not occupying a company let. I have no idea who the landlord was. He might have been one of the dukes referred to in such slighting terms by Opposition Members, or he might have been a private investor. All the other tenants were there because they were occupying flats for the benefit of the companies for which they worked.
  I do not object to those people having votes or not having votes when it comes to enfranchisement. What I question is their reason for playing any part in the process. If we are dealing with something as fundamental as the right of the occupier of a flat to enfranchise and become a freeholder, and the right of the ultimate freeholder to receive a fair price for the freehold reversion, what possible interest does a company tenant have in the process on either side? Why should the votes of the temporary or permanent companies who are renting for business purposes determine the financial adjustment between the long leaseholder and the freeholder? We are ignoring the legitimate rights recognised by the Government in their election manifesto and allowing disinterested third parties to determine who should get wealthy and who should become poor.
  Ms. Tessa Jowell: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in opposing the new clause, specifically because of the undesirability of creating any greater obstacles than those which already exist and which will not be removed by the legislation for leaseholders wishing to enfranchise. This has been of great concern not only to me but to my predecessor, Gerry Bowden, who was a strong advocate of commonhold, as I am, and before him to Sam Silkin. It has been a chronic problem, so far unresolved by legislation, in dealing with the fraught relationship between leaseholders and freeholders.
  The provisions are modest and do not extend to commonhold. They do not provide adequate protection against poor management and negligent freeholders, a situation brought vividly to my attention by the case of a constituent whose experience bears out the conclusions of the recent study commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  My constituent has suffered exploitation by a large south London freeholder managing agent. She found it impossible to identify other leaseholders in a similar position. She was a woman of average means and, in her own words, she was forced to scrape together money to buy a flat due to to the chronic shortage of affordable accommodation to rent. Since that time, she has paid the freeholder whatever was asked of her in ground rent, management fees and service charges.
  As yet, services are non-existent. Urgent repairs are not carried out. Worse still, repairs have been started and have never been completed. For most of the last six months she has had no steps up to her front door, the steps having collapsed last August. She has been in the ridiculous position of having to spend many hours negotiating with the freeholder to get that work completed.

  849
  I suspect that that picture is repeated across London and it remains a major failing of the Bill that leaseholders excluded from enfranchisement are not more adequately protected in law against the bad practice of freeholders. As the Bill is already inadequate in the protection that it extends, I hope that hon. Members will oppose the new clause.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): In moving the new clause, and speaking to the amendments grouped with it, my right hon. and hon. Friends have touched on a number of important issues of principle concerning the Government's proposals for leasehold reform. I well understand why they have approached the matter in that way. Their concerns are legitimate and I hope that I shall be forgiven if, before dealing with the residency test, I put the debate in a wider context.
  The proposals in part I are aimed primarily at giving the owners of flats the opportunity to enfranchise. The Bill stands in a long line of measures that Parliament has introduced to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant. From time to time, Parliament has judged it necessary to intervene to change the balance of rights. Inevitably, that has an effect on the expectations that the various parties might have enjoyed and must necessarily mean interfering with pre-existing property rights.
  It was a Conservative Government who instituted the most radical reform of our land tenure system since Edward I legislated in 1290. The 1925 package of legislation—the Law of Property Act, the Settled Land Act, the Land Registration Act and the Land Charges Act —had the effect, among other changes, of abolishing many anachronistic forms of land tenure and simplifying conveyancing procedures in favour of purchasers. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 gave business tenants new statutory rights against their landlords and the Landlords and Tenant Act 1954 extended that protection to residential tenants. All those measures were passed by Conservative Governments. Residential tenants under long leases now generally have the right to hold over as statutory tenants at the end of their leases. Those legislative Acts necessarily applied to pre-existing leases and were introduced to deal with the practical problems that resulted from the operation of the leasehold system.
  Enfranchisement has been a matter of concern and debate for more than a century. The first Bill to provide a right to enfranchise was introduced in 1884. The Conservative party promised enfranchisement on fair terms in its manifesto for the 1966 election, although a Labour Government introduced the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Conservative Opposition welcomed the principle of that Act, although they had grave concerns about the basis of compensation that it introduced. I hope to say more about that when we debate the amendments on the valuation.
  In 1974, the Conservative Opposition moved amendments bringing medium-value houses within the scope of the 1967 Act, although on a new and fairer valuation basis. Conservative Members have consistently taken the lead in bringing the concerns of their constituents to the attention of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and his
  850
  predecessor, the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, and the predecessor of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell), Gerry Bowden, lost no opportunity in pressing the case of their disadvantaged constituents, and the Bill is primarily a response to their concerns.
  5.15 pm
  The Bill takes enfranchisement a step further. Almost all owners of leasehold houses have had the right to enfranchise since 1967 or 1974. The Bill extends that right to many of the 750,000 or so owners of leasehold flats. They will be able to buy their freehold at a fair market price.
  Flat owners face two serious problems. The first is that their lease is a wasting asset which, once it has fewer than 60 years to run, becomes difficult to mortgage and hence to sell. The second is that, although they pay all the costs of maintenance, they are in the hands of the freeholder when it comes to getting work done. This gives rise to many difficulties and complaints, as independent research and the evidence of many letters from constituents has shown.
  In English law, there is no satisfactory alternative to leasehold ownership for flats. Commonhold will remedy that in due course, but alongside commonhold we need a mechanism for existing leaseholders to take control of their own homes.
  Because the nature of a flat is different from that of a house, the right can be exercised only collectively rather than individually and it will apply only where certain qualifying conditions are satisfied, to ensure that enfranchisement takes place only where tenants can be said to have the greater interest in the property—essentially, where two thirds of the flats in a block are let on long leases at a low rent. Where a building does not qualify for collective enfranchisement, there will instead be a right for qualifying tenants to extend their leases at market price, which will at least deal with the problem of the lease as a wasting asset.
  The Bill also extends the right to enfranchise to those few high-value houses that remain excluded from the 1967 legislation on the basis of their rateable value. Again, we shall debate that matter later this evening.
  The amendments and the new clause seek to introduce a residency test for the enfranchisement of flats. Amendments Nos 5 and 10 would mean that a tenant of a flat would not be a qualifying tenant unless the flat were used as a principal residence and had been occupied as such for the previous three years or for three years out of the previous 10. The new clause uses a slightly different approach. The right to lease extension would be available only where the tenant satisfied the residency test, but for collective enfranchisement at least half the participating tenants would have to satisfy that test.
  The Bill does not propose a residence qualification for the enfranchisement of flats, because it is a collective rather than an individual action. That is the second of the reasons that were identified in advance by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Tenants must already clear two hurdles before they are entitled to enfranchise: first, two thirds of the flats in a block must be held on long leases at low rent; and, secondly, of those qualifying tenants, two thirds must wish to participate. The amendments would make it significantly more difficult for tenants to clear those hurdles. If tenants are disqualified unless resident, it will be more difficult to

  851
  satisfy the first test. If in order to participate at least 50 per cent. must be resident, it will be more difficult to pass the second.
  The reason is that, like other people, those who live in flats move from time to time. If there were a residency test, at any one time a number of flat owners would still be completing their period of qualification. If, on average, people move every nine years, typically one third would fail a residency test at any one time. A block that may be entirely occupied by home owners living in their own homes could hover between qualifying for enfranchisement simply according to the pattern of moves.
  Genuine long-term owners of flats in the block might never have the chance to enfranchise, simply because, whenever they come near to establishing the necessary majority, one of their neighbours moves. Indeed, the worst managed blocks, which experience the most difficult problems with maintenance or exploitation of service charges and from which people move as soon as they can, may experience the most difficulty in qualifying.
  There is also the possibility that some freeholders might use the existence of the residency test to defeat the right to enfranchise. There are instances at present where landlords have refused consent to assign a lease other than to a company, purely with the object of taking a house outside the scope of enfranchisement. If they were able to do that with one or two flats in a block, they could deny other tenants access to the collective right.
  We have already accepted an amendment in Committee which will prevent anyone owning more than two flats in a block from enfranchising. That will eliminate the risk that speculative landlords may be able to enfranchise against the freeholder. To go beyond that and to include a residency test would make the right to collective enfranchisement, given by chapter I, unenforceable by many tenants who can themselves meet the residency test and all other requirements.
  I accept that the case against a residency test for lease extension is not so strong. It is an individual right, and the same difficulties of assembling a sufficient quorum to exercise the collective right do not apply. I accept the force of the argument put to me by my right hon. and hon. Friends on that point and I am prepared to undertake to table an amendment at a later stage which would have the effect of applying a residency test on the same lines as that which currently applies to houses in the provisions of chapter II.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that I understand what lies behind their concern. I have tried to meet it where it would not imperil the fundamental purpose of the legislation. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the new clause and its associated amendments, which would apply a general residency test and would make chapter I unenforceable for many people.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

  SAVING FOR CHARITIES
  `There shall be no right under Chapters I or II to acquire any interest in or new lease of any property which is held by or in trust for a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act
  1960.'—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 4, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
  `( ) This chapter does not apply to premises of which the reversioner or any relevant landlord is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960.'
  No. 6, in clause 5, page 5, line 43, leave out from 'lease' to 'or' in line 45 and insert
  `or a relevant landlord is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960;'.
  No. 7, in page 6, line 4, at end insert
  'or
  (d) the lease is of a flat forming part of premises of which the freeholder is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960'.
  No. 8, in page 6, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7.
  No. 12, in clause 59, page 63, line 42, at end insert—
  '(3) This section shall not apply to any house and premises of which the landlord is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960.'.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: The new clause and the amendments deal with a single point. It was clear from the previous debate that opponents of my view and that of my colleagues on this issue were seeking to build some of their case on the iniquities, or otherwise, of individual landlords who are frequently quite blameless. We heard the story of big estates.
  The purpose of the new clause is to exempt charitable freeholders from the Bill's provisions. I acknowledge that it will not be difficult to make an intellectual case that charities should not be treated any differently from other landlords. However, Henry Smith's Charity, a very big charity which owns a large chunk of London, has made representations which it is reasonable to air.
  Henry Smith's Charity distributes about £12 million a year to medical charities, hospitals, hospices, medical research, to the mentally and physically disabled and other social welfare organisations, such as those dealing with the young and the elderly and those providing services for drug and alcohol abusers.
  To put that in context, about half the charity's income comes from Henry Smith's Kensington estate, which is centred on Onslow square and which has been owned by the chairty for many years. I shall argue later about the compensation terms, but Henry Smith's surveyors have done a calculation dealing only with Onslow square. It shows that, if the Bill is passed with its current provisions for compensation, the windfall gain that will accrue to tenants in that area alone will exceed £2 million. That means that £2 million of charitable money will be removed from the charity and handed to the leaseholders as a windfall. That seems unfair.
  I have received other representations from charities, usually of an institutional type such as university colleges, which have for many years held property as part of their portfolio. I have not heard any hon. Member who supports the Bill say that such organisations fall into the category of bad landlords. That is far from the truth. Such organisations have been trying to preserve their investment for charitable purposes, and it is wrong that the Bill should apply to them. I believe that the case for other charities is self-evident, and I do not need to elaborate further.
  Mr. Raynsford: I wish to respond to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about Henry Smith's Charity and its activities in south Kensington.
  I worked in the area for many years and frequently saw a large notice board displayed by an aggrieved leaseholder, proclaiming that Henry Smith's Charity was corrupt and should be investigated. That individual may or may not have had good reason for his point of view which he displayed so forcefully for several years, but it certainly suggested that there were grounds for concern about whether the kindly named Henry Smith's Charity was entirely blameless.
  More recently, I have received from Pelham residents association a list of leases in that area which have been disposed of by the charity. When moving the previous new clause, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that it would be wrong to allow companies, speculators and others to benefit from the enfranchisement provisions. However, according to the residential residents of that area of south Kensington, it has been a deliberate policy of that charity to dispose of leases, which have been occupied by normal families in residence for many years—for hundreds of years in some cases—to companies.
  I have a schedule of the current leaseholders in that area. No. I Pelham crescent has been leased to Rubyquote Ltd.; No. 3 to Howden Management and Data Services Ltd.; No. 6 to Credit Du Nord Societe Anonyme; Nos. 18 and 19 to Intro Properties (U.K.) Ltd.; No. 21 to First National Bank of Boston; and Nos. 27 and 27a to Moyna Holdings Inc. No. 1 Pelham place has been leased to Great Lakes Carbon International Ltd.; No. 2 to Kirkdale Ltd.; No. 11 to Eastwyn Sales Corporation and No. 29 to Merat Holdings Ltd.
  Henry Smith's Charity may believe that it is in its interests to dispose of large numbers of their holdings to companies.
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn: Only this week, a constituent of mine who has the disadvantage of being an Englishman and an individual was refused a lease by Henry Smith's Charity because he had a millstone around his neck—he has to be a company to acquire a lease.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, which reinforces the point that the policy being pursued by this supposedly charitable body works explicitly against the interests of people seeking residential accommodation in the area of London in which it has so many landholdings.
  It may be in the charity's intersts to let its properties to non-residential occupiers and to companies, but it is pretty rich for some hon. Members to argue that the charity should be exempt from these provisions on the ground that it is doing wonderful charitable works. If the charity chooses to pursue these policies for commercial gain, it has only itself to blame if the House rightly decides that the Bill should apply to it as it does to everybody else. It will be entirely justified for the leaseholders of Henry Smith's Charity in south Kensington to have the right to enfranchisement and not to be debarred, which would be the impact of the new clause.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State knows fairly intimately, as a result of my correspondence with him and as a result of some of our conversations, about the considerable disenchantment that the Church Commissioners, a parliamentary charity, feel about the draconian obliteration of their long-standing leasehold interests in properties in various parts of London. My right hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to look not without sympathy—although, alas, without a specific response so far—at the urging, expressed in the new clause, that charities should be removed from the scope of the Bill.
  It is worth pointing out to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Minister of State that charities which, in the nature of things, have an indefinite lifespan that stretches from here to eternity—certainly that is true of the Church Commissioners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Commissioners?"] That was a slip of the tongue. I meant the Church Commission as a body. The Church Commissioners individually do not stretch from here to eternity.
  For charities such as the Church Commission, 99 years is a small drop in the ocean of time of their lives and work. It becomes rational for charities such as the Church Commission to extend, to develop, to maintain and generally to sustain all their capital assets, which they develop and hold entirely for the advantage and benefit of certain limited beneficiaries. For the Church Commission, those beneficiaries are serving clergy, retired clergy and their dependants.
  It remains reasonable for such charities to maintainleasehold properties, from which they take out initially a full or almost full market value, leaving aside the ground rent, over a 99-year lease period—99 years is a drop in the ocean of time from their point of view—and to look steadily forward to a reversionary interest as the period comes to an end. Charities are then once again presented with the opportunity to use their reverted properties to raise money, entirely for the benefit of their worthy beneficiaries and their dependants.
  It was rational for bodies such as the Church Commissioners to have some property leases in their portfolio of assets. The Church Commissioners have maintained their leasehold interest in properties in good faith, believing that they did nothing but good both for the leaseholders and ultimately for their beneficiaries.
  The Bill will narrow the scope for charities such as the Church Commission because it will suddenly remove opportunities from them and the potential for asset investment of this sort will be obliterated. It is neither necessary nor desirable that my right hon. and learned Friend's reform should extend to that particular type of charitable leaseholder, which includes leaseholders of properties owned by the Church Commissioners and by Henry Smith's Charity, merely because the justification for other aspects of leasehold reform may be more sustainable.
  I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether it is really necessary to sweep up charities, which have a special dimension, in the Bill. If there is no escaping his final scything action against the Church Commission and other charities, and if my right hon. and learned Friend is determined to sweep away this perfectly attractive and desirable type of property ownership, I ask

  855
  him to consider at least one little modification. If, after careful study, the modification appeals to him and seems reasonable, perhaps he will tell me that he will make the necessary changes to the Bill in the other place so that we need not press the new clause.
  I mentioned the modification to my right hon. and learned Friend in conversation not long ago. He should exclude from the scope of the Bill leasehold owners—we have a few in the Church Commission properties—who are company leaseholders. Earlier exchanges dealt with Henry Smith's Charity's excursions into the realm of company ownership. The Church Commissioners have a few company leaseholders which we nominated as leaseholders entirely because, at the time of nomination, the Rent Acts made it difficult to recover let properties unless they were let to companies.
  There was quite a development in company letting to avoid the squeeze of the Rent Acts. One result is that a small number of Church Commission leaseholders are companies that have taken up long leases. They have used properties essentially for the benefit of their visiting clients and of their visiting customers.
  There seems to be no good reason why those companies, which are non-individual and non-personal leaseholders, should get the benefit of enfranchisement. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will agree that the small group of leaseholders involved, at least so far as the Church Commission is concerned, may be excluded from the scope of the Bill by an appropriate amendment in the other place.
  Such leaseholders have no personal issues at stake, no personal pressures and no personal needs. There is no individual dimension in the small group of company leaseholders. They would not suffer and they would be perfectly content that their position should remain the same. Such leaseholders do not yearn for the personal security of a home of their own or for something to leave to their children. They take out the leasehold entirely as a commercial venture for the benefit of their business and clients. They do not mind whether they own the property completely or whether they continue as leaseholders.
  It seems unnecessary that that group should be forced to acquire their leases when that was not the basis on which they entered into the arrangement. There seems to be no good reason why, on the ground of doing good to individuals or to those in personal housing circumstances, we should allow company leaseholders the same benefits. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will look sympathetically at this narrow point even if he is unable to give us the full exemption in the new clause.
  Mr. Battle: When we debated new clause 2, the Secretary of State hinted that the Government would come back, perhaps in another place, with a principal residency exclusion concession. I shall watch with interest to see what the Government do, but I hope that they will not be pressed to make exemptions. If the Secretary of State accepts the words of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), it will be a case of moving the leasehold market in the direction of a two-tier housing market. Clearly, a distinction will be drawn and people will see a relative fall in the value of their homes because of the two-tier leasehold market.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir. J. Wiggin) at least acknowledged that there are strong
  856
  arguments against exemptions for charitable properties. I see no reason why properties that are held in trust for charities should be excluded from that part of the legislation on leasehold enfranchisement. Trustees of charities are legally bound to manage their properties on a fully commercial basis. Hon. Members should not be seduced by the word "charity" into thinking that, by opposing charities, we are therefore against the work of charities that have to look after their portfolios in that way.
  There is no evidence that charities are any more benevolent in doing that than any other category of freeholder. I make that point because it is not as managers and freeholders that charities carry out charitable work; it is in their other aims and intentions. There is some evidence that they are not more benevolent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out in respect of Henry Smith's Charity.
  If the freehold is purely a form of investment for the charity, there is a fair argument that, if the charity is not happy with that as a sufficient return on its investment, alternatives are readily available. The right hon. Member for Selby said that freeholding was a drop in the ocean of time for the Church Commissioners. We should keep our eyes firmly on the people who live in houses over which the Church Commissioners have the freehold. It is not a drop in the ocean of time for the leaseholders. The focus should be on their lifetime and the quality of their lifetime.
  The leaseholders involved have their homes at stake. Many of them have invested their savings in their homes. If they were now to be excluded from the legislation, they would see a relative fall in the value of their homes. In effect, their homes would become second-class properties. By offering exemptions, the Government would be opening the way to setting up a two-tier structure of leaseholders. I hope that that is not their intention.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have been thinking about my hon. Friend's remarks and those of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). The logic of the case for the exemption of lettings by charities to non-residential occupants would lead inexorably in one direction. It would not be a two-tier situation, but one in which it was impossible for any individual to obtain a letting from any such freeholder, because all lettings would be given to companies in order to evade the provisions of the Bill. That would effectively entirely close off the option.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As usual, he has applied his logical mind to the direction in which the Bill could go. It could create space for practically everything to be redefined and therefore effectively close off the intentions of the Bill. In other words, the spirit might be retained—that is, that the Governmentwantleaseholdenfranchisement—but in practice everyone would see the possibility of opt-out. I hope that the Government are not going down that road. I urge the Minister not to accept the new clause.
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the measured way in which they have addressed the new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) conceded that there was an intellectual argument against his new clause, and I hope briefly to deploy it. It is no part of the Government's case that Smith's Charities, the Church Commissioners or other charitable landlords have acted

  857
  other than honourably in the management of their estates. Indeed, we applaud the work of Smith's Charities and other charities, some of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare.
  On the specific point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the Church, a few moments ago we debated company leaseholders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained why it would not be possible to make the exemption which my right hon. Friend has pressed on us. I hope that, when the day of judgment comes, the Church will not hold it against Ministers for the actions that they might have taken against the Church Commissioners' interests on earth, but it is the Government's intention that leasehold enfranchisement should apply to as many long leaseholders as possible and that there should be few exemptions.
  5.45 pm
  The purpose behind the amendments is to secure an exemption for charities from leasehold enfranchisement of flats and higher-value houses and also lease renewal for flats. The debate has taken a course similar to the one which took place more than 25 years ago, in 1967, when the Leasehold Reform Bill was before Parliament. Parliament decided then that charities should not be exempt landlords, and the Bill was passed without such an exemption.
  Apart from resident landlords, inalienable land held by the National Trust and certain Crown properties, only charitable housing trusts that let flats in pursuit of their charitable purposes will have any form of exemption from enfranchisement and lease renewal. In such circumstances, if the charity is the immediate landlord, the tenant of the flat will cease to be a qualifying tenant. But some of the amendments would exclude all properties from both enfranchisement and lease renewal where any landlord is a charity. A block of flats with a charity as head leaseholder would be outside the scope of the Bill. Others would prevent certain leaseholders from becoming qualifying tenants, irrespective of whether the charity was their immediate landlord.
  The Bill is concerned with leasehold reform. In such a reform, it is wrong to distinguish between the profession or the character of freeholders. If a leaseholder, by reason of leasehold tenure, qualifies for enfranchisement, he should qualify regardless of who his landlord is. I do not see the case for denying some leaseholders the right to enfranchise or, indeed, to extend their leases just because their landlord is a charity. There certainly is no precedent for such a sweeping exemption.
  The fact that a charity applies its income for the benefit of others is not a reason for exemption and because charities will receive full market value for their interests there is no reason why they should not continue to do the excellent work that they do now. Indeed, part of my right hon. Friend's remarks related to compensation. The Bill is neutral on the assets of a charity. Nothing in the Bill need inhibit the excellent work which charities fund.
  At issue is the derivation of a charity's income. Although a charity may apply or use its income in a charitable way, it by no means follows that the income was obtained in a similar fashion. Where a charity invests, whether in property, shares or similar, the chief underlying intention is to make financial gains. An appropriate
  858
  comparison might be drawn with the position of charities owning shares. When a company is taken over, individual shareholders such as charities do not have veto rights.
  For tenants, it really is of little importance whether the landlord is a charity; it is all the same to them. Their landlord, although a charity, will behave towards them simply as a commercial landlord. Indeed, one charitable landlord has confirmed that the trustees are generally bound to set premiums and rents that match the market price.
  A few days ago, I happened to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby answer questions on behalf of the Church Commissioners. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), my right hon. Friend said:
  "The commissioners' investment policy is to seek to achieve the best total return on their assets—that is, growth of both income and capital. This reflects their primary objective, which is to provide adequate financial support for the Church's serving and retired clergy."—[Official Report, 1 February 1993; Vol. 113, c. 12.1]
  That is the objective of most charities when they look at how they derive their income.
  Where a charity has a property in which two thirds or more of the flats are let on long leases, we consider that the charity has disposed of a major interest in that property. When a property is let on a long lease at a low rent, the greatest interest, often substantially the whole interest, passes to the leaseholder and the landlord's predominant role then becomes a residual management one. We will shortly have a debate about the price that leaseholders will have to pay for the freehold which will reflect the full market value of that interest. Like others, charitable landlords will be fairly compensated for the loss of their interest.
  The Government's firm belief is that it would be wrong to distinguish leaseholders whose landlord is a charity from other leaseholders. We do not believe that it is in the general interest so to do. The landlord's identity makes little or no difference to such leaseholders.
  An exemption for charities along the lines proposed by the amendments is, in the Government's view, difficult to defend. The amendments would exclude unfairly many tenants from the benefits of the Bill to which they are greatly looking forward. If my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare cannot be persuaded to withdraw the new clause, I hope that the House will oppose it.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5
  PURCHASE PRICE (No. I)
  '. For subsections (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be substituted the following—
  PURCHASE PRICE (No. I)

    Purchase Price
    (1) The price payable for a house and premises on a conveyance under section 8 above shall be the amount which would be payable for the house and premises pursuant to Schedule 5 to the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 upon the assumption that the house and premises are specified premises and the valuation date for the purposes of that Schedule is the date when notice is given by the person acquiring of his desire to have the freehold.".'—[Sir Jerry Wiggin]
    Brought up, and read the First time
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following: New clause 6—Purchase price (No. 2)—
    '[]. In Section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following—
    " 1(D) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section the price payable for the house and premises shall be increased to take account of—

    (i) any diminution in value of any interest of the vendor in other property resulting from the acquisition of his interest in the house and premises,

    (ii) any other loss or damage which results therefrom to the extent that it is referrable to his ownership of any interest in other property, and

    (iii) provided that any examination in value shall be ignored to the extent that the loss or damage to the vendor which results from the acquisition of his interest in the house and premises is reduced by the imposition of restrictive covenants and easements.".'.

    New clause 7–Price payable under enfranchisement—

    '-.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the price payable for the freehold and any other interest in property acquired under Chapter I or III of Part I of this Act (including any house and premises acquired under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 pursuant to modification to that Act made by Part I of this Act) shall be the sum of:

    (a) the difference between the value of the freehold with vacant possession and the value of the purchasers' former leasehold interest or, in the case of collective enfranchisement, the aggregate value of the new interests to be held by the participating tenants and the value of their existing leasehold interests after deducting the value of any interest to be granted to the freeholder in accordance with section 32 and Schedule 8 (which provide for leaseback to former freeholders), and

    (b) any amount of compensation for loss resulting from enfranchisement payable under subsection (2).

    (2) Where the landlord or, in the case of collective enfranchisement, the freeholder or the owner of any intermediate leasehold interest will suffer any loss or damage (including loss of development value in relation to the specified premises) by way of:

    (a) any diminution in value of any interest in other property resulting from the acquisition of his interest in the specified premises or his interest in other property pursuant to section 1(2)(a) or (4) or section 18(4),

    (b) any other loss or damage which results therefrom to the extent that it is referrable to his ownership of any interest in other property,

    there shall be payable to him (and whether or not, in the case of a freeholder, the grant of a lease in accordance with section 32 and Schedule 8 has or could mitigate the loss or damage) such amount as is reasonable to compensate him for that damage.

    (3) In this section:

    "the new interests" means the interest of each qualifying tenant in the relevant premises after enfranchisement assuming that they jointly own the freehold and taking into account their potential ability to have new leases granted to them without payment of any premium and without restriction as to length of term.'
    Amendment No. 25, in clause 28, page 37, leave out lines 28 to 31.
    Amendment No. 27, in schedule 5, page 175, leave out from line 15 to end of line 38 on page 181.
    Amendment No. 15, in page 175, line 44, at end insert—
    `( ) In addition to any sum payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), where, within the period expiring 5 years
    860
    after the valuation date, the nominee purchaser or any person to whom the freehold is transferred grants or agrees to grant to any person other than a participating tenant a new lease in respect of any part of the specified premises at less than market value, he shall also then be liable to pay a sum equivalent to the difference between the market value of the new lease and the price paid or to be paid for it.'.
    Amendment No. 28, in page 177, line 22, after the second 'the', insert
    `qualifying tenants assuming that they are all'.
    Amendment No. 26, in clause 61, page 64, leave out lines 38 to 47.
    Amendment No. 13, in page 64, line 44, leave out from `shall' to end of line 45 and insert
    'be determined in accordance with subsection (ID) and (IE) below
    (ID) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the price payable for a house and premises to which this subsection applies shall be the aggregate of—

    (a) the value at the relevant time of the freehold to be acquired by the purchaser less the value of his existing interest in the property,

    (b) any amount of compensation for loss resulting from enfranchisement payable under subsection (IE) below.

    (IE) Where the landlord will suffer any loss or damage (including any loss in value of an interest in premises which is attributable to the possibility of demolishing, reconstructing, or carrying out substantial works of house and premises) being loss or damage by way of—

    (a) any diminution in value of any interest in other property resulting from the acquisition of his interest in the house and premises,

    (b) any other loss or damage which results therefrom to the extent that it is referable to his ownership of any interest in other property,

    there shall be payable to him such amount as is reasonable to compensate him for that damage.'.
    Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Dame Janet. It occurs to some of us that the later grouping of amendments headed by No. 14 could be taken with this group. If that is convenient to the House, it would be helpful in the interests of progress.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is all right so far as I am concerned, but I am in the hands of the House. If all are agreed, then, we will also discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in schedule 5, page 175 line 41, leave out from first 'the' to 'marriage'.
    No. 16, in page 177, leave out lines 7 to 16.
    No. 19, in schedule 12, page 200, line 21, leave out from first 'the' to 'marriage'.
    No. 20, in page 201, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: At the start of the Bill's progress through the House, I drew the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to a major anomaly—the fact that the provisions in clause 28 and schedule 5 give leaseholders the right to make windfall gains at the expense of the freeholder.
    I argued that, unless the provisions are amended, they will amount to the expropriation of private property. I believe that they have no place in a Conservative Government's programme. The 1992 Conservative party manifesto committed the Government to extending home ownership. It offered residential leaseholders the right to acquire. Instead, this Bill gives any investor the right forcibly to acquire the assets of another investor.

    861
    The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) read to the House a list of the tenants in a street in his constituency. I beg his pardon if I have not got it precisely right, but it was a strange list of leaseholders who will benefit as a result of the Bill. It is nothing to do with the wretched leaseholder harassed by the wicked landlord which we heard about earlier. I was rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, considering that he spoke on that amendment and the one by which such fortunate companies and others will be precluded from gaining the advantage of enfranchisement.
    Clearly, the Bill's provisions are confiscatory. They originate from the commendable concerns which have been expressed by Conservative Members and which I mentioned during debate on an earlier clause.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) has been prominent in the defence of leaseholders in London and is much admired by hon. Members on both sides of the House for his single-minded concerns for those tenants. He is aware that I shall refer to a letter which he wrote to Daniel Smith and Partners some three years ago, in which he said:
    "There would be no element of compulsion".
    He was discussing a Bill on leasehold reform proposed by the then Lord Chancellor. With proper indignation, he wrote:
    "Such provision would have been confiscatory, anti-Tory,another piece of state bossiness in Britain's property laws, which is the last place it is needed."
    I am distressed that those commendable and excellent views should have altered somewhat in the past year or two.
    Mr. Fishburn: I am delighted that my hon. Friend reads my correspondence so carefully. Late at night when I answer letters, I shall note that I have one more keen reader. The remarks that I made at that time were to do not with leasehold reform but with commonhold reform. When the commonhold Bill is introduced, as it will be by the Government next year, there will be no element of compulsion in it.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: It would have been much better if the supporters of the Bill had waited for the promised legislation, which, I am glad to hear, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will steer through the House, presumably with the co-operation of the Government of the day.
    One of my complaints about the Bill is the major change effectively in eliminating leaseholds. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the object of the Bill was to eliminate long leaseholds, although there appears to be a slight difference of opinion in the Government as to precisely how long and how definitive such an objective might be.
    I diverge from the purpose of new clause 5, which deals with the amount of compensation to be paid after the Government have forced the freeholder to sell his rights to the leaseholder. Investors have the right, first, to buy properties which are not their homes; secondly, to force freeholders to sell properties at a discount; thirdly, to exercise the right of expropriation at any time in the future. That will enable investors to make windfall gains from a resale of an asset which has been forcibly confiscated.
    862
    On 12 November 1992, my hon. Friend the Minister of State conceded in Committee:
    "the tenants will have forced the sale and determined its timing".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 November 1992; c. 73]
    On 19 November 1992, he said that the leaseholder
    "will receive an asset worth more than the price paid."
    Surely that admits our contention. As the Bill gives those persons the right to expropriate property at a time of their choosing, my hon. Friend's proposals for compensation are, by definition, inadequate. After all, the forced sale of the freehold is being upheld by the law. Therefore, there can be no willing seller, even though there may be willing, even eager, buyers. I am not surprised that that should be the case, given the profit which will accrue to them.
    In Committee, the Government argued that clause 28 and schedule 5 provide a valuation based on the normal market practice. The forced sale of assets, upheld by the law, is not in anybody's fair mind normal market practice. However, it is current practice for leaseholders and freeholders, in negotiation, to take into account the potential gains to be made by the leaseholder. The gains that could be made will vary with the length of the lease. I have heard figures quoted as high as £275,000 on a property in Mayfair with a lease of, say, 30 years unexpired, and a freehold vacant possession value of £1·5 million.
    My hon. Friend the Minister told the House that his Department had tried to ask
    "what would happen if the freeholder wanted to sell and the leaseholders wanted to buy. What price would they agree on voluntarily?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,19 November 1992; c. 188.]
    That is all very well, but it does not reflect the reality of the Bill, which is that the freeholder will be forced to sell.
    My hon. Friend said that, in drafting the clauses and schedules, the Government tried to build into the statute a formula which would reflect what happens in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. At the same time, the thrust of this legislation is to force, and then uphold in law, a transaction between an unwilling seller and a very willing buyer. The anomaly at the heart of the Bill is that the Government are forcing a sale. My new clause and amendments seek to correct that anomaly and to provide for as fair compensation as is possible in the artificial property market created by the Bill.
    I tabled the amendments not simply in defence of the interests of freeholders but in a broader defence of the property market. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, this piece of state bossiness is already disrupting the property world and deterring investors from a market unique in the western world for its lack of flexibility in housing tenure.
    At the beginning of the century, rented property made up for 90 per cent. of the property market. Today we differ from the United States and all other European countries in having a property market in which only 7 per cent. of all properties are to rent.
    6 pm
    The flight of investors from the rented sector was brought about by state interference. The Bill is already deterring investors. Only fair and adequate compensation will encourage them to maintain their interest in housing investment.
    I appreciate that the terms of the amendments are complicated and technical, but the concept behind them is

    863
    simple: to ensure that the compensation is based on the difference between the value of the lessee's interest before he or she acquires the freehold, and the value after. In other words, my amendments will provide for the lessee to pay as compensation for the forced sale the full increase in the value of the property arising from enfranchisement. When a landlord grants a long lease on any property, he effectively gives up some of that value in return for retaining the freehold—a fact which everyone has always recognised in the history of leasehold, yet Which is being blindly ignored on the specious argument that there is no choice.
    The Government propose a formula which will not provide for the landlord to get back all that value. It provides for the increase in value arising from the combination of freehold and leasehold known as the marriage value, to be shared between the lessor and the lessee, with not less than 50 per cent. going to the freeholder. That has been interpreted in some quarters as meaning that a 50:50 split should be the norm, but as my right hon. Friend said, the leaseholder would receive an asset worth more than the price paid.
    At the same time, the Bill is effectively giving the right to enfranchise to those with very high-value houses excluded by the 1967 Act, and again there will be some fairly substantial windfall gains to lessees.
    It appears that the new model Labour party, far from squeezing the rich, is now happy to approve the parts of the Bill that make some of the rich richer still. Conservative Members see no reason why leaseholders should benefit at the expense of freeholders, particularly as a very large number of charities and so on are involved, and we have already debated the merits of those cases. These gains are particularly unacceptable under the conditions of a forced sale.
    I know that the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors will be dragged into the debate. I understand that it recently wrote to the Department clarifying its position. Mr. Michael Chambers of the RICS makes it clear that it would be wrong for legislation to begin from a premise
    "that a 50:50 split will be the norm".
    The leasehold valuation tribunals will be resolving any disputes about the allocation of marriage value, and it is the view of the RICS that there will be cases in which all, or virtually all, the marriage values should go to the freeholders, as currently happens in market practice. They should, but will they? That is the question.
    I move the amendment in the spirit of accepting the Government's underlying principles of increasing home ownership, but I believe that the compensation clause is a major anomaly in the Bill, to which I object more than I do to the general principle.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Our debate on the valuation of leasehold property under enfranchisement is one of the most important this evening. To say that the law relating to such valuation is complicated is a meiosis. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench know what a meiosis is—it is not something to which the Government are given; it is a wild understatement. We are dealing with an immensely complicated and arcane subject.
    When one attempts to understand the complexity of the legislation on valuation it reminds me of the famous comment that Palmerston made about the Schleswig-Holstein question in the middle of the last century when he
    864
    said that only three people understood it: one was a German who had been committed to a lunatic asylum, the second was a Danish professor who was dead and the third was himself and he had forgotten about it. I shall try to do a little better and attempt to explain to the House why I have certain reservations about the Bill.
    I am not concerned about the principle of the Bill, which is that there should be an extension of leasehold enfranchisement, although I appreciate that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends strongly oppose that principle, but when the Government undertake to introduce a measure that is a means of setting aside agreements that have been freely entered into according to the laws prevailing at the time, and retrospectively set them aside, it is up to the House to ensure that the victims of that action are properly compensated.
    I have in mind a particular case involving one of my Constituents whose estate has been in the family for some 400 years. One of the houses was let on a lease some years ago, and he had hoped to return it to the use of the family when the lease expired, but, of course, that will not now be possible. I can understand his considerable annoyance at the proposals in the Bill. Such annoyance can be met by proper compensation.
    I shall now deal with houses and the three types of valuation that relate to them. First, there are the houses affected by the 1967 Act which I shall call the 1967 houses; then there are the 1974 houses, which are those affected by the 1974 Act, and then there are the 1993 houses, which come under the Bill.
    The basis of valuation for the 1967 houses under the original 1967 Act was that the right to enfranchise was given to those with a rateable value of below £200 in the country and £400 in the town and the basis of valuation of those properties for lessees who wished to enfranchise was described as an investment value, which did not bring in the concept of the marriage value. That was a very good deal for the leaseholder and many people will know of examples in which property was bought for a very small sum and sold on for a substantial profit shortly afterwards.
    The 1974 valuation introduced a new concept. First, it extended the ratable value to £750 in the country and £1,500 in the town and the valuation tribunal was allowed to take into account the tenant's bid for the freehold value; therefore, the tenant was given an opportunity to marry his investment in the tenancy with the freehold, and the landlord was allowed a share in that. That was the introduction of the concept of the marriage value.
    The houses that will be enfranchised under the Bill will be valued on the same basis as provided in the 1974 Act. So we shall have two bases of valuation for houses on franchise under the present system when the Bill becomes law—the 1967 valuation and the 1974 or 1993 valuation.
    The treatment of flats is yet another concept of valuation. Of course, flats are brought within enfranchisement provisions for the first time under the Bill. Schedule 5 lays down the basis of valuation for flats. As those who have been following the Bill closely will know, schedule 5 has three elements. First, there is the investment value, which, in shorthand, approximates to the 1967 type of valuation. Secondly, there is the freeholder's share of the market value, which is part of the 1974 legislation. Thirdly, there is an allowance for injurious affection. That is an allowance for the fact that the value of the remaining

    865
    property surrounding or next to the property that has been enfranchised may be reduced as a result of the enfranchisement.
    The best way to understand the schedule is by giving an example. If the market value of the property was, say, £100,000, the investment value, for the sake of argument, may be £10,000. The freeholder share will be, let us say, £70,000—therefore, amounting to £80,000. The difference between £80,000 and the market value of £100,000 is known as the marriage value. As the Bill says, at least 50 per cent. of that should go to the freeholder.
    I have tried to explain to the House that there is an inconsistency between the processes of valuation for houses and flats. The valuation for flats is as I have just described. The valuation for houses starts with the 1967 houses with very low valuation. Some of the amendments seek to include the 1967 valuation in what I shall propose in a moment. I would not seek to do that. Some would say that after 25 years people have had a chance to enfranchise their properties, and, if they have not, they should come on to the new basis. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be pleased to know that I am not arguing that tonight. I am arguing that the basis of valuation for houses and for flats should be the same. That is the purpose of new clause 6.
    New clause 6 creates only one basis of valuation for flats and houses. It seeks, first, to incorporate the concept of injurious affection into the valuation of houses. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find that acceptable. I do not see what arguments he can use to say that one can apply the principle to flats and not to houses.
    I also hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the principle that flats and houses—by houses I mean the 1974 as well as the 1993houses—should be valued on the same basis as flats. Again, that is part of the principle of new clause 6.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), I wish to refer to the letter from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. When some of us have argued that when enfranchisement takes place the freeholder should be entitled to the market value—which would be, in effect, 100 per cent. of the marriage value —we have been told two things. First, we were told that the RICS was not arguing the point. Secondly, we were told that the basis that hitherto the Government had tried to defend was the basis for valuation for compulsory purchase. I do not find either argument convincing. I particularly do not find the latter argument convincing.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said, the RICS has now written clearly about the matter. I noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was nodding when my hon. Friend read out what the RICS said. Perhaps I could encourage my right hon. and learned Friend to nod further. It said:
    "Under the Bill, any disputes about the allocation of the marriage value will be resolved by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals."
    I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will nod. He nodded earlier. It continued:
    "It will be essential that in reaching their decisions they draw on evidence on what is the current practice in the market rather than begin from a premise that a 50–50 split would be the norm."
    Another nod.
    866
    "The clearer that this could be spelt out in the Bill, the better."
    Ah, another nod. That encourages me. It means that we have a listening Government, or at least I hope that we have. [HON. MEMBERS: "A nodding Government.") That is as good.
    Mr. Jopling: They were nodding off when they drafted the Bill.
    Mr. Baker: No, that is unfair. I am not against a nodding Government so long as they nod to proposals from Conservative Back Benchers and not proposals from the Labour Front Bench.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is nodding again. I hope that what I have said has shown the House that changes are needed. There is genuine anxiety among many people that if contracts freely entered into under the existing legislation are to be set aside retrospectively, the compensation should be the proper market value. I do not seek more than the market value. Some amendments propose that compensation should be the marriage value plus injurious affection.
    However, it is reasonable for my right hon. and learned Friend to accept the arguments that when the valuation clauses are amended—I suspect that they will be amended not tonight but in another place—two principles should apply: first, flats and houses should be valued on the same system; secondly, there should be an allowance for injurious affection for houses.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: We have heard some nonsense this evening, especially in this debate. The suggestion that extensive expropriation of unfortunate freeholders is about to take place is one of the most nonsensical arguments advanced by those people who seek to tighten the Bill to make it entirely ineffective.
    Let us think about the circumstances in which most freeholders, and especially some of the large estates, operate. They have owned the land for several centuries. During that period they have been able to extract from leaseholders repeatedly virtually the entire value of the site that has been subject to the lease.
    As leases have expired and been renewed, the freeholder has derived a huge premium for extending the lease. During that period the leaseholder has been liable for the maintenance and upkeep of the property and has had to keep it in decent condition, thereby contributing to the increased value.
    When Conservative Members suggest that a measure to allow leaseholders to acquire at market value the freehold of the property is expropriation of the freeholder, Opposition Members are astonished at the gullibility of the dukes' men on the Conservative Benches, who have been persuaded by powerful interests to go along with that specious nonsense. Freeholders have lived off the fat of the land for long enough and it is time that the archaic system of leasehold tenure, which is dead everywhere in the world except Britain and one or two other countries, was swept away.
    Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): How can the hon. Gentleman say that the freehold will be bought at market value when it is widely admitted that the measure puts an immediate capital gain into the hands of the leaseholder?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to explain what is involved in the valuation procedure, which seems to me unduly generous to the freeholder, As the hon. Gentleman will know from studying schedule 5, three elements are involved. The first is the value of the freeholder's interest, which will be paid to the freeholder. I accept that. But the second is the freeholder's share of the marriage value. The marriage value is the enhanced value of the property as a result of bringing together the freehold and the leasehold. That is a windfall gain, if there is any. It is a windfall gain which is owed neither to the freeholder or the leaseholder because it arises purely—
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a moment. I am trying to answer the point made by his colleague. I know that he is impatient, but I should like to complete my response.
    Mr. David Evans: Get on with it.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am responding to an intervention from one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. He might have the decency to wait until—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Some of the sedentary remarks are less than charitable.
    Mr. Raynsford: Like the lettings policy of some charities.
    The windfall gain, in so far as there is one, is, according to the provisions of the Bill, to be shared equally between the leaseholder and the freeholder. That seems to me to be possibly the fairest way of deciding it, but by no stretch of the imagination can this be described as a windfall gain for the leaseholder, because the freeholder is going to get an equal proportion.
    Then there is the third element, of injurious affection, to which the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) referred. I have to say to him that a completely different circumstance applies to houses from that which applies to flats. It is absurd to suggest that it applies to houses. The freeholder of a flat will be entitled to compensation for any loss he may be able to claim that he has suffered as a result of this process.
    So, from the Labour side, the terms look extraordinarily generous to freeholders, many of whom will have received, over many years previously, the full, if not more than the full, capital value of the property on which they are now to get an additional bonus. It seems to me to be unduly generous, if anything, to the freehold interest, and the suggestion that it is expropriation is utter nonsense. I hope that the Government will resist these entirely unjustified and specious arguments.
    Mr. Roger Evans: It is always refreshing to have a particularly poignant example of old-fashioned primitive socialist prejudice. The hon. Member for Greenwich has just indulged in one of the more shameless exercises of socialist primitivism. Whether a piece of land was bought 250 years ago or five years ago, in the case of compulsory purchase for public purposes it would be treated, rightly under the rule of law, which some Labour Members appear to regard as evident frivolity, as equal. If one takes
    868
    a person's property for a public purpose it is irrelevant whether one is a duke or whether the property was acquired yesterday or several hundred years ago.
    The issue of public compulsory purchase has always been guarded by the House with the utmost jealousy, and properly, because it is fundamental to the rule of law. This group of amendments goes to the fundamental issue of political morality. The principles of public compulsory purchase, traditionally, whether going back to building canals in the 18th century or dealing with modern local authorities exercising general statutory powers, are as follows: that there is a specific proven public purpose for the aquisition; that no more is taken than is necessary for that purpose; and that full compensation is given. That is what the rule of law is all about. It is fundamental in this country. It has only been in time of war, with requisitioning and matters like Crichel Down, that that fundamental constitutional principle has been removed.
    In the present Bill, the Government are in effect setting up by statute a scheme of private compulsory purchase of real interests. There was one previous example of this on the statute book—the 1967 Act—but the fundamental difference between that legislation and this is that, under the 1967 Act, the class of persons benefiting was carefully defined in such a way that a social purpose could be said to be served by the legislation.
    If the present Bill creates a situation in which charities may be expropriated by foreign companies, simply by the accident of the general scheme, it is even more important that the compensation provisions for this scheme of private compulsory purchase should be at least as generous as for ordinary compulsory purchase for public purposes. The two cannot, as a matter of general principle, be considered separately or treated in any way differently.
    I appreciate that the intellectual Jacobinism of my hon. Friend the Minister of State is fundamental to the principle that there must be leasehold enfranchisement, but if one goes down that path without full compensation, why should one stop where the Government have stopped now? I know that Labour Members will ask why, if leasehold tenure is obsolete, ordinary Rent Act tenants should not be given rights to acquire compulsorily against freeholders. I can see the argument, but fundamental to that proposal is that any adjustment to property rights must be done with full compensation and for a public purpose.
    I conclude with this commendation to my right hon. Friends. They will recall that the 1967 Act was challenged years later in the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that it was a breach of article 1 of the first protocol. There may be those in the House who believe that the European convention on human rights should be part of our law or should take precedence over the will of Parliament. I am not in that category. What I am anxious to do is to prevent my right hon. and hon. Friends from any subsequent embarrassment.
    The justification for the European Court's decision was that the public purpose which justified the 1967 Act was the peculiar class of beneficiary. There was a social purpose. Where there is no social purpose of a specific nature, but simply an arbitrary rearranging of property interests, it must follow that full market compensation should be given for compulsory purchase. On that basis I commend this group of amendments.
    Mr. Nicholls: This group of amendments gives an opportunity to my hon. Friends to resolve the dilemma to which I referred earlier: how on earth a Conservative Government can expropriate property belonging to somebody else. It does not matter for the purposes of the dilemma whether they are paid the full market amount or not. It will be no defence for Dick Turpin to say, when tried at the assize, "I offered them full market value for their jewellery before I took it and they declined it." In the old classic definition, it would still be theft.
    The problem that my right hon. and hon. Friends have to resolve is that there is a conflicting balance of Conservative interests. They conflict because we are in the business of taking away the property of people when they do not want to part with it. It does not much matter for those purposes whether one is a duke or a dustman, or even, dare I say it, a Minister. There is a dilemma and it has to be resolved. Fortunately, there is a way to resolve the dilemma, and that is by making sure that a proper rate of compensation is paid.
    I do not particularly concern myself that these amendments are complex. I accept that they are and, as a lawyer, I look forward to that with great relish. The point is that even behind those difficult amendments lies a straightforward purpose: to make sure that a proper level of compensation is paid. The sad thing is that presumably the principle is agreed between the people who signed this amendment and Ministers. That has been clearly understood because, at the outset, the Government said that they were not in the business of allowing people to acquire property at a discount.
    As long ago as 6 March 1992, the then Under-Secretary for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), said:
    "We do not intend that through this legislation leaseholders should be able to acquire assets at a discount"—[Official Report, 6 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 583.]
    That was a considered and measured statement. I have not listened to the tapes to see whether that was a throwaway remark by the Minister at the time, but I doubt whether it was. I have a distant memory that it was a familiar house style, and a well-considered statement of Government intention at the time, that property should not be acquired at a discount.
    Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, when he opened the Second Reading debate, said:
    "I contend that the Bill provides for proper compensation".
    So it was admitted and acknowledged that proper compensation would have to be given. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
    "As for compensation, the leaseholders will pay a fair market price for their landlords' interest."—[Official Report, 3 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 154.]
    I heard it advanced in support of the way in which the Bill provides for compensation that it is a fair market price. It may aim to be so, but it is complete nonsense to talk about a fair market price in the context of a forced sale. A market price is a price agreed by two people when one wants to buy and the other wants to sell. In an imperfect world, there will sometimes be a disparity in the bargaining position, but forcing one person to sell must introduce the ultimate disparity. In such circumstances, it is impossible to talk about the market; all that can be discussed is a fair price.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: The Government introduced the Bill because the basic premise to which the hon. Gentleman refers—relating to fairness and rights—did not exist. That was the basis for the Bill. It was needed only because landlords refused to issue any kind of lease other than a leasehold.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Nicholls: Not only do I not understand that point; I am not sure that the hon. Lady understands it either. The reason for the legislation is straightforward and was set out in the Conservative party manifesto. It was all about giving a right to residential home owners. The amendments that we are discussing concern the compensation that should be paid.
    It has been said before—no doubt it will be said again in the wind-up speech—that what is being suggested is at least fair, although it is not a market price because no such price can operate in this context. I have even heard it said —although I cannot believe that I shall hear it said today —that it is not a windfall profit, because it arises from market forces. It does not; it arises specifically from the Bill. I have also heard it said that it is not a discount. The fact is that property acquired from an unwilling seller is instantly worth more than the buyer has paid. That is a discount, whatever people may prefer to call it. The amendments aim to ensure that there is no discount and that the level of compensation relates to the value of the property at the time of its acquisition by the new owner.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the time and courtesy that he has expended in talking and writing to me on this subject. I hope that he will not consider it a breach of confidence if I cite one of the arguments that he has advanced to me over the months. He has said, effectively, "See my problem: I am pulled in both directions." Indeed he is, as I would expect him to be.
    The debate has shown very clearly that our reasons for embarking on this legislative road are not the reasons espoused by the revisionists manques on the Opposition Benches. We are in the business of doing something for residential home owners. For instance, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who produced the most articulate but also the most bizarre exposition of Opposition thinking, is not in the business of helping residential home owners; he is in the business of attacking and divesting dukes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) spoke of a possible extension of the legislation. The true socialists on the Opposition Benches were nodding away: they know where the legislation could lead. There is no question of our being able to resolve the legislation on the basis of being pulled in two directions; there is always a ready market for the acquisition of property at less than the full market value. Any self-respecting fence knows that.
    If we are to try to resolve the dilemma and to work out how we can adhere to our Conservative principles without breaching one of the most important of all, there is no point in our taking any aid or comfort from the arguments of Opposition Members. We may need their votes tonight; that is one of the occasional embarrassments of being in government. But, in trying to resolve the dilemma, the Government should look behind them and ask what their

    871
    Conservative supporters want. They should not abandon the legislation; they should ask what was their original policy objective.
    The objective was to help residential home owners, not to enable people to acquire property at a discount. That presents a fundamental problem which accepting the amendments—or, at least, the principle behind them—would help the Government to resolve.
    Dame Jill Knight: I strongly agree with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I urge the Government to accept that the Bill is occasioning a great deal of anger, distress and worry among Conservative Members.
    I have always detested compulsory purchase, which is opposed to all the principles in which I believe. I recognise that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary for the public good; 1 also accept that, on occasion, tenants in leasehold properties have suffered—for instance, when the owners and managers of blocks of flats have imposed unfair service charges. That applies to many of my constituents. What I cannot stomach, however, is the House of Commons forcing a private person to proceed with a sale to another private person, although the seller does not wish to negotiate that sale. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to make clear the Government's intentions to those of us who have grave worries.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has outlined a lengthy catalogue of reforms. I am worried about what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. I cannot see any reason why, if all the arguments adduced today are accepted, we should not move on to allow private tenants to buy their houses or flats from unwilling landlords. Although I think it entirely right for council tenants to have such rights—so does the Labour party now; Labour Members had better listen to this—I feel that, unless we recognise the real need for a privately rented housing sector, we shall be in deep trouble. Unless we understand that we must play fair with owners—whether they own leases orproperties—I can see myself voting against the Government.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I will not detain the House for long. I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will know what I am going to say, because I have already told him.
    As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am not happy about the Bill. In particular, I am unhappy about the provision of insufficient compensation. I was struck by my hon. Friends' speeches about that and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will have to advance careful arguments if he is to counter what they have said.
    When I first came to the House, my party was in opposition. We opposed a measure presented by the then Government concerning compensation for the assets of the Burmah oil company. We opposed it partly on grounds of retrospection, but principally because the compensation was inadequate. On both those grounds, the amendments need to be considered carefully.
    The point that I wish to make to my right hon. and learned Friend—indeed, I have already put it to him—was more or less resolved in a letter that he wrote to me about one of my constituents, who happens to own a house that
    872
    has been in his family for some time and which he lets, on lease, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I believe that it is quite well known to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In theory at least, the Government are now in a position to buy the house, which the family has owned for some 250 years, at a discount.
    If the compensation were adequate, there would be no major concern about the matter, although my constituent is anxious not to sell the house. The point that concerned me—I think that it also concerned my right hon. and learned Friend—was that, had it not been for a technicality, the Bill would have allowed the Government to buy the house at a discount from the market price. That would have been nationalisation at a discount.
    It is some time since a Minister resigned over such matters. Years ago, Ministers used to resign on issues such as Crichel Down. I have made the point not for the merit of the case. The Minister has persuaded me that the lease on that house was one year too short for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have exercised its right to buy the freehold. So my constituent's problems do not arise on the group of amendments before the House. But imagine had it been one year longer: the Government could have nationalised one of my constituent's properties. While that may not be the case, it does not say much for the nature of the Bill in that it would have represented compensation at well below the market price. I hope that the Minister appreciates the depth of feeling that exists on the Government Benches about compensation at less than market value.
    Mr. Howard: The amendments and the new clauses relate to compensation, although the debate has ranged more widely than that. I hope that my hon. Friends who were not here for the debate on the earlier group of amendments will forgive me if I do not go over the ground that I have traversed then, when I explained how this reform fitted into a long tradition of Conservative Governments reforming land tenure.
    I shall answer at the outset my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who, uncharacteristically, was a little unfair in suggesting that the constituency case to which he referred came outside the scope of this legislation as the result of a technicality. It was not simply the fact that the term of the lease was shorter than that which would have brought it within the Bill. Indeed, it is a different kind of lease from that to which this legislation applies. It was not a residential lease, so there are a number of fundamental reasons—I appreciate the concern that my right hon. Friend would have had if it had come within the terms of the Bill—why the description "technicality" should not be applied to that case and why the case does not come within the scope of this legislation.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) introduced me to the concept of meiosis. I confess that the concept was previously unknown to me. He was kind enough to define it as "wild understatement" and said that it was not a concept to which the Government were given. It is a condition to which my right hon. Friend is something of a stranger, but I was grateful for his contribution and I hope that my remarks will be of some comfort to him and a positive response to his comments.
    I was grateful for the solicitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who sought to prevent me from appearing before the European Court of

    873
    Human Rights at a future date. Should that happen, I hope that my hon. Friend will make his services available to me. He ended with a plea that the basis for compensation under the Bill should be the same as that provided under compulsory purchase. The answer is that it is, though I appreciate that that does not satisfy others of my hon. Friends, and I hope to ally at least some of the anxieties as I respond to the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley.
    The amendments seek to increase the price paid, whether by lessees of houses who are already entitled to buy their freeholds by the 1967 Act or the 1974 Act extension, or long lessees of houses and flats, who will gain the right of enfranchisement for the first time under the Bill.
    6.45 pm
    The House must address difficult and important issues about valuation, and it may be helpful if I describe the evolution of the proposals in the Bill. When long leaseholders of low-value houses who were paying a low rent became entitled to enfranchisement under the 1967 Act passed by the Labour Government, the price was very low. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley pointed out, they had to pay only the open market value of the freeholder's interest in the land, which would have been less than the price for which it could have been sold to a third party.
    Labour's policy intention, which the then Conservative Opposition always opposed, was confirmed by the Housing Act 1969, which added a statutory assumption to the valuation provisions in the 1967 Act to the effect that the tenant was not buying or seeking to buy, and that reversed a judicial decision which had the opposite effect by assuming that the tenant was in the market.
    Understandably, that was popular with tenants. But we did not accept that it represented an arrangement that was fair to both parties to the transaction. We opposed the 1967 measure on Second Reading, as it was unfair to the landlord. During the passage of the Housing Act 1974, under a later Labour Government, the Conservative Opposition successfully moved an amendment to the 1967 Act to bring medium-value houses within its scope. That amendment was moved on the basis that the price had to take into account the fact that the tenant had a special interest in buying, so that his bid for the freehold was likely to be higher than that of a third party.
    That basis of valuation has proved much more acceptable and has worked well in practice for nearly 20 years. It is the basis which we now have for the enfranchisement of medium-value houses. It is a valuation basis which the tribunals dealing with such matters have become well accustomed to interpreting, and it reflects what actually happens in the market. It does not provide statutory favouritism.
    When we considered the extension of enfranchisement rights to the relatively few leaseholders of ineligible houses under the earlier legislation, and the 750,000 or so long leaseholders of flats, there was no doubt that they should have to pay no more and no less than the market value of their landlords' interests. The existing legislation delivers that objective. For flats, we have spelt out the way in which
    874
    marriage value should be calculated and divided. It is not a change in policy. It enables the parties to understand more fully the basis on which the valuation is derived.
    We have provided that the price paid to the landlord should comprise the sum of three elements identified by valuers. Those are the open market value of the landlord's interest, at least half the marriage value and compensation for any severance losses. The first two elements add up to the price paid by tenants of medium-value houses—we are just specifying them separately—and naturally, as under the 1974 amendment, tenants must also pay all reasonable landlords' costs.
    The first element, open market value, represents the price that the landlord could receive from a third party purchasing the property as an investment. It is fairer than the original valuation basis applied to low-value houses by the 1967 Act because it takes into account the value of the buildings as well as of the land.
    Most of the amendments with which we are concerned affect the other two elements. Marriage value is the difference between the aggregate of the values of the freehold and leasehold interests before and after enfranchisement. In other words, it represents the increase in value when the freehold and the leasehold come under the same control. It is how the market puts a monetary value on the tenant's special interest in acquiring the property and it reflects the fact that the former tenant of the house gains an unencumbered freehold, and the factthat the tenants collectively in a block of flats can grant themselves new leases for little or no premium.
    It is important that hon. Members appreciate that we have not newly identified marriage value for flats. It is a familiar idea. It exists for houses too, and, as I have explained, the present provisions reflect it. Although marriage value is not mentioned in section 9 of the 1967 Act, the valuation base in section 9(1A), which applies to medium-value houses, takes into account the tenants' interest in obtaining the property. It is because of this special interest that an element of marriage value forms part of the price.
    In the marketplace this marriage value is shared to ensure that a mutually acceptable bargain is struck. The market thus acknowledges the mutual financial benefit of selling to leaseholders. Landlords could not obtain all the marriage value save in very exceptional circumstances. The Lands Tribunal, following this principle, has adopted the approach of sharing marriage value between the parties.
    Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but I do not think that they were necessarily aware that it has today issued a press notice which takes its views somewhat further and makes them somewhat clearer. I will not weary the House by reading it all, but perhaps I may read part of it. The RICS spokesman says:
    "A great deal of confusion continues to surround the concept of 'marriage value'—the additional value which is created when the leasehold and freehold interests are brought together. There have been claims"—we have heard them today—
    "that the way in which this value is shared between leaseholders and freeholders will lead to massive windfall profits for some leaseholders.
    The RICS believes that many of the concerns stem from a misreading of the Bill."
    The document goes on to explain its understanding of the Bill and how the windfall will not arise. It also explains —to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the

    875
    Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin)—that in some cases, because the market would give the whole marriage value to the freeholder, any decision by the leasehold valuation tribunal would also give the whole value to the freeholder. It is not a question of splitting the valuation 50:50 and treating that as the norm. I believe that that was the reassurance sought by my hon. Friend. It is a question of seeking to treat the marriage value in a way that most nearly reflects what the market itself would provide.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the hon. and learned Gentleman intervenes, may I point out that it would be enormously helpful if the Secretary of State would speak to the microphone, so that Hansard Reporters can catch every word he says?
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Would my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a most sophisticated English silk, explain to a simple Scottish one why the English find it so difficult to do anything simply? In Scotland we either rent a house or buy a house. If we rent it, it belongs to the person who rents it; if we buy it, it belongs to us. We do not have freehold, leasehold or any of this nonsense. Instead of this ridiculous formula to do with marriage value—I have never heard of the marriage value of a house: I have never heard of houses marrying—why not just rent houses and give them back when they cease to be rented, or own them and sell them when they are no longer wanted?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to suggest that, if we had followed Scottish practice, we would not have had leasehold and would not be here this afternoon debating this legislation. I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend is taking the radical course and suggesting that the legislation does not go nearly far enough and that we should abolish leasehold completelyinEngland—
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn indicated assent.
    Mr. Howard: I see that he is. I am afraid that the Government are not bold enough to follow his advice on this occasion. I suspect that by rejecting that advice I am on the same side—at least in this respect—as my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put their names to this group of amendments.
    We have followed the precedent of the 1974 amendment to the 1967 Act and the professional advice that we have received from the RICS and elsewhere in formulating our policy that marriage value released by the enfranchisement, of flats should be shared. I do not consider it right that tenants should pay more than the open market price to enfranchise, but that would be the effect of the new clause and amendments, which would require that all the marriage values be awarded to the landlord. To give the whole marriage value to one party to the transaction would not be equitable. If the landlord were to sell to any other purchaser, the extra value would not be released.
    Enfranchisement is effectively maximising the possible gain a landlord can get from his asset. This is because he receives all his marriage value share when the property is enfranchised. If there were no enfranchisement, he would receive it, if at all, spread over a number of years as and when individual tenants wished to extend or renew their
    876
    leases. All the landlord loses is control over the timing of the disposal, but, as this maximum gain only comes from a sale to the tenants, they in practice dictate the timing in a voluntary transaction, too.
    The Bill provides that landlords of flats shall receive at least half of the marriage value. This is a floor, and where the market would have given the landlord a bigger share in a voluntary sale, he can argue for and get more under enfranchisement.
    I understand the concern that the landlord will receive marriage value only on the flats of participating tenants. Amendments Nos. 15 and 28 seek to give the landlord extra money by including the element in respect of the non-participating qualifying tenants as well. But it would be very unfair to give the landlord marriage value on the flats of non-participating tenants, because no marriage value is in fact released. It would be false accounting, as the leases of these flats are not being brought under the same control as the freehold. Marriage value arises only when the freehold and leasehold interests are joined under the same control.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley raised an important point about the provision of compensation for severance—part of what is known as injurious affection for houses. The Bill already provides it for flats. My right hon. Friend says that it should be provided for houses, too. He correctly takes the view that that would be of some assistance in the constituency case to which he referred. It is important that the House appreciates that "injurious affection" is a precise valuation term to quantify in money terms the loss of redevelopment potential or any other loss of value on land now in the landlord's ownership which he keeps after the enfranchisement of other property. It is not a general compensation to cover compulsory purchase by tenants. It has only that limited meaning.
    It is a valid element in the price of blocks of flats, because a development or an estate will often contain a group of blocks. Here the loss of one may prevent the freeholder developing the land between the blocks. It might also make his costs in maintaining the remaining blocks higher due to the loss of economies of scale. That is why the Bill includes special provision for those circumstances. It is more difficult to visualise the need for severance for houses, and it was not provided for under the 1967 Act where the low-value houses which were to be enfranchised were very unlikely to have an impact on the remaining property of the landlord.
    I do understand the concerns about high-value houses brought in by that Act. I accept that in these cases there may be a need for severance to be recouped. I therefore propose to introduce an amendment in another place to ensure that all houses brought into the 1967 Act by the Bill should have a new head of compensation to cover severance, in line with the provisions for flats in the Bill.
    I cannot accept new clause 6 because it would apply to all houses. I am particularly concerned about the impact on low-value houses, which are already capable of enfranchisement. The addition of severance to the price could add considerably to the cost of enfranchising such property, or could be used by a landlord to deter enfranchisement, which would be unfair. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley recognised that in his observations.
    There has been a full debate on property valuation and I have listened with interest to the arguments of my right

    877
    hon. and hon. Friends. The Bill builds on the precedent of Conservative policy and provides a basis for transferring property interests from the freeholder and intermediate landlords that is above all fair.
    I am prepared to introduce an amendment in another place to deal with severance compensation for high-value houses. I hope that, in that spirit, my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends will not press their amendments.
    7 pm
    Mr. Jopling: I have listened with great care to the Secretary of State's reply to the debate. I must apologise to him and to the House as I left the Chamber for a few minutes in the middle of the debate, but I heard all the opening speeches as well as the later ones.
    My right hon. and learned Friend's promise to introduce an amendment in another place to deal with the application of severance in regard to injurious affection is welcome. However, I am disappointed that I heard nothing in his speech about the 50 per cent. floor. I understand that he intends to leave that as it is and has not moved towards our view that it should increase to 100 per cent.
    I accept that one would not expect the price to be 100 per cent. of the marriage value plus the value for severance. I do not think that any of us would be interested in promoting that, but we want 100 per cent. of the marriage value. I am disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend has not been able to move on the 50 per cent. figure. He used phrases and words that he used on Second Reading and suggested that, given the figure of not less than 50 per cent. in the Bill, the level of compensation—
    Mr. Howard: May I deal with that matter and go somewhat further than my right hon. Friend wanted? In an appropriate case, if the market value were such that the tribunal properly came to the conclusion that 100 per cent. of the marriage value ought to go to the freeholder—I emphasise that it is open to them to reach that view under the provisions of the Bill—and if an extra element for injurious affection were judged appropriate, it would be right for the freeholder to have 100 per cent. of the marriage value plus an additional element for injurious affection. Those two elements are not inconsistent.
    If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I must reiterate that the 50 per cent. figure is intended to be a floor and that the tribunal, if the circumstances justify it, may award a greater proportion of the marriage value to the freeholder, up to and not excluding 100 per cent.
    Mr. Jopling: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining more fully. In all humility, I am bound to say that I have never had any experience of values of injurious affection with regard to severance, and thus find it difficult to put a figure on them. His remarks are therefore helpful.
    I think that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the figure only applies to high-value houses and—as I understand it—not to flats.
    Mr. Howard indicated assent.
    Mr. Jopling: It does apply to flats. That is a move forward, but I am disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend has not increased the 50 per cent. floor figure.
    As I was saying when I gave way to the Secretary of State, we are all concerned that he referred to 50 per cent. of the marriage value as a "fair" figure. That is the crux of the difference of opinion between the Front Bench and right hon. and hon. Members who are unhappy about the proposal. We believe that in many cases 50 per cent. could be patently unfair and we are seeking to improve it.
    The House should always remember that the freeholder owned 100 per cent. of the marriage value when he granted the leasehold interest to the leaseholder. He willingly agreed to forgo that as the price for retaining the freehold interest, for the reversion of ownership of the property and for control over it.
    After the Secretary of State's speech and the amendments that he has promised, I am still unhappy about the compensation and think that it will be unfair. I should like to think carefully about the implications of his remarks between now and Third Reading.
    I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that there is not much point in voting on the new clause. The Opposition parties will not vote with us and the result would therefore be a foregone conclusion. However, we must consider carefully the Secretary of State's remarks and, if necessary, we can express our opinions clearly on Third Reading tomorrow.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

  QUALIFYING TENANTS TO HAVE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT
  `(l) This Chapter has effect for the purpose of conferring on qualifying tenants of flats contained in premises to which this Chapter applies on the relevant date the right, exercisable subject to and in accordance with this Chapter, to have the freehold of those premises acquired on their behalf—

  (a) by a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, and

  (b) at a price determined in accordance with this Chapter; and that right is referred to in this Chapter as "the right to collective enfranchisement".

  (2) This Chapter applies to any premises if—

  (a) they consist of a self-contained building and the freehold of the whole of the building or of that part of the building is owned by the same person;

  (b) they contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants; and

  (c) the total number of flats held by such tenants exceeds one half of the total number of flats contained in the premises.

  (3) This Chapter does not apply to premises falling within subsection (2) if—

  (a) any part or part of the premises is occupied, or intended to be occupied, otherwise than for residential purposes: and

  (b) the internal floor area of that part of those parts (taken together) exceeds 50 per cent. of the internal floor area of the premises (taken as a whole); or

  (c) the premises are premises with a resident landlord and do not contain more than three units.

  (4) Subject to the provisions of section 5, a person is a qualifying tenant of a flat for the purposes of this Chapter if he is the tenant of the flat under a tenancy other than—

  (a) a protected shorthold tenancy as defined in section
  52 of the Housing Act 1980;

  879

  (b) a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (business tenancies) applies;

  (c) a tenancy terminable on the cessation of his employment;

  (d) an assured tenancy or assured agricultural occupancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988.

  (5) A tenant of a flat who is a landlord of a qualifying tenant of that flat is not to be regarded as being a qualifying tenant of that fiat.'.—[Mr. Battle]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Battle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 14.
  No. 30, in clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 40 to 46.
  No. 31, in page 5, line 1, leave out
  `For the purposes of this section'.
  No. 32, in clause 4, page 5, leave out lines 16 to 22.
  No. 33, in page 5, leave out lines 28 to 37.
  No. 34, clause 5, in page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 6.
  No. 9, leave out lines 10 to 14.
  No. 36, leave out lines 20 to 37.
  Mr. Battle: As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, we welcome the thrust of leasehold reforms contained in part I of the Bill, but we are worried that the Government are being pressurised to water them down. We hope that that will not happen, because we remain concerned that many of the exclusions built into the leasehold reform measures before us are too tightly drawn. The last group of clauses tried to lead us in one direction, but we hope to press the House to go the opposite way, and we want to tackle the loopholes that the Government have left in the Bill.
  I hope that the House will support new clause 10. It is widely agreed across the Floor of the House that leasehold is a debased and archaic form of tenure, that its reform is long overdue and that the Government are taking a hesitant step with a relatively modest proposal, although they have promised that full-blown commonhold proposals will he put before the House before long.
  When put in practice, the qualifying rules and the valuation method will exclude many leaseholders from exercising their right to enfranchisement.
  Many of those 750,000 leaseholders who at present may think that they will be enfranchised by this legislation will discover that in practice they will not be. In particular, what needs to be withdrawn from the Bill as at present drafted is the low rent test and the limiting of non-residential floor space threshold.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I must ask hon. Members to have their meetings elsewhere than in the Chamber.
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious that the dealing is still going on on the last clause. That may or may not affect the debate in the other place. We rather hope that the Government will not be swayed by the argument, even after the debate has taken place, that landlords ought to be compensated even more.
  The groups campaigning for wider rights for leaseholders, such as the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating
  880
  Committee, believe that the Bill, as it stands, is far too restrictive. That is a view with which the Opposition concur.
  Leaseholders in a block of flats where more than one third of the flats are rented will be excluded, as will those who live in blocks where more than 10 per cent. of the floor space is used as a shop or office. There is also the low ground rent test, which is designed to sift out leaseholders from those renting their flats or homes. As landlords are given to increasing ground rents to make their properties unenfranchisable, even now, as these debates go on, I hope that the Minister will concede that the low rent test is inequitable and unnecessary, and ought to go.
  At present, some 750,000 long-term—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman a second time. Hon. Members should know the rules of the House. They really cannot stand up in the Benches and have a conversation with each other. If they want to have a conversation, they should leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Battle: In theory, about 700,000 long-term leaseholders will be enabled to buy the freeholds of their flats from their landlords, but in practice many leaseholders, including a disproportionate number of elderly people, will find it very hard to raise the necessary cash, and therefore will find that they are excluded.
  Many are concerned about the low rent test. We have all had letters I know that the Secretary of State has been written to—from people in leasehold property emphasising the fact that the leasehold enfranchisement provisions in the present Bill exclude all those who have had their ground rent raised beyond the low rent test. One tenant sent the following letter to the Secretary of State:
  "I am advised that my impending ground rent review in 1996 will increase by thousands and will be well outside my means. This clause also has prevented me from selling my house, which has been on the market for seven years. As a widow over pensionable age I am still struggling to find a little work to keep and to maintain my home."
  This new clause will give qualifying tenants the right to collective enfranchisement. Subsection (2) will allow enfranchisement where more than half of the flats are occupied by qualifying tenants. In effect, that will widen the scope of the enfranchisement at present allowed for in the Bill, which is that two thirds of the flats must be occupied by qualifying tenants.
  Our new clause will exclude blocks where more than 50 per cent. of the floor space is in non-residential use. At present, the Bill excludes premises where more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor space is in non-residential use. We believe that that is far too restrictive, and our clause would increase the percentage to 50 per cent. to correspond precisely with the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, under which leaseholders are given the right of first refusal when a landlord decides to dispose of the freehold as a block, provided that 50 per cent. or more of the floor space is in residential use.
  Subsection (3) of our new clause would amend the resident landlord exclusion so that premises are included in the enfranchisement provisions unless they have a resident landlord and do not contain more than two units.
  Subsection (4) will extend the definition of the qualifying tenant to include all those tenancies other than shorthold and assured tenancies, business tenancies arid service tenancies. Again, the wording of that subsection is taken from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. We can see

  881
  no cogent reason why tenants other than those excluded by this subsection should not enjoy the right to collective enfranchisement, just as they enjoy the right to first refusal when the landlord disposes of the freehold.
  Our amendment to the definition of a qualifying tenant will have the added advantage of avoiding the need for the low rent test and for the definition of a long lease. At whatever level a low rent or a long lease is eventually defined, there will always be boundary cases, since it is to be expected that landlords seeking to evade the provisions will deliberately choose to grant leases which fall just outside the proposed limits. By taking those two tests out of the legislation, as was done in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, those problems will in practice be avoided.
  Subsection (5) is included to cover the possibility that there will be more than one potential qualifying tenant for a given flat—for example, where a leaseholder has let the flat on a tenancy. In this case, it will be proposed to give the right of collective enfranchisement to the lowest level of interest, which makes it most likely that the right will be given to the person occupying the flat, but without the need to introduce a residence qualification, which could cause difficulties, as we all appreciate, with second homes.
  In other words, our new clause would give secure tenants rights that they will not get under the present legislation. We will be extending leasehold enfranchisement.
  7.15 pm
  In closing, I want to refer to three other letters, although they are really only two. During the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), circulated a leaflet to all leaseholders in the Chelsea constituency, sent from the Conservative campaign headquarters in Chelsea Manor street, which read:
  "A Conservative Government is committed to changing the basis of extending Leasehold tenure in the following ways:—Introduction of Commonhold for Leasehold flats … Extension of leases … Removal of upper limit of rateable value on houses".
  I have to say that, although it had a note on the bottom telling people when polling day was, creating the impression that the people would get these rights, many of those who received that leaflet now feel that they were misled and sold short—so much so that one of them wrote direct to the Prime Minister to say that he was disturbed, because at the time of the general election he had been given an assurance by the candidate that the Tory party intended to retain in the forthcoming legislation the low rent disqualification. That was not mentioned at all in the leaflet that went out.
  The letter goes on:
  "It is unfortunately becoming clear to me that not only are the Tory Party avoiding their election obligations, not for the first time, but also that they are being heavily influenced by the large donations made to the Tory Party by the London landlords."
  Some have been very disappointed, because those who wrote direct to the Prime Minister were told in a reply on 7 April 1992, conveniently just before the general election, that they would have promised leasehold in full. I have a letter here from the person who received that reply from the Prime Minister, which says:
  "If the Prime Minister promises leasehold enfranchisement `in full', he should deliver leasehold enfranchisement in full
  882
  and not let certain parts of British society hide behind technical provisions cleverly drafted by solicitors which hide the real substance of the lease behind an artificial legal form."
  That is what people are now discovering to have happened, and without new clause 10, which will open up leasehold reform to qualifying tenants in a wider way than is proposed in this Bill, the loopholes in the Bill will mean offering the rhetoric of rights, but not the legal substance. Landlords will be given scope to frustrate the intentions of the legislation. I believe that we should not be leaving space for Duke of Westminster spokesmen in this place and elsewhere to drive a coach and horses through what ought to be the welcome introduction of leasehold enfranchisement.
  In a sense, the Government have been coy so far, and have given assurances that they will consider again the measures put to them by their Back Benchers to try to undermine the leasehold proposals. I hope that the Government will say that the leasehold proposals would be improved if they included new clause 10. That would give real rights to the 750,000 leaseholders who would benefit from the legislation.
  I commend new clause 10 to the House as a means of improving and enhancing the rights of leaseholders. Having seen off their Back Benchers who tried to undermine the Bill, the Government should have the confidence to go further and give people real rights.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The new clause would allow any tenant to qualify for enfranchisement other than assured tenants under the Housing Act 1988 and some minor exceptions, so there would be no requirement for the lease to be long or to be at a low rent. It would extend the right to enfranchise well beyond the category of those who own their flats. For example, regulated tenants who pay a fair rent under the 1977 legislation, or secure tenants of a public sector landlord would be entitled to enfranchise.
  Somewhat perversely, given some of the amendments put down by the Opposition in Committee, somebody with a three-week holiday let of a flat would fall within the scope of new clause 7 and would be entitled to enfranchisement.
  The Government's proposals are designed to give rights to those who are likely to have the greater financial and personal investment in a building, those with flats on long leases—leases of 21 years or over—at low ground rent who regard themselves as owners of the flats.
  By departing from these principles, the Labour party would put at risk any prospect of securing a revival of the rented sector. By allowing regulated tenants a right to enfranchise, the Opposition would send a very clear signal that any landlord is at risk if he dares allow another person to have a tenancy of his property. The hon. Gentleman may try to claim that excluding assured tenancies would reassure landlords, but by including regulated tenancies, or short-term tenancies of flats which fall outside the 1988 Act, they are certainly bringing rented accommodation into the scope of the Bill.
  The proposal to allow tenants to buy blocks where up to half the floor area is non-residential would damage the commercial market. Tenants would not just be buying their own flats from their landlords, but would be able to secure the transfer of vastly more valuable commercial

  883
  assets. That is not what the Bill is about. Managing a portfolio of commercial property is different from managing an owner-occupied block of residential flats.
  Institutional investors have made it clear that they would be unhappy about leasing commercial space in blocks managed by residential tenants. Moreover, the cost of taking on commercial property on this scale would be vastly more than many tenants could realistically afford. Shops are proportionately much more valuable than flats. So the Opposition risk the confidence of commercial investors in non-residential property and do no favours to tenants by trying to extend the scope of the Bill in this way.
  The new clause would reduce from two thirds to one half the proportion of flats required to be held by qualifying tenants before a block can enfranchise. Taken together with the rule that two thirds of the qualifying tenants must wish to participate for enfranchisement to go ahead, that would mean that in some blocks only one third of the tenants would be entitled to buy out the freeholder. In those circumstances, it could hardly be argued that those qualifying tenants held the major interest in the block.
  That would extend the scope of enfranchisement beyond what we regard as being reasonable. We believe that it is right that more than a bare majority would qualify.
  Taken as a whole, the new clause is deeply unsatisfactory. It would move beyond giving the owners of flats likely to have the greatest interest in the block the right to acquire the freehold to situations where a minority of tenants, or tenants with only a short-term interest in the property, would have the right to dispossess a landlord and to acquire significant amounts of commercial space. I do not believe that that would be right. I do not believe that the House would consider it to be right, and I urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Battle: I found it surprising that the Minister's reply, compared with the responses that he gave in Committee shows a harshening of tone. In Committee he gave assurances that the Government would introduce measures to tackle the low-rent test and the two thirds rule. That is not what we have just heard from the Minister.
  I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman says that our proposals would damage the commercial market when, clearly, that has not been the effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Our proposals would put the Bill within the context of the 1987 Act. That would have been an appropriate way to move forward to ensure that leasehold enfranchisement was a real right and not simply one so hedged with exclusions that many people would find that they were priced out or could not qualify at all.
  Therefore, I believe that we should divide on the new clause. I ask hon. Members to support it.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 299.

  Division No. 145]

  [7.25 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alton, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bell, Stuart

  Austin-Walker, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  884

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Benton, Joe

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gunnell, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hain, Peter

  Betts, Clive

  Hall, Mike

  Blair, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Blunkett, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boyes, Roland

  Harvey, Nick

  Bradley, Keith

  Henderson, Doug

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Burden, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Alan

  Cox, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cryer, Bob

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Lewis, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Denham, John

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McFall, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Madden, Max

  Enright, Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Etherington, Bill

  Mandelson, Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Foulkes, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Fraser, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  George, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mudie, George

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mullin, Chris

  Gould, Bryan

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  885

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshiro)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  Olner, William

  Soley, Clive

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spellar, John

  Parry, Robert

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stevenson, George

  Pope, Greg

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dennis

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Redmond, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Reid, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Watson, Mike

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Simpson, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ancram, Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clappison, James

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Eggar, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Elletson, Harold

  Burt, Alistair

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Butler, Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  886

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Maclean, David

  Forman, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Madel, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Malone, Gerald

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mans, Keith

  Freeman, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marlow, Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Garnier, Edward

  Merchant, Piers

  Gill, Christopher

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Richard

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawkins, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  887

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Walden, George

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stern, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whitney, Ray

  Sykes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tracey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Trotter, Neville

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 15

  SAVING FOR DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTIES
  `—(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to property which:—

  (a) (i) belongs to a body not established or conducted for profit; and

  (ii) in relation to which the Treasury has for the time being given a direction under section 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984;

  (b) is for the time being designated by the Treasury under section 31(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  (2) Where an application to the Treasury for a direction under section 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 in relation to a property or designation of a property under section 31(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 is or has been made at any time before the expiry of one year from the coming into force of this section then subject to subsection (3) below if (before or after the making of the application) a notice is given by a tenant of a house of his desire to have the freehold under Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ("the tenant's notice") or a notice is given under section I1 ("the initial notice")—

  (a) no further proceedings need be taken towards the determination of the terms of the proposed acquisition to which the notice relates beyond those which appear to the landlord in the case of the tenant's notice or the reversioner in the case of an initial notice, to be reasonable; but

  (b) the tenant in the case of the tenant's notice or the nominee purchaser in the case of the initial notice may at any time withdraw the notice by a further notice in writing given to the landlord in the case of a tenant's notice or the reversioner in the case of the initial notice and he shall not be required to make payment to the landlord, reversioner or any other relevant landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice withdrawn.

  (3) Subsection (2) above shall cease to apply—

  (a) if within a period of two years from the date of the application it is withdrawn or the designation is refused or not given or no direction is given; or

  888

  (b) if the applicant has not, by advertisement or by other appropriate means given adequate notice to persons interested informing them of the application for designation.

  (4) In the case where an application is withdrawn or refused subsection (2) does not apply at any time falling after—

  (a) the date of withdrawal of the application, or

  (b) the date when the decision of the Treasury refusing the application becomes final,

  as the case may be.'.[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 116, in clause 4, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
  '( ) This chapter does not apply to premises forming part of a landholding for the time being designated as a heritage area under Schedule [Heritage area] to this Act.'.
  Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
  '(5) This chapter does not apply to premises which—

  (a) are for the time being designated by the Treasury under section 31(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 or paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 to that Act, or

  (b) on application by the landlord, satisfy a leasehold valuation tribunal that they would qualify for designation under the aforesaid provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  (6) The provisions of sections 63(4) and (5) shall apply to any application under section 4(5).
  (7) Any application under section 4(5) must be made within the period of two years beginning with the date of the coming into force of this section.'.
  Amendment No. 117, in clause 5, page 6, line 4, at end insert
  'or
  (d) the lease is of a flat within premises forming part of a landholding for the time being designated as a heritage area under Schedule [Heritage area] to this Act.'.
  Amendment No. 118, in clause 5, page 63, line 31, after `shall', insert
  " , if the house is not comprised in a landholding designated as a heritage area in accordance with section [] of, and Schedule [Heritage area] to, the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.'.
  Amendment No. 2, in clause 59, page 63, line 42, at end insert—
  '(3) This section does not apply to any house which

  (a) is for the time being designated by the Treasury under section 3(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 or paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 to that Act, or

  (b) on application by the landlord satisfies a leasehold valuation tribunal that is within an area which would qualify for designation under the aforesaid provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  (4) The provisions of sections 63(4) and (5) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 shall apply to any application under section 1A(3).
  (5) Any application under section 1A(3) must be made within the period of two years beginning with the date of the coming into force of this section.'.
  Amendment No. 119, new schedule:—

  SAVING FOR DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTIES

    'HERITAGE AREA
    1. In this Schedule—
    "conservation area" means an area for the time being designated under section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;

    889
    "landholding" means a group of properties adjoining or in close proximity to one another and whether or not separated by other properties, each of which has been for a period in excess of 20 years prior to the coming into force of Part I of this Act under the control of one landlord whether or not subject to one or more tenancies;
    "listed building" has the meaning given in section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
    and references to the Secretary of State are references to the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
    2. The Secretary of State may, in consultation with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (commonly called English Heritage) and in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule, designate a landholding situated in England as a heritage area for the purpose of this Act and the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
    3. The Secretary of State shall not designate a landholding as a heritage area—

    (a) except upon an application made within twelve months beginning with the coming into force of Chapter I or Chapter II of Part I of this Act; and

    (b) unless he is satisfied that the landlord has, by advertisement or otherwise as the Secretary of State may require, given adequate notice to persons interested, informing them of the application for designation and inviting them to make representations to the Secretary of State for or against the application within 28 days of such notice being given,

    and before designating a landholding as a heritage area the Secretary of State shall consider any representations so made within that time, and if from those representations it appears to him that there may be grounds for refusing the application, he shall afford to those opposing the application, and on the same occasion to the applicant and such (if any) as he thinks fit of those in favour of the application, an opportunity to be heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, and shall consider the report of that person.
    4. Subject to paragraph 3, a landholding shall be designated by the Secretary of State as a heritage area if—

    (a) it or a substantial part of it was contained within a conservation area at the coming into force of Part I of this Act;

    (b) at least one-fifth of the area covered by buildings forming part of the landholding measured on plan comprises listed buildings;

    (c) the landlord has undertaken to comply with a code of estate management practice in relation to the landholding; and

    (d) in his opinion the landholding is—

    (i) of outstanding architectural or historic interest, and

    (ii) its continued existence with one landlord and management in accordance with the code of estate management practice will make a material contribution to its preservation or the enhancement of its character or appearance.

    5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, a code of estate management practice in relation to a landholding shall—

    (a) specify the management arrangements and leasing policy (including the length of leases granted and policy on renewal) and give practical guidance as to their operation; and

    (b) be no more onerous or restrictive in its impact upon tenants as a whole than the policies and practices adopted in relation to the estate in the period of five years prior to the application for designation.

    6. A failure on the part of any person to comply with any provision of a code or estate management practice for the time being approved under this Schedule shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings but in any proceedings before a court or tribunal—
    890

    (a) any code of estate management practice approved under this Schedule shall be admissible in evidence; and

    (b) any provisions of any such code which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings shall be taken into account in determining that question.

    7. The Secretary of State shall be under a duty, so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time, to keep under review the management of heritage areas and to consider any matter which is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to him to be frivolous or trivial) made to him by or on behalf of a person appearing to him to have an interest in that matter.
    8. The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to take into account whether there has been any failure to comply with a code of estate management practice in determining whether to revoke or renew a designation.
    9. The Secretary of State may at any time if it appears to him desirable to do so—

    (a) revoke the designation of a heritage area or substitute for a landholding so designated a part of that landholding if, in either case, it appears to him that the criteria for designation are no longer met; or

    (b) modify or replace a code of practice applicable to a heritage area.

    10. Prior to taking any action under paragraph 9, the Secretary of State shall give reasonable notice of his intention and afford an opportunity to persons interested in the matter to make representations.
    11.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraph 9, the designation of a landholding as a heritage area and any renewal of designation shall cease to have effect ten years after the date of its designation or, as the case may be, renewal unless application is made prior to that date for its renewal.
    (2) The provisions of this Schedule other than paragraph 3(a) shall apply in relation to any renewal of a designation as they apply in relation to an initial designation.'.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Ainsworth: Unlike the other new clauses and amendments that we have discussed today, new clause 15 does not seek to examine the fundamentals of leasehold reform. My right hon. and hon. Friends have eloquently made the case on behalf of those who are worried about the wider implications of leasehold reform. However, the new clause does not seek to deal with them.
    It is a modest new clause, which serves a modest but important purpose. It reflects some specific concerns raised by English Heritage and the Historic Houses Association. It involves a technical adjustment to ensure that an existing right is permitted to continue unimpaired under the Bill.
    To endure that our national heritage does not suffer as a consequence of inheritance tax through the forced sale and break-up of important properties, assets of outstanding historic or architectural interest can, under existing arrangements, as reflected in section 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, be exempted from such tax if they are made over to a non-profit making body. They can also be designated by the Treasury under section 31 of the same Act, with the result that they can be conditionally exempt from inheritance tax. At present, the leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Bill will, or could, undermine that important protection.
    The exercise of enfranchisement rights over a part of an estate which has been given conditional exemption from inheritance tax might be deemed by the Inland Revenue to break the undertaking to maintain the character and integrity of the whole property. Through no fault of his

    891
    own, the owner could be faced with paying tax on not only the value received for the disposal but the value of the whole estate which had previously been exempted.
    That could also work the other way round, to the detriment of heritage properties, by preventing action which is necessary to preserve historic buildings in good order. For example, a major heritage property in Warwickshire is currently governed by a body of trustees which is granted exemption under section 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The trustees are short of funds to ensure the good repair and upkeep of an important heritage building. They have come up with a scheme to convert the top floor of the principal building into flats and to sell them on long leases. Only be selling them on long leases will they be able to raise sufficient money to make the exercise worth while.
    However, the trustees wondered what the Bill's consequences will be for their inheritance tax exemption, and they have stalled. Already, as a result of the proposals, an historic building of major national importance is not getting the much-needed money for its upkeep. Without the new clause, the funds may never be forthcoming. New clause 15 would avoid such pitfalls by excluding designated properties from the application of part I of the Bill. It would also specify a limited period of one year during which designation may be sought for potentially elibible properties. During that time, and until the Treasury has made its decision, anyapplications to enfranchise will be frozen.
    The number of estates which would benefit from the clause is small. I understand that only about 60 estates are currently designated for inheritance tax exemption, but each one is of vital national importance through its contribution to our heritage. In each case, the consequence of the Bill could—I do not exaggerate—be catastrophic. The new clause does nothing to undermine part I of the Bill, but it permits the continued safeguarding of our heritage, an aim of which I hope all hon. Members would approve.
    I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Minister for Housing and Planning to jeopardise the integrity of our most important heritage buildings, so I hope that he will look favourably on new clause 15. It would have been impossible not to note a certain gloom among Ministers this afternoon. By proposing a helpful new clause, I hope to give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to cheer himself by being helpful in return and to cheer the House by his acknowledgement of the merits of new clause 15.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that there was gloom among members of the Government Front Bench, but it is not so much gloom as their being squeezed to make a few concessions to prevent some of the worst excesses of Conservative Back Benchers trying to press some amendments much further than the Government wished. We certainly saw some manoeuvring to ensure that that did not happen.
    To some extent, the new clause falls into the same category as some of the issues that we debated earlier, in that it is basically misleading. This new clause, in particular, is spurious. It tries to wreck the Bill's objectives. The Minister has said repeatedly that the Government wish to enable as many people as possible to exercise the right of enfranchisement. The new clause is
    892
    another attempt to increase the categories of people who cannot take advantage of the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) tried to go in the opposite direction with the previous new clause by proposing to extend the right of enfranchisement. We clearly have different objectives.
    The Minister claims that the Government have sought to give enfranchisement to people with leasehold tenure of property, but we claim that we are trying to do more than the Government, and certainly more than Conservative Back Benchers. I have no sympathy with the argument that certain properties should be excluded from the provisions on the basis of the heritage. We do not intend to support the new clause if there is a Division on it.
    I have a copy of a letter written to the Minister on 25 November by Roderick Barr. He says:
    "I am amused when I hear the argument that freeholders are the guardians of the heritage. We have received only one cursory visit from the Estate's representative in 8 years. Preserving the heritage has in practice been done by Islington Council's planning officers and English Heritage (the houses are Grade II listed), and paid for out of the pockets of long leaseholders, such as myself. Nor does the estate seem to be a particularly good landlord to those tenants who still 'rent' (as opposed to 'own'). If you walk around the square it is immediately obvious from the condition of the houses which are owned privately on long leases and which are still rented out by the Estate; only the owner-occupied houses are well maintained."
    The letter shows that it is usually not the landlords of such properties who are likely to maintain the heritage and character of estates: it is the owner-occupiers who have a vested interest in ensuring that their properties are maintained.
    The Government have used that argument to an extent about the sale of council houses. One reason why they advocated the sale of council houses was, they said, that tenants who became owners would invest money in their properties. Our argument on that was that properties should be available for rent by those who had to rent and by those who chose to rent. The argument that landlords are better at protecting the heritage is not valid.
    The Duke of Westminster has been mentioned a number of times in our debate today. His new stately home, Eaton hall in Cheshire, cannot be envisaged as an asset to our heritage. It is of a modern design and even in 200 years' time, if it is still standing, it will not be listed by a future Labour Government—[Interruption.] Indeed, we might have been in office continually for 200 years by then, and we should have been able to make the changes that we wanted.
    A letter from the Minister was printed by The Spectator on 31 October 1992:
    "Sir: John Martin Robinson ('When reform means ruin', 24 October) forecasts dire effects from our proposals for leasehold reform. But has Dulwich Village become squalid as a result of the 1967 reforms? Has Pimlico decayed or improved since enfranchisement? I am convinced that the speculation somewhat extravagantly expressed in his piece is unfounded."
    I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still his view and that he believes that there is no reason why we should include a provision in the Bill to prevent people from enfranchising on the false basis that that would better protect the heritage. I hope that the Minister remains strongly of that view.
    Another letter in The Spectator of 7 November 1992 was from Paul Barnes of London, N1:
    "The claim that it is only the leasehold system that can preserve the character of parts of central London is

    893
    ridiculous. No other countries apart from England and Wales have a leasehold system and yet the character and grandeur of cities like Paris, Rome and even Edinburgh are well retained. You only have to look at Bath or York, where the property is mostly freehold, to see that areas can be conserved without the leasehold system."
    That view is at the root of our debate.
    Mr. Roger Evans: I suggest that the difference in Rome, in Edinburgh and in the other examples is that systems of law other than the English system enable some form of social, communal control over the alteration to and development of property for the public good. It is the classic lack of such protection with English freehold property which is the cause of the difficulty.
    Mr. Pike: The letter also referred to Bath and to York, which are not affected by different systems of law. If the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) had been a Member of Parliament when the Greater London council was being abolished, he might have been convinced that the GLC played a better role in protecting our heritage.
    Much of the legislation introduced by previous Governments to protect our heritage has largely been eroded by this Government's actions since coming to office in 1979. With a Tory Government, profit and short-term gain tend to be of greater interest than protecting our heritage, whether buildings or our industrial heritage. The Government's record in this respect is not a great credit to them. The hon. Member for Monmouth is mistaken in his view.
    The estates have not played a good role in protecting the heritage over the years. Articles were written about the demolition of Paradise row in 1906. Lord Cadogan's estate took steps to destroy parts of historic Chelsea because it wanted to make money out of the developments that would be possible once the heritage had been destroyed.
    There are many similar examples over the years. Late one night, the House debated a Bill that would have removed certain protections for the Grosvenor buildings along the River Thames. The Bill would have removed restrictions that limited how those properties could be developed.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Even if the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is correct about the way in which estates have looked after their properties over the years—many of us would disagree—I cannot understand why he seems to suggest that we should not protect national heritage properties today.
    Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman must accept that I do not argue for a moment that we should not protect the heritage. In Committee, we talked about management and other schemes to ensure that the character of buildings would be protected. I referred to many areas of character, such as the new towns and certain villages, which have been protected over the years by agreements about their character. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of many examples of freehold properties being acquired by the people living in them, but one could still take sensible steps to protect the character of buildings.
    Opposition Members would not advocate a Bill that allowed the devastation of some of the character of London. Many hon. Members will be gravely concerned about some developments that have taken place in recent
    894
    years. I am sure that, if they could, hon. Members would think again before they destroyed buildings to make way for new developments in London and many other parts of the country. For example, in Burnley there is no way that we would allow the market hall to be destroyed.
    8 pm
    The Minister has been to my constituency on more than one occasion. He will accept that our poor, old houses that lack style and need money spent on them—even if we could get it from the Government—have character because they are built with stone. That character is worth preserving— in fact, our stone buildings are a unique feature of north-east Lancashire.
    In more modern times, on 26 January 1962, an article in The Daily Telegraph stated:
    "Extensive rebuilding is planned in Chelsea by the Cadogan Estate on land it owns in Sloane Street, Pont Street, Sloane Square, and Lower Sloane Street." At that time, the estate was seeking planning approval from London county council. One must accept that it was not ownership that prevented buildings from being destroyed, but, in many cases, local authorities' refusal to grant planning permission.
    I cannot imagine the new clause preserving our heritage. Like the hon. Member for Surrey, East, I certainly do not wish our heritage to be destroyed; I wish it to be protected. The new clause was moved not with that intention. I cannot say that the hon. Member for Surrey, East is misleading the House, but he is taking us along a false path if he believes that his new clause is the best way of preserving the heritage. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks. the prime intention of the new clause is to prevent people from enfranchising. The Bill will remove certain people's rights to exercise the right which the Bill, in theory, is supposed to give them.
    Sir Jerry Wiggins: The wishes of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) are most commendable, but I fear that he completely misreads the situation, particularly in great cities such as London. Amendment No. 19 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). He apologises for not being with us this evening; he is suffering from the unfortunate illness of mumps. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have our sympathy; his heart is very much in this matter.
    The amendment defines heritage areas as those which are wholly or substantially
    "within a conservation area"
    with
    "at least one-fifth of the area covered by … listed buildings"
    where
    "the landlord has undertaken to comply with a code of estate management practice"
    and the land holding containing the heritage area is
    "of outstanding architectural or historical interest"
    and its preservation or enhancement would be secured by management by
    "one landlord … in accordance with a code of estate management practice".
    The way to preserve estates with their historical aspirations already so successfully preserved is by exempting the small number concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) acknowledges that we are talking about not a large number of estates but a few particularly special ones.
    Section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is not enough. I cannot see that section 19 can be amended by stiffening its provisions when, by its very nature, the success of section 19 depends on the spin of the roulette

    895
    wheel as to how many leaseholders apply to enfranchise. The statutory controls are not enough. It is necessary to find a stronger weapon to ensure the continuation of great national monuments.
    It might be argued that the new clause might provide a loophole through which the owners of an ordinary estate could jump and avoid the so-called benefits which are assumed to be achieved by the Bill. I am talking about exempting the extraordinary, the great and the nationally important; there are only a few.
    A landlord who might secure benefits, if the clause were to be included in the Bill, will be subject to a code of estate management practice, which will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Such a code will specify the management arrangements, and I understand that the proposal is that the Secretary of State for National Heritage would be responsible for that provision.
    We in this country have good protection from the destruction of distinguished buildings and from the making of insensitive alterations to such buildings, but there exist some areas of enormous value which, al though they are subject to statutory controls, need more powerful protection. By that I mean the discipline and benefit of leasehold controls.
    Hon. Members are pressed for time, but I quote briefly from a book written by a man named Malcolm in 1810 about the squares of London and how they came to be a great feature of our capital city. From their auspicious start, the squares have been the envy of the world. Malcolm wrote:
    "the exertions of our fathers in the general improvement of houses and streets, have left us with little to do. Repairing-leases contribute greatly to the handsome appearance of the houses, everything is in order."
    Even the Labour Government in 1966 went some way to recognising the benefits of leasehold. Their White Paper entitled "Leasehold Reform in England and Wales" states:
    "There are some comprehensively managed leasehold estates where enlightened management contributes greatly to the well being of the residents by maintaining the character of estates. It would not be fair to deny leaseholders on such estates the right of enfranchisement, but it would be equally unfair to the other residents on the estate if the exercise of this right prevented the benefits of comprehensive management from being any longer effective."
    I remind the House that that comes from a Labour White Paper. It goes on:
    "The Government propose that if the estate is recognised by the appropriate Minister as a well managed estate, enfranchisement will be subject to an agreed scheme for continued estate management, with suitable provision for determination in the event of disagreement."
    That was the view of the then Labour Government.
    That Government pressed on and enacted section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which has had mixed success. The scheme of management arrangement has proved to be workable only where it has been administered by a trust with the primary aim of securing long-term preservation of an area or where only a small proportion of it could be enfranchised.
    It simply cannot be right that we risk national monuments in the lottery of enfranchisement. I hope, therefore, that, through amendment No. 119, we might provide national monuments with better protection, provide a better and more practical solution than section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act, provide a fair deal to tenants, although not enfranchising their leaseholds,
    896
    support the statutory powers of conservation areas and listed buildings, and prevent avoidance by others who seek a loophole.
    It is easy to be wise after the event. There will be no going back on this matter. Once the great estates of London and elsewhere have been broken up, they will never be put back together. The example of Bournemouth springs to mind, but there are bound to be many others. We shall lose the cohesion, good management—of which there can be no question—the architectural appearance and one of the great attractions of our national capital.
    Mr. Roger Evans: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has just said, I add a further argument. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) failed to analyse ownership, public intervention or timing, all of which are relevant to the issue of whether heritage is to be preserved. Amendment No. 119 is specifically designed to deal with that problem in the context of the legislation.
    If one adopts the blunderbuss approach, as the hon. Member for Burnley did, to say that the previous Duke of Westminster destroyed Butterfield's masterpiece of Eaton hall in the 1960s is unarguable. No one would let the present duke do anything like it. At the same time, the atrocities that the late Lord Cadogan proposed in the 1960s for Chelsea would nowadays be regarded as the dark ages, but there must be some carefully qualified value judgments.
    If the hon. Member for Burnley looked, for example, at a video of the film "Passport to Pimlico", he would see that there is something in the argument that the Duke of Westminster's withdrawal from the southern part of his estate has not been associated necessarily with the degree of social control that leads to improvement.
    I am prepared to concede fully that possibly public intervention in certain circumstances leads to improvements of the environment. I am prepared to say that Southwark council, under Labour control in the 1970s, did some excellent work until it ran out of resources or will. I would even go so far as to say that the historic buildings section of London county council had a unique distinguished record for preserving the environment and the valuable parts of it. I would go so far as to concede that, in the sales of council houses, covenants were not imposed to protect the environment sufficiently. That has happened.
    What we are talking about in the context of the Bill and amendment No. 119, in particular, is that certain parts of our country are especially distinguished with the richness of their architectural history and value to the environment. The failure of English freehold law has existed since the statute quia emptores—that one cannot impose a positive obligation on a freehold purchaser, whether it is to paint a front door or to turn up in armour on horseback for 40 days a year.
    It may have been a good policy at one time, but the fact that it has been the case since the middle ages has meant that, for example, one can scarcely buy a freehold flat in England. One can buy a freehold flat in Scotland. That is why England developed differently under a different code of law. In Paris, one can control the development of Baron Hausman terraces because one needs a permit from the prefect. It is different in England.

    897
    8.15 pm
    The issue with which we are dealing in the amendment is a peculiar product of England's architectural history and legal heritage. My specific concern is the essential weakness in clause 62 for estate management schemes. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly values the importance of such schemes. I am sure that he will join me in wanting to see such schemes encouraged, rather than deterred.
    The danger inherent in the legislation is that there is no incentive for a landlord who is getting out because he has been enfranchised, to insist on a scheme. Amendment No. 119 suggests that there would be a positive requirement for estate management schemes in specific areas of heritage value, which should be designated as such by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. That is an extremely valuable aspect to reassure those of us who are concerned about the heritage aspects of the Bill.
    I underline another peculiar anomalyofEngland—cathedral closes vested in deans and chaplains. For centuries, they have been exempted from the law of mortmain. In other words, they can accumulate land and pass it on from one to another. Until recently, corporations could not do that. Their powers of mortgaging have been limited so they could not go bust or bankrupt, and their powers of leasing are still controlled by section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Leases Act 1572.
    We have here an example of a unique time capsule where an urban environment has been maintained in perpetual succession to an exceptionally high standard over many centuries. One of the great disappointments of the noble gothic cathedrals of France is that they are utterly devoid of anything similar. They may be jewels in their own right, but they have been wrecked by revolution and confiscation from the social and environmental context in which they were set.
    What I am suggesting to my hon. Friend the Minister is simple: we do not have a tradition—
    Mr. Raynsford: What about Chartres?
    Mr. Evans: Chartres is not as fine as Wells or Salisbury. The rich canons of Chartres were all despoiled at the revolution, for understandable social reasons. The dean and chapter of Barchester in England have always been beneficent.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my hon. Friend consider the plight of the abbey of Cluny in that context?
    Mr. Evans: I endorse the fate of the abbey of Cluny. It was one of the tragedies of the French republic after the revolution. We have seen it from Mont St. Michel to the burial place of the Plantagenets. The revolutionaries turned their finest monuments into prisons, dungeons and casernes. That is not the English tradition.
    I may have chided my hon. Friend the Minister earlier for his intellectual brutalism with the rich tapestry of the English law of leaseholds. Undoubtedly, under the legislation he has no intention of damaging heritage. The heritage issue has entered the argument only because others have raised with the Minister the question whether there may be in the context a threat which is peculiar to England and the English position.
    I ask my hon. Friend to consider amendment No. 119 as a practical means not to hinder the process of enfranchisement but simply to ensure that all this takes place on proper terms so that public interest in our
    898
    heritage is protected. The only requirement of the amendment that is likely to have a practical effect is that there should be agreed an estate management scheme.
    Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he is absolutely serious about what he is saying, it is possible that something would not be classified as a heritage area under the new clause within the period of 12 months or because the situation existed at the start and therefore could be disposed of? In five or 10 years' time, such an area may be regarded as heritage because people's views change over time.
    Mr. Evans: I am sorry; I disagree entirely with the idea that permissive aesthetics is a time problem. Since the 1960s, we have seen the rise of public conscience and consciousness on the issue of heritage. In the past two decades, that consciousness reached a much higher level than it had been since 1914. I do not accept that the level of consciousness will go up and down.[Interruption.]The sedentary intervention from the Labour Front Bench and stupidity on a vital issue of national heritage is a reflection of their lack of concern to analyse the issue seriously and consider its impact. It may well be a sign of ignorance, but I shall say no more.
    The point at stake is that it is feasible to set up a safeguard that the new clause introduces. The Minister may wish to reconsider the precise terms of the safeguard. I respectfully agree with the hon. Member for Burnley, and I am a little surprised that those who drafted the new clause included such a tough time limit as 12 months. I do not see why the time limit could not be extended. The new clause deals with that particular problem.
    If my hon. Friend the Minister would give way on the substance of the argument for amendment No. 119, he would do so to the universal approbation of the conservation lobby, the delight of his Back Benchers and the enlightened opinion on conservation and architectural matters in the United Kingdom generally. I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a minor matter: the Bill has forgotten Wales, and Welsh heritage should be mentioned specifically in such provisions.
    Mr. Fishburn: Although I hope to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a number of amendments to widen the net of leasehold reform, as I believe that leasehold reform should be available to the maximum number of people, there is no doubt that there is something germane in the heritage argument. It depends on where we draw the line.
    Since the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, there has been a tremendous improvement in the squares in my constituency where people enfranchised themselves—because they have bought their own houses, they have put money into those houses and into the squares. One of the great changes in London over the past 20 years has been that, where house owners have enfranchised themselves, they have improved whole swathes of London. That has been all too visible in Kensington and north Kensington.
    However, there is a narrowly drawn argument for protecting the heritage which was persuasively put by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and those who argued for the cathedral closes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that, if we are confident about leasehold reform affecting the largest

    899
    number of people, we should be confident about excluding specific areas where the heritage for historical reasons would be hurt.
    Sir George Young: Everyone who has spoken in the debate is united by concern for our heritage; what may divide us is the best way of achieving that objective.
    I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), among others, for putting the case so plausibly. He said that he detected some gloom on the Government Front Bench and I cannot think why he reached that conclusion. Morale is high and we are enjoying a refreshing and constructive debate with our hon. Friends on the Back Benches; the only shadow is the Minister of State's voice, which is approaching the end of its lease.
    About an hour ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans)called me an intellectual Jacobite. He has now called me an intellectual brutalist. It is not my objective to vandalise Britain's heritage; on the contrary. However, I detected some inconsistency in his argument. First, he argued that our heritage is safe in the hands of the interests that now own it—indeed, he said that it was safe only in their hands and could not be trusted to anyone else —but he went on to say that one could not rely on those interests to implement estate management schemes and that somehow their commitment to heritage would evaporate if they were confronted with the option of introducing an estate management scheme at no cost to themselves. Either they have our interests at heart, in which case they would implement estate management schemes, or they do not, in which case we can rely on the leaseholders.
    At the heart of the debate is the point that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn)—whether the only way of safeguarding our heritage is to insist that sensitive buildings remain in single ownership or whether one can rely on the interests of leaseholders to safeguard and even enhance that heritage.
    New clause 15 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would exempt from enfranchisement properties which the Treasury has designated under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 as conditionally exempt from inheritance tax. There is concern that if the properties are enfranchisable there would be serious implications for some estates. The concern is first that the disposal of part of an estate could trigger a review by the Inland Revenue of the conditional exemption. In short, if the estate is being broken up, is there any case for continuing the exemption? Secondly, there is the concern voiced by my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and for Monmouth that the coherent management of the estate would be lost. I suspect that those issues are likely to be of greatest concern to rural estates and the example given was not in one of our cities.
    Amendments Nos. 116 to 199 would exempt from the rights to enfranchise properties falling in heritage areas proposed by a new schedule—both flats and higher-value houses coming within the scope of enfranchisement under the Bill. I expect that those provisions would be of greater importance to some of the urban estates, although there might be wider application as well.
    I shall now deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East about inheritance tax. Exemption from liability to inheritance tax is, of course, a matter for my colleages at the Treasury. I understand that
    900
    it is granted in respect of outstanding historic buildings or landscapes, so that the estate does not have to be broken up in order to meet the tax liability. The exemption or designation is usually conditional on undertakings being given to maintain, repair and preserve the estate, and on public access being granted.
    When there are disposals from an estate that has been or is being granted conditional exemption, the Inland Revenue will quite properly want to review whether designation remains appropriate. Enfranchisement is as much a disposal as any other sale. It will be necessary to pay any inheritance tax due on the proportion of the estate which is being sold, but that is only right, as the former freeholder will have the cash to meet the tax liability.
    I turn to a point on which I may be able to help my hon. Friends. Each case will need to be examined on its merits, but I see no reason why, in general, the sale of the freehold through enfranchisement should necessarily lead to designation being removed from the rest of the estate. After all, enfranchisement can take place only where the property has already been demised by way of a long lease. My hon. Friend was concerned that disposal of one part of an estate might automatically lead to designation being removed from all of it. Of course, one would need to discuss it with the Inland Revenue, but there is no particular reason why the entire benefit of designation should be lost if any proportion of the estate were enfranchised.
    The sale of a freehold will not result in the break-up of an estate in the same way as the sale of the contents of a house can separate paintings of sculpture, for example, from their context. The buildings will still be there, in the same relationship to each other, whoever owns the freehold.
    Conditional exemption from inheritance tax does not prevent the freeholder from selling long leases for a premium as long as the terms of those leases are in keeping with the conditional exemption. If they are, there should be no reason why the leaseholder should not enfranchise. It would not be right for the freeholder to benefit from such sales and also benefit, at the leaseholders expense from his inability to enfranchise.
    Where designation depends on standards of maintenance, or on access rights, it should be possible for the former freeholder to ensure that these obligations remain on the former leaseholder through an estate management scheme. I shall say more about that later.
    Amendments Nos. 116 to 119 would provide a much wider exemption covering areas which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage would be required to designate as heritage areas. Designation would apply if an area is within a conservation area and is of outstanding architectural or historical interest. The suggestion is that these areas can be effectively managed and will retain their architectural and historical merit only if the existing leasehold arrangements are left unchanged. That cuts right across our desire to keep exemption from leasehold enfranchisement to an absolute minimum and keeping them on the face of the Bill. It could drive a coach and horses through the Bill, giving the Secretary of State, for National Heritage the power to exempt any properties he sees fit.
    I wish to make two preliminary points. First, it is possible to have areas of fine architecture or historical interest without the leasehold system. One has only to look at Paris or Edinburgh to see evidence of that. There are

    901
    other means by which standards can be maintained. Listed building control and the designation of conservation areas spring to mind. If those need strengthening, that would be a separate issue.
    Secondly, times can change. I suspect that some of the opposition to enfranchisement when it was debated in 1967 was on the basis that the break-up of the London estates would prevent redevelopment, rather than that it would harm the heritage. I do not want to dwell too long on this point, other than to observe that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association has circulated to hon. Members press cuttings concerning the demolition of a number of London squares by one of the great estates earlier this century.
    However, the key issue is whether it is necessary that estates should continue in single ownership if they are to be managed effectively and leaseholders be denied the right to enfranchise. I do not accept that, as a general proposition, landlords are necessarily better at management or more likely to care for and preserve a historic building than the leaseholder who lives in it. There are many cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, in which leaseholders have restored and cherished historic buildings on an estate, often with their own resources and perhaps to a higher standard than the freeholder would have done.
    Indeed, it has been argued that the leasehold system acts against the proper care and maintenance of property. If a leaseholder of a house knows that he has only a short-term and diminishing interest, he clearly has less incentive to plan for the long-term care of the property.
    8.30 pm
    I believe that our proposals on estate management schemes are the answer to the problems mentioned by my hon. Friends. Our proposals will allow the freeholder to continue to exercise influence over the use, maintenance and redevelopment of property, even though the leaseholder has enfranchised. Provided that they meet the conditions set out in clauses 62 and 63, there is no reason why freeholders should not apply for such schemes to cover their estates.
    Estate management schemes are intended to allow the landlord to retain powers of management over houses or flats which become enfranchised. The terms of an estate management scheme can deal with the redevelopment, use or appearance of the property. They can empower the landlord to carry out work to maintain or repair properties. They can impose obligations in respect of property used in common.
    More than 100 estate management scheme applications were approved after the 1967 Act was passed. I believe that they have been effective in areas such as Dulwich and Hampstead in preserving the quality of the area. For example, there is a scheme in operation in Belgravia, where several houses have enfranchised under the existing Act but are generally indistinguishable from other houses in the street which have remained under the control of the original landlord.
    Leasehold valuation tribunals will have to approve estate management schemes and consider the reasonableness of what is proposed. In considering applications, they will have regard to the past development and present character of an area and to architectural and historical
    902
    considerations, as well as to the circumstances generally. Such schemes are likely to enhance historic areas and cathedral closes, which were mentioned so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. We are also considering suggestions to amend our proposals, and we are in consultation with local authority associations with a view to giving local authorities the power to promote estate management schemes.
    It would not be right to frame exemption from enfranchisement in terms of the application of tax law. Leaseholders' rights should not depend on the taxation circumstances of the freeholder. Nor is it necessary that those who live on the great estates need be denied the chance to own their freehold. The Government's view is that leaseholders are fully capable of caring for the buildings in which they live and that the system of estate management schemes provides adequate safeguards where in the general interest there must be coherent management of an area as a whole.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I realise that my hon. Friend is coming to a conclusion, but nothing has been said about the attitude of English Heritage to the Bill and the effects that it might have on heritage areas. Rumour has it that English Heritage has a strong view that the Bill will be damaging for the heritage but was firmly told by the Department that it was one of the Department's agencies and should behave itself. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify the position.
    Sir George Young: When my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East moved his new clause, he said that he had been in contact with English Heritage, so it is legitimate to assume that he articulated some of the points that English Heritage had made to him. The Government's view is the one that I have just set out. We do not believe that the only way to safeguard our national heritage is to grant the exemptions. We believe that there are other ways of achieving the goal that we all share.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister said that there would be some consultation with local authorities about management schemes. There is no reason why English Heritage could not also be involved in that discussion. Will the Minister assure us that it will be involved? We support the concept of estate management schemes and the widest possible discussion on them.
    Sir George Young: I do not believe that English Heritage is pressing for those powers at this stage. The local authority might be involved if, for the sake of argument—this would be an exception—neither the existing freeholder nor the new freeholder wanted to promote an estate management scheme. It might then be sensible for the local authority to be able to do so. That would be a case of last resort. The estate management scheme costs the freeholder nothing because the costs are recouped through the leaseholders.
    If the freeholder had a continuing commitment to the country's heritage, it would be odd if he failed to promote an estate management scheme, especially if he did not have to fund it. We are considering the possibility of a safety net. We are talking to local authorities about whether they would welcome such a power if, in unusual circumstances, no one else was interested in promoting a scheme. I hope that the House will not feel it necessary to press the new clause to a Division.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I was clearly mistaken earlier when I saw furrowed brows on the Government's Front Bench and took them to betoken gloom. They clearly betokened pensiveness. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his thoughtful response to the new clause and amendments. In view of the words that he has just spoken and the undertakings that he has given, in the hope that he will continue to liaise with both the Department of National Heritage—it is good to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage in his place listening to the debate—and with the Treasury—it was good to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer listening to the debate, too—and so that I may see what further progress can be made in safeguarding heritage buildings in the context of the provisions of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 18

  ABOLITION OF LOW RENT TEST FOR HOUSES
  `.—(1) In section 1(1)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 the words "at a low rent" shall be omitted.
  (2) Section 4 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Pike.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Pike: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 22, in clause 5, page 5, line 40, leave out 'at a low rent'.
  No. 120, in clause 7, page 8, line 16, leave out from 'exceed' to end of line 29 and insert '£250'.
  No. 100, in page 8, line 16, leave out from
  'namely—' to end of line 29 and insert—

  '(a) £250, or

  (b) one-third of the market rent on the relevant: date.'.

  No. 23, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'two thirds of and insert 'one and a half.
  No. 24, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'two thirds of' and insert 'one and a half times'.
  No. 121, leave out lines 34 to 36.
  No. 122, leave out lines 6 to 15.
  No. 114, in clause 59, page 63, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 on page 64.
  No. 123, page 63, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 64.
  No. 124, in clause 60, page 63, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 64 and insert—
  'Alternative rent limits for purposes of section 1A(2)
  4AS.—(1) For the purposes of section 1A(2) above a tenancy of any property falls within this subsection if at any time during the tenancy either:

  (a) No rent is payable under it; or

  (b) The rent so payable does not exceed the maximum limit.

  (2) The maximum limit is:

  (a) Two thirds of the annual letting value of the property (on the same terms) on the date of the commencement of the tenancy; or

  (b) If greater than (a), two thirds of the fixed amount (if any) of the rental applicable to the property.

  (3) The fixed amount applicable to any property is:

  (a) The rateable value of the property on the relevant day where either—

  (i) The tenancy was entered into on or after 1st April 1963 but before 1st April 1990; or

  904

  (ii) The property has a rateable value on 31st March 1990 and the tenancy was entered into on or after 1st April 1990 but in pursuance of a contract made before that date.

  (b) In any other case £5,000 if the property is in Greater London and £1,000 if elsewhere.

  (4) Where the property comprised in the tenancy includes property other than the house and premises:

  (a) The rent payable under the tenancy shall be deemed to be that part of the rent which is fairly attributable to the house and premises;

  (b) The rateable value shall be taken to be that part of that value which is fairly attributable to the house and premises; and

  (c) The letting value of the property at any time shall be taken to be the letting value of the house and premises at that time.

  (5) It shall be presumed that the rent payable under a tenancy does not exceed the maximum unless the contrary is proved.".'.
  No. 125, in page 64, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.
  Mr. Pike: The new clause and amendments all deal with the low rent test. We hope to get a more positive response from the Government tonight on the matter. Opposition Members are disappointed that the Government have not tabled an amendment to take some action on the problem. We are not alone in that view. Several of the amendments in the group were tabled by Conservative Members. Unless we get a positive response from the Minister and an assurance that the Government will take action, we shall press new clause 18 to a Division. I make that clear in case there are any doubts or misunderstandings, so that people know where they are. I am aware that other amendments in the group may be moved formally at the appropriate stage and pressed to a Division. We intend to test the feeling of the House on the lead new clause 18.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "but we are perfectly prepared to reconsider where that low rent test should bite."—[Offical Report, Standing Committee B, 17 November 1992; c. 104.]
  That was on 17 November. We are now three months on. It would be an understatement to say that we were disappointed that the Government had not tabled an amendment to change the position.
  It comes down to the type of principle we have been trying to debate. We believe that people should be able to get the enfranchisement provided for in the Bill and that there should not be provisions in the Bill that prevent that. Some hon. Members have tried to take us further back the other way and to preclude more people from being able to exercise enfranchisement. We have seen the Government fighting fairly hard, but being squeezed, to try to hold the position as near as possible and to make the minimum concessions.
  If the Government are serious about what they said, that one of the fundamental objectives of the Bill is to ensure that as many people as possible should have the right to enfranchise, they must recognise that this low rent test puts an obstacle in the way of many people who wish to enfranchise. That would be totally wrong and inconsistent with what the Government say that they are trying to do. So we hope that the Government can rethink this and try to respond positively.
  In the debate on new clause 15, the Minister repeatedly said that it was not his wish to see people precluded from owning their own properties. He was extolling the virtues of that and of being able to acquire the freehold. Those are very much the views that we are advocating in this debate.

  905
  We move the new clause very much in that spirit, because we want to see people able to exercise their right to enfranchise and not be excluded by a test that will exclude more people than it ought to.
  This is a matter of great concern, particularly in the London area. It will be of great concern to many people, who will see their opportunity to acquire freehold barred by a Bill which, when it was foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, made them think that at long last the Government were to take action. They thought they were going to have the right to acquire a freehold, and now they see that the Bill, at its last stage in this House before going to the other place, still has a bar to stop many people exercising a right to acquire freehold. That would be an unfortunate situation.
  In the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper on commonhold, published in November 1990, in paragraph 4:11 there is a reference to the low rent test:
  "It is so unlikely that there is a significant number of cases of residential long leases at a full rent suitable for conversion to commonhold, that the complication of a low rent qualification cannot be justified bearing in mind, especially, that special provision would have to be made to deal with cases where some leases were at a low rent and others were not".
  Now there seems to have been a shift in the Government view. I do not want to get involved in the commonhold issue, because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would immediately rule me out of order. We all wait for the day when the Government can introduce that legislation. Members on both sides of the House have actively campaigned for the commonhold principle to be established. We regret that it is not possible to do it this year and hope that it can be done next year.
  8.45 pm
  In the first part of this Bill, we have a low rent test, which will remain unless we carry this new clause or one of these amendments and will bar many people from exercising the very principle that the first part of the Bill claims to set out to achieve for occupiers of these properties.
  I want to refer to one or two examples of people who know how serious it is. I know that many hon. Members who were on the Committee have had letters on the subject, but it is relevant to refer to some in the context of this debate, because they highlight how crucial is the low rent test and how easy it has often been to ensure that the levels of ground rent have been fixed at a figure that would bar people from being able to exercise their right to acquire freehold.
  A Mr. Dyson wrote:
  "This anomaly is the 'low rent' provision which states that to qualify for enfranchisement leaseholders must have rents which are less than⅔rateable value on grant of lease or if lease issued after April 1990, rent must be less than £1,000 in London or £250 elsewhere. This rule currently applies to houses (1967 Leasehold Reform Act)".
  It then says just how this would bar him in the present situuation from acquiring the property. The ground rent at the start of the lease was £230 per annum and rateable value at the start of the lease was £338. Two thirds of £338 is £226, so for the sake of £4 that individual is barred from exercising his right of enfranchisement. That is the present situation with that house and it will apply if we do not do something to abolish the low rent test or amend it to
  906
  ensure that such people are not barred. If the ground rent of £230 had been just £4 lower, he would have qualified, and that must be nonsense.
  Another letter, from a T. J. 0. Hickey, refers to the two-thirds rule and says that it means that in order to qualify for enfranchisement or extension of a long lease over 21 years there must be a ground rent of less than two thirds of rateable value at the time that lease was granted. He says that the premium charged by the landlord for the lease in 1984 in this case was very close to the market value of the freehold. The rent was fixed at £280 a year in order to be above two thirds of the then rateable value, in this case by £5.
  That individual believes that that was clearly done under the legislation of that time to make sure that it was just above the crucial figure. The market rent, the rack rent, would have been much greater, and plainly this tenure was closer to ownership than to renting. I think that the Minister would say that the intention of this sort of legislation is to ensure that such people are not barred. I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to bar that individual from acquiring the freehold and being able to enfranchise. I do not believe that that is what the Government want, but they fail to recognise the genuine difficulty. Even at this late stage, if they recognised that and did something, they could solve this problem.
  I received another letter, after we debated the matter in Committee. It was expressing disappointment that the Committee had not been able to see a positive end to the low rent test and that the Government had not been prepared to accept any of the amendments or options that were debated in the Committee.
  The letter stated:
  "As you can imagine, I am deeply concerned that legislation supposedly designed to assist leaseholders might paradoxically destroy the value of their homes, in most cases their principal asset."
  I am sure that the Minister would not suggest for a moment that the low rent test was intended to prevent enfranchisement, or to devalue properties. If the Bill is not changed, however, such side issues will be bound to arise.
  Members of the Standing Committee received many useful briefings from the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, which deals with many of the people affected by the current problems, and which hopes that most if not all will be able to enfranchise when the Bill is enacted. It hopes for a leasehold extension for those who cannot do so. The association is extremely concerned about the low rent test. In a briefing note sent to us in November, it said:
  "Finally, we would like to draw attention to paragraph 6 of the enclosed note which indicates that the Price Waterhouse/Caws and Morris Report"—
  a report that we debated, and which was referred to several times in Committee—
  "demonstrates that in 1989 Central London properties would have frequently failed to clear the proposed low rent' barrier even if their ground rents had been fixed at no more than 5 to 10 per cent. of the potential rack rent of the property concerned. Such ground rents would have had relatively little effect on the premium paid, but would, under the Government's present proposals, nevertheless render the property unenfranchiseable. If the retention of some form of low rent' test is, for whatever reason, deemed necessary, it must, therefore, we suggest, be formulated in a way which leads to the barriers being placed at far higher levels which genuinely approach the attainable rack rent for each property concerned."
  I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak in this important debate. Let me make it

  907
  clear, however, that Opposition Members solidly believe that the low rent test needs to be either changed or abolished. A number of Conservative Members also believe that the Government are wrong in this instance, and I know that they, like me, hope that the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to table an amendment in the other place at an appropriate stage, even if nothing can be done now.
  If the Minister cannot give that undertaking, we shall have to try to force a vote with the intention of defeating the Government. If we do that, the Government will have to recognise the overwhelming concern expressed by hon. Members. That concern is not unique to the House of Commons; it is felt by the very people whom, according to the Government, the Bill is designed to help. If the Government want those people to be enfranchised, they must think again, even at this late stage. Unless they change the low rent test, many people will be barred, and the finger of blame will be pointed where it should be pointed—at the Department of the Environment, and at Ministers who must accept responsibility for not being persuaded by an overwhelming case. Our case is that the test is wrong, and that it needs to be changed as quickly as possible.
  Sir John Wheeler: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who spoke in a non-partisan way about an issue that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agreed strongly with almost everything he said until his closing words.
  I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment have received a great deal of correspondence from Conservative Members—including me—over many years. They have treated that correspondence, and the arguments contained in it, with great courtesy, and I am very grateful to them. Whatever the House decides tonight will not reflect in any way on my hon. Friend the Minister, or on his officials, who have had to deal with the matter for so long.
  I strongly support reform of the low rent test. I have never been convinced of the need for any such test. It is very telling that, when the matter was examined in detail in Committee—as the hon. Member for Burnley pointed out—a good many Conservative Members were so unimpressed by the justifications advanced for the clause that my hon. Friend the Minister was forced to reconsider. It is disappointing to discover now that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been unable to accept an amendment that reflects the widely held and genuine concerns of my constituents and many others.
  I remain unimpressed by any of the arguments—such as they are—that have been used to defend the low rent test. Recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State wrote to me, drawing attention to the importance of the private rented sector. He did not want that sector to be damaged by acceptance of the amendments. I see a great difference between encouraging the private rented sector and what the amendments seek to achieve; I see no conflict.
  We are told that a low rent test is needed to verify that a leaseholder has purchased a genuine long lease—that is, one of over 21 years for which a premium has been paid. The purpose of the test is to distinguish such leases from those of over 21 years for which no premium has been paid, and for which a market rent is charged. No one—not
  908
  even my hon. Friend the Minister—has been able to find an example of the latter category. The low rent test is there to address circumstances that simply do not exist.
  Even the Lord Chancellor recognised that in his much-quoted circular on commonhold, which was mentioned earlier. Later in this Parliament, a substantial commonhold Bill will be presented; the issue will return to the House if we do not address it now.
  We are told that the low rent test remains because it existed in earlier legislation. But surely, the main function of new legislation is to improve the old statutes. We are not good legislators if we carry forward into the new obvious mistakes from the old.
  We are also told that people knew about the low rent test when the agreement was made to purchase a lease. Therein lies the greatest reason for looking again at the low rent test. Many individuals buying long leases had no idea of the wider significance of the ground rent level. That is made clear time and again in the correspondence that most of us have received. People feel cheated.
  Consider, for those buying a long lease in my constituency—in, say, St. John's Wood—the difference between a ground rent of £1,000 and £1,010. It may seem only £10, but to the freeholder, with his expensive lawyers well versed in property law, the difference is not just in £10. It is the difference between enfranchisement and disfranchisement. They know that and they use the low rent test to get around the spirit of any leasehold-reforming legislation. Such legislation has been around since 1967, so the inevitable march of reform has been going on a long time.
  9 pm
  Not only is the individual leaseholder disfranchised, but, by manipulating the low rent test for new leaseholders, freeholders can disfranchise others in the block who meet all the stated criteria. Under the Bill, at least two thirds of a block must be enfranchiseable. So in a block of, say, four or five flats—typical in my constituency; such blocks make up the bulk of leasehold units—a freeholder need only ensure that one flat fails the low rent test effectively to disfranchise all the rest. Do we intend that to be the effect of this legislation? That loophole should be closed once for all; otherwise, it will be a constant cause of discontent and will return to haunt us.
  If the Government insist on having a low rent test, it must be realistic and less open to abuse. The current low rent tests relate to a series of values all of which are out of date. How can we justify a test which depends on a comparison with rating valuations from the 1960s and 1970s, especially as we have abandoned the rating system?
  Many of the amendments attempt to address that issue. I am not given to voting against the Government, but there comes a time when the duty to one's constituents' on an issue of this kind overrides the commitmente of support to the Government, whom I sincerely and honourably support. If the House divides on the issue tonight, I shall vote for my constituents' interests and in favour of the new clause.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: It is again a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and to endorse wholeheartedly everything he said. I particularly support his plea that we view the clause without party political bias.

  909
  It is clear from correspondence that hon. Members in all parts of the House have received directly and from the invaluable briefing documents of the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinatinğ Committee and its contingent six organisations that the part of the Bill with which we are dealing strikes at the very basis of the measure and, in a sense, at the authority of the House.
  I say that because the legislation is designed to move forward the whole process of leasehold reform, yet, time and again, constituents and groups have written to us saying that they believe—they are correct in their belief —that their freeholder has deliberately set their ground rent at a level which debars them from enfranchisement.
  In every case, the leaseholder has spent much money on the fabric of the property, carrying out essential repairs. We are not talking about a new coat of paint. I have received letters from constituents—admittedly, the initial price of the property may have been low—telling how they have replaced a roof, done work on the foundations of the property and replaced windows, long before dealing with paper and paint on the walls. They have believed, and I agree with them, that they owned their property. The low rent provision denies them that right in the eyes of the law. Tonight the House has an opportunity to free them from this injustice.
  I have referred to the invaluable briefings that we have received from the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee. Its view is that
  "the low rent test is particularly iniquitous … what is clear, however, is that if the low rent test remains at the levels proposed, a number of house and flat-owners who are in every sense the owners of their homes will be unfairly and arbitrarily excluded from the legislation."
  I have letters from householders who confirm that statement. One asks us to stress the need for the low rent provision to be set at a more realistic figure for London than the current £1,000 a year. The couple in question
  "purchased a 62 year lease on these premises from the Grosvenor estate, in an area where freeholds are rare. We paid a substantial capital premium to the freeholder … as we have responsibility for the repair, maintenance, insurance and all other long-term occupiers' responsibilities: but we are denied the long-term capital growth … The property was neglected by the freeholder, and we have spent £70,000 on capital works".
  Referring to a new clause that we discussed earlier, the couple say:
  "Maintaining the fabric of an estate is easy if it is always at someone else's expense."
  The whole heritage of the part of London and the estate in which the couple lived depended on who lived there —I cannot say the householders, because that is what we are arguing about tonight—being committed to their homes. Indeed, the couple state:
  "The proposed bill is not stealing properties from the great estates."
  Another letter runs as follows:
  "The low rent clause means we do not currently have the right to enfranchise … the lease was of course structured this way to exclude us from enfranchisement rights."
  The writer of the letter
  "is amused when I hear the argument that freeholders are the guardians of the heritage".
  The couple in question received only one cursory visit from their estate representative in eight years.
  There are more letters in the same vein. I know that hon. Members on both sides are anxious to speak in this
  910
  debate, so I will only repeat that we have an opportunity tonight to free the many people who have lavished not only money but love, dedication and time on their homes. We are sometimes in danger of examining the proposals in the Bill solely in terms of bricks and mortar, but it should not be forgotten that what we are discussing are family homes. It should be part of the duty of the House to preserve them.
  Mr. Fishburn: The early part of today's debate was very much taken over by a number of my right hon. Friends who are truly the heavyweights of our party—but now they have left, leaving the Floor to the true voice of those who believe in leasehold reform. Gone are the august but distant Members for the shires: left in the House are those of us who live in the heart of London and other areas such as Eastbourne where we know all too well the problems of leasehold law.
  I begin by contratulating Ministers on holding the line so well during the first part of this debate. I should not like the absent Secretary of State to think that the relative silence of those of us who have campaigned for so long for leasehold reform meant that we agreed with the august heavyweights. The Minister knows as well as I do that the rules of the House make it difficult for junior Members to speak early in a debate.
  Ministers have stuck to their manifesto commitment. they have stuck by the Second Reading vote; most importantly, they have stuck by the Standing Committee that deliberated over the Bill for the past three months. In that Standing Committee the Government first realised that the overwhelming majority of us were in favour of abolishing the low rent test and that is why we tabled the amendment—not least because the Government promised to tell us their view of its abolition at this stage.
  Let there be no misunderstanding: a majority of the Standing Committee were in favour of doing away with the test altogether, which is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that the Lord Chancellor—who has much to his credit, not least that he is a Scot and has not been used to the absurdities of leasehold law—echoed that opinion in his paper on commonhold, saying that there is no locus or purpose in a low rent test and that it is inherently bogus.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State knows as well as the Lord Chancellor and the Standing Committee that the provisions of the low rent test are bogus. They are a fig leaf to hide the private parts of a few estates and are truly without any tradition in English law. They have been inserted in the Bill artificially, to restrict the number of people who can benefit from leasehold enfranchisement.
  The Secretary of State's most legitimate defence is, "We've got to get this Bill through Parliament." I wholly understand that. A political balancing act is taking place. The low rent test has no real significance or legal purpose and it is a case of, "You understand, Dudley, we have to get this through, we must restrict the number of people who can enfranchise so as to buy off those who oppose the Bill." That is politics and it is why the Secretary of State is such an august politician.
  The Secretary of State is right that he has to make that balance, but he would be wrong to reject amendments that do away with the low rent test. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, unless we get this right tonight it will come back to haunt us when commonhold returns to the House and when the

  911
  next manifestos of the Conservative party and the Opposition are written. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does not wish to find himself going through these arguments again in 1994, 1995 and 1996 and nor do I.
  The Secretary of State would also be wrong politically to hold on to the low rent test, because although he would perhaps reduce the criticism from certain quarters, whose absence we have noted, he would disfranchise tens of thousands of people—articulate, middle-class Tories who have paid mightily for long leases, usually in the heart of London and in many towns and cities on the south coast. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in his place. Those people will feel increased resentment that a Bill has gone out of its way to disfranchise them and that much effort has gone into saying, "You can't enjoy the enfranchisement proposals that we are offering to others."
  That is not the Conservative way. Those of us who have been fighting for leasehold reform for a long time—many people have fought for it far longer than I— have been doing so because we believe that leasehold as a form of tenure is wrong.
  9.15 pm
  We have seen it not as a form of tenancy, but as a form of ownership. People who are disbarred from enfranchising themselves by the low rent test are as fully owners of their long leases as anybody else in the land. We run the risk in classless Britain of listening to the very rich in order to disfranchise those who are middle class.
  The low rent test is wrong for another reason. It is a bogus formula based on rateable value. Rateable value when were those words last heard in the House? I can recall the Secretary of State coming to my by-election in 1988 and saying, "We will do away with all these rates; rateable value is a thing of the past; an unsatisfactory way of raising local taxes." And he produced out of the hat the poll tax. Three years later, he produced out of the hat the council tax. That is fine and good, but rateable value, with each and every new local tax, recedes into the dim distance of London's history.
  Yet this Bill has written throughout it a number of clauses which refer to rateable values as far back as 30 years ago, and does that specifically to disfranchise a number of people, principally in London, but also throughout the country. It cannot, and does not, make sense.
  As if the reference to rateable value were not enough, we are told that certain leases that have ground rents of over £1,000 a year should not be able to qualify for enfranchisement. Yet, for an enormously expensive flat costing, say, £1 million, a ground rent of £1,000 stands in the same proportion as does a ground rent of £100 for a flat worth £100,000. Unless we are careful, under this Government it will be the rule that the more one pays, the fewer rights one has. That is not a good principle on which to go forward.
  The low rent test is perhaps most pernicious for the reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North gave—its knock-on effect, or multiplier. Take a block of flats, disfranchise two or three people, and is it really possible to imagine that the rest of the leaseholders in that block will be able to get the two thirds that is necessary to qualify for leasehold enfranchisement?
  912
  Those who will feel resentment at this exclusion will not just be those who are excluded, but the much wider pool—that is why I number them in tens of thousands who— will not be able to enfranchise themselves because certain flats in their block are disregarded by the law since they fail the low rent test.
  In effect, whole swathes of London will be disfranchised and whole armies of Tory voters will feel let down. Worse than that, as the years advance it will open up a two-tier market in London and the towns in the south, which rely so heavily on leasehold reform. Some properties will be enfranchised and will then perhaps convert to common-hold. They can be sold in perpetuity and their owners can raise money on them from building societies and can afford to invest in and improve their premises, to give them that new lick of paint, or put in those new rolled steel joists which are so necessary. Those that are enfranchised will be able to market at a premium; those that are disfranchised by this provision and its knock-on effect will be unable to do so. Their properties, as their leases dwindle in years, will become less saleable. The blight that was so apparent in my constituency 15 to 20 years ago before the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 began to motor will again be apparent in the centre of our capital city. It is that which will come back to haunt us.
  The low rent provision is wrong because it is intellectually dishonest. A long lease is a long lease, a rental agreement is a rental agreement, and never the twain shall meet. They do not meet because of some reference to a rateable value or because of an arbitrary figure plucked out of the sky. They are two different animals and there is no cross-over point. That is the joy and clarity of English law. A leasehold of over 21 years has been held under English law to be equal in many aspects to a freehold. It was held in the 1967 Act to be the trigger point at which people could enfranchise. No one—not some people, but no one in the capital city can be found who undertakes a 21–year rental agreement for which he is also prepared to pay a capital sum in advance.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said, the provision addresses a problem which does not exist, but we know why it is in the Bill. It is there because it addresses a problem that does exist—the need for the Front Bench and the Government to do a balancing act betwen the restrictions demanded by certain interests and the full enfranchisement measure that is demanded by the people of London and those who live under the misery of leasehold law.
  I end with a warning. There is an indication of which the party should be aware: the Labour party is slowly letting loose its old chains to the established interests that bound it to electoral disaster time after time. The block vote is going; trade union influence is going; clause IV is going. Yet the Government, after a radical decade, risk slipping back through this legislation into the arms of established interests rather than going forward with radical reform. For that reason and for the reasons which I have outlined I shall join my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North in pushing the amendment to a Division.
  Mr. John Denham: That was an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn). I doubt whether I can follow its quality. He spoke so persuasively about the impact of the low-rent test on Conservative voters that I am slightly undecided about

  913
  whether I wish to see success or failure in the Division Lobby. Perhaps it would be better if some of us from the Opposition Benches absented ourselves.
  Obviously the House should do what is right and not what is to party advantage. What I heard in the excellent speeches of the three hon. Members who preceded me was hon. Members speaking genuinely in the interests of their constituents whom they have taken the time and trouble to meet and correspond with; they have studied the cases put in front of them and have realised that the low-rent test must go if the interests of their constituents are to be met. The Government should conclude from the comments already made that they can only emerge with credit if they listen to the voice of the House on the issue.
  It is agreed across the Chamber, as it was in Committee, that to seek to extend a right such as leasehold enfranchisement is good and proper. We have debated whether the mechanism of commonhold is the better way of doing it, but it was agreed that the right should be extended.
  It was also accepted in principle by both sides in Committee that if the right were to be extended, there would be some circumstances in which restrictions would have to be applied. There was no suggestion by either side in Committee that tenants should simply be able to confiscate their landlords' property, although we had debates about the appropriate valuation to be put on enfranchisement.
  There was no disagreement about the principle that some limit on qualifying tenancies was necessary, although there was a debate on the number and the types of properties. It was accepted that some restrictions would be necessary to make enfranchisement workable and fair. But if the Government are to impose a restriction, it is essential that it is seen to be just, fair and easily understandable by those to whom it will apply.
  We are talking about people's homes, in which they have invested thousands of pounds on their own behalf and been required to invest thousands on their landlord's behalf. They read press reports and the Government's earlier statements and expected and hoped to be able to free themselves from neglectful landlords. A leaseholder whose right to enfranchisement is to be restricted has a right to an assurance that those restrictions are fair, just and understandable.
  The problem with the low rent test is that people will not regard it as fair, just or understandable. They will see it as an arbitrary measure which the Government introduced for no intellectually honest or good reason but which has enormous implications for their lives and futures as leaseholders and, as they regard themselves, the real owners of their property. They will find three entirely different bases for calculating low rent in the Bill, which apparently are arbitrarily set according to the date on which they took on their lease. Experts in housing law will be able to identify exactly why there is one test before 1963, another test after 1963 and another more recent test, but to any ordinary person those different tests will seem quite arbitrary. As the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, the Bill is an opportunity not to reaffirm previous housing legislation but to establish a fairer basis for enfranchisement. That is what we should be doing.
  914
  I well remember our debates in Committee and the Lord Chancellor's arguments against a low rent test. I do not recall a convincing case being advanced that the low rent test would operate in the interests of people seeking the right of enfranchisement. I understand the argument hangs on the issue of needing a distinction between renting and genuine leasehold, where people are, to all intents and purposes and in their own minds, purchasing their own property.
  Is there really any practical possibility of someone who thought that they were renting a property finding out that they have a right to enfranchisement and then demanding to exercise it? I simply do not believe that. We could search the streets of London and knock on the doors of leasehold properties but fail to find anyone who thought that they were renting property only to find that under this law they had the right to enfranchisement. I do not believe that that problem exists. Even if it did, it could exist only in a tiny number of cases. If there were some unfairness in those people getting a right to enfranchisement, the injustice that might be done would be nothing compared with the injustice that will be done to thousands of people by the low rent test.
  I fear that the low rent test is included in the Bill as a result of the concerted lobbying which was widely reported outside the House, although it was not especially evident in Committee. We rarely heard the views of the landlords' lobby in Committee, but I believe that the low rent test is included as a result of lobbying by big interests against the interests of ordinary people who happen to be leaseholders. It is a crucial test of the willingness of the House to stand up to such a lobbying exercise, such backroom or corridor lobbying and influence peddling, and to stand up for the interests of leaseholders who want the right to enfranchisement.
  I hope that before too long the House will remove the low rent test from the legislation.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Waterson: My starting point is that the Bill is bold and far-sighted. It will benefit thousands of leaseholders not only in my constituency but throughout England and Wales. It is precisely because I take such an enthusiastic view of this aspect of the Government's legislative programme that I want as many people as possible to benefit from it.
  I echo the two excellent and memorable speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn). I mean no disrespect to Opposition Members by paying particular attention to my right hon. and hon. Friends' remarks.
  I strongly support the amendments that I and my hon. Friends have tabled. Like many colleagues who were members of the Committee, I was unconvinced by the justification for the low rent test, and I remain unconvinced. We have heard how pressure was put on the Government during the Committee to reconsider the problem, and I share the feeling of disappointment that we are still discussing this version of clause 7. Certainly, nothing has been said today or in Committee to convince me that we need a low rent test. There is no practical reason for it.
  As we have heard, the test is not needed to distinguish between long and short leases. The test for that is the

  915
  number of years of the lease—if it is more than 21 years, it is by definition a long lease, and if it is fewer than 21, it is a short lease. The test is not needed to differentiate between premium long leases, which have a token ground rent, and long leases with a market rent. It is not needed because, simply, there are no properties with long leases and market rents.
  I shall not weary the House by being the third or fourth hon. Member to quote the Lord Chancellor's now memorable report of November 1990, save to repeat that it underlines the argument, with which I agree, that the low rent test seems to be aiming at a non-existent problem.
  The effect of the low rent test is to give freeholders—present and future—a simple means of circumnavigating the legislation. It is so easy. The proposed low rent threshold is so low, and there are numerous examples of ground rents being set by freeholders at just a few pounds above that level. We have heard some examples of that today.
  What are the results? The freeholder wins in two ways. First, the leaseholder, having paid a premium for his lease, discovers that the smart freeholder has set the ground rent that little bit higher and that he is therefore disfranchised. We know that that will happen because history tells us so. We need only consider the leasehold houses in Hackney and Islington where the leaseholders cannot enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 because the freeholder has set the ground rent just a couple of pounds higher than the official low rent level. That has been done deliberately to get around the Act. All that the low rent test will do is to produce anomalous results, especially in London. We have all had letters from leaseholders, especially in central London, who are deeply concerned about the effect of the test.
  Even better from the freeholder's point of view is the fact that he can use the loophole to disenfranchise whole blocks at one go. He has only to apply a rent slightly above the low rent level in a small proportion of flats in a block and he has effectively made it impossible for the others to enfranchise. They will simply not be able to meet the two-thirds hurdle which is necessary to be able to enfranchise under the Bill. That is a wonderful loophole for a landlord. Having seen the extent to which landlords have been prepared to go to scupper the Bill in Parliament, who can doubt that they will seize on the low rent test as a simple way in which to get round the legislation?
  Ideally, I should like the whole concept of a low rent test to go. It serves no practical purpose except to give landlords a way out. If for some reason it is left and we have to have a low rent test of some sort, we should at least make it a realistic test. For many leasehold properties, the low rent test is a factor of their rateable values. Surely it is wrong to pass new legislation that is based on historic and outdated rating levels when the rates themselves have already been abolished. There is deep concern that the low rent test will lead to the exclusion of genuine leasehold flats which have low rateable values which date back to 1973, but whose ground rents rose dramatically in the late 1980s as a result of the property boom.
  The Bill gives us the opportunity to clear up that anachronism if the new clause is accepted. By linking the low rent test to current market levels, we shall have a system that satisfies the Government because it retains a low rent test and satisfies everyone else because it blocks the obvious loopholes. I very much hope that the
  916
  Government will accept the amendments. I regret to say that if they do not, they are unlikely to enjoy my support in the Lobby this evening.
  Mr. Raynsford: This has been a fascinating debate, because there has been unanimity among speakers of all parties so far. That unanimity should give a clear warning to the Government that they would be foolish to proceed on the basis of trying to get the low rent test incorporated in the Bill.
  The case is strong, and it has been argued persuasively and forcefully by a number of hon. Members this evening. There is no need for the low rent test and if it is imposed, it will create serious anomalies. Those anomalies will be exploited by people who seek to obstruct leaseholders who would otherwise be entitled to enfranchise and will thus deny the opportunity of enfranchisement to a substantial number of leaseholders. The test would therefore effectively wreck the impact of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) put the argument forcefully and effectively when he said that a failure to get it right on this occasion would come back to haunt us. I took part in the discussions on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The Act was an attempt to tackle the problem of freeholders maltreating leaseholders and abusing their position. It was an attempt to rectify some of the problems. The warnings that we voiced then—that, because the legislation was not right, we should have to come back and deal with the matter again—were true. Such a warning is even more true this evening.
  My first observation concerns the lack of any need for the low rent test. We have heard frequent references to the Lord Chancellor's Department's view in the consultation paper on commonhold. It would be an absurd anomaly if, were commonhold to come back to the House perhaps in the next Session or perhaps in the subsequent Session, we were to debate the issue simply because the Government had insisted and managed to obtain a majority in favour of the low rent test in this legislation, when, in the commonhold legislation, there was seen to be no need for it. The whole issue would have to be dealt with again, and there would be obvious anomalies.
  The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association has provided valuable information through the indefatigable Joan South and others and assisted hon. Members to consider all the issues. The association makes it clear that it is not a problem and that it is a spectre which the Government have conjured up but have not been able to substantiate.
  The Consumers Association, in its response, makes exactly the same point. In its survey of leaseholders throughout the country—we are not talking about a purely London problem; we are talking about a problem which affects more than 750,000 leaseholders throughout the country, including many constituencies outside London—it could not find one person in respect of whom the Government suspect that the anomaly might arise, who could be construed as a long leaseholder when in fact he or she was a tenant. It is a non-existent problem, and the Government should recognise that.
  The anomalies that will be created have been referred to frequently. I do no more than quote one example involving a leaseholder in Hackney, London, who very persuasively writes:
  "I own a long lease on a house in Hackney which I purchased in 1982 for £47,000. The lease has about 30 years to run. I paid £230 per annum ground rent and the rateable

  917
  value at the start of my lease was around £340 per annum. It is clear that my lease, like many others, has been deliberately manipulated to make me unenfranchiseable. Obviously, that odious qualification will be exploited by landlords to make flats unenfranchiseable."
  That could not be put more effectively. Thousands of leaseholders in that position are already debarred.
  As sure as can be, if the low rent test remains in the legislation, freeholders seeking to prevent the will of Parliament and to prevent their leaseholders from enfranchising will, in all future lettings, engineer ground rent figures to ensure that they are above the figure of £1,000 in London or £250 elsewhere, and thereby ensure that leaseholders are disfranchised.
  The low rent test is a charter for the freeholder who seeks to frustrate the wishes of Parliament. It is a charter for the person who does not want to allow the Bill to proceed. It would be a disastrous mistake if we were to give comfort to the enemies of the Bill—people who have been seeking to frustrate it, people who represent vested interests, and people who represent the old privileges—if they were to achieve a victory by the back door when the argument has gone so forcefully against them.
  The Government have failed entirely to produce any evidence to support their case that there is a need for the test. In Committee, on other issues we heard the Minister argue that it was necessary to produce evidence to justify amendments and changes that the Opposition sought. In the absence of convincing, solid evidence of a real problem—the Minister has so far failed to produce it, and I doubt whether he will do so tonight, but I shall listen attentively
  —it would be very foolish indeed to allow the low rent test to remain in the Bill and thereby create anomalies and the opportunity for people to frustrate the wishes of Parliament.
  The case has been made overwhelmingly by many hon. Members. I sincerely hope that, at this late hour, the Minister will heed them and will respond positively and make it unnecessary for a Division to occur. If there is a Division, I sincerely hope that Conservative Members who, for whatever reason, were hesitant to support us in Committee, will not feel inhibited tonight and will vote in favour of getting rid of the low rent test. That would be a vote in favour of leasehold enfranchisement and in favour of people exercising their right.
  We know that it is proper for people to have the right to control their own homes and not to depend on the interests of freeholders and landed interests who will seek to exploit their traditional ownership in order to frustrate the opportunities, wishes and aspirations of leaseholders.
  Sir George Young: This has been a debate of the highest quality. The quality has been in no way diminished by the fact that all the arguments have been on one side.
  I begin by referring to a point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) when he urged the Government to adopt the same attitude as they had adopted in earlier debates— to resist the freeholder case. There is a distinction between this debate and earlier ones, in that the new clauses and amendments which were tabled in the earlier ones sought to take rights away from those who will have rights granted to them under the Bill. The Government resisted that.
  This debate is slightly different in that it seeks to add to the Bill additional rights for those who do not have them
  918
  at present. It would be consistent for the Government to resist the arguments in the earlier debates and resist those which have been raised this evening, as I propose to do.
  First, I commend the consistency of my hon. Friends. Having made their points, they voted as they propose to vote tomorrow: they will vote for Third Reading. It would be somewhat perverse for Opposition Members to vote today to abolish the low rent test and then vote tomorrow to abolish enfranchisement. That is wholly inconsistent but we have been told that tomorrow evening Labour Members plan to vote against Third Reading.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Straw: Labour Members listen to the arguments on the merits. I give the Minister an absolute guarantee that, if he accepts the argument for that amendment—which comes from the Conservative as well as the Labour side —we will support the Bill on Third Reading. What will happen if the Minister does not accept the amendments remains to be seen.
  Sir George Young: I am not quite sure if the hon. Gentleman realises what he said. In Standing Committee, Labour Members made it clear that they would support the Bill if it did not contain simply enfranchisement provisions. They voted against the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee—and I am sure that they plan to vote against it tomorrow—because it contains provisions for compulsory competitive tendering and the tenants' veto on housing management.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that his is prepared to trade the principal objections which his hon. Friends deployed hourly and daily in Committee if the Government concede the amendment. I see a look of gloom on some of his hon. Friends' faces. In Committee, they defended the past daily. As a result of one flippant intervention from the shadow Secretary of State, their principles are simply waived aside.
  Mr. Straw: The intervention was far from flippant. I should like the Minister to address the merits of the case which have been powerfully put by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and some of my hon. Friends. It is no good the Minister waffling on about what he fantasises are the possible decisions made by the Labour party to which we are party and he is not. He needs to get down to the merits of the case. What possible justification is there for ruling out a large number of tenants on the basis of the so-called low rent test?
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I will address the merits of the argument shortly. He said that the Labour party's objection to our proposals on compulsive competitive tendering are negotiable. They are not principles at all; they are negotiable. He said that they will support the Bill on Third Reading if the Government concede the amendment. That is trading the objections of principle which his hon. Friends made in the Standing Committee. Labour Members must get their act together.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) made some moving speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington chided the Government for not being radical enough. If he had listened to the earlier debate, as I did, I am sure that he would agree that many

  919
  of our right hon. and hon. Friends think that we have embarked on a radical reform. It seems to be something of a paradox that an hour ago we were accused of betraying the freeholder and now we are accused of betraying the leaseholder. I shall address the merits of the case put by my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and others.
  We debated the matter at some length in Committee and undertook to look again at the issues surrounding the test and to return to it on Report. Let me make it clear that it has been one of the most difficult decisions that we have had to take. We have consulted, discussed and debated the matter. We have seen hon. Members and representatives of leaseholders. We understand just how complex it is and that there are extremely strong arguments for retaining the test as well as for abolishing it. That said, I have to tell the House that the Government have decided that the low rent test should be retained in its current form. Let me explain to the House why we have reached that conclusion.
  The comparison of the annual ground rent to the rateable value or, in the case of pre-1963 leases, the letting value—is a simple test used to distinguish what are, in theory, renting tenancies from "ownership" tenancies. It appears in roughly the same form in several pieces of important landlord and tenant legislation—including the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the precedent for the Bill, and the Rent Act 1977. It has had quite an impact on the residential property market over several decades and we should not therefore relinquish or alter it lightly.
  We have already provided that the test for flats be applied to the ground rent and rateable or letting value during the first year of the lease, rather than the date of the claim, as a concession to bringing within the scope of the Bill leases with rent reveiw clauses. Many leases are subject to such clauses which have effect periodically, typically every five, 10 or 20 years. The reviews are often linked to an inflation index or similar provisions in an Act arid are included to maintain the level of ground rent payments by periodic adjustment. However, rent review clauses vary in many ways and can produce vastly different results.
  When the leases are first granted, the ground rent is low —less than two-thirds of the rateable or letting value. But a review will often push the ground rent up beyond the low rent threshold—something which most leaseholders cannot be expected to predict. With the old-style test which took account of the rent and rateable value on either a fixed date—March 1965 in the 1967 Act—or the first day of the term, some leaseholders would have found themselves unable to satisfy the low rent test—and unable to enfranchise. The new-style test is designed to help them.
  We propose also to amend the Leasehold Reform Act to give leaseholders in houses the choice between the original low rent test and this new one for flats. For leases granted since 1 April 1990 when rental equivalent values were first employed, a different test applies.
  The argument has been put several times that the requirement that a qualifying tenant be a long leaseholder is a sufficient test of ownership. That is not the case. Leases which are not at a low rent would fall within the rent and housing Acts unless the property has a rateable value in excess of the prescribed limits. These are by definition renting tenancies.
  The Government believe that the low rent test provides an important distinction between the rental and the long lease market and marks the extent of the transfer of equity
  920
  between landlord and tenant. It is important to enfranchise only those interests where the freeholder has given up all but a residual interest in the property. We do not wish to extend enfranchisement or the right to buy to the private rented sector and the low rent test is a means of achieving this. We know that there are long leases with rents of £5,000 or £10,000 a year, so we cannot rely on the long lease test alone.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) challenged me to see whether we had any evidence that there were such leases and I have in front of me a letter from one of the major estates in London, which says:
  "We have well over 50 properties defined in statute as long' but where the rent is in excess of £5,000 pa and many of these are over £10,000 pa."
  So there is a need for a distinction between leases and rented property.
  Sir John Wheeler: As a baronet, my hon. Friend is generous to give way, but he is skating on thin ice. Not one Member on either side of the Chamber has spoken in support of the Government in this debate. Will he allow that when the debate goes to their Lordships' House, their Lordships may take the voice of this House as the authentic voice on the issue?
  Sir George Young: It is not for me, albeit as a baronet, to guess what will happen at the other end of the Palace. In the preceding debate, there was unanimity on this side of the House on requiring leaseholders to pay far more than my right hon. Friend would like. Not one Conservative Member made the case that I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have wished. None the less, the Government resisted those arguments, and we had to endure some criticism for doing so. So my right hon. Friend cannot rely too much on the weight of opinion among Conservative Members. He may find that the argument works to his disadvantage in later debates.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend allow me to place it on record that the fact that a contrary voice was not heard was due to the certain knowledge that he would be robust on the subject?
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, albeit at this late stage in the debate, for a voice in support of the case which the Government are deploying.
  The low rent test ensures that long leases granted at a high rent, perhaps—in the case of houses—at a premium which reflected the non-enfranchiseable nature of the lease, or where the landlord continues to have a high financial interest in the block, cannot be enfranchised. There is evidence—I have deployed it—that there is some blurring of these lines which makes a division important, particularly in London where there is some overlap of ground rents of long leases and market rents.
  Amendment No. 124 refers to "annual letting values". While I acknowledge their inclusion for pre-1963 leases in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Bill under discussion today, I dispute that they are the appropriate means to determine whether a lease is at a low rent or not.
  The reason for their inclusion in 1967 was to take account of the delay in a rating revaluation after the second world war. This meant that after the war the incompatibility between genuine ground rents and any test based on pre-war rateable values was sufficient to justify the use of letting or rental values instead. As all residential

  921
  rents were statutorily controlled at that time, there was a single market in rents which made the test effective and easy to apply.
  That approach simply would not work today, with leases granted since the introduction of enfranchisement for houses and since the deregulation of rents in the letting market because of the wide gulf that exists between regulated rents and market rents. I acknowledge that in a few cases some landlords have been granting new leases on houses at high rents to avoid enfranchisement. But in those cases the price of the house and that paid for the lease should have reflected the status of the lease and the fact that it was not enfranchiseable.
  The precedent for this Bill, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, has been on the statute book for 25 years and leaseholders should have known when purchasing their leases that they would not be able to enfranchise. I know that some may not have been aware of this, but we cannot legislate for that reason alone. Nor should we forget that these tenants are already outside the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act. This evening we are not taking away any rights that people already have.
  Leases have been created and arrangements have been built around the existing framework. Different legislative regimes apply to high and low ground rents, although in different contexts to enfranchisement, and leases have been drafted in full knowledge of this. It would be wrong to move the goal posts now.
  In the case of flats, it is far less likely that ground rents have been manipulated in any way. Enfranchisement for flats is a recent development—first announced to the House in July 1991. As I said earlier, different statutory limits apply for leases granted since April 1990, these being £1,000 in Greater London and £250 elsewhere.
  I realise that the announcement that the Government have made will cause disappointment to many interests in the House. Nonetheless, we decided that there are valid arguments for retaining the low rent test in its present form and I invite the House to resist the new clause.
  Mr. Pike: The Minister claimed to know how Labour Members would vote tomorrow. He was mistaken, because, even if he had been a fly on the wall at our meeting earlier, he would have found that we made no decision on our vote on Third Reading tomorrow—
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Housing and Urban Development Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Pike: It was our intention to see how we progressed today and during the debate on important parts of the Bill that we shall discuss before Third Reading tomorrow. I was disappointed at the Minister's response. Perhaps the reason why his voice is affected is that he has no confidence in the points that he is having to make. I do not believe that he believes the things he was telling us; he has been leaned on—whether by the Secretary of State or someone else, I do not know. I do not believe that he was convinced by the
  922
  argument and the case that he made. I am convinced that he believes that what we have been arguing for is the right course and that what he has been saying weakens the objectives that the Government have been stating for the Bill.
  In response to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), the Minister made the valid point that every contribution from both sides was solid in the view that this low rent test was wrong and should be either changed or abolished. The comparison that the Minister chose was false, and a red herring, because he referred to unanimity on the Conservative side on the previous clause. In this debate the unanimity has been across the floor of the House.
  The arguments have been well made, but it is right to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn). He made two important points, which I believe Conservative Members need to take into account when they decide which way to vote in a couple of minutes.
  The hon. Gentleman's first point was that if a Division had been pressed on this in Committee there would have been a majority opposed to the Government's view. Government Members chose not to press the Government on that occasion because of assurances that they would look again at the issue and come back, probably with a new proposal, at Report stage. Those hon. Members must be disappointed that the Government have failed them tonight and failed the people who have leasehold properties. Secondly, it is not just the individual who is affected by the low rent test; it can have an effect on the whole of a property because of the voting numbers necessary. The effect can therefore be extended to people who are not themselves directly disqualified by the test.
  The Government have got it wrong and I hope that Conservative Members will vote with us on new clause 18 and stand by the people who want to enfranchise and get the opportunity that the Government claim to offer them —from which they will be barred unless we win new clause 18.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 294.

  Division No. 146]

  [10.04 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boyes, Roland

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bradley, Keith

  Ainger, Nick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Alton, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Byers, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ann

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blunkett, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  923

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davidson, Ian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McLeish, Henry

  Enright, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Etherington, Bill

  McNamara, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Galloway, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Garrett, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  George, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morley, Elliot

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gould, Bryan

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  Olner, William

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Parry, Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  Pickthall, Colin

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Heppell, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prescott, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hoyle, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hutton, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Illsley, Eric

  Rogers, Allan

  Ingram, Adam

  Rooney, Terry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jamieson, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Sheerman, Barry

  924

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Simpson, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watson, Mike

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Snape, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spellar, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Wray, Jimmy

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Couchman, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Elletson, Harold

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowis, John

  Evennett, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forman, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forth, Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butler, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fry, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gale, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carttiss, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gill, Christopher

  Churchill, Mr

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Colvin, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Congdon, David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  925

  Hague, William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Horam, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trend, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  926

  Viggers, Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Walden, George

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Ray

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Timothy Kirkbope.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

  PREMISES EXCLUDED FROM RIGHT
  Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 5, line 21, leave out '10' and insert '20'.—[Mr. Fishburn.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Baldry: The Minister of State and I said in Committee that we would reflect further on the right threshold for commercial use, because clause 4(1) excludes from enfranchisement premises where more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor area is given over to commercial use.
  We have considered the matter extremely carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) has been a powerful advocate in favour of raising the threshold to 20 per cent. of the internal floor area. We have come to the conclusion that it should remain at 10 per cent. That threshold was chosen carefully, after extensive sampling and taking of expert advice.
  There is great concern that our proposals for residential property should not spill over into the commercial market, as anything that undermined the generally satisfactory workings of that market would be unwelcome.
  I am aware of the concerns of tenants residing in mixed-use property that will be excluded from enfranchisement. Many of them have argued for the 10 per cent. threshold to be increased. The business sector is, however, just as concerned that enfranchisement should not affect the commercial property market and commercial tenants are concerned about the implications of control by leaseholders who are inexperienced in the management of commercial property.
  The commercial parts of a block are much more valuable than the residential space. Commercial space is typically worth 15 to 20 times as much as residential space, and if the threshold were raised, residential tenants might have to purchase property that was worth more than their own interest. In those circumstances, in many cases the participating tenants would not be able to afford to buy the freehold, and would be left with no benefit because they would not have the right to buy a new lease. They would be given the right without the remedy. We concluded that increasing the threshold, and thus the number of mixed-use blocks eligible for enfranchisement, would not help leaseholders and could harm many of them.
  There are arguments on both sides, but we think that we have struck the right balance. We must remember that

  927
  leaseholders with leases that are not capable of enfranchisement will have the right to lease renewal under chapter II.
  If experience shows that 10 per cent. threshold is causing problems, it can be dealt with using the reserve powers in clause 4(3), which allow the Secretary of State to specify a different percentage threshold later should the need arise, although we do not think that that is likely to be necessary.
  I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the threshold should remain at 10 per cent., and I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Fishburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

  NOTICE BY QUALIFYING TENANTS OF CLAIM TO EXERCISE RIGHT
  Amendment made:
  No. 79, page 244, line 21, at end insert—

  '1985 c. 71.

  The

  Housing

  In section 6(3), "12,".

  (Consequential

  In Schedule 2,

  Provisions)

  Act

  paragraph 12.'.

  1985.

  —[Mr. Baldry]

Schedule 3

  THE INITIAL NOTICE: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made:
  No. 66, in page 172, line 4, at end insert—
  'Restrictions for purposes of s. 12(3) on tenant electing to become participating tenant during currency of claim
  7A.—(1) Where a relevant notice of claim is given, a qualifying tenant of a flat may not subsequently make an election under section 12(3)—

  (a) if he was prohibited from participating in the giving of the notice by virtue of paragraph 1, 2(1), 3(1) or 4(1) above; or

  (b) at a time when he would be so prohibited from participating in the giving of a relevant notice of claim, if such a notice were to be given then.

  (2) Where a relevant notice of claim is given, then except with the leave of the court, a qualifying tenant of a flat may not subsequently make an election under section 12(3) at a time when any proceedings are pending to enforce a night of re-entry or forfeiture terminating his lease of the flat.
  (3) Leave shall only be granted under sub-paragraph (2) if the court is satisfied that the tenant does not wish to make such an election solely or mainly for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of the breach of the terms of his lease in respect of which proceedings are pending.
  (4) If—

  (a) leave is so granted, and

  (b) the tenant makes such an election,

  the tenant's lease shall be deemed for the purposes of the claim to be a subsisting lease despite the existence of those proceedings and any order made afterwards in those proceedings; and, if the claim is effective, the court in which those proceedings were brought may set aside or vary any such order to such extent and on such terms as appear I o that court to be appropriate.
  (5) References in this paragraph and paragraph 7B below to making an election under section 12(3) are references to making such an election to participate in the making of the claim in respect of which the relevant notice of claim is given.
  Effect of tenant's election on certain notices given by landlord.
  7B.—(1) This paragraph applies to a qualifying tenant of a flat who, following the giving of a relevant notice of claim, makes an election under section 12(3).
  (2) Where in the case of any such tenant—

  (a) a landlord's notice terminating the tenant's lease of the flat has been given or served as mentioned in paragraph 2(1) above (whether or not the notice has effect to terminate the lease), but

  (b) that notice was not given or served more than four months before the date when the tenant makes his election under section 12(3),

  the landlord's notice shall cease to have effect on that date.
  (3) If—

  (a) any such landlord's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, but

  (b) the claim made in pursuance of the relevant notice of claim is not effective,

  then paragraph 2(4) above shall apply to any landlord's notice terminating the tenant's lease of the flat which—

  (i) is given under section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or served under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and

  (ii) is so given or served within one month after the expiry of the period of currency of that claim;

  and paragraph 2(5) above shall apply accordingly.
  (4) Paragraph 7A(5) above applies for the purposes of this paragraph.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]
  No. 67, in page 172, line 39, leave out from
  'premises,' to end of line 41.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 12

  THE PARTICIPATING TENANTS
  Amendments made:
  No. 41, in page 16, line 39 leave out 'subsection (4))' and insert 'paragraph 7A of Schedule 3)'.
  No. 42, in page 16, leave out lines 43 to 45.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 18

  REVERSIONER'S COUNTER-NOTICE
  Amendment made:
  No. 43, in page 25, line 15 [Clause 18], at end insert 'section 30 and'—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 20

  TENANTS' CLAIM LIABLE TO BE DEFEATED WHERE LANDLORD INTENDS TO REDEVELOP
  Amendments made:
  No. 44, in page 27, line 29, leave out 'landlord' and insert 'reversioner'.
  No. 45, in page 27, line 36, leave out 'landlord' and insert 'reversioner'.
  No. 46, in page 27, line 37, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'nominee purchaser'.
  No. 47, in page 28, line 5, leave out 'any' and insert 'the specified'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Schedule 4

  VESTING ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 2I AND 22
  Amendment made:
  No. 68, in page 175, line 14, at end insert—
  'Supplemental
  5.—(1) In the provisions specified in sub-paragraph (2) references to a binding contract being entered into in pursuance of the initial notice shall be read as including references to the making of a vesting order.
  (2) Those provisions are—

  (a) section 12(12);

  929

  (b) section 13(12) (except so far as it provides for the interpretation of references to the nominee purchaser);

  (c) section 14(10);

  (d) section 16(5) (b);

  (e) section 25(1); and

  (f) section 27(4) and (5).

  (3) In section 34(2) (except so far as it provides for the interpretation of references to the proposed aquisition by the nominee purchaser) the reference to a contract entered into in pursuance of the initial notice shall be read as including a reference to a vesting order.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 23

  APPLICATIONS WHERE RELEVANT LANDLORD CANNOT BE FOUND
  Amendments made:
  No. 48, in page 32, line 3, after 'person', insert 'or persons'.
  No. 49, in page 32, line 26, leave out first 'any' and insert 'every'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Schedule 5

  PURCHASE PRICE PAYABLE BY NOMINEE PURCHASER
  Amendment made:
  No. 69, in page 179, line 12, after 'the', insert 'minor'. —[Mr. Baldry.]
  No. 70, in page 179, line 25, leave out from 'year),' to end of line 26 and insert
  'of the remainder of the term of the minor intermediate lease as at the valuation date.'.

Clause 30

  CONVEYANCE TO NOMINEE PURCHASER
  Amendment made:
  No. 50, in page 39, line 45, leave out 'subsection (7)' and insert 'subsections (7) and (8)'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Schedule 6

  CONVEYANCE TO NOMINEE PURCHASER ON ENFRANCHISEMENT
  Amendment made:
  No. 71, in page 182, line 45, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Schedule 8

  GRANT OF LEASES BACK TO FORMER FREEHOLDER
  Amendment made:
  No. 72, in page 186, line 31, leave out 'at' and insert 'immediately before'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 34

  INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER I
  Amendment made:
  No. 51, in page 41, line 26, leave out '(2)'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 35

  RIGHT OF QUALIFYING TENANT OF FLAT TO ACQUIRE NEW LEASE
  Amendments made:
  No. 52, in page 42, line 29, after '(3)', insert
  'Subject to subsections (3A) and (3B) below,'.
  No. 53, in page 42, line 36, at end insert—
  '(3A) In its application in accordance with subsection (3) above section 5 shall have effect with the omission of subsection (5) of that section; but where apart from this subsection—

  (a) a person would be regarded for the purposes of this Chapter as being (or as being among those constituting) the qualifying tenant of a flat, and

  (b) that person would also be regarded for those purposes as being (or as being among those constituting) the qualifying tenant of each of two or more other flats contained in the building in which that flat is contained,

  then, whether that person is tenant of the flats referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) under a single lease or otherwise, there shall be taken for those purposes to be no qualifying tenant of any of those flats.
  (3B) Subsection (6) of section 5 shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (3A) above in its application to a body corporate as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (5) of that section in its application to a body corporate.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 41
  LANDLORD'S COUNTER-NOTICE
  Amendment made: No. 54, in page 46, line 34, leave out 'Where the landlord receives the tenant's notice, he' and insert 'The landlord'.—[Mr. Baldry.]
Schedule 12

  PREMIUM AND OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE BY TENANT ON GRANT OF NEW LEASE
  Amendments made: No. 73, in page 201, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
  '(2) The marriage value is the difference between the following amounts, namely—

  (a) the aggregate of—

  (i) the value of the interest of the tenant under his existing lease,

  (ii) the value of the landlord's interest in the tenant's flat prior to the grant of the new lease, and

  (iii) the values prior to the grant of that lease of all intermediate leasehold interests (if any); and

  (b) the aggregate of—

  (i) the value of the interest to be held by the tenant under the new lease,

  (ii) the value of the landlord's interest in the tenant's flat once the new lease is granted, and

  (iii) the values of all intermediate leasehold interests (if any) once that lease is granted.

  (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)—

  (a) the value of any interest of the tenant shall be determined as at the valuation date;

  (b) the value of any such interest of the landlord as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph is the amount determined for the purpose of paragraph 3(1)(a) or paragraph 3(1)(b) (as the case may be); and

  (c) the value of any intermediate leasehold interest shall be determined in accordance with paragraph 8, and shall be so determined as at the valuation date.'.

  No. 74, in page 203, line 9, after 'the', insert 'minor'.
  No. 75, in page 203, line 22, at end insert 'as at the valuation date'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 61

  PRICE PAYABLE BY TENANT ON ENFRANCHISEMENT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 59
  Amendment made: No. 55, in page 64, line 43, leave outfrom first 'of to end of line and insert
  'any one or more of the provisions of sections 1A and 1B'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Schedule 14

  SECTION 9 OF THE LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967, AS AMENDED
  Amendment made: No. 76, in page 209, line 52, leave out from first 'of' to 'above' in line 53 and insert
  'any one or more of the provisions of sections 1A arid 1B'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 62

  ESTATE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 65, line 11, leave out from first 'of to 'above)' in line 12 and insert
  'any one or more of the provisions of sections 1A and 1B of that Act (as inserted by sections 59 and (Tenancies terminable after death or marriage'.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 72

  REQUIREMENT RELATING TO INFORMATION ETC. HELD BY SUPERIOR LANDLORD
  Amendment made: No. 57, in page 76, line 29, leave out from `(c)' to 'or' in line 30 and insert
  'if a date is specified in the notice under subsection (3)(d) of that section, either approve the date'. —[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 80

  JURISDICTION OF LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNALS
  Amendments made: No. 58, in page 83, leave out lines 22 and 23.
  No. 59, in page 83, line 27, at end insert—
  '(aa) the terms of any lease which is to be granted in accordance with section 32 and Schedule 8;'.— [Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 82

  AGREEMENT INCLUDING OR MODIFYING RIGHTS OF TENANT UNDER CHAPTERS I AND II
  Amendment made: No. 60, in page 86, line 42, at end insert—
  'and section 52(5) shall apply in relation to the lease as it applies in relation to a lease granted under section 52.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 86

  POWER TO PRESCRIBE PROCEDURE UNDER CHAPTERS I AND II
  Amendment made: No. 61, in page 90, line 7, after 'claim' insert
  'made by the giving of a notice under section 38'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 89

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION OF PART I
  Amendment made: No. 62, in page 91, line 39, leave out from 'floor' to end of line 44 and insert—

  '(a) which forms part of a building and

  (b) which is constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling, and

  (c) either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building;'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

New clause 16
  MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES
  . After section 22 of the 1987 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
  MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES

    Management agreements with housing co-operatives.
    22A.—(1) In this section 'housing co-operative' has the meaning given in subsection (1) of section 22 except that the reference in that subsection to the Secretary of State's approval shall be construed as a reference to his approval in relation to the purposes of this section.
    (2) On an application by a housing co-operative a local authority shall make an agreement with them for the performance by that housing co-operative, on such terms as may be provided in the agreement, of the local authority's functions under section 17(1) relating to the management of houses which are subject to the agreement.
    (3) Before making such an agreement the local authority shall satisfy themselves that the housing co-operative—

    (a) have the approval of the Secretary of State;

    (b) are able to perform the functions competently and efficiently;

    (c) are representative of the tenants of the houses.

    (4) Where the local authority refuse to enter into an agreement on the grounds that the housing co-operative do not satisfy paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (3), the housing co-operative may appeal to the Secretary of State who may confirm or reverse the decision of the local authority.
    (5) Where the Secretary of State reverses the decision of the local authority, the authority and the housing co-operative shall make the agreement.
    (6) Where the local authority and the housing co-operative are unable to agree on the terms of the agreement, the housing co-operative may appeal to the Secretary of State who may determine the terms of the agreement.
    (7) An agreement to which this section applies shall be made only with the approval of the Secretary of State, which may be given either generally or to any local authority or description of local authority or in any particular case, and may be given unconditionally or subject to anyconditions.".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 110 to 112.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 16 gives tenants who form themselves into a housing co-operative the right to manage their homes. It is an important part of our proposal under the tenants charter to strengthen the powers of individual tenants and involve them in the management of their homes. We believe that it will fundamentally improve the control which tenants have over their houses if they are given the right to manage.
    There are a number of requirements in the new clause which offer important protection for existing tenants.

    933
    First, the way in which the houses are managed is very important to the tenants of those houses, and we need to be certain that a co-operative taking over the housing management function is competent to do the task that it sets out to do. There is no point in handing over management to a group of tenants whose interests will have moved on to other matters in six months' time.
    Secondly, the co-operative needs to be efficient. While it is our desire to give more control to tenants, if their costs are twice the normal management costs, tenants will suffer. Consequently, there is a need to maintain efficiency.
    Finally—this is particularly important in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) gave me notice of his concern—the local authority needs to be satisfied that the co-operative is representative of the tenants in that area and of that group. Again, such protection for tenants is common sense.
    Amendment No. 110 seeks to amend section 17(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which provides that the general management of houses held for housing purposes by local authorities shall be vested in and exercised by the authorities. This removes any possible impediment to the powers of a local authority to contract out its housing functions under section 17.
    Amendment No. 111 is consequential and amendment No. 112 is the formal repeal in schedule 21.
    Mr. John McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my concerns, of which I gave him notice. I am not sure that what he said relates to what is on the face of the new clause. He said that this clause was about giving tenants the right to form themselves into housing co-ops with the right to manage their own homes. What the new clause says is that, if the housing co-op applies to take over the management, regulation and control of local authority housing stock, the local authority shall then make an agreement with that housing co-op, with certain protection being built in, in terms of the ability of the housing co-op to carry out the functions which it has taken over and the fact that that housing co-op should be representative of the tenants of the houses.
    As I understand it, if an agreement on this issue cannot be reached between the housing co-op and the local authority, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene and to force an agreement on terms which he thinks fit. In other words, the Secretary of State will be the ultimate arbiter of the terms of the agreement.
    My main concern relates to the expression "housing co-operative" as it is used in the new clause. It says: "'housing co-operative' has the meaning given in subsection (1) of section 22"
    of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. In that section the housing co-op is described as
    "a society, company or body of trustees for the time being approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section".
    That definition leaves open the interpretation that the housing co-operative could exist already and may not have been formed for the tenants in that area. It leaves open the possibility that where there is a housing co-operative in one area, under the new clause it would be entitled to try to take over houses in an adjoining area which at that time belonged to the local authority.
    934
    10.30 pm
    When the new clause says that the local authority must satisfy itself that the housing co-operative is
    "representative of the tenants of the houses",
    does that mean the tenants of the houses which the housing co-operative already has, or the tenants of the houses which it may wish to take over in an adjoining area? I hope that it is the latter. Even if it is, how is the local authority to satisfy itself that the housing co-operative isrespresentative of those tenants whom it has taken over? As is made clear in the new clause, it is the housing co-operative which initiates the takeover process, not the tenants themselves.
    The Minister should give us the assurance that when the process is set in train there will be consultation with the tenants individually and collectively and that before any takeover is allowed by a housing co-operative from an adjoining area or from within the area, there will have to be a ballot of the tenants affected, with a clear majority in favour of such a change. As I read it, there is nothing in new clause 16 which allows for consultation with tenants individually or collectively or for a ballot to ensure that a majority of tenants are in favour of such a change.
    On the basis that it should be for the tenants to decide, not for the Secretary of State for Scotland, for a local authority or for a putative housing co-operative, the new clause would be a retrograde step for people in Scotland.
    Given the serious position of homeless people, particularly in Scotland where the homeless figures are rising alarmingly, for the Scottish Office Minister to table new clauses which would take more houses away from local authorities, the only group in Scotland with a statutory requirement to house the homeless, does not seem to be a wise step. Rather than trying to weaken further the housing activities of local authorities, the Secretary of State should be presenting proposals for investment in local authority housing and for the provision of more finance to local authorities to enable them to meet the statutory requirements which he places upon them.
    I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the loose wording of new clause 16 and make it clear that only tenants living within a local authority area will have the right to form a housing co-operative such as is referred to. Equally, he should make it clear that before that happens, tenants will be consulted individually and collectively and that tenants will have the right to a ballot whose result will be binding.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give the assurance which the hon. Gentleman seeks. In this context we are discussing management co-operatives. The concern of the hon. Gentleman seems to relate to completely different legislation about voluntary disposals. He will recall debating that across the Floor of the House in bygone years. Very strict safeguards are written in for voluntary disposals. The new clause has nothing to do with that.
    As to the wording, I am reassured by the Scottish Office lawyers that the statement that
    "the local authority shall satisfy themselves that the housing co-operative … are representative of the tenants of the houses"
    means that it must be the tenants in the area concerned; it cannot be an outside body coming in. I am informed that it is clear on the face of the Bill and there is no room for dubiety on that point. If the hon. Member wishes, I shall be glad to send him the safeguards about voluntary disposals from other legislation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

  MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
  '( )—For section 27 of the 1985 Act (management agreements) there shall be substituted the following section—
  "27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of section 27A, a local housing authority may agree that another person shall exercise as agent of the authority in relation to—

  (a) such of the authority's houses as are specified in the agreement, and

  (b) any other land so specified which is held for a related purpose

  such of the authority's management functions as are so specified.
  (2) In this Act 'management agreement' and 'manager', in relation to such an agreement, means an agreement under this section and the person with whom the agreement is made.
  (3) A management agreement shall set out the terms on which the authority's functions are exercisable by the manager.
  (4) A management agreement may, where the manager is a body or association, provide that the manager's functions under the agreement may be performed by a committee or sub-committee, or by an officer, of the body or association.
  (5) References in this section to the management functions of a local housing authority in relation to houses or land include—

  (a) functions conferred by a statutory provision, and

  (b) the powers and duties of the authority as holder of an estate or interest in the houses or land in question.".'.—[Mr. Battle.]

  Brought up, and read the First time
  Mr. Battle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following: New clause 9—Consultation required before management can be entered into—
  '( )—For section 27A of the 1985 Act (Consultation required before management agreement can be approved) there shall be substituted the following sections—
  "27A. (1) A local housing authority who propose to enter into a management agreement shall serve notice in writing on the tenant of each house to which the proposal relates informing him of—

  (a) such details of their proposal as the authority consider appropriate, but including the identity of the person who is to be the manager under the agreement and the standards of service proposed to be required by the agreement

  (b) the likely consequences of the agreement for the tenant, and

  (c) the effect of the provisions of this section,

  and informing him that he may, within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, make representations to the authority.
  (2) The authority shall consider any representations made to them within that period and shall serve a further written notice on the tenant informing him—

  (a) of any significant changes in their proposal, and

  (b) that he may within such period as is specified
  (which must be at least 28 days after the service of the notice) communicate to the authority his objection to the proposal,

  and informing him of the effect of subsection (3) (approval to be withheld if majority of tenants are opposed).
  (3) The authority shall not enter into the management agreement if it appears to them that a majority of the tenants of the houses to which the agreement relates do not wish the proposal to proceed.
  936
  (4) In the case of secure tenants the provisions of this section apply in place of the provisions of section 105 (consultation on matters of housing management) in relation to the making of a management agreement.".'.
  Amendment No. 115, in clause 115, leave out lines 15 to 43.
  Amendment No. 115, in clause 116, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 117.
  Amendment No. 116, line 13, at end insert
  'and shall not enter into any agreement that has not received majority support of those tenants who have been consulted.'.
  Mr. Battle: We now move to part II of the Bill, which deals with public tenancies and local authority housing. It is ironic that under part I the Government argued for giving tenants rights, but tonight they have drawn back from that, despite an assurance that was given in Committee, and have suggested that rather more was on offer at first sight than has proved to be the case.
  Clauses 115 and 116, which originally were clauses 113 to 115, pave the way for the compulsory competitive tendering of housing management and remove tenants' rights to be consulted and their veto over the contracting out of the management of their homes. Under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, tenants have the right to be consulted on all matters reflecting housing management, but the Bill removes that right in order to extend CCT. It seems that the only purpose of CCT is to remove tenants' rights.
  Under section 27 and 27A of the Housing Act, a local authority may contract out any of its housing management functions only after consulting tenants and obtaining the Secretary of State's consent. Consent shall not be given if it appears that the majority of tenants are opposed. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations delegating arrangements for approving management agreements to local authorities and proposes to remove the requirement that a management agreement cannot be approved if a majority of tenants oppose it. We oppose that diminution in hard-won tenants' rights, because we believe that tenants should be given that primary right. We hope that the Government will not remove those passages from the Bill.
  Interestingly, the rubric of clause 115 says "Management agreements" and the rubric to clause 116 says
  "Consultation with respect to management agreements".
  I argue that the rubric should read, "rights with respect to management agreements", to enshrine tenants' rights in law. I gather that more than 100 tenants' organisations responded to the Government's consultation paper, "Competing for Quality", and all opposed the removal of their primary right to have a say in what happens to their housing management. Tenants and their organisations are clear that their rights are being taken away by the abolition of the provision for consultation that was enshrined in the 1985 Act. Surely, as users of local authority housing management services, tenants should be the final arbiters of whether CCT should benefit them. It should be up to them to take the decision about who manages their homes, because such decisions are no less important than decisions on ownership.
  New clause 8 is intended completely to replace clause 115. It will allow a local authority to enter into a management agreement with some other body to manage its housing stock after consultation with tenants, individually and collectively, provided that the majority of

  937
  tenants affected are not opposed. That is intended to replace current provisions, under which the Secretary of State must give his consent to each agreement. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State may give a general consent, but the stipulation that a majority of tenants should not be opposed is effectively removed. We want to put the power back where it belongs—at local level—rather than hand more to the Secretary of State.
  New clause 9 would require consultation to take place before a management agreement could be entered into. It would replace completely the existing clause 116 in order to reinstate the requirement that tenants are consulted individually on any proposed management agreement and the requirement that the agreement may not be entered into if a majority of tenants are opposed to it. It would also require the local authority to notify tenants of the identity of the proposed manager and of the terms of the agreement, a requirement which is in the existing legislation but which is to be deleted by clause 116.
  We hope that the Government will respect tenants' rights. We believe that the tenants' right under the Housing Act 1985 to be consulted and to be able to veto the extension of compulsory competitive tendering for their housing management should be fundamental. We are opposed to its removal because nothing is more important to tenants than the management of their homes.
  The process should be tenant-led and tenant-driven. The tenants should be involved from the outset instead of the process being Secretary of State-led. The provisions run counter to its being tenant-led and tenant-driven and they undercut tenants' rights. Under the present clauses, tenants will not necessarily have the final say in who manages their homes.
  It is worth pointing out that the National Housing Forum, which brings together all the key organisations involved in promoting access to decent homes for all, said:
  "The Forum is deeply concerned that the Housing and Urban Development Bill contains clauses which will remove existing tenants' rights to veto the introduction of CCT to the management of their homes. It feels that tenants should be able to decide if CCT is the best option for their housing."
  The National Tenants and Residents Federation, severally and individually through its member organisations, has submitted numerous petitions to the House to beg the Government to leave their primary right to a veto in statute.
  One petition states:
  "The Humble Petition of local authority tenants of councils in England and Wales Sheweth That Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, part of the original Tenants Charter of the Housing Act 1980, gives a most important right to council tenants in England and Wales in that it obliges their landlord authority to consult them on matters of housing management. The right of tenants to be consulted and to have their views taken into account when any subsequent decision is made is the foundation for tenant participation in housing management.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House: Will instruct the Government to make no amendment to reduce tenant's rights under section 105, Housing Act 1985 … and to therefore strike out"
  what then was
  "Clause 114".
  The new clause would satisfy that petition. I hope that the Government will take note of it and of the fact that more than 5,000 tenants, representing tenants' organisations, petitioned the House on 3 December to let hon. Members
  938
  know exactly what they thought of proposals to reduce tenants' rights to consultation. National tenants' organisations and the National Tenants and Residents Federation have organised petitioning of the House to say that they wanted to retain that primary right.
  The new clause would reinstate the right and would interpret the Government's intentions more positively. The Government offer hollow talk of the right to manage, but, in legislation, they remove rather than enhance tenants' rights. The Bill flies in the face of sentiments expressed in the tenants charter because, in practice, the Government are undermining tenants' rights.
  Tenants' rights should be extended, not withdrawn. Tenants should have the final say in who manages their homes. If they are dissatisfied with the service, they should be collectively free to choose other social landlords—not only private companies—to provide an alternative.
  If they are satisfied with the current service, they should be spared the costly process of tendering. In other words, any trigger for tendering should be in the hands of tenants and not in those of the Government or the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause.
  10.45 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate that Ministers have fought hard for an excellent Bill and have achieved a great deal against mighty odds. I congratulate them on what has been achieved, although the Bill does not go so far as some of us would wish.
  I hope that the implications of the new clause will be considered carefully; we do not want it to distort what is already not a particularly level playing field. In my constituency there are a number of retirement leaseholders of properties built by McCarthy and Stone, a company of which hon. Members may have heard. These leaseholders do not have the right of consultation. Indeed, they have no rights when it comes to deciding who will manage their properties. The management company that is determined by the property developer is a subsidiary of that company.
  Council tenants have the right to decide and the right also of full consultation, while retired people—innocent people who, in my view, have been taken in to some degree by private developers—do not have the right to decide. Instead, they have to accept a management company that is owned by the developer.
  Tenants of council properties ar being given more and more rights, but someone who buys a retirement leasehold flat has to sign a document that states that, if he sells the property, 1 per cent. of the proceeds will be returned to the developer. The development companies have fought hard to stop the rights of retirement leaseholders being extended. They have opposed the proposal that the leaseholders should have the right to enfranchise their leaseholds, which is something for which Ministers have fought hard.
  If the new clause is to be accepted, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear much in mind the persecution of retired, elderly people who are buying properties from companies such as McCarthy and Stone and who are deprived of the right to decide which company will manage their property. They are instead instructed to take on a company that is a subsidiary of the development company. The terms that are set out in their leases can be described only as oppressive.

  939
  I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who introduced the new clause so fairly and so well, will accept that there must be a level playing field. It cannot be right if one group has many justifiable rights while others have hardly any rights.
  If my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to accept the new clause, or even if he is about to say that he will consider it carefully, I hope that he will give me the simple assurance that he will examine the deprivation of rights and entitlements that is suffered by a substantial group of retired and elderly people who seem to have no one to fight for them. They seem to have been prevented from securing a fair deal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he will try to ensure that there will be a level playing field and that private leaseholders will be able to obtain some rights that compare with the justifiable rights of council tenants to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West referred.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend will go so far as to say that he will be pleased to meet two or three representatives from developments such as Homecove house and Homeground house at Southend, where residents have fought hard to establish the rights—not great rights or privileges—that are available to every householder or tenant in other properties. If my hon. Friend is prepared to give such an assurance, there is no reason why he should not look upon the new clause with some favour.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will work hard to ensure that there is a level playing field and that one group does not have all the rights while others are persecuted, deprived and exploited.
  Mr. Clive Soley: It is encouraging to see the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) point so effectively to the huge hole in the middle of the Government's legislation. Of course, the Bill is not really about tenants' rights, and that is the sad aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—I gladly support his new clause—made the case for improving tenants' rights, inasmuch as the Government have gone down that road, but the real hollowness of the legislation is shown by the hon. Member for Southend, East.
  Many of my hon. Friends and I have argued for years that the crucial issue is the management of rented property, regardless of to whom it belongs. If one has a bad landlord, it does not matter whether it is public, private or charity, one deserves the right to get out of its clutches. I have said on many occasions that there is nothing worse than having the power to put a private landlord in prison but still remain his tenant when he comes out of prison. That is ludicrous and wrong; it puts the tenant in an impossible position.
  If the Government were seriously addressing tenants' rights, the Bill would include a provision to extend to tenants in all sectors the right to change their landlord. Council tenants, housing association tenants and private sector tenants should have the right to change their landlord. It is true that there have to be different rules for each sector and that there have to be different circumstances for each, but each case should be driven by the tenants. The tragedy and the hollowness of the 13ill is that it is driven by the Secretary of State.
  The other aspect of the Bill that is so offensive and which the new clause addresses is that, to rub salt into the wound, tenants have to pay for a process that they themselves might not wish to go through. They might be
  940
  perfectly happy with their present council landlord. They might feel that it is doing a very good job. The landlord might be a Conservative council, a Labour council, or any variation in between. The tenants might be perfectly happy with what they have and might not wish to change it. As a result of the legislation, unless the new clauses are accepted, tenants will be obliged to go through a system for which they will have to pay out of their rent. That is grossly unfair. It has nothing to do with tenants' rights; it is all to do with punishing council tenants.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), in a rather more surreptitious way than his predecessors adopted, is saying, "This is the way we get rid of council housing." I have always understood the Conservative party's argument, which is, "We want councils no longer to be housing managers." It is a silly argument and it is wrong in a variety of ways, but I understand it. The point is that choice should be with tenants, not with the Government, not even with the council or with anybody else.
  Before the previous election, the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Ridley as he now is, was open enough to say, "I want to put an end to council housing." He was very specific about that. His aim was very explicitly stated, and it was put into practice by many Conservative councils who thought that they would try to sell off council housing. The hon. Member for Acton has moved back on that. He is recorded as saying, "Council housing will continue for many years."
  The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the early stages of the first Margaret Thatcher Government in the early 1980s. I remember when the body of the baronet and his bike were found washed up on a beach with various Tory knives sticking out of his back, with the fingerprints of Lady Macbeth of Finchley all over them. They were there because the hon. Gentleman was pursuing policies at that time in the Department of the Environment which were not regarded as in keeping with the Thatcherite policies of the time.
  The wheel has moved a semicircle, and the Minister is now trying to back off from what Lord Ridley was doing, because, more than most, he recognises that it would be a disaster to get rid of council housing without replacing it. A policy of giving tenants the right to buy would have been brilliant if it had been matched by a duty to replace. One simply cannot get rid of a million houses without creating a crisis. That was one right which the Government gave.
  The Government still want to get rid of council housing, but by the rather more circuitous route of putting it out to tender, in the hope that tenants will find that private management is better. In some cases, tenants will find that private management is better, although in some cases it will be worse. That is the problem.
  To make tenants choose and make them pay for having the choice presented to them when they may be perfectly satisfied is not the way to recognise tenants' rights. It is also profoundly dangerous. I like new clause 9 because it will ensure that tenants are properly informed.
  The Minister is wise after the event. Perhaps he knew at the time the danger that the Government were getting into when they allowed tenants the right to buy in blocks of flats that needed major repairs. We now have the horrendous scene about which the Labour party warned the Government for many years. If we had pepper potting, as it is called, in council blocks that needed a lot of money

  941
  spent on them, tenants who bought flats would face horrendous bills. That is precisely what happened in Labour and Tory boroughs and elsewhere.
  The only way out of the trap is to allow local authorities to buy back. The hon. Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), who are looking quizzically at each other, should feel more guilty about the matter than anyone else because the policies in Wandsworth aggravated the housing problem in that area.
  If we are talking seriously about tenants' rights—as we should be—we should at the very least support the new clauses. We need to go much further. We need to say that the quality of the management of one's home matters more than almost anything else. Rent levels, tenants' right and quality of management are what should drive any rented policy. Nothing else should matter. I am not fussed about ownership.
  If tenants have a bad landlord, they must get shot of him, no matter who it is. If tenants have a good landlord, they do not want the hassle and expense of management of their housing going to tender and then to some other organisation which they do not especially want. Tenants may not want any change but they must go through the system because they have no choice. Tenants must put their hands in their pockets and pay their money for something which they do not want and which might end up being a lot worse. The local authority must then accept the change if the new landlord puts in the lowest tender and meets certain other criteria. That is totally unacceptable because the tenant might not want it that way.
  We are not talking about tenants' rights: we are talking about another attempt to push council tenants out of council control without having any clear policy or strategy other than a slight reversal of the recommendations and policy which were put forward so clearly and powerfully —although I strongly disagree with them—by Lord Ridley. Lord Ridley was clear in what he wanted to achieve. The Minister is still not clear. He is saying that he wants council housing to continue, but he is putting enough blocks on the possibility of making it work effectively to push it out of that sector. If he were pushing tenants into better management and lower rents, I would say that it was terrific, but he is not.
  The tenants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Ealing, Acton should have had a choice of a housing manager who did not put up their rents by £30 per week. The Conservative council in Ealing put up rents by £30 per week. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister muttering from a sedentary position that it was because of a Labour party policy. It was not a Labour party policy. It was a clear and determined effort by the Conservative council. No other council in the country found it necessary to increase rents by that amount.
  Sir George Young rose—
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way shortly. The reason why Ealing council did it that way was because it wanted to put the burden on tenants when it could have done what most local authorities did, which was spread the burden.
  Sir George Young rose—
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way. I simply want to ensure that the Minister makes the right intervention. I am looking forward to this and I want to get it wound up suitably.
  The issue for Ealing council was to spread the burden in such a way that the tenants had to take most of the burden, instead of other people. Hon. Members should remember that the reason why rents increased around the country generally was because of the Government's directive in terms of the other subsidy given to councils.
  Sir George Young: I am afraid that this has very little to do with the new clause, but the hon. Gentleman has pushed his luck. If he reads the district auditor's report on Ealing, he will find that rents went up in Ealing because of the creative accountancy of a Labour administration that borrowed, knowing perfectly well that the debts would not have to be repaid until after the borough elections. It is there in black and white in the district auditor's report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard enough about Ealing.
  Mr. Soley: I respect what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but Ealing is relevant to tenants' rights. To some extent, tenants have the right to determine rents. Problems arise if a council deliberately puts up rents. The audit was irrelevant as the decision was taken to put all the burden on to the tenants and not on to the ratepayers. The increase came from the Government.
  11 pm
  All good councils and housing associations discuss rent increases with their tenants. Under the new clause, tenants would lose that influence over a new competitive tenderer. A competitive tenderer may take over in Ealing and put up rents again with minimal consultation. Whether we are talking about a Conservative council such as Ealing or a company that takes over the properties after putting in a low bid, the tenants' rights are lost. That is why all the tenants' organisations have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House pointing out that tenants were losing their rights. That should not be happening.
  What the Minister knows in his heart is necessary, but what, because of his party's ideological position, he cannot deliver, is a proper reform that gives tenants in the private sector, the public sector, housing associations and charitable groups the right to get rid of a bad landlord. We need nothing more.
  Mr. Denham: I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was important. It was rather surprising to hear about problems in the private sector due to changes of landlord in the context of the new clause, but the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that the principle should be extended. I hope that the Minister was not sitting on the Front Bench wondering why we were talking about McCarthy and Stone properties when we should be talking about council tenants. There may be some lessons to be learned from what has happened in that part of the private sector, in the plans that the Minister appears to have, according to recent newspaper articles.
  If in future private building companies will be able to bid for Housing Corporation funds to undertake the development of social housing, it is likely that the situation in respect of retirement properties for private sector tenants will affect ordinary families who rent properties built by private sector companies.

  943
  The Financial Times tells us that the Minister is being pushed by groups of London Tory Members. I hope that any move in that direction is backed from the start with an absolute cast-iron guarantee that any tenants of properties created in that manner have the right to choose their landlords from the outset. If they do not, the imbalance between what is now proposed for council tenants and those in the private sector or the housing association movement will become even more stark.
  We have heard some comments about the strategic issues, but we should rehearse the reasons why tenants believe that they should have the right to veto any change in management. I am sure that we will hear from the Minister, as we did in Committee, about all the different stages of consultation in which tenants will have an opportunity to contribute to the CCT process, but the Government must accept that whatever the involvement in consultation, it is no substitute for a say in the final decision as to who gets the contract to manage their homes. That is not an ideological position. It comes from the experience of tenants and the way in which they see their properties being managed. Fundamentally, it comes down to one of the great problems in competitive tendering.
  It is possible to write into a specification physical and specific items that can be measured. But aspects of management or of public service such as the attitude, outlook, manner and caring nature of staff are impossible to include in a written specification with any degree of certainty about what will be produced.
  When tenants look at the management of their estates, they can reasonably specify the time that it should take to have a repair done and the efficiency with which it is done and that it should be done to the tenant's satisfaction. They can check whether that has been achieved. They can state that there must be a local housing office and specify its opening hours and that it must run an appointments system. Standards can be set and monitored for ground maintenance. The physical and specific elements of a competitive tendering contract can be written down.
  However, it is not possible satisfactorily to write into a specification for a tender for housing management, for example, how housing officers resolve disputes between neighbours and the extent to which they show care and sensitivity in bringing together neighbours with a variety of conflicts to resolve disputes with the least pain to each party. It is not possible to specify matters such as whether staff take the time to listen to elderly or inarticulate people who take some time to describe their problem.
  Tenants need to know not just the efficiency with which rent arrears are chased but the sensitivity with which debt problems and financial difficulties will be understood and worked through. Tenants should be supported so that the local authority receives its rent but the tenants' financial difficulties are not exacerbated by being forced to go to private moneylenders or find other ways of raising the money.
  Those aspects of the quality of local authority management or any housing management are likely to be as important to tenants as the physical and specific matters which can easily be written down. It will be on non-specific matters that tenants will want to have the final say.
  As the Bill is drafted at present, not only will tenants not have a right of veto but they will not know who is likely to take over the running of their homes. They may know who is competing for the contract, but they will
  944
  certainly not have a veto on who takes over. At best, the only information that the tenants will have towards the closing stage of the tendering process will be the physical and specific parts of the contract specification and the price. They will not be able to check out the management style and human approach of those who will be responsible day to day for the quality of the management of their homes. That is why tenants throughout Britain are so angry about what the Government are doing.
  There are great strengths in public sector management in specifying performance levels and creating a division between those who are responsible for specifying the quality of service that should be provided and those who provide it. That is why many of the better-run authorities were introducing such specifications for the in-house management of their local housing offices and housing management services, well before CCT appeared on the agenda. It is an excellent way of telling tenants what the council proposes to achieve.
  It is insupportable that the management should be changed to a different organisation or new company without allowing the tenants to veto the choice of organisation, if they are not happy about it. The House knows that there is only one reason why the Government have chopped the tenants' veto out of the Bill. It is because they believe that such a veto would be a disincentive to competition from the private sector. There is no democratic basis for removing the veto. There is no argument of good housing management.
  The Government have simply been told by private sector management companies that they would not be interested in putting in bids if they felt that the tenants would have the opportunity to reject them if they did not like the service that was on offer. That may be a disadvantage to the ideologically motivated Conservative Members who are determined to drive private sector management into public sector housing, but I do not believe that it is any basis for overruling straightforward democratic rights for council tenants in the way the Government propose, and I hope that tonight the rights can be restored by acceptance of the new clause.
  Sir George Young: This has been a fascinating debate with a substantial number of misunderstandings littering it. One misunderstanding which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned was that somehow Baroness Thatcher and I did not get on. We got on very well indeed. We got on so well that she put me in her Administration not once, but twice—an honour not extended to many other people.
  The other misunderstanding was that Labour Members do not seem to understand what the shadow Secretary of State is up to. A few moments ago we heard that he was prepared to trade in their objections to the tenants' veto if we would simply abolish the low rent test. That is exactly what he said. While we had all these objections to compulsory competitive tendering, the hon. Member for Blackburn wrote an article in Tribune in which he said:
  "The wide acceptance between contractor and provider that CCT has produced has been sensible"
  All those debates in Standing Committee about not liking compulsory competitive tendering have been swept aside by the aggressive, forward-looking shadow Secretary of State who failed to take his team into his confidence.
  Mr. Denham: I do not have the advantage of having seen the Tribune article, but I will read it. My contribution

  945
  recognised that a division between the part of an authority responsible for specifying the standard of service and that responsible for delivering the quality and meeting the specifications is a perfectly good management tool and if that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was recognising, I welcome it.
  Sir George Young: I am quite happy to make available the Tribune article, headed, "Jack Straw, New Radical". I hope that the hon. Member will accept that one cannot get CCT for housing management and the tenant veto. The two are incompatible. It is either compulsory competitive tendering or we have a tenants' veto. We cannot have both.
  Mr. Battle: Does not the Minister accept that the real dilemma and incompatibility is the Government arguing that tenants can have their rights and at the same time foisting CCT on them?
  Sir George Young: I shall come in a moment to tenants' rights. The hon. Member, I am sure unwittingly, misled the House when he said that tenants would no longer be consulted and that we were going to take away their right to have a say. I wrote it down. Those were his very words. If he looks at page 116 of the Bill he will see exactly what rights tenants are being given which make it clear that they will be consulted and will have a say.
  Mr. Battle: Will the Minister accept that his Bill removes the tenants' right to veto? Is that true or not?
  Sir George Young: Right. Let me address directly the whole question of tenants' rights. The Bill gives tenants a right to manage, a right undreamed of by Labour when it was in power. Tenants will have a right to take over management of their estate. They will not be dependent on a local authority, which has been the position. They will not be dependent on a local authority giving away or subcontracting that right. They will have a right to manage their estates. It was not a right that the hon. Member mentioned in his speech at all.
  We had this debate at length in Standing Committee. At present, tenants have a right of veto. We are proposing much more meaningful rights which involve tenants in the whole process of drawing up the specifications of the contract, interviewing the contractors, and monitoring it. If the hon. Member is interested in tenant involvement and tenant power, there is far more in the Bill than a simple crude veto at the end of the process. We are now discussing with tenants the new rights that are enshrined in the Bill and there is an appetite among tenants for the rights extended to them in the Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: What is the tenants' view? The Minister talks of the more sophisticated rights, but he does not mention their simple democratic right to have a final say over who will manage their homes. What have tenants told the Minister's Department? Do they want to keep that democratic right or not?
  Sir George Young: Tenants throughout the country are anxious to have the right to manage their estates and the Bill gives them that right. They are also interested in the real rights conferred on them by the Bill to draw up the specifications of the contracts for their estates. They do not have that right now. They have no right to interview the
  946
  contractors, or to monitor how well the contractors do. Those rights, which the Bill extends to tenants, are far more meaningful than the right to a crude yes or no when the local authority has drawn up the specifications without talking to tenants, and has chosen the contractors without consulting them. Hon. Members who tour the local authority estates will find that, under the present Government, there are more estate management boards and tenant management co-operatives than ever existed when Labour was in power. Tenants have a real appetite for reform and change.
  11.15 pm
  The Opposition's amendments try to perpetuate the ideas of a bygone age—an age of centralist bureaucracies, when local authorities told tenants what they intended to do. That is not the way in which to manage public housing in the 1990s, or in the 21st century. The way forward lies in close, meaningful consultation with tenants from the outset, building partnership and trust, and that is what the Government propose. I urge the House not to accept the new clause. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) must contain himself. If he wants to intervene and the Minister gives way, that is fair enough.
  I assume that the Minister has finished his speech. I call Mr. Battle.
  Mr. Battle: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Minister mentioned extending tenants' rights and to their having a say in the drawing up of contracts; but he did not give tenants the primary right to say yes or no to the contract itself. What is more, the tenants now have to pay for the whole process, even if, at the end of the day, they are against it.
  I am tempted to press the Minister. I may be wrong, but was he not the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment when the Housing Act 1985 was passed? Was section 27A of that Act an aberration? Did not the Government argue then that they were giving tenants rights? If so, why do they now feel that they should remove those rights? They cannot have it both ways. They are promoting measures that deal specifically with the removal of a right enshrined in the 1985 Act—the primary right to veto, allowing power to remain with the tenants. The Government want to foist CCT on local authorities.
  In Committee, the Minister made it clear that the initiative would be Secretary of State-led or local authority-led, but it certainly would not be tenant-led. We should be considering the issue from that angle, not from the angle that the Government are presenting.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. The Minister is going back on what the Government did before. Has my hon. Friend also noticed, however, that the Minister did not answer the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)? As he and I have both pointed out, an incredible situation now obtains: tenants can have a bad landlord in prison who cannot be changed, and can be made to change a very good landlord whom they do not want to change.
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has made a telling point —as, indeed, he did in his speech. The Government purport to offer people rights when it suits them, but they

  947
  step back when we ask for those rights to apply across the board. We have already observed their attitude to the rights of leaseholders who want enfranchisement.
  Let me conclude by quoting the words of Cora Carter, secretary of the National Federation of Tenants, who is a tenant from Huddersfield:
  "The Government talks of extending tenants' rights, but when you look at the Bill, it is taking them away. Tenants should he consulted on all aspects of housing management."
  We would add that tenants should have real rights, not references to rights in charters which are fundamentally undermined in proposed legislation. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 220.

  Division No. 147]

  [11.19 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Alton, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Barnes, Harry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Battle, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Betts, Clive

  Lewis, Terry

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Boyes, Roland

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Byers, Stephen

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  McAllion, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cann, Jamie

  McCartney, Ian

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Mahon, Alice

  Coffey, Ann

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cohen, Harry

  Meale, Alan

  Connarty, Michael

  Michael, Alun

  Cousins, Jim

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cryer, Bob

  Murphy, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Denham, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Dixon, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Etherington, Bill

  Salmond, Alex

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Simpson, Alan

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Soley, Clive

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Vaz, Keith

  Hall, Mike

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hanson, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Henderson, Doug

  Wray, Jimmy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Gordon McMaster and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alexander, Richard

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Booth, Hartley

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butler, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  948

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knox, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Clappison, James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Legg, Barry

  Colvin, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Congdon, David

  Lidington, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Luff, Peter

  Cran, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Maclean, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Devlin, Tim

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Malone, Gerald

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mans, Keith

  Dover, Den

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Merchant, Piers

  Dunn, Bob

  Milligan, Stephen

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Mills, Iain

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Eggar, Tim

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Needham, Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Faber, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Page, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forth, Eric

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Freeman, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Gale, Roger

  Richards, Rod

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hague, William

  Sackville, Tom

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hendry, Charles

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Horam, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sproat, Iain

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Steen, Anthony

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Stephen, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Sweeney, Walter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sykes, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  949

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trend, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 92
  LANDLORD'S NOTICE OF PURCHASE PRICE AND OTHER MATTERS
  Amendment made: No. 80, in page 94, line 25, leave out 'multiplier' and insert 'relevant amount and multipliers'.
Clause 95

  RIGHT TO ACQUIRE ON RENT TO MORTGAGE TERMS
  Amendments made: No. 81, in page 97, leave out lines 5 to 15.
  No. 82, in page 97, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—
  '(3A) Where, in the case of a dwelling-house which is a house, the weekly rent at the relevant time did not exceed the relevant amount, the minimum initial payment shall be determined by the formula—
  P=R x M
  where—
  P = the minimum initial payment;
  R= the amount of the weekly rent at the relevant time;
  M = the multiplier which at that time was for the time being declared by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.
  (3B) Where, in the case of a dwelling-house which is a house, the weekly rent at the relevant time exceeded the relevant amount, the minimum initial payment shall be determined by the formula—
  P=Q+(E x M)
  where—
  P=the minimum initial payment;
  Q=the qualifying maximum for the year of assessment which included the relevant time;
  E=the amount by which the weekly rent at that time exceeded the relevant amount;
  M=the multiplier which at that time was for the time being declared by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.
  (3C) The minimum initial payment in respect of a dwelling-house which is a flat is 80 per cent. of the amount which would be the minimum initial payment in respect of the dwelling-house if it were a house.
  (4) The relevant amount and multipliers for the time being declared for the purposes of this section shall be such that, in the case of a dwelling-house which is a house, they will produce a minimum initial payment equal to the capital sum which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could be raised on a 25 year repayment mortgage in the case of which the net amount of the monthly mortgage payments was equal to the rent at the relevant time calculated on a monthly basis.".
  No. 83, in page 97, line 37, after 'section' insert—
  "'net amount', in relation to monthly mortgage payments,means the amount of such payments after deduction of tax under section 369 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (mortgage interest payable under deduction of tax);
  'qualifying maximum' means the qualifying maximum
  950
  defined in section 367(5) of that Act (limit on relief for interest on certain loans);
  'relevant amount' means the amount which at the relevant time was for the time being declared by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;
  'relevant time' means the time of the service of the landlord's notice under section 146 (landlord's notice admitting or denying right);".

Clause 97
  LANDLORD'S NOTICE ADMITTING OR DENYING RIGHT
  Amendment made: No. 84, in page 98, line 24, leave out 'mulitiplier' and insert 'relevant amount and multipliers'.—[Mr. Baldry.]
Clause 105

  MORTGAGE FOR SECURING REDEMPTION OF LANDLORD'S SHARE
  Amendment made: No. 85, in page 103, line 13, leave out 'to (5)' and insert 'and (4)'.
  No. 86, in page 103, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 104 and insert—
  '(3) The following, namely—

  (a) any advance which is made otherwise than for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) and is secured by a legal charge having priority to the mortgage, and

  (b) any further advance which is so secured,

  shall rank in priority to the mortgage if, and only if, the landlord by written notice served on the institution concerned gives its consent; and the landlord shall so give its consent if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose.
  (4) The landlord may at any time by written notice served on an approved lending institution postpone the mortgage to any advance or further advance which—

  (a) is made to the tenant by that institution, and

  (b) is secured by a legal charge not having priority to the mortgage:

  and the landlord shall serve such a notice if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose.'
  No. 87, in page 104, line 17, at end insert—
  '(6A) The approved purposes for the purposes of this section are—

  (a) to enable the tenant to make an interim or final payment,

  (b) to enable the tenant to defray, or to defray on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) the cost of any works to the dwelling-house,

  (ii) any service charge payable in respect of the dwelling-house for works, whether or not to the dwelling-house, and

  (iii) any service charge or other amount payable in respect of the dwelling-house for insurance, whether or not of the dwelling-house, and

  (c) to enable the tenant to discharge, or to discharge on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) so much as is still outstanding of any advance or further advance which ranks in priority to the mortgage,

  (ii) any arrears of interest on such an advance or further advance, and

  (iii) any costs and expenses incurred in enforcing payment of any such interest, or repayment (in whole or in part) of any such advance or further advance.

  (6B) Where different parts of an advance or further advance are made for different purposes, each of those parts shall be regarded as a separate advance or further advance for the purposes of this section.'

Clause 107

  REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON EARLY DISPOSAL
  Amendments made: No. 88, in page 105, line 31 [Clause 107], leave out 'to (2C)' and insert 'and (2B)'.
  No. 89, in page 106, leave out lines 1 to 37 and insert—'
  '(2A) The following, namely—

  (a) any advance which is made otherwise than for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) and is secured by a legal charge having priority to the charge taking effect by virtue of this section, and

  (b) any further advance which is so secured, shall rank in priority to that charge if, and only if, the landlord by written notice served on the institution concerned gives its consent; and the landlord shall so give its consent if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose.

  (2B) The landlord may at any time by written notice served on an approved lending institution postpone the charge taking effect by virtue of this section to any advance or further advance which—

  (a) is made to the tenant by that institution, and

  (b) is secured by a legal charge not having priority to that charge;

  and the landlord shall serve such a notice if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose."
  (4) After subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(4A) The approved purposes for the purposes of this section are—

  (a) to enable the tenant to make an interim or final payment,

  (b) to enable the tenant to defray, or to defray on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) the cost of any works to the dwelling-house,

  (ii) any service charge payable in respect of the dwelling-house for works, whether or not to the dwelling-house, and

  (iii) any service charge or other amount payable in respect of the dwelling-house for insurance, whether or not of the dwelling house, and

  (c) to enable the tenant to discharge, or to discharge on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) so much as is still outstanding of any advance or further advance which ranks in priority to the charge taking effect by virtue of this section,

  (ii) any arrears of interest on such an advance or further advance, and

  (iii) any costs and expenses incurred in enforcing payment of any such interest, or repayment (in whole or in part) of any such advance or further advance.

  (4B) Where different parts of an advance or further advance are made for different purposes, each of those parts shall be regarded as a separate advance or further advance for the purposes of this section.".'

Clause 118

  VOLUNTARY DISPOSALS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 91, in page 118, line 29 [Clause 118], leave out 'to (2C)' and insert 'and (2B)'.
  No. 92, in page 118, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 on page 119 and insert—
  '"(2A) The following, namely—

  (a) any advance which is made otherwise than for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(b) and is secured by a legal charge having priority to the charge taking effect by virtue of this section, and

  (b) any further advance which is so secured,

  shall rank in priority to that charge if, and only if, the local authority by written notice served on the institution concerned gives their consent; and the local authority shall so give their consent if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose.
  (2B) The local authority may at any time by written notice served on an approved lending institution postpone the charge taking effect by virtue of this section to any advance or further advance which—

  (a) is made to the purchaser by that institution, and

  (b) is secured by a legal charge not having priority to that charge;

  and the local authority shall serve such a notice if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose."
  (2) After subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(5) The approved purposes for the purposes of this section are—

  (a) to enable the purchaser to defray, or to defray on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) the cost of any works to the house,

  (ii) any service charge payable in respect of the house for works, whether or not to the house, and

  (iii) any service charge or other amount payable in respect of the house for insurance, whether or not of the house, and

  (b) to enable the purchaser to discharge, or to discharge on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) so much as is still outstanding of any advance or further advance which ranks in priority to the charge taking effect by virtue of this section,

  (ii) any arrears of interest on such an advance or further advance, and

  (iii) any costs and expenses incurred in enforcing payment of any such interest, or repayment (in whole or in part) of any such advance or further advance.

  (6) Where different parts of an advance or further advance are made for different purpses, each of those parts shall be regarded as a separate advance or further advance for the purposes of this section.".'

Clause 119

  VOLUNTARY DISPOSALS BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 93, in page 119, line 26 [Clause 119], leave out 'to (2C)' and insert 'and (2B)'.
  No. 94, in page 119, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 120 and insert—
  '(2A) The following, namely—

  (a) any advance which is made otherwise than for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) and is secured by a legal charge having priority to the charge taking effect by virtue of this paragraph, and

  (b) any further advance which is so secured,

  shall rank in priority to that charge if, and only if, the housing association by written notice served on the institution concerned gives its consent; and the housing association shall so give its consent if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose.
  (2B) The housing association may at any time by written notice served on an approved lending institution postpone the charge taking effect by virtue of this paragraph to any advance or further advance which—

  (a) is made to the purchaser by that institution, and

  (b) is secured by a legal charge not having priority to that charge;

  and the housing association shall serve such a notice if the purpose of the advance or further advance is an approved purpose.".'
  No. 95, in page 120, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
  '''(5) The approved purposes for the purposes of this paragraph are—

  (a) to enable the purchaser to defray, or to defray on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) the cost of any works to the house,

  (ii) any service charge payable in respect of the house for works, whether or not to the house, and

  953

  (iii) any service charge or other amount payable in respect of the house for insurance, whether or not of the house, and

  (b) to enable the purchaser to discharge, or to discharge on his behalf, any of the following—

  (i) so much as is still outstanding of any advance or further advance which ranks in priority to the charge taking effect by virtue of this paragraph,

  (ii) any arrears of interest on such an advance or further advance, and

  (iii) any costs and expenses incurred in enforcing payment of any such interest, or repayment (in whole or in part) of any such advance or further advance;

  and in this sub-paragraph 'service charge' has the meaning given by section 621A of the Housing Act 1985.

  (6) Where different parts of an advance or further advance are made for different purposes, each of those parts shall be regarded as a separate advance or further advance for the purposes of this paragraph.".'—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 127

  RENT TO LOAN SCHEME: RELATED AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 101, in page 133, line 18, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 71, in subsection (1)(d), after "63(2)" there shall be inserted "or (3)".'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 131

  RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 102, in page 138, line 5, after 'when', insert '(i)'.
  No. 103, in page 138, line 10, at end insert—

  '(ii) there is a change of landlord;

  (iii) it is assigned to a new tenant.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 111

  NEW RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH DISPOSALS
  Amendment made: No. 90, in page 114, line 2, at end insert—
  'and any reference to a block of flats specified in a notice under section 84(2) above is a reference to a block each of the flats in which is so specified.'—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 136

  FURTHER PROVISION AS TO ALLOCATION OF HOUSING
  Amendment made: No. 104, in page 141, line 32, after 'housing', insert
  ', or of housing in respect of which the local authority may nominate the tenant,'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Clause 138

  OTHER AMENDMENTS OF 1987 ACT
  Amendments made: No. 105, in page 142, line 14, after'(price)', insert '(a)'.
  No. 110, in page 142, line 11 after '(1)', insert—
  'In section 17 of the 1987 Act (management of local authority houses), in subsection (1), the words "and exercised by" shall cease to have effect.
  (2) .'.
  No. 111, in page 142, line 11, leave out 'the 1987' and insert 'that'.
  No. 106, in page 142, line 15, at end insert—
  '(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) There shall be deducted from the discount an amount equal to—

  (a) any previous discount, or the aggregate of any previous discounts, received by—

  (i) the tenant;

  (ii) the tenant's spouse (including a person living with him as if they were husband and wife), if living with him at the time of the purchase in relation to which the discount is being claimed;

  (iii) a deceased spouse or person mentioned in paragraph (ii), if living with the tenant at the time of death;

  (iv) any joint purchaser of the house, on any previous exercise of the right to purchase a house under this Part or under Part V of the Housing Act 1985; less

  (b) any amount of such previous discount recovered under section 72 or under section 155 of the Housing Act 1985.".'. —[Mr. Baldry.]

  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  To be further considered tomorrow.

NOISE AND STATUTORY NUISANCE BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Sackville.]

MEDICINES INFORMATION BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medicines Information Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Sackville.]

MEDICINES INFORMATION BILL [Ways and Means]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medicines Information Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the taking into account, in determining the amount of fees to be fixed in accordance with section I of the Medicines Act 1971, of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act resulting from that Bill; and

(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Sackville.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Ordered,
That Mr. Stanley Orme be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Ann Coffey be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Sunderland University
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
11.32 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: Tonight I am paying a tribute to the staff and students of the new Sunderland university. I decided to speak about the university because, as one of the Members of Parliament representing Sunderland, I am extremely glad and proud that university status has been achieved, for the benefit of the staff, students and community.
Every institution has to have a leader. In Dr. Anne Wright we are fortunate to have a person who will lead the university into the 21st century. Dr. Wright has already stamped her mark on the city of Sunderland in a big way. She has ensured that there is a major relationship with industry and has speedily established strong links with the wider community.
The pro-vice-chancellor has said:
"The next decade is going to be a time of great change for the university."
It is also a time of great change for the city of Sunderland. The two will work closely together as the 21st century aspiration begins to come to life.
A contributor to "Sparks", the university staff magazine, says:
"Hand in hand with the changes go vast benefits for the city of Sunderland and its residents—generating directly and indirectly thousands of full-time and part-time jobs, encouraging investment and supporting new businesses."
That can only be to the good. Too many jobs have been lost in the city, and activity at the university in many different ways will result in very many jobs being created.
The pro-vice-chancellor recently wrote:
"The university currently has around 48 buildings, some of which are very recent purpose built, others which are longer in vintage. As we cope with the changes taking place in our education, it is our aim not to diversify the campus further but to have a smaller concentration of more purpose built accommodation."
Once again, that will benefit the people of the area and create more jobs.
It has been a good time for those who wish to participate in some way in welcoming the new university and at the same time welcoming the new city status of Sunderland.
There are many problems in the north-east and Sunderland has had more than its share. We have seen the destruction of the shipping industry and the decimation of the collieries. However, this evening I wish to concentrate primarily on the role of the university.
For many years Sunderland has had a polytechnic and it has produced a rich vein of students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. According to the history book the poly was designated in 1969, but its origins can be traced back to 1860, and I reckon that that is a few years before my time and the Minister's time.
Sunderland polytechnic was one of the first. To a large extent the poly was able to flourish because of the full support of the local authority, then the Sunderland borough council. Thirty years later, the polytechnic lost its title and the university of Sunderland was born. The change to university status has my full support. In reality it was too long in coming. The change from polytechnic to university has led to some interesting situations.
956
My niece Julie, for example, left school in the hope of getting on an undergraduate course. Julie took the first part of her degree at the Leicester polytechnic. Later, she did a year in industry, and she will graduate, it is hoped with a good degree from the de Montfort university. There must be many students throughout the country who have had experience similar to that of my beloved niece Julie.
In the past, some students who could not get on a university course settled for a place in a polytechnic. There were two different institutions, and one did not have the same bite as the other. In effect, the university place meant more than the polytechnic place, although I must confess that I never believed that to be the case. It has been asked "What's in a name?" In this instance, a great deal, I would think.
I had many friends who worked in the polys and they produced research of the very highest level, comparable with that of any university. For some time I had a very bright woman working in my office. Hanna had completed a master's degree at Sunderland poly in economics, and her husband completed his PhD at Sunderland poly too. Yes, I am pleased that our higher education institutions are now known by the same name—university.
The university of Sunderland has had a strong school of art over the years, and I was extremely glad to be invited to meet the head of the art department, Flavia Swan. Flavia runs a large school of art where students turn out work of the highest quality in painting, sculpture and other subjects.
However, I was more than pleased when I discovered that there was a photography course in the department. The quality of the work that I saw was very good. The two teachers on the course had to work hard to satisfy all the demands of the students. I suppose I could get away with a hint at this time. I should like to see the photography department strengthened and an exhibition area built in one of the new buildings—accessible, I should hope, to the public.
For many years we had to use the silver halide process, though in the next century we will see new processes using computers and digital methods to create new styles of photographs. I am fortunate to be invited to the university photographic department from time to time to chat to students about short-term and long-term changes in photography. I look forward to continuing to do that.
The university has plans to grow in size to 16,000 students by 1996 and to achieve its target of 18,000 students by the year 2000. Dr. Wright believes that the distinction between full-time and part-time attendance modes will fade as modularisation advances.
Additionally, the number and types of courses have changed to meet the changing demands of our ever growing and more complex society. Many new departments and courses will flourish, either by additions to existing ones or the creation of new ones. It is a most exciting time for all of us who have looked forward to the new university and its growth plans.
An important aspect of a university is its relationship with industry. I was glad to be invited by Dr. Wright to hear a fine speech by Peter Wickens, director of personnel and information systems for Nissan. He had been awarded an honorary professorship of the university. I can think of no one more deserving of such an honour. Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd. is based in my constituency; it builds fine cars and has created thousands of jobs for the local population. We are very fortunate to have Nissan in

957
Washington. The company has a role to play in the city of Sunderland and in the north-east generally. As Nissan prospers, it is only to be expected that other companies will locate in the area.
In partnership with industrial giants—Nissan, Vickers, Grove Worldwide, Komatsu—the university's school of engineering and advanced technology has launched the first course in the United Kingdom to combine specialist training in automotive design and manufacture. Practically based, and taught in a purpose-built design studio setting, that unique programme offers options from graduate to postgraduate level. The programme is geared towards producing highly skilled and flexible graduates for direct entry into the north-east's burgeoning automotive industry.
The availability of specialist consultancy and expertise has been a major factor in the decision of several Japanese companies to locate in the north-east. The university has a Japanese studies division which supports Japanese industries moving into the region and provides practical training for local companies looking to expand into the Japanese market.
The university also has an important role in the community which can be illustrated by two interesting projects. The Hendon nature space is an award-winning, student-run nature reserve developed on derelict industrial land for use by local school and community groups.
The university, Sunderland football club and the city have a role to play. Many believe that the heart of the city is Roker park, Sunderland football club's ground. The university plays an important role by sponsoring a soccer player and running a certificate course in crowd and stadium management—a brilliant innovation. The course has been designed in partnership with Sunderland football club, local authorities and the emergency services. It is the first course in the United Kingdom to provide specialist training in safety for stadium managers and stewards. Disasters such as Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough have shown the need for such a co-ordinated approach to crowd safety. It is a credit to the university that it has established such a suitable course.
The university is also committed to improving access to its courses for women, mature students and other groups who all too often miss out on higher education. The university of Sunderland recruits more students from access courses than any other north-east university. We recruited 300 in 1992 and more than half the current student body was 21 or over at entry. Graduates in 1992—this must be fairly unique—included a family of four: a mother, father, daughter and son-in-law, who all graduated on the same B.Ed course. To top that, a 70-year-old grandmother graduated on the same course.
I have given the Minister notice of some questions that I should like to have answered. First, the long overdue opening up of higher education pioneered by the university of Sunderland and the former polytechnic has been a considerable achievement. However, given the Government's current policy of consolidating student numbers in the higher education sector, is there not a danger of much of this excellent work being undone?
Secondly, the north-east has one of the lowest higher education participation rates, and there is a real danger of mature students being squeezed out by the consolidation.
958
Is not this to be regretted, bearing in mind the urgent need for a skilled work force to lead the economy out of recession?
Thirdly, Sunderland, along with many other new universities, performed well in its first entry to the Higher Education Funding Council for England research rating exercise, despite the fact that the former polytechnics have historically received only 1 per cent. of Government funding for this area. Will the Government take this considerable achievement into account and develop a more equitable funding system for research in the unified higher education sector?
Finally, given the university of Sunderland's excellent links with business, industry and the community, will the valuable role of higher education institutions be properly addressed in the measures being introduced on employment and retraining?
I should like to conclude with the words of Dr. Wright, whom I respect and admire greatly. During an address at the annual awards ceremonies for 1992, she said:
"A new city, with a new university, but in celebrating change we also celebrate history and continuity, the University of Sunderland has the same commitment to providing knowledge and skills, confidence and capability for life and for work, to fulfil individual potential and contribute to society and its economy."
11.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on his good fortune in securing the Adjournment debate and on his extremely positive and constructive message of a success story. I am also delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the higher education sector and, in particular, about the extremely high quality of education and research at Sunderland, one of our new universities. As the hon. Gentleman said, the enterprise and initiative of the vice-chancellor, Dr. Anne Wright, and the senior management of the university are creating many exciting developments in the north-east.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Sunderland university has grown quickly from small beginnings into one of the leading higher education providers and a major employer in the area. When it began life as a polytechnic in 1969, it had just 1,000 students. The number has increased steadily, and there are now 11,000 students studying full and part time. Indeed, the figure has risen by 3,000 since 1989 alone.
The growth is remarkable, but it reflects what has been happening throughout higher education in the past decade. Encouraged by the Government's policies for growth, universities, the former polytechnics and colleges have been educating more and more people. Last year, student numbers were more than 60 per cent. higher than when the Government came to power in 1979. During that period, the proportion of young people entering full-time higher education has doubled from one in eight to well over one in four. We remain well on target to see participation reach one in three by the end of the decade.
Expansion has not merely meant more of the same. During the 1980s, the proportion of female students, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, increased from just over 40 per cent. to about one half. Mature entrant numbers rose faster than those of young entrants. I find it remarkable that by 1990 more mature students were entering higher education than young students.

959
We see no reason to suppose that the recent developments are likely to discriminate against mature students. We have safeguarded the fees position of the part-timers which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, mature students will so often be. I think that his fears on that issue are not justified.
The figures that I have given are statistics. As the hon. Gentleman said, what lies behind them is the reality that thousands of young people whose parents never went into higher education and many of whom never even thought about it, have benefitted from one of the best educations in the world. Perhaps even more satisfactory is the fact that thousands of older people who missed out when they were at school have returned to education and received a qualification.
That is a development of enormous economic and social significance not only in Sunderland but nationally. Apart from the benefits to the people themselves, which are important, the country as a whole can only profit from an investment on that scale in its most potent and precious resource—its people and their personal skills.
Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that the growth in student numbers has not been at the expense of quality. More has not meant worse. Despite rapidly increasing numbers, entry standards have been maintained. The proportion of first and upper second class degrees awarded by universities, former polytechnics and colleges has increased substantially.
Although those figures relate to teaching, expansion has not been confined to teaching alone. During the 1980s, universities' earnings from research grants and contracts more than trebled. Increasingly, the private sector—industry, business and commerce—looks to our universities and colleges to provide the expertise and research facilities that it needs to compete in world markets. That includes not only British companies but those from the European Community and further afield. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Nissan's involvement in his local university.
The hon. Gentleman asked about research. I remind him that the new universities—although they are new and have not traditionally conducted large amounts of research—have the benefit of drawing on a pool of £16 million earmarked as pump-priming finance for the former polytechnics and new universities. That was a positive and imaginative move.
It is particularly valuable that, at Sunderland university, over 40 per cent. of all students are studying the sciences, engineering and technology. This rises to over half if subjects and professions allied to medicine are included. I know that it has not been particularly easy for some universities and colleges to attract students to study science. I therefore commend the achievement of Sunderland, on which I hope that it will build.
The commitment to science goes hand in hand with the contribution Sunderland university is making to its local community, especially the business community. Perhaps this can be seen most clearly in the new industry centre that has opened recently on the campus. The centre aims to offer industry the highest possible standards in training, consultancy and manufacturing services, and may pick up some revenue for the university in the process.
Contained within the centre is a micro-technology centre, one of the north-east's leading microcomputer training and consultancy organisations; there is also an advanced manufacturing systems centre, reputed to be the
960
most up-to-date facility of its kind anywhere in the United Kingdom providing consultancy services in computer integrated manufacturing and design systems; and a scanning electron microscopy centre offering a 24-hour turnaround service.
The university's commitment to local industry and business is matched by that to local residents. That is equally important given the circumstances of the city. For too long, the world of higher education has often seemed remote, not to say elitist, for many of the people who live just a stone's throw from the walls of a university or higher education college. To combat this, Sunderland has worked closely with local further education colleges in the area to ensure that, for those who wish to enter higher education, there is close integration of course work and teaching. That makes Sunderland university a warm and welcoming place of learning.
So much for the past and the present. What of the future? The Government announced their funding plans for HE in last year's autumn statement. The plans mean that a total of £3.9 billion will be available to HE institutions in 1993–94, an increase of £265 million, 7.3 per cent. in cash or 4.4 per cent. in real terms, in available public funding for HE. That builds on successive increases of 10 per cent. in each of the past three years and provides for an 8.5 per cent. growth in full-time equivalent student numbers next year and 106,000 extra places by 1995–96. That means that the current record levels of participation can be maintained over the next three years before they are projected to rise to one in three by the year 2000. There is a useful period of consolidation, a time for universities and colleges to take stock—something I know that many have been seeking.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the implications for Sunderland, and I feel that institutions that have expanded especially fast may benefit from a pause before a period of further expansion. That would not be to their disadvantage. At the same time, institutions will need continuing improvements in efficiency by making better use of their resources, and I am sure that they will make them.
I stress that, by 1992, we had already reached participation rates that we had projected in our White Paper would not be reached until 1994 or 1995. That shows that universities and colleges such as Sunderland have responded magnificently to the challenge of expanding and making productivity gains. But the rate of expansion has been so great that it now makes sense to pause and take stock, and to put some additional emphasis on further education.
Like many other universities and colleges, with Government support Sunderland university is building for the long-term future. It is developing its existing campus, and a new building for pharmaceutical sciences will soon be in operation. In co-operation with the Tyne and Wear development corporation, the university is building a new campus site on the north bank of ther River Wear estuary, covering 25 acres of former industrial operations. Appropriately for a university, the site includes the historic seventh-century church of St. Peter's, where the Venerable Bede studied.
The plans are for a four-phase development over 10 years. Eventually, the site will house the business school, computing and information systems, the school of education, the school of art and design, a conference centre, a heritage centre, and a learning resource centre.

961
Also, 450 direct and indirect jobes will be created by the first phase of the development, and more than 1,000 will be created when the project is completed.
But growth is not just a matter of spending money and increasing accommodation. Institutions can maximise the use of their resources through distance learning. To its great credit, Sunderland university has embarked on a major initiative, which I much support, to develop open and distance learning across the massive range of its courses, using a range of media to reach the maximum possible number of students, ever developing the community campus-based radio station, Wear FM community radio. It is pioneering and developing computer-based learning, including the use of external
962
data, satellite and cable television. It is transforming its learning materials into high-quality distance learning packages, which are very valuable for part-time mature students with family and domestic responsibilities.
Those are very positive developments. I take great pride as a Minister in our diverse higher education system. It is buoyant, optimistic and successful. In the university of Sunderland—a new university; a former polytechnic—we have a prime example of much that is good in higher education today. I join the hon. Gentleman in commending its vice-chancellor, Dr. Wright, her staff and the students for their continuing achievements. I wish them every success for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacant homes are being acquired in each district council area under the Government's housing initiative announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement by(a) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, (b)the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association and (c) the other housing associations.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  At 3 February 1993 the number of proposals to acquire property with vacant possession in each district council area is as follows:

  Council

  (a) Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  (b) Northern Ireland Co-ownership Associations

  (c) Other Housing Associations

  Antrim Borough

  —

  12

  —

  Ards Borough

  6

  14

  —

  Armagh District

  4

  9

  11

  Ballymena Borough

  3

  9

  6

  Ballymoney Borough

  3

  6

  —

  Banbridge District

  2

  4

  —

  Belfast City

  50

  3

  89

  Carrickfergus Borough

  8

  25

  —

  Castlereagh Borough

  5

  5

  —

  Coleraine Borough

  2

  26

  4

  Cookstown District

  —

  9

  1

  Craigavon Borough

  7

  21

  28

  Derry City

  7

  15

  19

  Down District

  7

  19

  —

  Dungannon District

  1

  5

  2

  Fermanagh District

  3

  8

  6

  Larne Borough

  4

  5

  21

  Limavady Borough

  5

  12

  —

  Lisburn Borough

  9

  7

  —

  Magherafelt District

  2

  11

  —

  Moyle District

  1

  3

  —

  Newry and Mourne District

  8

  24

  —

  Newtownabbey Borough

  4

  1

  —

  North Down Borough

  2

  6

  —

  Omagh District

  4

  5

  —

  Strabane District

  3

  —

  —

  Totals

  150

  264

  187

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Draft letters are not submitted to Ministers, but for information purposes they receive a copy of the chief executive's reply once it has issued and prior to the parliamentary question being answered.

  Fair Employment Tribunal
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the ruling of the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal, on the disclosure of documents to the Fair Employment Commission in the cases of McKernan v. DoE and McConnell v. Police Authority for Northern Ireland, will be appealed; and on what date the Commission will be given the relevant documents in the McConnell case.

  Mr. Mates
  There was no appeal in the case of McKernan v. DoE. In the case of McConnell v. Police Authority for Northern Ireland, a requisition to state a case to the Court of Appeal was lodged with the Fair Employment Tribunal on 14 January 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Visas
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which member nations of the European Community have statutory appeal procedures comparable with those currently in force in the United Kingdom concerning appeals from persons refused visitor's visas to the respective states.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None of the other member states of the European Community has an independent, specialised immigration appeals system.

  Prison Construction
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in favour of construction of more prison space to accommodate offenders for whom custodial sentences are appropriate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No formal representations have been made, but, from time to time, we are approached by companies interested in the construction of new prisons.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Cordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants he has signed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the annexes to the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 1990 and 1991—Cm. 1489 and Cm. 1942

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those who, other than himself, are empowered to sign warrants to intercept communications.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  By virtue of section 4 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, warrants may be issued only under the hand of the Secretary of State or, in an urgent case where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue, under the hand of an official of his department of or above the rank of Assistant Under-Secretary of State. In practice, warrants are usually
  525
  issued by the Home Secretary, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Alcohol (Licensing)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made in the last year for (i) new licences, (ii) the renewal of licences and (iii) for the transfer of licences to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises; and what proportion of these were(a) approved, (b) approved subject to conditions and (c) rejected.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Provisional figures show that in the year ending 30 June 1992 in England and Wales, there were 2,136 new applications for licences to sell intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises, of which 1,712 —80 per cent.—were granted. Information about the number of applications for the renewal or transfer of off-licences is not collected centrally. Licensing justices have no power to attach conditions to the grant of an off-licence.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to the public administration, including the cost of licensing justices and policing of operating the system of licensing for premises selling alcohol for consumption off the premises and of the compliance costs for businesses involved with the operation of this system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As to compliance costs, a fee of £.12.50 is payable on the initial grant and subsequent triennial renewal of an off-licence. The other information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Details of all the appointments for which the Home Department has been responsible since 1 November 1992 could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Information about the appointments for which the Home Department was responsible last year up to 30 September 1992 is given in "Public Bodies", a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the political affiliations of those appointed is not sought by my Department.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 861, if he will place in the Library a comparative description of the processes and qualifications used in each member state of the European Community in respect of applications to them for naturalisation from citizens of non-member nations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Yes. I will place in the Library the information available to me about naturalisation procedures in the member states.

  Ram-raiding
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to take to reduce the incidence of ram-raiding.

  Mr. Jack
  Encouraging owners and car manufacturers to make cars more secure—thus reducing the opportunities for vehicle related crime, including ram-raiding —is a central feature of the Government's car crime prevention strategy. At a local level, police crime prevention officers are always ready to provide retailers with specialist advice, drawn from their own experiences and that of the Home Office crime prevention centre at Stafford, on what measures they can take to protect their premises against this type of offence.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Chief executives of agencies within my responsibility reply direct on matters delegated to them, although it is, of course, open to them to seek my advice before replying.

  I have the opportunity to see the replies when they are published in Hansard.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what purpose category subsections A: high risk and A: exceptional risk were introduced; and how many prisoners there have been in each category to date;

  (2) how many categories of security there are within category A; and for how long there has been no more than one subsection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are three levels of escape risk classification for category A prisoners: standard, high and exceptional. This arrangement was introduced in its present form in 1988 in order to assist operational management. On 31 December 1992, there were 558 category A prisoners in custody. Of these, 457 were classified as standard escape risk, 79 as high escape risk and 22 as exceptional escape risk. Information on the numbers of prisoners held in each escape risk classification since 1988 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time prisoners spend in each of the A categories.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the capacity of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority to cope with fire, emergency and other demands on their time in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.
  527
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The standard of service provided by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority was examined in the course of an inspection of the service by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services between 25 and 29 January 1993. My right hon. and learned Friend will want to examine carefully the report of that inspection, which will be published later this year. It is for the authority, in the light of its standard spending assessment and the intended criteria for designation for council tax capping, to set a budget for 1993–94 which will allow it to comply with its duties under the Fire Services Act 1974, and with the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover.

  Betting Shops
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what means were used to gather comments from interested parties in response to his Department's

  Period 14 October 1991 to 18 January 1993

  Paragraph reference in consultation document

  Subject

  Number of responses

  28(i)

  Views on effects on excessive gambling

  17

  28(ii)

  Views of local authorities on effect of planning controls

  8

  28(iii)

  Views of police and licensing authorities as to whether evening opening would cause them any practical difficulties

  9

  28(iv)

  Views of the horseracing industry

  6

  28(v)

  Views of bookmakers

  202 (plus 1 petition with 204 signatures and 1 survey with 439 respondents)

  28(vi)

  Views of the greyhound racing industry

  369 (plus 3 petitions with over 2,000 signatures)

  Others

  Include employees, members of the public and letters where correspondents' interest not identified

  381

  29(i)

  Whether opening hours should be entirely left to the discretion of each business

  48

  29(ii)(a)

  Whether the latest permitted closing time should be specified

  32

  29(ii)(b)

  Whether evening opening should be allowed on Monday to Friday only, or only on certain days

  18

  Whether evening opening should be allowed all year or only for certain months

  15

  Fire Regulations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to implement new fire regulations as required under the EC framework and workplace minimum requirements; and what plans he has to amend the regulations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to issue revised proposals for Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations and associated guidance for
  528
  consultation document of October 1991 on evening opening of betting shops; who responded; and how many submissions were received in responding to each of the issues highlighted in paragraph 28(i)—(vi) and paragraph 29(i)—(ii) (a)—(c).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A press release was issued on 14 October 1991 announcing the issuing of the consultation document. Copies of the document were made available to the press. Some 58 copies of the document were sent direct to various interest groups such as the police, local authority associations and bodies representing the horseracing, greyhound and bookmaking industries. In addition, copies were made available to inquirers on request. In those cases where organisations had not responded by the closing date, they were contacted and invited to consider responding.

  The details of the representations received were as follows:

  consultation in the summer. This will enable him to consider any comments which he has received and to make the regulations to take effect on or after 1 April 1994.

  We have already decided to exclude from the regulations all premises which are occupied only by the self-employed because they are not subject to the directives, and we are considering what other changes should be made.

  Police Restructuring
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had or proposes to have with the Merseyside police authority with regard to proposals to restructure police forces and police authorities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not held discussions with individual police authorities. He is considering what reforms in police organisation and structure may be needed and will announce his proposals as soon as possible. The interested parties will be consulted before final decisions are reached.

  Safer Cities Project, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the future of the safer cities project in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have received written representations on the future funding of the Bradford safer cities project from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), from the chairman of the steering committee of the project and the chair of the community safety strategy group of Bradford city council.

  As I explained in my statement of 7 January, Home Office grant funding to 16 of the existing 20 projects, including Bradford, will be reduced from £250,000 to £100,000 in 1993–94 and will end in March 1994. This will release funds for the new phase of safer cities. Some additional funding will be available in 1993–94 from a central budget of £500,000 to assist work aimed at leaving in place satisfactory continuing arrangements for the maintenance and development of local multi-agency crime prevention work.

  Although safer cities funding is to come to an end after March 1994, there are other sources of Government funding for crime prevention. Bradford is one of the city challenge pacemaker authorities, and has formulated extensive community safety proposals in its action plan. I understand that more than £390,000 is being spent on a wide range of activity, which is beginning to have a real impact on crime prevention in the challenge area.

  There is also a local drugs prevention team in Bradford, which has a budget of £75,000 per year for grant aid to local drugs prevention projects.

  Drug Problems, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with organisations in the Liverpool area in respect of ways of combating drug problems; what proposals he has put forward for central Government assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A drugs prevention team was set up in Liverpool in December 1990 under the Home Office drugs 530
  prevention initiative and continues to work with the local community in finding effective ways of preventing the spread of drug misuse.

  In May 1992 I visited the team to launch the educational video which they have produced in conjunction with the "Brookside" television company. During European Drug Prevention Week in November I visited again, to talk to local business people about drugs prevention in the workplace, to open the drugs prevention fayre at the Everyman theatre, and to speak to local drugs prevention workers.

  The Home Office provides £75,000 a year to the team to spend on grant aid to local agencies and groups engaged in drugs prevention work and £10,500 to spend on prevention publicity. These budgets have been supplemented considerably by private donations and sponsorship and some 60 projects have been undertaken to date. We also provided an extra £15,000 for specific drugs projects in the Liverpool area during European Drug Prevention Week.

  A steering committee of representatives from organisations in the local community, including statutory and voluntary drugs services, the local authority, police and the chamber of commerce, supervise the work of the team. I announced recently that the life of the team, like the other teams set up under the drug prevention initiative, would be extended to March 1995.

  Prison Populations
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the total prison population in each EC country, including the United Kingdom, and the United States of America in 1979 and 1992 respectively; what proportion that number formed of the total population; and how many of that number were young offenders.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: Information for EC countries has been collated by the Council of Europe only since 1983; and the latest available information published by them relates to 1 September 1989. The data requested for these two years can be found in "Prison Information Bulletin" No. 2, table 1; and No. 14, table 2. A copy of both documents are in the Library.

  Data on the total prison population in 1979 are given in an article in issue No. 15 of the above publication; and more recent information has been collected independently from some EC countries and from the USA. These data are given in the table.

  An article on "International comparisons of prison populations" by Collier and Tarling—Home Office research bulletin No. 23, pages 48 to 54—showed that the figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems. Examples of differences in the definitions are the inclusion or exclusion in a country's figures of juvenile offenders and mentally disordered offenders.
  531

  11979 Total prison population

  Total prison population

  21991 Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants

  Total population of young offenders

  Belgium

  6,137

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  2,291

  3,506

  68

  —

  France

  34,640

  48,675

  84

  6 5,072

  Germany3

  50,395

  49,658

  79

  —

  Greece

  3,221

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  1,140

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  26,424

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  223

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  7,233

  48

  71,185

  Portugal

  5,054

  8,092

  82

  6625

  Spain

  10,463

  —

  —

  —

  United Kingdom, of which:

  —

  52,874

  92

  610,046

  England and Wales

  42,220

  46,310

  91

  68,850

  United States of America

  4500,000

  51,118,000

  5450

  —

  1 Figures at 1 January, except Greece—1 December; Ireland and United Kingdom—annual averages.

  2 Figures at 1 September.

  3 Former Federal Republic territory only.

  4 Approximate estimate based on the available data, which relates to the local jail population in 1978 and the State and Federal prison population in 1980.

  5 1990.

  6 Age under 21.

  7 Age under 23.

WALES

  Certificate of Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated entrance number of pupils for the current certificate of education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  So far, 9,436 candidates have been entered for the certificate of education in 1993. Candidates may still be entered up to the date of the examination.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money will be allocated for extension and rebuilding work at each college of further and higher education in Wales during the next three years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  From 1 April 1993 the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils for Wales will assume responsibility for providing funds for extension and rebuilding work for institutions of further and higher education. The funding councils have yet to announce their allocations to institutions for 1993–94.

  Wages
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average wage of employed persons in Wales for each of the last 14 years; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European average.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table. Comparable figures for Europe as a whole or the European Community are not available.
  532

  Average gross weekly earnings of full time employees in Wales whose pay was not affected by absence for the survey pay period.

  Year

  £ per week

  Percentage of United Kingdom

  11979

  87.6

  98.0

  11980

  106.4

  96.7

  11981

  119.4

  95.8

  11982

  130.2

  95.5

  11983

  140.0

  94.7

  21983

  139.4

  94.8

  21984

  149.2

  93.8

  21985

  160.3

  94.0

  21986

  170.3

  92.5

  21987

  183.4

  92.4

  21988

  196.5

  90.3

  21989

  215.9

  90.4

  21990

  232.1

  88.5

  21991

  252.2

  88.9

  21992

  270.9

  89.2

  Source: New Earnings Surveys, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  1 From 1979 to 1983, men aged 21 and over and women aged 18 and over.

  2From 1983 onwards, men and women on adult rates of pay irrespective of age.

  Unfit Dwellings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of unfit dwellings in(a) local authority and (b) private ownership for each of the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The data requested are not available. Information about levels of unfitness is being obtained through the current Welsh house condition survey. The results will be published after the survey is complete at the end of the year.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning the number of workers in Wales holding more than one paid occupation;
  533
  and if he will make a statement on how these are counted in his calculation of the number of employed people in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The summer 1992 labour force survey shows an estimated 45,000 people in Wales with a second job, either as an employee or self-employed.

  The Employment Department's employer-based surveys count jobs, not people. The labour force surveys provide estimates of the numbers of people employed in Wales.

  Nitrogen Dioxide (Monitoring)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites for monitoring nitrogen dioxide there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is one site at Cardiff at which nitrogen dioxide is measured continuously. In addition, current Government surveys involve regular measurements at more than 100 sites throughout Wales.

  "2002 Horizon"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Wales of the European Commission plan, "2002 Horizon", outline programme for a trans-European road network; and what discussions on the plan he has held with officials of national parks in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proposals for a trans-European road network are indicative only, and are being considered by member states. Plans for developing the road network in Wales are set out in the 1992 supplement to "Roads in Wales". My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that our plans will not include upgrading the A5 through Snowdonia to motorway or dual-carriageway standard, and we have not discussed these proposals with national park officials.

  Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide Discharges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation in Wales of EC directives on smoke and sulphur dioxide discharges.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  EC directive 80/779/EEC, setting air quality standards for smoke and sulphur dioxide, is implemented in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom by means of the Air Quality Standards Regulations—SI 1989 No. 317; copies are held in the Library of the House.

  Government monitoring indicates that the limits set under the directive are not being exceeded in Wales.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much industrially derelict land has been reclaimed in Wales since 1990; and what methods have been used.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1990 a total of 3,127 acres of industrially derelict land have been reclaimed in Wales through schemes funded by the Welsh Development Agency. Reclamation methods vary from site to site depending upon the nature of the dereliction and the site's proposed end use.

  Construction
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of construction in Wales in each quarter of 1992.

  Dr. David Hunt
  The Welsh index of construction is available for the first three quarters of 1992. Taking the average quarterly output in 1985 to be 100, the levels were 143.1, 141.3 and 136.1 in the first three quarters of 1992 respectively.

  John Bennett and Keith Wilson
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 454, on what date the fraud squad arrested John Bennett and Keith Wilson.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is a matter for the police.

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse Centres
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on residential drug and alcohol misuse centres since April 1992; and how many such representations have expressed concern about future funding arrangements.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received 25 such representations, all of which have expressed concern about future funding arrangements.

  Opportunity 2000
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effects upon female employment in Wales of the Opportunity 2000 scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Opportunity 2000 is a Business in the Community initiative, which receives support from the Welsh Office. It was launched in Wales in May 1992. At the end of the first six months 13 Welsh employing organisations had taken up membership, but it is too early to assess the impact the initiative is having on female employment.

  Voluntary Sector Organisations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings or communications he has had with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action in regard to the level of grant provision by his Department to voluntary sector organisations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. However my officials maintain close links with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action on many issues relevant to the voluntary sector, including funding, and will continue to do so.

  Women (Business Incentive Schemes)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what incentive schemes his Department sponsors in Wales to assist women to establish their own businesses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Support for women who wish to establish their own business is provided by the training and enterprise councils and our strategic guidance to them stresses the importance of advancing equal opportunities
  535
  to help people realise their potential. TECs tailor their provision to meet local needs. Local enterprise agencies also offer help to people setting up in business.

  The department also supports initiatives such as the Chwarae Teg/Fair Play consortium and Opportunity 2000, both of which aim to expand the role of women in the work force.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards),Official Report, 1 February, column 3, if he will provide a breakdown by company of the 12,690 jobs created.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Regional selective assistance is intended to aid companies carry out industrial projects which will create or safeguard jobs. Details of individual projects are however, a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the allocation of revenue support grant for the coming financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from 13 local authorities on settlement related issues. The Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 and The Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1993–94, which set out my settlement proposals for the coming year, were approved by the House on 8 February.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to make changes to minerals planning policy guidance note 3 in relation to Wales, in the light of current reviews of opencast mining proposals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, announced on 15 July 1992 the Government's proposal to bring forward for public consultation draft revised planning guidelines on coal extraction generally. The intention is to proceed to public consultation as soon as practicable once the results of the coal review have been announced.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish his White Paper on local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I propose to publish my White Paper shortly, but not until after a further meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government on 17 February.

  Railway System
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the future of the railway system in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  536
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets Sir Bob Reid to discuss a wide range of Welsh rail issues. The most recent of these meetings was held on 7 September.

  NHS Staff (Redundancies)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of redundancies among NHS staff for each year since 1989–90, dividing the figures by region.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  Capital Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer on 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3, what proposals he has to use a global settlement framework for the construction of the Pen-y-Clip tunnels on the A55; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are no such proposals.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3, to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), if he will give the corresponding figure for the total value of capital expenditure projects starts in 1991–92, 1992–93 and his estimate for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information for all project starts is not available. Details of the planned major project starts for the central Government roads, transport grant, hospitals and arts programmes and for the Welsh Development Agency, in 1991–92 and 1992–93 are set out in the long-term projects tables appended to votes 2, 5 and 8 of the relevant supply estimates booklets for Wales—HC 236–XVI and HC 373–XVI—and in "Roads in Wales", 1992 supplement.

  Equivalent information for 1993–94 will be available from the 1993–94 supply estimates and the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales."

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 2–3, if he will provide equivalent budget details derived prior to April 1992, for the capital programme for 1992–93 for (a) local authority gross capital expenditure, (b) his Department's roads and transport, (c) his Department's health and hospitals including NHS trusts, (d) Housing for Wales, (e) the Welsh Development Agency and (f) the European regional development fund.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Gross capital expenditure plans for 1992–93 within the responsibility of and allocated by the Welsh Office, for:

  £ million

  (a) Local authority gross capital

  1631

  (b) Central Government roads and transport

  178

  (c) Health

  137

  (d) Housing for Wales

  127

  (e) Welsh Development Agency

  122

  (f) European Regional Development Fund

  3

  1 The 1992–93 forecast for gross capital expenditure by local authorities (£631 million) is not comparable with that for 1993–94 (£620 million) because the 1993–94 figure excludes:

  537

  (i) the provision for further education (which has been transferred to the central Government programme) and

  (ii) the separate provision made for ERDF grants.

  PCB Contamination, Pontypool
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the results of the study by the university of East Anglia into polychlorinated biphenyl levels in the Panteg area of Pontypool.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In line with the contract with my Department, I expect the university of East Anglia to report to me shortly. I shall publish the university's findings as quickly as possible thereafter, as soon as I have had an opportunity to consider its conclusions and the advice of my special adviser for this project, Professor Lewis Roberts.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) number of properties, (b) their square footage and (c) the rental income in the ownership of the Welsh Development Agency in each of the last five years in (i) the Bridgend constituency, (ii) the Ogwr district, (iii) Mid Glamorgan and (iv) all other counties.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is a matter for the Welsh Development Agency. I have arranged for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Operation Wizard>
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 771, if he will give the total sum in consultancy fees paid by the Welsh Development Agency under Operation Wizard to each of (a) Barclays de Zoete Wedd, (b) Outram Cullinan and Co. and (c) Touche Ross;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 14 January, Official Report, column 771, if he will place in the Library copies of the terms of reference agreed for the consultancy work done for Operation Wizard by (a) Barclays de Zoete Wedd, (b) Outram Cullinan and Co. and (c) Touche Ross.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have asked the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A provisional list of regulations which impact on business has recently been put together. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Cigarette Duty
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusion the October 1992 ECOFIN meeting reached on the cigarette duty structure; and how 538
  this is reflected in the Council and Commission minute statement on the target rates set out in the amended proposal for a Council directive (9776/89 fisc 167).

  Sir John Cope
  ECOFIN agreed that from 1 January 1993 the minimum excise duty incidence on cigarettes would be 57 per cent. of the retail selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of the price category most in demand. This agreement is reflected in the Council's adoption of directive 92/79/EEC.

  The Commission's original proposal for cigarette taxation had envisaged a target rate towards which member states' rates would converge over time. In Council discussion of the proposal, it was agreed that the target rates would be retained for reference purposes only. In the joint statement for the Council minutes it was agreed that member states would take account of them each time they amend national rates of duty, but there is no obligation to move towards them.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to follow up the concerns expressed in the minutes of the October 1992 ECOFIN meeting that the agreed formula for cigarette tax harmonisation would perpetuate the wide tax differentials in the EC.

  Sir John Cope
  In the run-up to the first review of the structure and minimum rates of tobacco duties, which is due not later than 31 December 1994, we shall monitor any evidence of distortions of trade within the EC and will fully consult the tobacco industry. We have made it clear that we would prefer an EC cigarette duty structure incorporating a minimum cash duty and a greater reliance on the specific duty share.

  We are also taking every opportunity to encourage low-tax member states to increase their tobacco taxes on health grounds. For example, during the United Kingdom presidency of the Community we held a seminar in London for health and tax officials which produced useful conclusions on the support that tax can give to health policy.

  Football Pools
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer by the Secretary of State for National Heritage of 2 February Official Report, column 109, if he will make it his policy to reduce the regime for tax on football pools to the level of tax to be imposed on the national lottery, subject to agreement that the funds given back are dedicated to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

  Sir John Cope
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision on the taxation of the national lottery.

  Alcohol and Tobacco (Taxation)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has for the financial year 1993–94 of the losses to the revenue arising from the disparities in taxation on alcohol and tobacco in the other countries of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  We have no reason to change the estimate given in the 1992 "Financial Statement and
  539
  Budget Report" that in 1993–94, there will be a total revenue loss to the United Kingdom Exchequer of around £250 million from increased cross-border shopping. This arises from the abolition of duty-paid allowances within the EC from 1 January 1993.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss of capital gains tax revenue by the use of offshore trusts; and what steps he is taking to investigate the extent of this loss and to correct it.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I remind the hon. Member that in 1991 the Government introduced a comprehensive system for the taxation of those setting up, and receiving benefits from, offshore trusts. In introducing these measures in his Budget Statement, the Chancellor indicated that this was designed to prevent a revenue loss of up to £100 million in a full year. These measures were welcomed by the Opposition. The Government will keep these provisions under review to ensure that the objective of a fair and comprehensive system of taxation in this complex area continues to be met.

  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners pay income tax; how many pay at 40 per cent; and how much is raised in direct taxation from pensioners' incomes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that, in 1992–93, 2.9 million individuals aged 65 or over will be liable to income tax. Of these 0.1 million will be liable at the higher rate. The total income tax liability of people aged 65 or over is estimated to be just over £5 billion.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his reponsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Portillo
  Chief executives of the executives agencies for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is responsible are authorised to reply directly on matters delegated to them.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow companies exporting to the EC 30 working days to submit their statistical declarations to the VAT offices.

  Sir John Cope
  The maximum time limit of 10 working days for submission of statistical declarations is set by EC regulation. The United Kingdom was successful in negotiating an improvement from the Commission's original proposal of five working days.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases serious misdeclaration penalties were levied in respect of claims of VAT relief on bad debts before the 12-month holding period was up; and what was the total size of those penalties in the last four financial years.
  540
  Sir John Cope
  I regret that this type of information on the reasons alleged by traders for incurring serious misdeclaration penalty is not recorded.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Chief executives reply direct on matters of operational responsibility delegated to them. Their replies are, therefore, primarily a communication between the chief executive and the Member of Parliament who asks the question. Unless a chief executive chooses to ask me for advice on an operational matter, I never clear or check the detailed replies given by chief executives in answer to parliamentary questions.

  The Lord Chancellor and I receive copies of chief executives' letters once the letters have been sent to Members of Parliament and we have the opportunity to see them when they are published in Hansard, unless their personal or confidential nature precludes their publication in this way.

  Debt Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) of 18 November,Official Report, column 225, what improvements to court procedures for debt recovery are to be made; how they will be implemented; and by what date.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Both the Lord Chancellor and I are committed to a programme of reforms aimed at simplifying and streamlining debt recovery procedures. In my answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on 25 January, I described many of the initiatives that have been introduced to date. These include the establishment of a computerised summons production centre in 1990 and of the county court bulk centre in March 1992. A package of more general measures was implemented in July 1991. This package included changes to the rules where cases may be commenced, provision for replies to summonses to be sent directly to plaintiffs and the devolution of some formerly judicial functions to experienced administrative staff. These and other reforms introduced in July 1991 are currently being evaluated and any improvements to procedures as a result of the evaluation will be implemented later this year. Most recently, in October 1992, reforms were made to the small claims procedure.

  Further changes are planned. For example, it is recognised that the small claims limit, doubled to £1,000 in July 1991, is still relatively low. The limit will, therefore, remain under review with the intention to propose an increase as soon as practicable. Changes to the way in which administration orders are dealt with will be implemented in April 1993 and improvements to oral examination procedures are planned for later in the year. In addition to a forthcoming series of leaflets which explain the various methods of enforcement, it is intended to introduce a guidance leaflet which focuses specifically on the recovery of business debts through county courts.
  541
  Before the implementation of any significant changes to court procedures, there is always wide consultation. Courts, court user organisations, the judiciary, the legal profession and others are all given the opportunity to comment and their responses are carefully considered before any changes are introduced. Court staff are provided with training about the changes before they are introduced, and publicity material explaining the changes is produced for court staff and court users.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the constituent of the hon. Member for Woolwich who has not been permitted to leave India and about whom the hon. Member for Woolwich wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 21 January.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I replied on 8 February to the hon. Member's letter of 21 January about his constituent. Mrs. Kaur has been invited to call at the high commission in New Delhi to collect her entry clearance.

  Israel
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States of America on the appropriateness of using sanctions against Israel to ensure compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution No. 799 regarding the Palestinian deportees.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed the deportations with the new United States Secretary of State. We do not believe that sanctions would be helpful at this stage. They would not help our main objective which is to secure the resumption of the peace negotiations.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications by British citizens have been made to the European Commission on Human Rights regarding the imposition of customs fines and subsequent imprisonment for non-payment on those imprisoned in France.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such applications have been communicated to the Government by the European Commission on Human Rights.

  Council of Ministers (Filming)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to recommend that cameras be permitted access to all future Council of Ministers meetings and to ad hoc council meetings including those of the Trevi group.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government will support proposals by the presidency for further open sessions of the Foreign Affairs Council or of other specialist Councils.542
  For example, the ECOFIN Council on 15 February will begin with an open session. But all Council members must agree before any such arrangements apply. These arrangements only apply to European Community institutions. Intergovernmental co-operation—such as Trevi—is a different matter.

  Customs Fines, France
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases have been brought to his attention of British citizens being held in French prisons and refused parole due to imposition of customs fines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Two since 1991. But there are 213 British citizens detained in France of whom 93 are serving sentences for drugs offences. Some three quarters of these are known to have customs fines. The exact number of those serving time in prison for non-payment of customs fines is not known, but we believe there are at least 13.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is given to British citizens who are detained in French prisons and to their families in regard to the imposition of customs fines and imprisonment for non-payment.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information on the French system of customs fines is included in the leaflet "Detainees in France" sent in advance of the first consular visit to each detainee. If a person is convicted and a customs fine imposed he or she is told of the possibility of negotiating a reduction of the fine and that the organisation Prisoners Abroad may be able to help in gathering together the necessary documents.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French authorities about the imposition of customs fines on British citizens imprisoned in France.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. The imposition of customs fines is a matter for the French authorities alone. The fines are applicable to all nationalities including French.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has employed Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and Capita Management Consultancy in support of its market testing programme. The total cost so far has been £27,000. The Overseas Development Administration and the Natural Resources Institute have employed Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and KPMG management consultants at a cost so far of £23,000.

  Immigration Section, Islamabad>
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the new immigration section at the British post in Islamabad is due to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
  543
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The new immigration section in Islamabad is due to be completed in September this year.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Croatia in respect of the attacks launched by Croatian forces in the Krajina in contravention of the cease fire agreement; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our ambassador in Zagreb delivered a démarche to the Croation Government on 25 January and the Croation ambassador was called to the Foreign Office on 26 January. We have also supported a condemnatory statement by the UN Security Council and the EC presidency message to President Tudjman. In response, the Government of Croatia claimed that the attacks were a limited action to secure specific strategic locations. President Tudjman has since made it clear that Croatia will withdraw her troops from the newly recaptured territory only if the Krajina Serbs return their heavy weapons to UNPROFOR control and disband their militias.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the precise measures required of the Serbian Government in order to end sanctions against them.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  United Nations Security Council resolution 752 of 1992 calls on all parties to the conflict to meet various requirements. These include a number which Serbia has clearly not yet met, or exercised enough pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to meet—for example, disbanding of irregular forces in Bosnia; an end to forcible expulsions of populations; and ensuring that deliveries of humanitarian aid are not hindered. UN Security Council resolution 757 of 1992 requests the UN Secretary-General to keep the sanctions under continuous review, with a view to suspending or terminating them when Serbia and Montenegro had complied with UNSCR 752. The Edinburgh European Council made it clear that if there were a radical change of policy and genuine co-operation in the peace process, Serbia would be gradually readmitted to the international community.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Burns
  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 1 and 2 February.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council from 1 to 2 February.

  The council began with a debate on the Danish presidency's work programme. For the first time a substantive item of Council business was taken in open session, with television cameras present. It thus put in practice an important part of the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council on openness. In the debate I stressed the importance of making progress on enlargement and on strengthening the Community's
  544
  relations with central and eastern Europe. I also reiterated the need for a peaceful solution in former Yugoslavia and for a rapid conclusion to the Uruguay round.

  In the margins of the Council, EC and Austrian, Swedish and Finnish Foreign Ministers launched new accession negotiations. These, too, were held in open session. Much of the preparatory work was carried out during the United Kingdom presidency.

  The rest of the Council was held in closed session. The Danish Foreign Minister briefed the Council on Denmark's plans to hold a conference in Copenhagen in April to discuss developments in central and eastern Europe, Albania and the Baltic states. The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate amendments to the European Economic Area agreement following Switzerland's decision not to participate.

  The presidency reported on its meeting with the Presidents of the European Parliament and of the Commission which marked the start of negotiations on inter-institutional agreements on subsidiarity and budget discipline. The Council discussed the appointment of Commission Vice-Presidents and remitted this for further examination by the Committee of Permanent Representatives. It continued its discussion of a Commission proposal to change the decision-making procedures for Community anti-dumping and other Commercial Defence measures. It also reviewed the Commission's mandate for the negotiation of a new international cocoa agreement. The Commission reported to the Council on the prospects of concluding the Uruguay round rapidly with the new US Administration and other GATT parties. The Council discussed the US decision to impose new duties on steel imports and invited the Commission to undertake consultations in Geneva on possible GATT action.

  Ministers discussed latest developments in the former Yugoslavia and issued statements supporting the peace proposals put forward by Lord Owen and Mr. Vance and welcoming the report by Dame Anne Warburton on the treatment of Muslim women. Ministers deplored the recent outbreak of violence in Zaire and the death of the French ambassador in Kinshasa.

  A Co-operation Council with Israel was held in the margins of the Council. Ministers reiterated their support for the peace process and their condemnation of Israel's deportation of more than 400 Palestinians. An EC association agreement with Romania was signed in the margins of the Council.

ENVIRONMENT

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he is planning to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with respect to minimising light pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Light pollution is a rather vague term for the indiscriminate use of lighting. The Government's general approach is to encourage economy in the use of light energy and to discourage the nuisance that can be caused to neighbours by over intensive lighting systems.

  This issue is one of several included in a recent consultation paper "Temporary uses of Land, External

  545
  Lighting and Miscellaneous Amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988", responses to which are currently being considered.

  Refrigeration Technology
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to encourage British companies to develop ozone-friendly refrigeration technology following the German prototypes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government welcome any development of safe ozone-friendly refrigeration and is seeking to encourage chlorofluorocarbon users to switch to suitable alternatives as quickly as possible.

  Council Tax
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the total cost of collecting and administering the council tax as a percentage of the expected yield.

  Mr. Redwood
  Although local authorities have yet to set their budgets, I would expect collection costs for the council tax to be under 5 per cent. of budgeted yield.

  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of people likely to be employed in collecting, administering and valuing property, respectively, in order to implement the council tax.

  Mr. Redwood
  The administration and collection of the council tax will be carried out by local authorities and their agents. This Department does not have records of the numbers of staff employed on these tasks.

  The banding of property has been carried out by the Valuation Office agency—VOA—and contracted private sector companies. The total cost of the banding exercise will be some £70 million. Some 512 private sector firms were contracted to carry out banding work under the supervision of the VOA but the Department holds no record of the number of private sector staff involved. To date, some 565 man years have been spent on the banding exercise by the VOA.

  Opencast Mining
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to suspend the planning permission granted for the Bleak House opencast site in Staffordshire until his review of the coal industry is completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Once the Secretary of State has given his decision on an appeal, he has no further jurisdiction in the matter. The coal review is, of course, being conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Coalite Chemicals Plant
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the survey of dioxins in soils in the area around the Coalite chemicals plant near Bolsover in Derbyshire will be released.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report is nearing completion and will be released as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact on the future standard spending assessments of local authorities of projections of future population structures.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Standard spending assessments are calculated using the latest information available compiled on a consistent basis for all relevant authorities. For 1993–94 the assessments are based in part on estimates of population size and age structure relating to 30 June 1991 prepared by the Registrar General. Projections of population size and age structure for each local authority relating to a more recent period are not available on an equivalent basis and it is not possible, therefore, to assess their impact on future assessments. However, trends in population size and structure at the national level are taken into account with many other factors in determining the level of spending which the Government consider is appropriate for all authorities to incur in any one year.

  Housing Repossessions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes sold under the right-to-buy legislation have been repossessed in each region in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not hold the information requested.

  National Sustainability Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to include sectoral targets for environmental quality within the national sustainability plan.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom has promised to report on a sustainable development plan by the end of 1993 to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. The Department is currently consulting on the report and decisions on scope and content will be taken later.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Howard
  Chief executives of agencies within my responsibility reply direct to parliamentary questions on matters for which they have delegated operational responsibility. Normally such replies are not seen in draft by me or my ministerial colleagues, but we see copies after they have been sent by the chief executives.

  Housing and Urban Development Bill
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria will apply to authorities wishing to be included in the 1993–94 programme for housing disposals, as proposed in the Housing and Urban Development Bill; what will be the size of the programme; and if he will make a statement.
  547
  Sir George Young
  My Department is today writing to all housing authorities, other than those which have already disposed of their housing, inviting them to apply if they wish to be considered for a place in the 1993–94 disposals programme. Applications should be received by Friday 19 March.

  The Department's expenditure estimates for the three years of the public expenditure survey make provision for the costs of housing disposals. A sum has been provisionally allocated within the overall totals for these years which would allow for the transfer of about 25,000 houses in the first year's programme under the new provisions, assuming that the average exchequer costs of disposals remain broadly similar to those which have taken place in recent years. Larger programmes may be possible in later years.

  I set out below the policy guidelines we propose to adopt for the first programme. The benchmark size for disposal applications will be between 3,000 and 4,000 properties, with preference being given to transfers at and below the lower end of this range. In particular circumstances, for example when an authority with large stocks is making a split disposal, transfers exceeding this benchmark will be considered, subject to an overriding limit of 5,000 properties in any one disposal to a single landlord or linked associates. It will be for transferring authorities to determine the ways in which they split their stock.

  For the first year, disposals will be accepted for the programme only if they are to be made to registered housing associations. In assessing whether the disposal contributes to diversity of ownership in an area, consideration will be given to whether the recipient organisations are existing registered housing associations, or associations newly formed for the purposes of the disposal.

  Proposals for transfers to associations associated within a group structure will be considered on their merits and in the light of the overall housing strategy for the area. There will be an overriding proviso that members associated in a group structure may not together acquire more than 5,000 properties from any one local authority.

  Authorities accepted for inclusion in the 1993–94 programme will not be expected, while they remain in the programme, to continue to prepare their housing management function for compulsory competitive tendering—CCT—in respect of the properties to be transferred. Should a transfer not take place as planned during 1993–94, the authority will be expected to comply with the statutory requirements for housing management CCT and to make the necessary preparations.

  For disposals accepted for the 1993–94 programme, it is intended that the existing discounted cash-flow method will continue to be used to determine the transfer price of the stock. Rent guarantees will be a matter for local discretion, but should not exceed five years. As with past transfers, purchasing associations will be expected to fund the transfer wholly from private sector sources.

  In considering the acceptability of a proposed disposal for inclusion in the programme, the Secretary of State will take into account the estimated Exchequer costs of that disposal, and whether a majority of the tenants who would be affected by the disposal are in his opinion likely to oppose it. In reaching an opinion on the second of these issues, he will take account of any relevant systems an authority may have for consulting its tenants, and any
  548
  planned exercises for further tenant involvement. He will also take into account the criteria set out in section 34(4A) or section 43(4A), as appropriate, of the Housing Act 1985.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making an announcement in due course on the arrangements that will apply to disposals in Wales.

  Landfill Costs
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report commissioned by his Department last year on landfill costs and pricing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have today published a report commissioned by my Department from Coopers and Lybrand on "Landfill Pricing: Correcting Possible Market Distortions".

  We indicated in the 1992 environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance: the Second Year Report", Cm. 2068, that we would in future make a presumption in favour of using economic instruments rather than regulation to achieve environmental objectives. This report forms part of the Government's programme of work to explore the use of economic instruments in environmental policy. It also constitutes a preliminary response to a recommendation by the advisory committee on business and the environment that the price of landfill should be increased substantially.

  The report examines current and projected waste disposal costs; assesses the impact of introducing a levy on waste going to landfill; and considers ways of implementing it. It predicts that landfill costs will rise substantially before the year 2000 even in the absence of a levy. It concludes that the introduction of a levy would be feasible. Its main effect, in the longer term, would be to increase the incentive to send waste to incinerators rather than landfill, but it would also make materials recycling more commercially attractive.

  We are considering the findings of the report, along with those of a parallel study of "Economic Instruments and the Recovery of Resources from Waste", published by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry in December 1992. My Department is inviting comments on the landfill levy report by 26 March 1993.

  I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Eastbourne
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make another official visit to Eastbourne.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Railways (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an analysis of the economic and employment effects of £500 million extra capital investment in railways compared with the same sum spent on supporting deep coal mining.

  The Prime Minister
  The economic and employment effects of £500 million extra capital expenditure on the
  549
  railways would depend on the nature of the investment and on its economic return. The effect of spending the same amount on supporting deep coal mining would depend on the industry's ability to exploit the opportunity for subsidised sales in the market circumstances it faced. In either case, account would of course need to be taken where the money would be found as well as how it would be spent.

  Public Inquiries
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Transport in respect of public inquiries into harbour revision orders and on energy policy; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is normal practice for the Department of Transport to consult other Departments, where appropriate, in respect of proposals for the making of harbour revision orders.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Prime Minister what current discussions are taking place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the events of February 1970 involving the Government of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions are taking place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on state-sponsored terrorism.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are fully committed to close co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland against all forms of terrorism which threaten our two countries. Both countries are in regular contact on matters of mutual concern.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for his Office's library a book, the title of which has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has a copy.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badgers
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current estimate of the badger population in the United Kingdom; and what is the source of this estimate.

  Mr. Soames
  It is currently estimated that there are about 250,000 adult badgers in mainland Britain. The 550
  source of this information is "The History, Distribution, Status and Habitat Requirements of the Badger in Britain" by Cresswell, Harris and Jefferies (1990), commissioned by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will suspend the culling of badgers pending completion of his Department's review of controlling bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to do so.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliation of those appointed.

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1 November 1992, my right hon. Friend has made 56 appointments or re-appointments to the bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1992".

  Appointments are generally made on the basis of suitability, merit and expertise; details of political affiliation are not held centrally.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what current scientific data his Department has on the transmission by badgers of bovine tuberculosis to cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davis) on 19 January 1993,Official Report, column 209.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his Department is currently reviewing existing policy on the control of bovine tuberculosis in Britain; when he expects that review to be completed; and if he will place a copy of the review in the Library.

  Mr. Soames
  There is at present no call for a fundamental review of control measures for bovine tuberculosis because these depend largely on community requirements and because they have been outstandingly successful in reducing disease to its current very low level. The Department is considering the possible role in our control strategy of a test to detect disease in live badgers. It is not possible to say when this process will be complete because it depends on continuing scientific studies.

  Disadvantaged Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the(a) percentage of the less-favoured areas flock in the severely disadvantaged areas, (b) percentage of the less-favoured areas flock in the disadvantaged areas and (c) the total less-favoured areas flock in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) England and (iv) Northern Ireland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  The information in respect of the number of sheep on which hill livestock compensatory allowances payments were made is as follows:
  551

  Year

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  Northern Ireland>

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1979

  36

  —

  2,943

  34

  —

  2,805

  26

  —

  2,158

  4

  —

  358

  1980

  35

  —

  2,991

  34

  —

  2,890

  26

  —

  2,231

  5

  —

  383

  1981

  35

  —

  2,993

  34

  —

  2,946

  27

  —

  2,292

  5

  —

  407

  1982

  35

  —

  3,147

  34

  —

  3,011

  26

  —

  2,356

  5

  —

  428

  1983

  35

  —

  3,205

  34

  —

  3,058

  27

  —

  2,425

  5

  —

  427

  1984

  35

  —

  3,251

  33

  —

  3,102

  27

  —

  2,468

  5

  —

  483

  1985

  32

  (x)

  3,335

  30

  4

  3,560

  24

  3

  2,863

  5

  1

  640

  1986

  32

  (x)

  3,393

  29

  5

  3,545

  24

  4

  2,958

  5

  1

  714

  1987

  31

  (x)

  3,460

  29

  5

  3,755

  24

  4

  3,130

  5

  2

  762

  1988

  30

  1

  3,516

  28

  6

  3,873

  24

  4

  3,237

  5

  2

  823

  1989

  30

  1

  3,621

  28

  6

  3,986

  23

  4

  3,251

  6

  2

  885

  1990

  29

  1

  3,676

  27

  6

  4,141

  23

  5

  3,462

  6

  2

  986

  1991

  30

  1

  3,750

  27

  6

  4,137

  23

  5

  3,425

  6

  2

  993

  19921

  29

  1

  3,684

  28

  7

  4,219

  23

  5

  3,418

  6

  2

  1,018

  Notes:

  (a) Percentage of sheep receiving HLCAs at rates applicable in the severely disadvantaged areas (or the corresponding area before the extension of the less favoured area in 1985).

  (b) Percentage of sheep receiving HLCAs at rates applicable in the disadvantaged areas.

  (c) Total number of sheep('000) receiving HLCAs.

  (x) Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Percentage figures may not always total 100 per cent. due to roundings.

  1 Provisional.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received, and what discussions he has had, about continuing CAP reform compensatory payments after CAP reform has been phased in; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The CAP reform agreement reached in May 1992 agreed levels of compensatory payments over a three-year period up to and including the 1995–96 marketing year. In the longer term, I believe that compensation for support price reductions should be phased out over a fixed period.

  Live Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what lairage facilities are available at each ferry port to cope with ferry delays caused by adverse weather;

  (2) how many officials involved with the inspection of live exports he has at Dover; and what percentage of live animal transporters have been inspected along with the relevant animal health documents since 1 January:

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that inspection procedures at each port are carried out by licensed veterinary inspectors according to consistent guidelines;

  (4) what facilities his Department has for inspecting live animal exports that use night ferries; and how many staff are on duty.

  Mr. Soames
  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 places a duty on the transporter to ensure that suitable arrangements for the care of animals are made in advance of any journey and that the arrangements include plans to deal with any disruptions. In respect of sailings from British ports to ports in other member states, facilities to rest, feed and water animals exist within a reasonable distance of each ferry port in Great Britain.

  In the single market, Community law does not pennit systematic checks on livestock at the Community's internal frontiers. However, it is entirely in accordance with EC law that checks take place to ensure that animals
  552
  are healthy and being transported in conditions that protect their welfare. At Dover, state veterinary service (SVS) staff liaise closely with the Dover harbour board animal watch scheme staff who operate a continuous quayside cover. The SVS is also available on a 24-hour basis. For journeys to other member states local veterinary inspectors, appointed by the Government, are required to certify the health of the animals and their fitness to travel. These inspections take place either at the place of origin or where the journey commences.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many late applications for suckler cow premium in respect of 1992 he has received to date.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of late applications received to date under the 1992 suckler cow premium scheme is 1,181.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agiculture, Fisheries and Food how many late applications were received for suckler cow premium in respect of 1990 and 1991; and how many of these were(a) paid in full, (b) paid in part and (c) refused.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  (a) Paid in full

  0

  3

  (b) Paid in part

  149

  147

  (c) Refused

  16

  22

  Total

  165

  172

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suckler cow premium application forms were processed during each month of 1992; and what was(a) the shortest period and (b) the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of applications processed in 1992 is as follows:
  553

  Number

  January

  4,354

  February

  3,195

  March

  1,850

  April

  233

  May

  92

  June

  109

  July

  299

  August

  440

  September

  547

  October

  401

  November

  1,442

  December

  4,057

  The information on the shortest period and the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Farmers and Farm Workers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of (1) farm workers and (2) farmers in(a) less-favoured areas, (b) severely disadvantaged areas and (c) disadvantaged areas who (i) also did other jobs or (ii) claimed income support in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Curry
  The table shows, for 1985, 1987 and 1990 the number of farmers (occupiers) and other family workers on main holdings in less-favoured areas in England who also had other paid work. Data are only available for these years as the source is the EC farm structure survey which is held every two or three years.

  Numbers of part-time workers and part-time farmers on holdings1 in less-favoured areas, severely disadvantaged areas and disadvantaged areas England

  Thousands

  Part-time workers

  Part-time farmers

  Less-favoured areas

  Severely disadvantaged areas

  Disadvantaged areas

  Less-favoured areas

  Severely disadvantaged areas

  Disadvantaged areas

  1986

  4.0

  2.8

  1.2

  7.2

  5.0

  2.2

  1987

  4.0

  2.8

  1.2

  7.3

  5.1

  2.2

  1988

  3.9

  2.8

  1.2

  7.2

  5.0

  2.3

  1989

  3.9

  2.7

  1.2

  7.4

  5.0

  2.4

  1990

  3.9

  2.7

  1.2

  7.6

  5.2

  2.4

  1991

  4.0

  2.7

  1.3

  8.0

  5.4

  2.6

  1992

  3.9

  2.7

  1.2

  8.1

  5.5

  2.7

  1 Including minor holdings.

  Source: June agricultural censuses.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Curry
  The chief executives of agencies within the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reply directly to questions on operational matters delegated to their agency in its framework document.
  554
  Separate figures for severely disadvantaged and disadvan-taged areas are not available for 1985. There is no information on farmers or workers claiming income support.

  England Number of persons with other paid work on main holdings within the LFA1

  Occupiers2 ("000)

  Other family workers3 ('000)

  1985

  Total LFA

  4.13

  5.67

  1987

  DA

  1.33

  2.24

  SDA

  3.27

  5.13

  Total LFA

  4.60

  7.37

  1990

  DA

  1.56

  1.96

  SDA

  3.77

  4.46

  Total LFA

  5.33

  6.42

  1 Sample data only. Figures are subject to sampling error.

  2 Only occupiers who are also manager of the holding.

  1 Other family workers include the occupier's spouse and other workers related to the occupier. Data are not available for non-family hired labour.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of part-time(a) farm workers and (b) farmers in (i) less-favoured areas, (ii) severely disadvantaged areas and (iii) disadvantaged areas in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of part-time(a) farm workers and (b) farmers in (i) less-favoured areas (ii) severely disadvantaged areas and (iii) disadvantaged areas in England in each year since 1985 is shown in the table.

  Drafts of such letters are not shown to Ministers but Ministers do, of course, have the opportunity to see letters when they are published in Hansard.

  Eggs
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further advice he has on salmonella in eggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government are today publishing the report of the advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food (ACMSF) on "Salmonella in Eggs". It provides a valuable assessment of the role of eggs as a
  555
  source of human salmonella infection, taking account of knowledge gained in the past few years. I am grateful to Professor Heather Dick and her committee for their work.

  The committee considers that while eggs must be regarded as an important source of human salmonella infection, the contribution they make to current levels of human salmonellosis cannot be quantified precisely. Only a small percentage of eggs are considered to be contaminated with salmonella enteritidis and studies have shown that the number of organisms they contain when laid is very low. The Committee therefore makes a number of recommendations for the storage and handling of eggs which it believes will help limit the chances of salmonellas multiplying and so further reduce any risk of salmonella infection from eggs. To this end, it recommends that eggs should be consumed within three weeks of lay and that use-by dates should be provided on egg packs and the eggs themselves; that industry and retailers should draw up codes of practice for the shortage and handling of eggs; and that once purchased, eggs should be stored in a refrigerator. The report also advocates the use of pasteurised egg in dishes containing egg which are eaten raw or lightly cooked, and endorses previous advice by the Chief Medical Officer that people should avoid eating raw eggs and vulnerable groups should eat only eggs that have been cooked until the yolk and white are solid.

  The Committee noted the decline that had taken place in the number of large commercial egg laying flocks in which salmonella enteritidis infection had been confirmed since control measures were introduced in 1989. It recommends that the Government should review the continuing need for the compulsory slaughter of laying flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis and in consultation with industry, update existing codes of practice for control of salmonella in laying flocks. It also recommends the formation of a liaison team to monitor the industry's progress in reducing the incidence of salmonella in poultry. Finally, it considers that periodic surveys should be undertaken to monitor trends in salmonella infection in eggs and identifies topics for future research.

  The publication of the ACMSF report is timely in relation to the recent adoption by the Council of Ministers of the EC Zoonoses Directive (92/117/EEC) laying down harmonised rules for the control of salmonella in poultry. This was an important achievement during the United Kingdom presidency and the Government intend bringing its existing measures for the control of salmonella in poultry into line with those required under the directive as soon as possible. Breeding flocks of domestic fowl comprising 250 or more birds will be required to be tested every two weeks by the owner with official samples being taken every eight weeks. Flocks found to be infected with salmonella enteritidis or salmonella typhimurium would continue to be compulsorily slaughtered. The directive does not include harmonised measures for the control of salmonella in commercial egg laying flocks. Having considered the findings of the ACMSF report the Government consider there is no longer a need to monitor laying flocks and to require the compulsory slaughter of those found to be infected with salmonella enteritidis.

  The Government accept the committee's other recommendations and will now consult with industry, consumers and enforcement bodies on their implementation. Detailed proposals for implementing the recommendations of the ACMSF report and for
  556
  implementing Directive 92/117/EEC are set out in a consultation document which is today being sent to all interested organisations for their comments. A copy of this document together with the ACMSF report, and the Government's response is being placed in the Library of the House. Egg industry and other organisations are already being consulted about possible changes to the EC Egg Marketing Standards Regulations which cover date marking and recommendations about storage facilities.

  The Government are committed to firm but proportionate action against salmonella. Our approach is based on co-operation of Government, the poultry industry, food manufacturers and retailers and consumers, taking account of the latest expert advice and of developments in the European Community. I believe that this package of proposals provides continued protection for the consumer of egg and egg products while avoiding disproportionate burdens on producers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Country Houses Association (Exhibition)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Country Houses Association to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 8 to 12 March 1993.

  Special Views of Newcastle (Exhibition)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Special Views of Newcastle" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 8 to 12 February 1993.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The chief executives of the agencies for which I am responsible normally reply direct on matters delegated to them. Copies of their replies are brought to Ministers' attention where appropriate.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to reply to Mr. Eric Christopher-Walsh of Modbury, Devon, who wrote to him on 16 November.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter unit replied to Mr. Christopher-Walsh's letter on 7 December 1992. I
  557
  have since replied to a follow-up letter from Mr. Christopher-Walsh, and written to my hon. Friend on the matters that it raised.

  Charter Programme
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, (Mr. Banks)Official Report, 25 January 1993 column 704, if he will provide a breakdown of the charter unit's spending in 1991–92.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During 1991–92 the charter unit spent £1–6 million on the following:

  £

  The launch of the Citizen's Charter, including producing, publicising and distributing the Citizen's Charter White Paper (Cm 1599) and the Guide to the Citizen's Charter

  916,000

  The launch of 1992 Charter Mark scheme

  320,000

  Staff, general administrative expenses and capital expenditure

  364,000

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government expect to publish their White Paper on the future of science and technology in the United Kingdom; what will be the consultation period for that White Paper; and what will be its remit.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper will set out the Government's policy on science, technology and engineering. I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) on 7 December at column 466.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend the next steps programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To date, 76 executive agencies have been launched. The 30 executive units of HM Customs and Excise and the 34 executive offices of the Inland Revenue are also operating fully on next steps lines. Over half the civil service is now working in organisations covered by the programme. A further 29 activities employing almost 70,000 civil servants have been identified as candidates for executive agency status. It is my aim that by the end of this year all the candidates for agency status will have been identified. These candidates will be announced to the House by the appropriate departmental Minister in due course. It is my expectation that by mid 1995 around 75 per cent. of the civil service will be working in organisations operating on next steps lines.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a charter setting the maximum period for Government Departments to reply to letters from(a) hon. Members and (b) constituents.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Each Department has set its own target for replying to hon. Members' correspondence.558
  A table showing performance against targets for 1991 was published on 3 August 1992, Official Report, column 711; a similar table showing ministerial correspondence in 1992 will be published shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Generation (Costs)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the study on the costs of nuclear generation commissioned from Ernst and Young as part of the coal review.

  Mr. Eggar
  A copy of this report was sent to the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee yesterday, and a copy of the accompanying letter together with copies of the report, but without its commercially confidential material, has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Civil Servants (Performance Payments)
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make provision for civil servants to be eligible for bonus performance payments for their work in promoting successfully the programme of deregulation throughout Whitehall.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Civil servants promoting the programme of deregulation are eligible for payments under a departmental scheme which allows the award of special bonuses for exceptional performance.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to ensure that in future a publicly announced compliance cost assessment will be obligatory when announcing new Government regulations.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since 1986 the Government have placed a general requirement on all departments to prepare and publish compliance cost assessments (CCAs) when developing proposals likely to affect business. Draft CCAs feature increasingly in consultation between Government and business. We are reinforcing our commitment to the CCA process. From now on, as agreed at the Prime Minister's seminar on 2 February 1993, there is a more stringent requirement that a CCA must be published alongside any Government legislative proposals having an impact on business.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement giving details of the progress being made in promoting deregulation throughout the Government.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister on Thursday 4 February 1993,Official Report, column 470, in which he outlined the conclusions of his seminar on 2 February. My Department is pressing ahead with the arrangements for the review of the 7,000 regulations which impact on business. We have issued guidance throughout Whitehall on compliance cost assessment, and are instituting arrangements to ensure

  559
  that these are published for all measures which impact on business. We are beginning to see evidence of success in decisions to review regulatory proposals to minimise the burden these impose on business.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the Government's deregulation programme to include the requirement of a publicly announced risk assessment when announcing new Government regulations.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  We are encouraging the wider use of risk assessment techniques in determining the need for regulation. This is to ensure that problems are correctly defined and the measures proposed to deal with them are correctly targeted and in proportion. We shall consider my hon. Friend"s suggestion.

  Coal Industry (Report)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask he President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the report on the coal industry prepared by European public policy advisers for the European Parliament and given to him on 14 January.

  Registered unemployed in constituencies where collieries have closed

  Change

  June 1987

  December 1992

  Per cent.

  Jobs lost through colliery closures since June 1987

  England

  158,405

  136,791

  -13.6

  22,530

  Wales

  32,657

  26,912

  -17.6

  5,072

  Scotland

  23,526

  17,752

  -25.4

  2,180

  Sources:

  Employment data—Department of Employment NOMIS database.

  Job losses due to colliery closures—British Coal.

  Notes:

  1. The constituencies listed are those where closures of coal mines have been identified. Colliery employees would not necessarily have resided in the same constituency.

  2. The number of jobs lost through colliery closures may not reflect jobs lost in the run-down prior to closure.

  3. The figures do not include reductions in employment at coal mines which remain open.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if staff can be transferred or seconded between central policy divisions and agencies without internal recharges.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes.

  CONVER Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the CONVER programme of the EC has been approved; whether the United Kingdom Government have given it approval; and what total sum in pound sterling and ecu has been recommended for the programme by the European Commission.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At the instigation of the European Parliament 130 million ecu (about £100m) was entered into the European Community budget for 1993 for a programme to be called CONVER to assist regions affected by the decline in the armaments industry and the
  560
  Mr. Eggar
  I understand the report is a factual summary of the Community coal industry. The report is, however, a matter for the European Parliament.

  Owners Abroad (Takeover)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the proposed take over bid by Airtours for Owners Abroad.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently investigating this proposed merger and he will advise the President of the Board of Trade in due course. A decision on whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be taken once that advice is received.

  Colliery Closures (Job Losses)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for Scotland, Wales and England the number of jobs lost through colliery closures since June 1987, the total number of registered unemployed in the constituencies concerned from June 1987 and December 1992 and the percentage changes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is given in the table:

  closure of military bases. The Government will give careful consideration to the Commission's proposals for the implementation of this programme when they are received.

  Electricity
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Office of. Fair Trading will review the retail activities of the regional electricity companies; and when the Office of Fair Trading last reported to him on this matter.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently reviewing the retail activities of the regional electricity companies in conjunction with the Office of Electricity Regulation (OFFER) in response to a complaint from a major competitor. The Director General of Fair Trading made a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) in 1982 about the direction and management by the London Electricity Board of its business of retailing domestic electrical goods, spare parts and ancillary goods. The MMC reported to the President of the Board of Trade in March 1983.

  Coal
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of coal won by opencast means that was used for blending with deep mine coal to provide coal of an overall quality acceptable to customers for each of the years since 1983; and if he will express this in absolute terms and as a percentage of total United Kingdom coal production.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry routinely publishes figures for total production of deep-mined and opencast coal in "Energy Trends", but the amounts used for blending are an operational matter for coal producers including British Coal.

  Engineering Employers Federation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for a meeting with the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss industrial policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North East (Mr. Leighton) on 8 February 1993,Official Report, column 451.

  Business Names Act
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those business names he has approved under the Business Names Act 1985 to include either of the words university or polytechnic.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The following business names including the words "University" or "Polytechnic" have been approved under the Business Names Act 1985:

  University Holidays

  Liverpool University China Business Consultancy

  Somerset University

  Eula Wesley University USA

  ECGD
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the extra £700 million made available for the Export Credits Guarantee Department in 1992 has been allocated.

  Mr. Needham
  The additional £700 million announced in the autumn statement increased ECGD's capacity to give new commitments of cover. Of the £200 million allocated to the current financial year, nearly half has been used and ECGD anticipate that it will be fully utilised. As the cover relates to the provision of new commitments all of the £500 million allocated to 1993–94 remains available.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department's review of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for Lithuania will be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  ECGD keeps its position on Lithuania under constant review. However, it is not yet considered appropriate to introduce medium-term export credit cover.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Eggar
  The practice in my Department is for agency chief executives to send substantive replies direct by letter to written parliamentary questions on matters which have been delegated to them. A copy of the chief executive's letter is generally submitted to Ministers when they consider the written answer.

  Wood Products
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been for each year since 1979,(a) the total volume of and (b) the proportion of total export income represented by export of wood products.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is given in the following table. Volume information is not available.

  Value of exports of wood products as a proportion of value of total exports

  Per cent.

  1979

  0.63

  1980

  0.56

  1981

  0.48

  1982

  0.48

  1983

  0.47

  1984

  0.46

  1985

  0.48

  1986

  0.49

  1987

  0.51

  1988

  0.43

  1989

  0.42

  1990

  0.46

  1991

  0.47

  Note: Wood products are defined as the principal products of class 46 less group 466 of the Standard Industrial Classification.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the advice received by the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies in respect of oil exploitation adjacent to the Bristol Channel, Cardigan Bay, Lyme Bay, Portland Bill, Moray Firth and the Wash; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Lady to the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 28 January 1993,Official Report, column 822.

  Environmental Technology
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how long his Department's environmental technology innovation scheme has been in existence; what is its budget for the current financial year; and what its budget will be in the next financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The environmental technology innovation scheme was launched by DTI and DoE in October 1990 for a three-year period.

  Forecast expenditure on DTI"s element of the scheme in the current financial year is £1.59 million. The budget allocation for the next financial year has not yet been finalised.
  563
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies and organisations which have applied for financial assistance from the environmental technology innovation scheme; how many applications were granted; what was the grant paid for each scheme; how many applications were rejected; and what was the reason for refusal of assistance, in each case.

  Mr. Eggar
  The environmental technology innovation scheme has attracted 503 initial first stage applications of which 101 have been rejected. To list the companies which have applied and the reasons for rejecting individual applicants would incur disproportionate costs and disclose information which is commercially confidential. However, all applications are considered carefully by my Department's technical consultants and appraised according to their ability to meet the scheme criteria.

  One hundred and nineteen applicants have been invited by my Department to submit more detailed second stage proposals, and 141 by the Department of the Environment. Of those who have submitted proposals, the following have been awarded grant:

  Grant £

  Companies awarded ETIS grant by DTI

  Pollution Control and Measurement Ltd.

  58,025

  Steel Castings Research and Trade Association

  295,500

  British Glass Manufacturers Confederation

  100,500

  Anaplast Ltd.

  835,120

  British Ceramic Research Ltd.

  51,500

  Keele University

  148,900

  British Ceramic Research Ltd.

  43,142

  M Squared Technology Ltd.

  119,550

  Fuel and Combustion Technology Ltd.

  268,900

  University of Southampton

  323,050

  Rover Group

  576,090

  Kalsep Ltd.

  140,250

  Total

  2,960,527

  Companies awarded ETIS grant by DoE

  Alpha Process Controls (International) Ltd.

  24,186

  University of Leeds

  202,789

  John Ashworth and Partners

  140,890

  Autotype International Ltd.

  136,337

  UKAEA Industrial Technology

  264,450

  BHR Group Ltd.

  289,450

  Coates Lorilleux International

  211,375

  Ciba-Geigy Dyestuffs and Chemicals

  206,570

  Manchester Airport plc

  56,085

  PERA International

  80,000

  Pilkington Insulation Ltd.

  42,725

  Marston Bentley Ltd.

  23,000

  ICI Paints

  77,550

  Shipowners Refrigerated Cargo Research Association Ltd.

  14,880

  Total

  1,770,287

  The remaining applicants have either withdrawn, transferred to other schemes or been asked to provide more information.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for the last year for which figures are available, how many collieries produced coal which sold for, on average(a) below £35 per tonne, (b) between £35–£40, (c) £41–£45 and (d) £45–£50; and if he will make a statement.
  564
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: This is a matter for British Coal.

  Furniture (Safety)
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications of the use of second-hand furniture by the Salvation Army and other charities following publication of his guidelines on fire safety.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: The fire resistance requirements of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (as amended in 1989) which will come into force for secondhand upholstered furniture on 1 March 1993, and apply only to transactions involving the "supply" of furniture which takes place "in the course of business" within the meaning of section 46 of that Act. In my Department's view, the simple distribution of secondhand furniture by a charity, in pursuance of its charitable objectives, either free of charge or at a nominal cost only would be unlikely to constitute a supply in the course of business. Shops selling furniture to raise funds for charitable purposes would constitute a business activity.

  It is also my Department's view that the furniture regulations do not apply to furniture used, for example, in Salvation Army hostels. However, guidelines for the fire safety of multiple occupancy premises have been issued by the Department of the Environment. My Department has also published two guidance documents—one for suppliers of domestic upholstered furniture, and the other aimed at consumers—explaining the requirements of the furniture regulations and the level of fire protection they provide. These give useful information and the Department would expect that charities will be guided by the fire safety considerations in the interests of those whom they assist.

  My Department strongly advises that any charity should discuss its particular position with its legal advisers in the light of all the circumstances of its operation.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account his Department has taken of the "Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment" published by the deregulation unit in relation to the draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 concerning the letting of furnished accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: The compliance cost assessment for the draft amendment regulations was prepared in accordance with the guide to compliance cost assessment published by the deregulation unit and was made available for comment by consultees.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many responses he has had from the self-catering industry on the cost to individual businesses of implementing the draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1992; and when he expects to complete his consultations on the regulations.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: Some 30 consultees from the self-catering industry made comments about the costs to individual businesses. The period for consultation on the draft amendment

  565
  regulations has been completed and the amendment regulations will be laid before Parliament in the near future.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the measures taken since 1979 to support small firms.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: The measures of support for small firms operated by my Department, together with the original dates of commencement, are as follows:

  the Enterprise Initiative Consultancy Scheme (commenced January 1988);

  the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (commenced June 1981);

  the Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology (commenced early 1988);

  Support for Products Under Research (commenced February 1991);

  Regional Enterprise Grants (commenced April 1988);

  the Export Marketing Research Scheme (commenced 1969);

  Your Business Success (commenced August 1987);

  Graduate Enterprise (commenced November 1985);

  My Department also provides funding for development work which aims to benefit small firms and produces a wide range of publications aimed at small businesses.

  In 1985 the Government launched the deregulation initiative which aims to reduce burdens on business, particularly small firms.

  During 1993 my Department will start support for up to 15 pilot schemes which will provide businesses with a single point of access to information and advice.

  From April 1993 my Department will take over responsibility from the Employment Department for funding training and enterprise councils (TECs) to provide a wide range of business support services to help small businesses.

  In addition, small businesses can, of course, take advantage of other business support programmes provided for firms of all sizes and by other Departments.

  For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food runs the farm and conservation grants scheme, which provides grants for renewal or replacement of certain capital items to eligible businesses.

  Under the action for cities initiative, the Department of the Environment provides grants and loans to eligible small businesses for a variety of purposes.

  The Defence Research Agency, an agency owned by the Ministry of Defence, recently launched "Pathfinder" which encourages industry to come forward with research proposals that meet both the Ministry's needs and firms' own research priorities.

  The Rural Development Commission provides assistance to small businesses in certain geographical areas. For example, grants are available to eligible businesses in priority locations for converting disused and redundant buildings into premises for providing jobs, or for ensuring that the infrastructure is adequate for work space; and small amounts of grant are also available for marketing consultancy and for attending trade shows and exhibitions.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the voluntary testing scheme for smoke detectors containing radioactive isotopes imported from third world countries.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: I have no plans for changing in the immediate future present arrangements for the National Radiological Protection Board's testing of smoke detectors containing radioactive isotopes.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, col. 58 relating to state aid to the electricity supply industry, if he will give details of the state aid to the energy sector within the United Kingdom as notified to the European Commission.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The energy sector in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the electricity sector in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Within my right hon. Friend"s responsibilities, a number of arrangements have been notified to the Commission under the provisions of EC competition law since 1973. Arrangements notified in the course of the electricity privatisation exercise specifically include the state aid inherent in the fossil fuel levy.

  Directors (Conduct)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many reports and complaints of the unfit conduct of directors were submitted to the insolvency service in 1991 and 1992; and how many disqualification orders against directors were made in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The figures requested by the hon. Member are:

  1991

  1992

  Unfitted conduct reports

  5,747

  6,607

  Disqualification orders made

  317

  409

  The figures are not comparable on a year by year basis because of the interval between receipt of an unfitted report and the making, in appropriate cases, of a disqualification order.

  Owners Abroad (Airtours Bid)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the possible referral of the bid by Airtours for Owners Abroad to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Director General of Fair Trading is currently investigating this proposed merger and he will advise the President of the Board of Trade in due course. A decision on whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be taken once that advice is received.

  Springram Ltd.
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much grant assistance has been paid to Springram Ltd. for the construction of the new factory at the Euroway estate in Bradford.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: Details of grant assistance for investment projects are treated as commercial in confidence. However, grants of over £75,000 are normally published in the Employment Gazette, together with a brief description of the project, in the quarter following the first payment.

  Hospital Radio
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what recent discussions he has had with the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations about the allocation of a freely radiating FM frequency for use by hospital radios; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the findings of the hospital radio trial at Radio Redhill to evaluate the possibility of a freely radiating FM frequency for hospital radio use;

  (3) if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals to allow hospital radios future access to freely radiating FM frequencies to provide radio services to individual hospitals.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave on 2 November 1992, Official Report, columns 60–61. I hope to be able to see the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations in the near future to discuss my Department"s involvement in the work of the Radio Authority to evaluate the technical feasibility of hospital radio.

  The Redhill experiment showed that although it may be technically feasible to deliver an effective freely radiating FM service within a particular hospital, depending on the nature of the site to be served, signal overspill beyond the site could be significant.

  The Radio Authority has the responsibility to determine the priority to give to hospital radio among other possible uses of the radio frequencies available for independent sound broadcasting.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the measures he is taking to assist small businesses and individual traders in the light of the current economic climate.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: My Department operates the following measures of support:

  the Enterprise Initiative Consultancy Scheme;

  the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme;

  the Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology;

  Support for Products under Research;

  Regional Enterprise Grants;

  the Export Marketing Research Scheme;

  Your Business Success;

  Graduate Enterprise;

  My Department also provides funding for development work which aims to benefit small firms and individual traders and produces a wide range of publications.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been charged by the Prime Minister with driving
  568
  forward a new initiative to cut red tape across Whitehall. The aim of this work is to cut significantly the burdens on business of all sizes, but especially small businesses.

  During 1993 my Department will start support for up to 15 pilot schemes which will provide businesses with a single point of access to information and advice.

  From April 1993 my Department will take over responsibility from the Employment Department for funding training and enterprise councils (TECs) to provide a wide range of business support services to help small business.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following consultants have been used at a total cost of £308,000.

  Capita Management Consultancy

  Coopers and Lybrand

  SRU

  These private sector consultancies have served to strengthen the Department's market testing capability.

  Business Expansion Scheme (Shipping Companies)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each grant awarded under the business expansion scheme to shipping companies which have subsequently flagged out and replaced British crews with non-British crews.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The BES provides tax relief for investors and not grants for companies. Information about particular companies in respect of which BES relief has been given is not available.

DEFENCE

  Contractors (West Midlands)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence procurement budget for the last available year was spent on contractors based in the west midlands.

  Mr. Aitken
  We estimate that, in 1990–91, about £450 million was paid to contractors based in the west midlands for defence equipment.

  Job Transfers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to relocate some additional MoD civilian jobs to Imphal barracks, York, to make use of the office space occupied currently by Army manning and records staff prepared for relocation to Glasgow.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proposal to establish a new Army personnel centre in Glasgow is the subject of consultation with the trade unions. In the event that we proceed with this proposal all personnel will be offered the possibility to tranfer to Glasgow at public expense. Every effort will be made to find employment for those unable or unwilling to transfer, at other Ministry of Defence
  569
  establishments or with other Government Departments in the area. Other defence uses of the site will be considered once a final decision has been taken.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of United Kingdom operations in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The additional cost of participation to date amounts to some £60 million. The cost of peacekeeping operations will be met by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the United Kingdom contribution to the UN relief operation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Rifkind
  As I said in the House on 14 January, we are committed to continuing our contribution to the United Nations humanitarian effort so long as conditions on the ground permit.

  Dockyards
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government expect to make an announcement on the future of the royal dockyards.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not yet possible to make an announcement on where the refitting of Trident submarines will take place.

  We have received offers from Devonport Management Limited and from Babcock Thorn Limited for developing facilities for nuclear refitting at Devonport dockyard and Rosyth dockyard respectively. We are at present concerned that the prices quoted in the offers may significantly understate the likely eventual cost of the work. Before we can decide between them we need to be absolutely sure that we can be confident of the prices quoted. We are not yet in this position.

  We shall be scrutinising these offers, and studying other related matters further, before coming to a final decision, which we hope to do as soon as possible.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Rosyth naval dockyard.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government's aim is to achieve a healthy competitive structure to ensure that the future interests of the taxpayer are safeguarded. The Royal Navy will have a continuing and substantial programme of refit work for its surface fleet of frigates, destroyers, carriers, mine counter measure vessels and other ships, as well as its submarine fleet. Although the private shipbuilders can and will continue to do some refit work, they of themselves cannot ensure effective competition. It is through competition that refit prices will provide the best value to the Royal Navy and protect the taxpayer.

  As I indicated to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the prices quoted in the tenders for nuclear refitting at Rosyth and Devonport may significantly understate the likely eventual cost of the work. The scope and nature of nuclear refitting work are such that it must be allocated to one dockyard. However, for the reasons of competition in other work which I have described, we plan to continue with two royal dockyards.

  Transport of Forces
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the armed services in transporting forces speedily to any area.

  Mr. Aitken
  Recent operations have confirmed that our armed forces have the ability to move speedily to any area.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current complement for the part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment; and what were the corresponding figures for the previous three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For security reasons it is not our practice to disclose the complement of any regiment in the British Army however, as at 1 December 1992 the strength for the part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment (home service) was 136 officers and 2,618 soldiers.

  Corresponding figures for 1 December 1991 were 147 officers and 2,855 soldiers, for 1 December 1990, 148 officers and 2,939 soldiers, and for 1 December 1989, 154 officers and 3,283 soldiers.

  Defence Lands
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to improve the management of defence lands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The general arrangements for managing the Defence Estate are working well, but we are always looking for improvements. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence has set in hand a management review.

  United Nations Operations
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are currently involved in United Nations operations worldwide.

  Mr. Rifkind
  As at 1 February there were 3,570 British service men participating in United Nations operations world wide, making us the second largest troop contributor to the United Nations. This figure excludes those operating in association with United Nations operations, such as the Royal Naval presence in the Adriatic and the Royal Air Force contribution to Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the implication of implementing "Options for Change" for service establishments in Wiltshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some measures have already been announced for establishments in Wiltshire; any further changes will be announced as soon as decisions have been taken.

  North Atlantic Treaty Alliance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future role of NATO; and if he will make a statement.
  571
  Mr. Rifkind
  The basis of the alliance's future security policy was set out in the strategic concept issued by the NATO heads of state at a summit in Rome in November 1991. The principles it contains will shape the further development of the alliance's defence policy, operational concepts and force posture.

  Trident
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of defence expenditure is taken up by the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Trident programme is expected to absorb, on average, less than 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget over its procurement period. The Government consider that Trident represents a highly cost-effective contribution to deterrence.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes, but I see no advantage in doing so until the National Radiological Protection Board has published its updated study. The evidence available to date shows that the total incidence of death and malignant disease among nuclear test veterans has been no worse than among the population in general.

  Royal Navy (Amphibious Capability)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the current state of plans to maintain the Royal Navy's amphibious capability.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the capability of the Royal Navy to conduct amphibious operations.

  Mr. Aitken
  Evaluation of tenders for the new landing platform helicopter vessel, received in October, will be complete this summer. An order would be dependent upon the outcome of our evaluation of tenders and the competing demands within the defence programme at the time. On completion of project definition studies, invitations to tender are planned to be issued for the first of the replacement assault ships. Design studies are under way for the refurbishment and re-equipment of the three older landing ships logistic.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Queen Elizabeth military hospital will become available to the national health service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital is being considered as part of a wider review of service hospital requirements, and I am not yet in a position to announce the outcome of the review.

  Defence Exports
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by his Department in matters relating to defence exports; and if he will make a statement.
  572
  Mr. Aitken
  In 1993–94 the following staff funded by my Department will be employed on matters relating to defence exports:

  Staff

  Export assistance to industry

  271

  Export policy and control

  45

  In addition, a further 254 staff will be employed on project management activities financed by overseas customers.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European fighter aircraft project.

  Mr. Aitken
  The agreement reached by the Defence Ministers of the four partner nations on 10 December means the development of a new fighter, to be known as Eurofighter 2000, will go ahead, though with some changes to adapt the design to the new international situation and to make it affordable to all four partner nations. Deliveries to the RAF are planned to commence in 2000. Officials of the four nations are now discussing with the contractors the precise programme and specification changes necessary to give effect to the ministerial decision.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compulsory and voluntary redundancies have so far occurred in the armed forces as a result of "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1993, 5,969 service personnel have been selected for redundancy so far, as a result of our restructuring plans for the armed forces. Apart from 227 officers and 127 non-commissioned personnel, all of these redundancies are voluntary.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mrs. Chaplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF Greenham Common; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following the withdrawal of the United States forces from RAF Greenham Common last year, and after careful consideration of potential alternative defence uses, we have decided that we have no long-term requirement for the bulk of the site. With the exception of a few small enclaves, which we shall have to retain for the time being due to inspection obligations under the terms of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, the site will be disposed of.

  Discussions have started with the local authorities to establish a strategy for the sale of the site in accordance with the normal planning process. As part of this process we will seek to agree the nature of any development of the site although we envisage that existing open space will be preserved for public amenity.

  In addition, we shall seek to return specific assets for the benefit of the local community as quickly as possible. In this connection, we anticipate selling the school complex

  573
  and Greenham Lodge, with its associated outbuildings, after consultations with the appropriate local authorities. Although we will retain the housing stock associated with the airfield, the surplus barrack block accommodation at Greenham Close is available for sale to meet local housing needs.

  Some minor defence activities will occasionally take place at the site until it is sold and the security of the airfield will be maintained for the time being although we hope to introduce arrangements to allow public access as soon as possible.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Aitken
  When agency chief executives write to a Member in response to a parliamentary question, which falls within their area of responsibility, they are authorised to do so direct and do not submit drafts to Ministers. A copy of the letter will be passed to the Minister's private office as it goes out.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a book, the title of which has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

  Mr. Aitken
  A copy of the book was obtained on 25 January 1993 and is held in the Ministry of Defence library.

  HMS Valiant
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on refitting HMS Valiant.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total estimated cost of refitting work on HMS Valiant (including the current docking and essential defects period) since the introduction of commercial management into the dockyards, in April 1987, is £90 million.

  Refitting expenditure prior to April 1987 could be identified accurately only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the deployment of HMS Valiant.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Valiant is currently undergoing routine repairs at Rosyth. It is not our practice to disclose details of the operational deployment of Royal Navy submarines.

  Lynx Helicopter
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many attack helicopter aircraft he plans to procure to replace the Lynx.

  Mr. Aitken
  We recently announced that the invitation to tender for the attack helicopter competition had been issued to potential bidders. The number of aircraft eventually purchased will depend upon the capabilities and effectiveness of the system offered by the successful bidder as well as its affordability.

TRANSPORT

  Car Crash, M40
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were in the two cars involved in the crash on the road from Bicester to the M40 at 6 pm on Sunday 10 January; how many wore seat belts; and how many survived.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The accident is being investigated by Thames Valley police. Preliminary reports indicate that there were four people in one car and three people in the other; that six people were wearing seat belts; and that six people survived the accident.

  A49–465 Bypass
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department's current assessment of the comparative construction costs of the A49–465 Hereford bypass(a) published route and (b) western alternative route 1C and the cost assessment stated by his Department in public inquiry document 11/3 on route 1C; if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the components of the cost assessments in each case; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what number of farms would suffer from severance under (a) the published route for the A49-A465 bypass and (b) the western alternative route 1C; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he received from English Nature and its predecessor organisations concerning the relative merits of the A49–465 Hereford bypass eastern or western routes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Friday 5 February 1993, Vol. 218, column 390.

  Bridges (Grouted Duct Tendons)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the use of grouted duct tendons as part of box-girder bridges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department announced on 25 September 1992 that until new standards are available no new bridges using grouted duct post-tensioned prestressed concrete will be commissioned. The announcement covered all types of this form of bridge construction including concrete box-girder bridges.

  Bridges which are already being designed are being reviewed on a case-by-case basis and decisions taken whether to continue with the design of the bridge as a post-tensioned structure. Those bridges at an advanced stage of design or under construction when the announcement was made are continuing, although where necessary additional quality control is being adopted during their construction.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce an MOT compliance standard on vehicle emissions based on manufacturers' own conformity of production standards.
  575
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  An amendment to the EC roadworthiness directive made last year means that emissions standards may be based either on vehicle manufactures' stated maximum limits or on fixed common limits. This directive will take effect on 1 January next year for vehicles with conventional petrol engines, 1 January 1996 for vehicles with diesel engines and 1 January 1997 for petrol-engined vehicles with catalytic converters. I will consider the hon. Member"s suggestion and the Department will consult interested parties with draft regulations implementing the directive.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to bring forward proposals for additional powers to his Department's vehicle inspectorate to enable them(a) to make a visual assessment of smoking vehicles in use on roads and (b) to impose a legal requirement on vehicle owners of a detected smoking vehicle to have the vehicle checked at an MOT testing station following detection.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The vehicle inspectorate"s examiners already have the power to assess smoke from a vehicle stopped at a roadside check and to prohibit the use of that vehicle if the smoke is excessive. Such a prohibition can be cleared only when an examiner is satisfied that the emission of smoke has been reduced to an acceptable level and this may require that the vehicle is first inspected at a testing station.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many instances of vehicles emitting excess smoke were reported to each of his Department's area offices during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This information is available for the period from 1 April 1991:

  Traffic area

  1991–92

  11992–93

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  636

  468

  North Western

  154

  178

  Scottish

  36

  41

  North Eastern

  86

  114

  West Midland and South Wales

  114

  156

  Eastern

  159

  172

  Western

  298

  949

  TOTAL

  1,483

  2,078

  1 April to December.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken to date(a) to publicise his Department's area offices to whom complaints on vehicles emitting excessive smoke should be made, including contact names and telephone numbers and (b) to publicise the courses of action open to his Department to deal with such complaints.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department of the Environment's leaflet "Wake up to what you can do for the environment", issued in 1990, gave advice on how members of the public could help to tackle environmental nuisance, including reporting excessively smoking vehicles to traffic area offices. We hope that a separate leaflet dealing specifically with smoky vehicles will be issued shortly. This will include the addresses and telephone numbers of the relevant offices and it will also outline what follow-up action is taken in response to complaints.

  Incident Detection and Signalling Technology
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to date to secure that(a) the motorway network and (b) the trunk road network in the United Kingdom are equipped with automatic incident detection and signalling technology.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  With only minor exceptions the motorway network in England is equipped with signals. The provision of signalling technology on all purpose trunk roads is governed by safety-related needs.

  The installation of automatic incident detection and signalling on sections of motorway where traffic flows are heavy has been approved in principle and a programme for installation is being identified. I have no plans to provide automatic incident detection and signalling technology on all-purpose trunk roads.

  A21 (Report)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report from East Sussex county council on the A21.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  East Sussex county council has submitted its report on the study into possible need for further improvements to the A21 trunk road within the county and we are now considering it.

  "Good Roads Guide"
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he issued the press release announcing the publication of the "Good Roads Guide"; and on what dates a complete copy of the "Good Roads Guide" was(a) placed in the Library and (b) placed on sale to the general public.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A press release to announce the launch of the "Good Roads Guide" in England was issued on 6 January 1993.

  The "Good Roads Guide" is the name given to a collection of nine United Kingdom advice notes for inclusion in the new United Kingdom design manual for roads and bridges. This is a technical publication and copies are not normally deposited in the Library. A limited number of specially bound editions were produced for the press release. These are no longer available.

  The nine United Kingdom advice notes will be available for sale to the general public at the end of the month.

  London Transport (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the capital investment at constant prices by(a) London Transport and (b) London Underground, excluding the Jubilee line extension in 1991–92, 1992–93 and planned for 1993–94 and 1994–95 in the 1991 autumn statement and now proposed for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Norris
  The table sets out LT"s investment plans following the 1991 autumn statement. The investment budgets for London Transport and London Underground Ltd. in the light of the 1992 autumn statement have not yet been decided.
  577

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  LT total excluding Jubilee line extension

  370

  6501

  870

  830

  LUL total excluding Jubilee line extension

  310

  5801

  820

  765

  1 Latest outturn forecasts.

  All figures at 1992–93 prices.

  Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement outlining his Department's position on proposals for a common EC motorway usage charge for goods vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such proposals have been made. The Transport Council has, however, been considering a draft directive which among other things sets out the conditions on which individual member states may, if they wish, levy tolls or other user charges on heavy goods vehicles for the use of their motorways. At its last meeting on 21 December the Council was unable to reach any agreement on this draft.

  Car Crashes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 February Official Report, column 117, on injury crashes, if he will express the estimates as incidence rates.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Comparable injury accident rates for drivers aged 17, 18 and 19 in relation to the number of full and provisional car driving licence holders in 1991 within these age groups, are available only for Northern Ireland and Great Britain and are shown in the table:

  Accident Rates (Per 100 driving licence holders within each age group) Accident Rates: Full and Provisional Licence Holders

  Age

  Northern Ireland

  Great Britain

  17

  1.3

  2.7

  18

  1.9

  2.8

  19

  1.9

  2.3

  Total (17 to 19)

  1.8

  2.6

  It would have been preferable to calculate rates in relation to mileage, which is a better measure of exposure to risk than numbers of licence holders, but this information is not available.

  Variable Message Signs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are currently undertaken by his Department to enhance the usage of variable message signs on the motorway network and non-motorway road network in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The use of variable message signs on English motorways and all-purpose trunk roads has increased in recent years, most notably around the Manchester and Birmingham conurbations. A new design of motorway signal incorporating a variable message 578
  capability has been trialled on the M25 and approved for installation on all English motorways that are to be widened to dual four lanes.

  My Department is preparing to install a traffic management VMS scheme on roads in Kent comprising the M20 and M26 from the M25 to Folkestone and the A2/M2/A2 route from Dartford—M25—to Dover. Further applications for use of VMS are being considered.

  Motorways (Productivity Targets)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to(a) establish clear productivity targets for each United Kingdom motorway and (b) appoint network managers for individual motorways or groups of motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Motorway performance depends on a wide range of factors, including particularly the traffic volumes at the time, maintenance requirements and accidents. Investment is carefully targeted to produce maximum return in reducing delay and accidents, subject to full environmental appraisal. The economic assessment of English motorway schemes continues to produce an overall benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.6:1.

  The growing pressures of managing the network of motorways and other trunk roads in England were recognised in the reorganisation of responsibility within my Department in 1990 when regional network management divisions were established.

  Motorways (Lighting)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to establish a target date for all motorways in the United Kingdom to be wholly lit.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not planned to light the whole of the motorway network in England. Lighting is provided, subject to environmental appraisal, where it can be justified on safety grounds, taking account of the savings in night-time accidents.

  Concessionary Rail Travel
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 869, if he will list the number of dependants in each of the categories of people listed in his answer who receive (a) free unrestricted travel and (b) restricted concessionary travel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that no recipients of British Rail staff travel facilities have unrestricted free travel on BR train services. All concessionary arrangements exclude specific services which are subject to heavy public demand.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those categories of people entitled to concessionary(a) unlimited first-class travel,
  (b) restricted first-class and second-class travel and
  (c) second-class travel on British Rail services, stating the number in each category and the annual total cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures requested are not readily available. However, it is estimated that approximately 5 per cent. of British Rail staff are granted first-class travel facilities, excluding use only for specific services subject to heavy public demand.

  Garage Equipment
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require garage proprietors to maintain air lines and pressure gauges in good working order.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Although it is important that correct tyre pressures are maintained, a new regulatory or other requirement on garage proprietors could not be justified.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Two consultancy advisory commissions have been awarded at a total cost of £26,650 plus VAT.

  Mr. R. C. D. Walker, ICI Specialties, was appointed as a consultant to advise on the Department's proposed market testing and contracting-out programme. The appointment commenced on 31 January 1992 and was completed by 31 March 1992.

  CSL Group Ltd. was appointed to provide advice for certain customers of the Driver, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology Agency in preparation for changed contractual arrangements resulting from the privatisation of DVOIT. The appointment commenced on 22 January 1993.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish the details of the access and charging regime that will apply under his proposals for the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have today published a document entitled "Gaining Access to the Railway". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much expenditure he intends to incur under the provisions of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act 1993 in preparation for rail privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  British Rail Timetable
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be responsible for maintaining services covered by table 51 in the current BR timetable under his proposals for the railways; whether a national railway timetable will be published twice a year as at present; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following privatisation it will be for the franchising director to specify the passenger services to be provided by franchisees. His specification will be based on the timetable being operated by British Rail prior to franchising. BR will continue to run passenger services until they have been franchised. Railtrack will be required to ensure the publication of a national timetable. We expect that the frequency of publication will coincide with major timetable changes.

  Paddington-Fishguard Rail Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with(a) his opposite number in the Irish Republic and (b) the EC Transport Commissioner in relation to the timing of rail passenger services from Paddington to Fishguard.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have discussed transport links between the island of Ireland and Great Britain with Ministers of the Irish Republic and the EC Transport Commissioner on a number of occasions. These discussions have not, however, included such detailed matters as the timing of individual rail passenger services.

  MV Braer (Oil Spillage)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received arising out of the MV Braer oil incident on the desirability of establishing a tanker exclusion zone.

  Mr. Norris
  A number of representations have been received calling for tanker exclusion zones in certain areas. This will be covered by Lord Donaldson in his inquiry which in its terms of reference will give due consideration to the international implications of any measures.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the total number of night flights permitted at Heathrow and Gatwick in the past winter and summer; and what number would be permitted in 1993–94 under the proposals in the recent consultation paper(a) on the assumption that airlines use the same mix of aircraft as in the past year and (b) on the assumption that airlines choose to use quieter aircraft one quota lower than in the past year and assuming also that in the unlimited zero-rated category there are an additional 25 landings plus 25 take-offs per night; and if he will indicate in each case whether the average volume of noise per year will be greater or less than in the past year.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not specify the total number of aircraft that may operate at night at Heathrow and Gatwick. Under the present night restrictions, the noisiest aircraft are not allowed to operate at night except for a small number of delayed departures. The less noisy aircraft may operate subject to quotas, but some aircraft are exempt. At Gatwick, the quotas were 2,250 movements for winter 1991–92 and 5,190 for summer 1992. At Heathrow, the quotas were 3,000 for winter 1991–92 and 2,750 for summer 1992.

  The new quota levels proposed for the next five years in the consultation paper are designed to keep the overall noise levels below those in 1988. If the proposed new quotas were used by aircraft counting 1 or more under the new system, in the same mix as flew in summer 1992, the proposed summer quota of 9,000 for Gatwick would translate into 4,900 movements and 7,000 for Heathrow would translate into 2,550 movements. In addition to aircraft currently exempt, there would have been about 1,200 movements at Gatwick during the summer season by zero-rated aircraft—about six a night—and about 400 at Heathrow—about two a night. Even though the mix of aircraft using the new quotas may change, overall noise levels should not get worse.

  M62
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the widening of the M62, junctions 14 to 17, included in the national roads investment plans for 1993–94 is intended to form part of the proposed greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. This widening will bring early, but short-term, relief to this busy motorway. Long-term relief would be provided by the proposed greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his assessment of the environmental hazards involved in the transport of radioactive materials by air, assuming a worst-case scenario of an aircraft carrying the highest permitted level of radioactive materials crashing on a main population centre; and what contingency plans are in place to deal with such an emergency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: In its report to the Secretary of State in 1988, the Advisory Committee for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material estimated that the consequence of a super-severe accident resulting from a plane crash in a suburban area—1,400 people/km2—would result in a mean value of very much less than one fatal cancer in 50 years, assuming that no counter-measures were taken.

  Following such an accident, the police will activate the national arrangements for incidents involving radioactivity. Resources available to the police include experts from British Nuclear Fuels plc who are skilled in the handling of plutonium.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air movements took place in 1992 conveying radioactive materials in or out of(a) Manchester, (b) Liverpool and (c) other north west or northern airfields; what is the highest permissible level of radioactivity in respect of such flights; what was the actual highest level so transported; and what percentage change he expects to the number of such flights over the coming five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Department does not keep a database of individual movements.

  The quantity of radioactive material which may be transported is limited by permitted radiation levels from the type of package and by criticality safety considerations if the material is fissile.

  The percentage change in the number of flights in future will depend on commercial considerations.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many movements of radioactive material have been notified to his Department in each of the past five years; and if he will place a list of such movements in the Library.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Department does not keep a database of individual movements.

  M4
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the widening of the M4 between London and Swindon to begin.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: A contract for widening to four lanes of the short length of M4 between junctions 4B, M25, and 5, A4, has just been let and work will start shortly. Four other commissions to study the need and options for increasing capacity on the M4 between the M25 and junction 15 are proceeding satisfactorily and we expect to be in a position to start public consultation about further sections in the course of this year. Subsequent progress will depend on the outcome of public consultation and of any statutory procedures necessary and the availability of funding.

  M1
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when major repairs between junctions 9 and 10 on the M1 were last completed; why further repairs are now necessary; why such repairs will last from March to December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The last substantial repairs on this section were completed in March 1991 and involved extensive patching to maintain the safety of the carriageway until the proposed widening of the motorway.

  The works planned for this year are improvement works to widen the motorway to four lanes. At the same time major maintenance works will be carried out to extend the residual life of the existing carriageway. The extensive nature of these works is reflected in the contract period.

  Shipping Routes
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government"s policy on each of the recommendations of the European Parliament relating to tanker movements made in response to the MV Braer oil incident in Shetland.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The recommendations of the European Parliament relating to tanker movements raise a number of complex issues which can be effectively resolved only through international agreement at the International Maritime Organisation and elsewhere. Matters relating to radar coverage and pilotage will fall within the terms of reference of the inquiry that Lord Donaldson will hold.

  Rail Staff (Deaths)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the numbers and circumstances of deaths at work of rail staff over the past five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of fatal accidents to railway and contractors staff for each year since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  16

  1988

  16

  1989

  18

  583

  Year

  Number

  1990

  22

  11991–92

  17

  1 This report covers a 15-month period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1992.

  Details of the circumstances of the deaths are given in the annual reports on railway safety in Great Britain for each year. Copies are available in the House Library.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to prohibit Caledonian MacBrayne from running a vehicle-carrying ferry between Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin following the completion of the Skye bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will not permit Caledonian MacBrayne to provide such a service. At the time when it became necessary to introduce new vessels on the Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin service in 1991, approval was given by the Department on the basis that, when the bridge was completed, the ferry service would be withdrawn and Caledonian MacBrayne would redeploy the vessels elsewhere in the network.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his policy will be, following construction of the Skye bridge, towards the existing piers at Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin(a) in respect of allowing vehicular access to the piers for the purposes of (i) enabling regular vehicle-carrying ferry service to operate in competition with the bridge and (ii) providing an emergency vehicle-carrying ferry service at times of emergency closure of the bridge and (b) in other respects; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no authority over the existing Kyleakin pier which is owned by the Highland regional council.

  (a) (i) should a private vehicle ferry service wish to operate between Kyle and Kyleakin, an operator could do so providing the necessary approvals and licences were obtained and the appropriate facilities were available.

  (ii) as the bridge will be open at all times, except on occasions to high sided vehicles, there will be no need for an emergency vehicle ferry service.

  (b) The Scottish Office are co-operating with Highland regional council to develop a package of measures aimed at improving the environment and amenity in Kyle to make the maximum use of the opportunity offered by the Skye bridge.

  European Year of Older People
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the events organised by, or with the co-operation of, his Department for the European Year of Older People; what arrangements he has made for informing and involving hon. Members of events for the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My Department is participating fully with other Government Departments and voluntary organisations to plan and promote a wide-ranging programme of 584
  events for the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations. The programme of events for the Year is relevant to all parts of the United Kingdom. Events being developed as part of the Scottish contribution to the year include a three year project to support volunteering by older people and a project to examine the experiences of ethnic minority older people in selected European Community countries. I will write to the hon. Member with a full list of events which have been organised so far.

  Officials of the Department of Health, the lead organising Department for the Year, recently met with the all party parliamentary group for pensions. In addition honourable Members will be able to learn more about the European Year of Older People from an exhibition to be mounted in the Upper Waiting Hall from 22 to 28 February. Madam Speaker has graciously agreed at the request of the all party group to host a reception on 30 June at the Speaker's House to mark the Year.

  Age Concern Scotland has written to all Scottish hon. Members to inform them of the exhibition and to encourage them to support the year. A similar letter will be issued to all other hon. Members shortly.

  Caledonian MacBrayne"s
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to respond to Caledonian MacBrayne's corporate plan for 1992 to 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has already responded to Caledonian MacBrayne's corporate plan for 1992 to 1996 in approving the company's capital expenditure proposals for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, increasing the company's external financing limit over the three years by a total of £10.5 million and fixing the level of deficit subsidy for 1993–94 at £7.165 million.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Lang
  The chief executives of my four agencies reply direct to parliamentary questions on matters delegated to them. It is not normal practice for chief executives" letters to be submitted to my office prior to reply. I do, of course, see chief executives" replies when they are published in the Official Report.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 5 November 1992,Official Report, column 351; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The central data on appointments is updated once a year, at 1 September, and the information given in the answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 6 November 1992 is the latest available. Information not

  585
  held centrally could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. On the question of political affiliation I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 26 November 1992, Official Report, column 711.

  Mr. Muir Russell
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to ensure that the appointment of Mr. Muir Russell as a non-executive director of Stage Coach plc is compatible with his position as a civil servant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Mr. Russell"s appointment is one of many made nationally to build bridges between the civil service and the business community. There is now within the Scottish Office a substantial bank of experience of such appointments, which must comply with the normal principles of conduct for civil servants. In addition new guidance has been published by the Office of Public Service and Science to supplement departmental rules and procedures on such appointments. Mr. Russell's appointment is entirely compatible with the guidance.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage change in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms in his Department's budget from 1992–93 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 February 1993]: The planned 1993–94 expenditure budget for the Departments within my responsibility but excluding the Forestry Commission is 5.0 per cent. in real terms and 7.9 per cent. in cash terms more than planned 1992–93 expenditure as amended by classification changes. After allowing for additional responsibilities of my Departments in care in the community and higher education, the increases are 2.7 per cent. in real terms and 5.6 per cent. in cash terms.

  Departmental Press Releases
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to distribute his Department's press releases by electronic mail.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: I intend to continue my practice of distributing news releases from my Department by electronic mail to principal media outlets which have the facilities to receive them. Development of the service is kept under review.

  MV Braer (Oil Spillage)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial provision has been made, and by whom, for the long-term monitoring of the impact on both land and the marine environment of the oil spillage from the tanker Braer.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Various Government Departments and public bodies are already engaged in monitoring the impact of the oil spill. Their programmes and priorities will be reviewed by the ecological steering group which was announced by my right hon. Friend on 26 January 1993. Since the long-term
  586
  monitoring requirements have still to be assessed, it is too early to take a view on the financial arrangements for them.

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978, how many farmers within the less-favoured areas designated severely disadvantaged, receive a level of farm income at or below the level at which a family of two adults and two children of school ages 13 and 17 could expect to be entitled to family credit at the current rate.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The information requested is not available.

  Scottish Bus Group Companies
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the purchasers of former Scottish Bus Group companies under the terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir Hector Monro) on 2 December 1991, Official Report, columns 45–46.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Applicants (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates her Department has made of the number of companies requiring drug testing for job applicants; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not produce estimates of the number of companies requiring drug testing for job applicants and has no plans to do so.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been declared in the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry each year since 1979; and what has been the average redundancy payment in constant prices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The specific information requested is not available and no information is held on payments made by employers to redundant employees.

  Black Workers
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has made of the average pay of black workers as a percentage of the average pay of white workers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  These estimates are not made.

  Check-off Deductions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the cost per thousand to employers of meeting requirements for renewed check-off deductions.
  587
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost to those employers who choose to operate check-off arrangements of the new requirements in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will depend on their particular circumstances. Employers may agree, as part of the arrangements, to recoup some or all of the cost from the trade unions on whose behalf they operate the check-off.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who proposed to Government the requirement that employers would be required to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees every three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This proposal is based on a recommendation in the response of the Institute of Personnel Management to the Green Paper, "Industrial Relations in the 1990s".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if employers are presently prohibited from checking at any time and at any interval whether any employee maintains consent previously given for deductions of union subscriptions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Existing law on the operation of the check-off offers little protection to employees who pay their union subscriptions through the check-off.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which bodies have supported the proposed requirement for renewed consent to check-off deductions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responses to legislative proposals are automatically treated as confidential. Bodies that have publicly supported the principle of periodic renewal of consent include the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people graduating from employment training courses in Blyth Valley have gone on to full-time work in each year since 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available. Information on employment training is riot held centrally below training and enterprise council level.

  Job Shops (Vetting)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what vetting is carried out when potential employers place advertisements for vacancies in job shops.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Bill Michie, dated 9 February 1993.
  588
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the vetting carried out when potential employers place advertisements in job shops. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The vast majority of vacancies notified to Jobcentres are from employers who are well known to my local people and give no cause for concern. Where an employer is not known we take extra care to ensure the vacancy is from a genuine employer. If we have any doubts we will normally make local enquiries or arrange to visit the employer.
  Any complaints from jobseekers are always followed up and my managers have discretion to refuse to handle recruitment business if they have concerns about the potential vacancy.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make an assessment of the health and safety of those who work in opencast coal mining.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Prime responsibility for health and safety at work including assessment rests with employers and self employed persons, where appropriate. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) encourages and promotes health, safety and welfare at work at those places for which it is the enforcing authority, which includes opencast coal sites. HSE inspectors seek to ensure that employers and others comply with health and safety legislation and if necessary take appropriate action to ensure legal requirements are met.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have higher registered unemployment at the present time than in June 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest estimates of unemployment rates(a) by ethnic origin, broken down into (i) white, (ii) West Indian, (iii) Indian, (iv) Pakistani and (v) Bangladeshi, (b) separately by sex and ethnic origin and
  (c) by 16 to 24 year age group, sex and ethnic origin.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available estimates for Great Britain of unemployment rates on the internationally standard ILO definition are given in the following table:
  589

  ILO unemployment rates by ethnic origin, Sex and age: Great Britain, summer (June-August) 1992 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage

  all persons

  Males

  Females

  all 16 and over

  aged 16–24

  all 16 and over

  aged 16–24

  all 16 and over

  aged 16–24

  All persons2

  10

  18

  12

  21

  8

  14

  White

  9

  17

  11

  20

  7

  13

  Ethnic minority groups3

  20

  35

  23

  40

  17

  28

  Black-Caribbean

  24

  39

  32

  49

  15

  1—

  Indian

  15

  28

  15

  32

  15

  25

  Pakistani

  28

  44

  29

  48

  1—

  1—

  Bangladeshi

  38

  1—

  37

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 The source of the estimates in the table (Labour Force Survey) is a sample survey and all estimates from it are subject to sampling variability, particularly in the case of smaller groups. Following established practice, estimates where the numerator is less than 10,000 are now shown in the table, but the estimates for other small groups, for example some of those within the 16–24 age-bands, should be treated with caution.

  2 Includes people who did not state their ethnic origin.

  3 Includes those of black-African, other black non-mixed (including black-British) and those of mixed and other origins.

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes Falkirk East constituency.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Michael Connarty, dated 9 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the Falkirk East area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Occupational injuries occurring in the construction industry1 in Wales as reported to HSE"s Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and Local Authorities, 1987–88 to 1991–926

  Fatal Injuries

  Major Injuries3

  Year2

  Employees

  Self employed

  Members of public4

  Employees

  Self employed

  Members of public4

  1987–88

  9

  3

  —

  158

  11

  15

  1988–89

  8

  1

  —

  154

  23

  10

  1989–90

  5

  4

  —

  200

  34

  5

  1990–915

  6

  1

  2

  189

  39

  1

  1991–925

  8

  2

  1

  96

  22

  8

  1 As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Division 5.

  2 Year commencing 1 April.

  3 Major injuries as defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  4 Injured as a result of someone else's work activity.

  5 Includes reports made to HSE's Quarries Inspectorate.

  6 Provisional

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those referred by the employment service to employment training actually started in the valleys initiative area between April 1991 and March 1992.
  590
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.

  Information about the length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Construction Sites (Accidents)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of(a) deaths and (b) serious accidents at construction sites in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of deaths and major injuries occurring in the construction industry in Wales over the past five years are provided in the table:

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 9 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the

  591
  percentage of those referred by the Employment Service to Employment Training, in the Valleys Initiative area, who actually started between April 1991 and March 1992. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Although we do not collect information in the format you asked for we have found a way to provide a close alternative, which is based on returns from our local offices located in the Valleys Initiative area. This gives a figure of 39% which is almost exactly equivalent to 1 person starting for every 2.5 who are referred.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers of employment trainees by ethnic origin.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table gives the latest percentage breakdown of entrants to employment training in Great Britain by ethnic origin.

  Table 1 Employment training: characteristics of entrants April 1992 to September 19921

  Per cent.

  Region

  Ethnic origins2

  Sex

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Male

  Female

  Sheffield TEC

  86

  6

  2

  4

  1

  70

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  91

  2

  4

  1

  1

  68

  32

  England and Wales

  88

  5

  4

  2

  1

  67

  33

  Source: Employment Training Starts Database.

  Table 2 Youth training: characteristics of leavers April 1992 to October 19921

  Per cent.

  Region

  Ethnic origins2

  Sex

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Male

  Female

  Sheffield TEC

  93

  3

  3

  1

  1

  61

  39

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  94

  1

  4

  1

  4—

  60

  40

  England and Wales

  94

  2

  3

  1

  1

  57

  43

  Source: Youth Training Leavers Database.

  Table 3 Job club: characteristics of leavers April 1991 to March 19921

  Per cent.

  Region

  Ethnic origins2

  Sex

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Male

  Female

  Sheffield area3

  94

  1

  2

  2

  1

  85

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  91

  1

  7

  1

  4—

  82

  18

  England and Wales

  86

  6

  7

  1

  1

  80

  20

  Source: Employment Service Management Information System.

  Notes to tables:

  1 The latest period for which information is available.

  Notes of tables:

  1 The latest period for which information is available.

  2 1=White;

  2=Black/African/Caribbean;

  3=Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan;

  4=None of these;

  5=Prefer not to say.
  592

  Employment training April 1992 to September 1992—Great Britain Starts by ethnic origin

  per cent.

  White

  89

  Black/African/Caribbean

  4

  Asian

  4

  Other

  2

  Not stated (including prefer not to say)

  1

  Source ET starts database.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest statistics for 1992 on numbers of(a) employment trainees, (b) youth trainees and (c) job club leavers, by ethnic origin and sex for (i) England and Wales, (ii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iii) Sheffield.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available in the exact format asked for. Information is only available about the percentage of entrants or leavers by characteristics. The following tables give the latest data.
  593
  3 Sheffield area does not cover exactly the same area as Sheffield TEC.

  4 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Percentages may not add up to 100 due to independent rounding.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which her Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of the Government's deregulation initiative, the Department has compiled a provisional list of regulations for which it is responsible, which impact on business. It is currently being fully checked for accuracy and will be placed in the Library by early March.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many black adults in England and Wales are on training schemes operated by training and enterprise councils in the current year; what was the figure for 1992; and what percentage this is of the total number of trainees on schemes operated by the training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  During April to September 1992, the latest period for which information is available, 5 per cent. of adults on employment training in England and Wales were of Black/African/Caribbean descent, the same as in the full financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the members of each training and enterprise council in the Northern region, together with their remunerations, for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current board members of TECs in Northern region are listed in the table. Directors of TEC boards do not receive any remunerations other than incurred expenses unless they hold the office of TEC chief executive.

  Chief executives who are seconded civil servants are paid the appropriate civil service salary; those who are direct employees of the TEC are paid a salary which is determined by the TEC.

  Co. Durham TEC

  Mr. B. Robinson

  Mr. J. Hamilton

  Mr. R. McKechnie

  Mr. T. Edge

  Mr. D. King

  Mr. D. Clifford

  Mrs. M. Todd

  Mr. D. Gatfield

  Mr. L. Aviss

  Mr. A. MacConachie

  Mr. J. Creaby

  Mr. G. McLearie

  Mr. K. Mitchell

  Mr. F. Crow

  Teesside TEC

  Mr. L. Bell

  Mr. P. C. Kerr

  Mr. M. D. Ward

  Mr. A. B. Anderson

  Mr. P. G. Yuill

  Mr. D. Hall

  594

  Mr. D. Warnock

  Mr. G. E. Penketh

  Mr. A. G. Arkley

  Mr. P. A. Gate

  Mr. K. Robinson

  Mr. J. Sefton

  Mr. P. McGee

  Mr. J. R. Howell

  Northumberland TEC

  Mr. B. Best

  Mr. J. Teward

  Mr. P. R. Harding

  Mr. C. Tipple

  Mr. D. J. R. Smail

  Dr. D. Francis

  Mr. G. Robinson

  Mr. A. Haslam

  Mr. P. Wood

  Mr. B. Gott

  Mr. R. Moules

  Miss E. Redpath

  Wearside TEC

  Mr. J. N. Anderson

  Mr. R. Bater

  Mr. D. Grabham

  Mr. G. P. Key

  Mr. K. Raine

  Mr. A. Scott

  Mr. A. J. Ward

  Mr. G. Armstrong

  Mr. A. Cass

  Mr. H. Moyes

  Mr. R. W. Linden

  Mr. J. Riddle

  Mrs. A. Tye

  Mr. P. Wickens

  Mr. T. C. Preston

  Tyneside TEC

  Dr. R. Iley

  Mrs. C. Howells

  Mr. J. H. Marris

  Mr. W. S. Jones

  Mr. G. M. Rowarth

  Mr. J. C. Sharp

  Mr. L. Elton

  Mr. P. Vaughan

  Mr. R. Howard

  Mr. H. Biddle

  Mr. S. Clark

  Mr. M. Morris

  Mrs. O. Grant

  Mr. M. Higson

  Mr. A. J. G. Winter

  Redundancy Payments and Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average(a) statutory minimum redundancy payment and (b) monthly unemployment benefit paid by her Department in the most recent available year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The average payment made under the direct payment provisions of the statutory redundancy payments scheme in the 1991–92 financial year was £1,375.00.

  I understand from the Department of Social Security that no figure is available for the average amount of monthly unemployment benefit paid. The average weekly amount of unemployment benefit (excluding income

  595
  support) paid to each recipient based on 5 per cent. samples taken in May 1991 was £44.64 a week, and in November 1991 was £44.49 a week.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within her responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The chief executive of the Employment Service Agency replies direct on matters delegated to him. I have an opportunity to see the replies when they are published in the Official Report.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many compliance cost assessments were sent to her Department in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were none.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reduce the sum of £4 assumed income per week per £1,000 savings which is applied in determining benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  In all the income-related benefits, savings up to £3,000 is ignored. Deductions from benefit for capital in excess of this amount are designed to ensure that help is targeted on those who need it most, while not denying benefit to those with only a moderate amount of capital. The rules are kept under review, but we have no plans for change.

  Pensions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis he has calculated the 25p rise in pensions paid to those over 80 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 25p age addition paid to people who are over 80 was introduced in 1971. No Government have ever increased the age addition since its introduction and there are no plans to do so. Instead, we have chosen to target extra resources towards pensioners on income-related benefits.

  Artificial Insemination by Donor
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of children conceived by AID who will be entitled to maintenance from their biological father.

  Mr. Burt
  Where a donation of sperm is made to a licensed treatment centre, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 safeguards the donor's identity. Consequently, where a child is born as a result of artificial insemination by donor, the question of seeking 596
  maintenance from the biological father will arise only where the donation is made by private arrangement without the services of a licensed treatment centre. There is no centrally available information on the numbers that might be involved.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of additional claimants and the cost if disability living allowance was extended to children under the age of five years; and if he will estimate these numbers and costs for the northern region.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that for Great Britain the number is 25,000 at a cost of £35 million a year. It is not possible to estimate these numbers and costs for the northern region.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the medical report from Mrs. Elizabeth Pinnock of 45 South Furzeham road, Brixham, mentioned by Michael Bichard in his letter of 11 January to the hon. Member for South Hams, was obtained by the disability living allowance unit from Dr. Sheena, Mrs. Pinnock's general practitioner.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write shortly to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 8 February 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the date on which the Disability Living Allowance Unit obtained the medical report from Dr. Sheena, Mrs. Pinnock's General Practitioner.
  The medical report to which you refer was requested on 27 November 1991 and completed by Dr. Sheena on 30 November 1991. It was received in the Mobility Allowance Unit on 4 December 1991.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Carers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what evidence it was decided that carers of people in receipt of the lower rate care component of disability living allowance should not be entitled to invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance was introduced following surveys of the disabled carried out in 1985–1988 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We introduced the new lower rates of disability living allowance to help people with less severe disabilities who were unable to qualify for benefit previously.

  The purpose of invalid care allowance is to provide a measure of financial assistance to those who forgo the opportunity of full-time work in order to provide regular and substantial care to a severely disabled person. It is doubtful that a person receiving the lower rate of the disability living allowance care component would require such substantial care.
  597
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider allowing the record of contributions made by carers in any tax year to count towards unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to change the current contribution conditions.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend entitlement to the carer premium to carers over the age of 65 years who can establish underlying entitlement to invalid care allowance on the same basis as their younger counterparts.

  Mr. Scott
  Since it is not possible for people who become carers over age of 65 to establish entitlement to invalid care allowance there can be no question therefore of extending carer premium to this group.

  Carer Premium
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people in receipt of the carer premium as a percentage of those who are eligible.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 25 January 1993,Official Report, columns 585–86.

  Income Support
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what evidence he has on the number of income support claimants in residential and nursing homes who use their personal expenses allowance to pay the fees;

  (2) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that under the new community care arrangements from April 1993 the personal expenses allowance for people on income support in residential and nursing homes is not taken to pay home fees.

  Mr. Burt
  Personal allowances are intended to be used by residents for their needs as they see best. The fees charged for residential and nursing homes are a matter for agreement between the parties involved. Some residents contract for charges higher than the Income Support limits and may use the personal expenses allowance to meet the shortfall. The numbers using their allowance in this way is not known.

  From April 1993 all residents placed in residential care or nursing homes by local authorities will retain an amount for personal expenses.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current number of people in receipt of income support in the smallest available area which includes Consett.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Ms. Hilary Armstrong, dated 8 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your
  598
  recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what is the current number of people in receipt of Income Support in the smallest available area which includes Consett.
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, from latest information available, the Agency's Stanley office, which covers the area of Consett, had approximately 11,000 customers who were in receipt of Income Support at 30 November 1992.
  This information has been supplied by the Income Support Management Information Statistics.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on the number of unemployment benefit claimants of the abatement at 55 years introduced on 1 January 1989 for occupational pensioners, and 9 October 1989 for personal pensioners(a) at the point of introduction and (b) currently.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the numbers of persons aged 55 years and over whose unemployment benefit is abated in full due to their receipt of an occupational and/or personal pension is shown in the table.

  Unemployment Claimants whose Entitlement to Unemployment Benefit is Abated in Full an Occupational and/or Personal Pension

  Date

  Total (Thousands)

  May 1989

  6.0

  November 1989

  5.0

  May 1992

  9.2

  Notes:

  Source: Half-yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants, 5 per cent. sample.

  2. Figures shown are for all claimants whose entitlement to UB is abated in full due to receipt of an occupational and/or personal pension. No separate figures are maintained of persons affected solely by the legislation introduced on 1 January 1989 and 9th October 1989.

  3. Figures are not available for the points of introduction or present date. Those shown for May and November 1989 are for the first half yearly analysis following introduction. Those for May 1992 are the latest available.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Names of firms of consultants used by the Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 are as follows:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Kodak

  KPMG

  Hemsley Miller and Co.

  PA Consultancy

  PMMS Consulting

  Price Waterhouse

  SEMA Consultants

  Symonds Facilities Management

  Touche Ross

  599
  The total cost of consultancy support to the end of December 1992 has been some £610,000.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The chief executives of our agencies reply direct on the operational matters which have been delegated to them. Ministers receive a courtesy copy of replies on the day before they are answered.

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to establish an executive agency for war pensioners.

  Mr. Lilley
  A new War Pensions Agency will be established on 1 April 1994. The agency will be responsible for the assessment and payment of war pensions, the war pensioners welfare service, and the Ilford Park Polish Home in Devon. I am pleased to be able to announce this fulfilment of the Government's election manifesto pledge.

  The establishment of a separate agency for war pensions will lead to greater efficiency in the administration of these benefits and provide a higher quality service for war pensioners and war widows, in keeping with the citizens charter.

  Recruitment of a chief executive is beginning immediately.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters addressed to the Benefits Agency by hon. Members, on the subject of attendance allowance and disability living allowance, have taken longer than seven months to secure a reply; when he first assessed the time taken to reply to hon. Members' correspondence; and what action he has taken to reduce delays.

  Mr. Scott
  The arrangements for replying to correspondence from hon. Members to the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 9 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the time taken to reply to honourable Members' correspondence about Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA).
  You ask how many letters addressed to the Benefits Agency on these subjects have taken longer than seven months to secure a reply. I am aware of 13 cases, where letters about DLA have been sent direct to me or have been referred to me by Ministers and a reply has not been sent within seven months. I very much regret that such long delays have occurred. As I explained in my letter to you of 19 January on an individual case you had raised, the delays are due to the
  600
  backlog of correspondence that has built up in the DLA Unit following the greater than expected workload faced by Unit in the early months of the DLA scheme. In 1992 I replied to 4,461 letters on all subjects from Members.
  The delay in replying to Members' letters about DLA does not, of course, mean that action is not proceeding on a customer's claim. In fact in most cases where there is a long outstanding reply the claim will have been resolved much earlier. You will recall that in the case discussed in my letter of 19 January, benefit was awarded in August 1992. Clearly you should have been notified of this very much sooner than you were and I apologise for this.
  The Benefits Agency monitors the amount of correspondence received and the time taken to reply on a regular basis. Since December 1992 this has been monitored on a weekly basis; prior to that the position was monitored monthly. The substantial increase in correspondence (80 per cent. up on 1991) and the consequent delays in response time began to become clear from mid 1992 onwards.
  As you will understand, the initial impetus was to clear the backlog of claims thus ensuring that decisions were given and payments made to customers as quickly as possible. I wrote to all Members explaining the steps I had taken to tackle this on 19 October 1992.
  Since November 1992 additional staff have been taken on in the correspondence sections both centrally and in the DLA Unit and substantial overtime is also being worked. A recovery plan for clearing the backlog of correspondence is now in operation at the DLA Unit with a view to substantially reducing the number of letters awaiting reply by the end of this month. Once the backlog is cleared it will be our aim to respond to all future correspondence within the Agency's target of twenty working days.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Nurses, Merseyside
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide increased funds for skilled nurses on Merseyside, in respect of the community care, hospital in the home, health of the nation, and the patients charter initiatives.

  Mr. Sackville
  The allocation of national health service funding in Merseyside is the responsibility of Mersey regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Professor A. M. Breckenridge, for details.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the(a) implementation costs, (b) annual running costs and (c) potential time saved per year for general practitioners, nurses, carers and patients in hours, associated with nurse prescribing.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost benefit study on nurse prescribing carried out for the Department by Touche Ross estimated that the costs of implementation would be approximately £11 million in 1991–92 prices. Running costs would depend substantially on the extent to which nurse prescribing resulted in an increase in the total drugs prescribed. The report made a central estimate of £15 million per year. It estimated possible theoretical savings of 170,000 hours of GP time per year, 650,000 hours of district nurse, health visitor and practice nurse time per year and 590,000 hours of patients' and carers' time. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in each region are on(a) yellow alert and (b) red alert.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities and trusts all have arrangements for managing their resources to cope with particularly high and unexpected levels of admissions. The action which is needed will vary according to local circumstances and there is not therefore a nationally agreed definition of "red" and "yellow" alerts.

  NHS qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by area of work, by RHA at September 1989 Within hospital services

  Midwifery/maternity:

  RHA area

  General nursing

  Care of elderly

  Paediatric

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Midwifery staff

  Nursing staff

  Education

  Other

  Hospital total

  Northern

  6,830

  2,110

  490

  2,430

  910

  1,060

  240

  290

  220

  14,580

  Yorkshire

  7,360

  2,240

  550

  2,610

  850

  1,320

  240

  380

  140

  15,690

  Trent

  8,290

  2,610

  920

  3,280

  1,330

  1,390

  450

  450

  130

  18,840

  East Anglia

  3,670

  1,270

  190

  1,360

  600

  620

  180

  160

  160

  8,220

  North West Thames

  5,380

  1,610

  390

  2,770

  960

  980

  260

  340

  130

  12,820

  North East Thames

  7,920

  1,920

  370

  2,820

  820

  1,310

  300

  550

  410

  16,440

  South East Thames

  5,290

  1,040

  480

  1,910

  270

  670

  440

  190

  6,970

  17,270

  South West Thames

  4,750

  1,450

  350

  2,460

  1,390

  860

  150

  330

  50

  11,780

  Wessex

  5,330

  1,600

  370

  1,890

  750

  930

  190

  300

  90

  11,440

  Oxford

  4,130

  1,090

  350

  1,230

  620

  820

  220

  240

  80

  8,770

  South Western

  6,150

  1,660

  400

  2,250

  1,220

  990

  210

  300

  50

  13,230

  West Midlands

  9,540

  2,850

  760

  3,420

  1,460

  1,820

  410

  520

  170

  20,940

  Mersey

  4,830

  1,540

  680

  2,160

  620

  870

  180

  260

  40

  11,170

  North Western

  8,450

  2,550

  900

  2,940

  1,270

  1,670

  300

  490

  270

  18,860

  Special Health Authorities

  1,670

  60

  600

  350

  —

  140

  60

  90

  370

  3,350

  England

  89,600

  25,610

  7,800

  33,870

  13,070

  15,470

  3,830

  4,880

  9,300

  203,420

  National health service qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by area of work by regional health authority September 1989

  Within primary health care

  Regional health authorities

  Health visitors

  Other health visiting

  District nurses

  Other district nursing

  Midwifery

  Education

  Other

  Primary health care total

  Admin. nurses

  Centrally based services

  Total qualified nurses

  Northern

  670

  60

  770

  400

  260

  —

  320

  2,480

  90

  110

  17,260

  Yorkshire

  790

  120

  730

  480

  350

  10

  330

  2,800

  70

  110

  18,670

  Trent

  950

  100

  970

  700

  490

  20

  370

  3,600

  160

  120

  22,720

  East Anglia

  360

  60

  340

  250

  210

  —

  180

  1,400

  40

  60

  9,720

  North West Thames

  650

  250

  520

  630

  250

  10

  410

  2,710

  100

  220

  15,850

  North East Thames

  650

  150

  580

  620

  300

  10

  530

  2,830

  130

  160

  19,570

  South East Thames

  230

  140

  240

  330

  170

  10

  520

  1,640

  60

  120

  19,070

  South West Thames

  590

  90

  580

  410

  210

  10

  310

  2,190

  80

  100

  14,150

  Wessex

  590

  90

  580

  340

  250

  —

  240

  2,080

  60

  80

  13,660

  Oxford

  540

  50

  520

  200

  180

  —

  290

  1,790

  60

  70

  10,680

  South Western

  640

  40

  710

  400

  240

  —

  380

  2,410

  120

  100

  15,870

  West Midlands

  1,060

  160

  990

  670

  480

  10

  540

  3,900

  150

  140

  25,140

  Mersey

  540

  30

  530

  320

  230

  —

  280

  1,940

  40

  110

  13,260

  North Western

  1,100

  120

  980

  750

  460

  —

  540

  3,950

  170

  190

  23,160

  Special health authorities

  0

  0

  10

  0

  —

  0

  0

  20

  20

  10

  3,390

  England

  9,340

  1,470

  9,050

  6,480

  4,080

  80

  5,230

  35,730

  1,340

  1,700

  242,190

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of qualified nursing staff by specialty for each region in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information requested is shown in the tables. The source of the data is the Department's non-medical manpower census. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten. The England totals include figures for family health service authorities and other statutory authorities. The special health authorities figures in 1991 include staff from the special hospitals services authority.
  603

  NHS qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by area of work, by RHA at September 1990 Within hospital services

  Midwifery/maternity:

  RHA area

  General nursing

  Care of elderly

  Paediatric

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Midwifery staff

  Nursing staff

  Education

  Other

  Hospital total

  Northern

  6,680

  1,910

  480

  2,340

  860

  1,030

  260

  270

  520

  14,340

  Yorkshire

  7,390

  2,160

  570

  2,610

  790

  1,310

  250

  370

  180

  15,630

  Trent

  8,480

  2,790

  970

  3,230

  1,290

  1,410

  450

  490

  140

  19,250

  East Anglia

  3,560

  1,260

  160

  1,360

  590

  610

  170

  160

  430

  8,310

  North West Thames

  5,290

  1,620

  380

  2,660

  970

  970

  260

  320

  120

  12,600

  North East Thames

  7,930

  1,930

  400

  2,960

  840

  1,350

  290

  560

  450

  16,710

  South East Thames

  6,290

  1,650

  590

  2,450

  570

  1,080

  250

  60

  2,780

  15,710

  South West Thames

  4,520

  1,410

  330

  2,440

  1,380

  790

  150

  310

  100

  11,420

  Wessex

  5,470

  1,650

  360

  1,900

  800

  910

  220

  310

  120

  11,740

  Oxford

  4,310

  1,130

  360

  1,270

  650

  830

  210

  230

  130

  9,130

  South Western

  6,420

  1,640

  450

  2,320

  1,240

  950

  220

  380

  40

  13,670

  West Midlands

  9,730

  2,760

  820

  3,430

  1,470

  1,880

  440

  540

  250

  21,320

  Mersey

  4,810

  1,380

  690

  2,060

  590

  880

  180

  250

  50

  10,890

  North Western

  8,400

  2,410

  950

  3,020

  1,200

  1,690

  300

  480

  150

  18,610

  Special Health Authorities

  1,740

  90

  560

  350

  10

  60

  130

  50

  340

  3,340

  England

  91,030

  25,800

  8,090

  34,400

  13,250

  15,730

  3,790

  4,790

  5,850

  202,730

  National health service qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by area of work by regional health authority September 1990

  Within primary health care

  Regional health authorities

  Health visitors

  Other health visiting

  District nurses

  Other district nursing

  Midwifery

  Education

  Other

  Primary health care total

  Admin. nurses

  Centrally based services

  Total qualified nurses

  Northern

  660

  60

  760

  410

  240

  10

  300

  2,440

  70

  110

  16,950

  Yorkshire

  770

  110

  700

  480

  350

  10

  300

  2,720

  70

  120

  18,540

  Trent

  950

  100

  920

  740

  480

  10

  380

  3,570

  150

  120

  23,090

  East Anglia

  330

  50

  310

  250

  210

  —

  190

  1,350

  40

  60

  9,760

  North West Thames

  640

  250

  510

  620

  250

  10

  410

  2,680

  100

  210

  15,590

  North East Thames

  660

  160

  560

  640

  270

  10

  530

  2,830

  120

  150

  19,800

  South East Thames

  710

  80

  760

  450

  330

  10

  510

  2,840

  80

  110

  18,740

  South West Thames

  590

  80

  550

  430

  190

  10

  320

  2,150

  80

  110

  13,760

  Wessex

  600

  110

  550

  350

  240

  —

  250

  2,090

  60

  80

  13,970

  Oxford

  540

  50

  520

  190

  180

  —

  300

  1,780

  60

  70

  11,030

  South Western

  690

  50

  660

  380

  280

  —

  360

  2,430

  120

  100

  16,320

  West Midlands

  1,020

  150

  970

  660

  460

  10

  570

  3,850

  150

  150

  25,460

  Mersey

  500

  40

  500

  330

  230

  —

  280

  1,890

  50

  100

  12,930

  North Western

  1,090

  120

  960

  780

  470

  0

  520

  3,940

  170

  210

  22,920

  Special health authorities

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  20

  20

  10

  3,390

  England

  9,740

  1,400

  9,230

  6,700

  4,200

  80

  5,220

  36,570

  1,320

  1,720

  242,340

  NHS qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by area of work, by RHA at September 1991 Within hospital services

  Midwifery/maternity:

  RHA area

  General nursing

  Care of elderly

  Paediatric

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Midwifery staff

  Nursing staff

  Education

  Other

  Hospital total

  Northern

  6,550

  1,960

  450

  2,290

  820

  1,050

  240

  280

  730

  14,360

  Yorkshire

  7,050

  2,000

  640

  2,660

  790

  1,290

  330

  410

  270

  15,420

  Trent

  8,770

  2,650

  1,020

  3,200

  1,250

  1,400

  450

  520

  220

  19,480

  East Anglia

  3,660

  1,180

  170

  1,360

  600

  580

  240

  200

  330

  8,330

  North West Thames

  5,810

  1,760

  460

  2,660

  990

  920

  340

  330

  190

  13,470

  North East Thames

  7,950

  2,030

  420

  3,040

  830

  1,370

  320

  540

  570

  17,070

  South East Thames

  5,790

  1,500

  460

  2,220

  570

  1,030

  250

  170

  1,930

  13,920

  South West Thames

  5,350

  1,490

  310

  2,140

  1,160

  860

  190

  330

  100

  11,930

  Wessex

  5,620

  1,640

  400

  1,910

  770

  910

  220

  320

  120

  11,900

  Oxford

  4,330

  1,200

  360

  1,320

  660

  850

  250

  190

  210

  9,360

  South Western

  6,180

  1,780

  470

  2,300

  1,210

  860

  290

  210

  160

  13,460

  West Midlands

  9,560

  2,570

  920

  3,420

  1,430

  1,820

  400

  560

  420

  21,090

  Mersey

  4,830

  1,300

  720

  1,920

  530

  880

  180

  190

  80

  10,630

  North Western

  8,700

  2,420

  990

  3,070

  1,170

  1,720

  290

  470

  140

  18,970

  Special Health Authorities

  1,830

  90

  600

  1,700

  10

  70

  140

  90

  470

  4,990

  604 605

  Midwifery/maternity:

  RHA area

  General nursing

  Care of elderly

  Paediatric

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Midwifery staff

  Nursing staff

  Education

  Other

  Hospital total

  England

  92,000

  25,560

  8,400

  35,210

  12,790

  15,590

  4,120

  4,800

  5,920

  204,390

  National health service qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by area of work by regional health authority September 1991

  Within primary health care

  Regional health authorities

  Health visitors

  Other health visiting

  District nurses

  Other district nursing

  Midwifery

  Education

  Other

  Primary health care total

  Admin. nurses

  Centrally based services

  Total qualified nurses

  Northern

  650

  50

  720

  410

  240

  10

  290

  2,360

  60

  100

  16,880

  Yorkshire

  770

  130

  560

  470

  340

  —

  380

  2,660

  270

  130

  18,480

  Trent

  940

  100

  880

  740

  490

  10

  400

  3,560

  130

  120

  23,290

  East Anglia

  350

  40

  280

  290

  210

  10

  230

  1,390

  30

  60

  9,810

  North West Thames

  630

  260

  460

  630

  220

  10

  370

  2,570

  70

  180

  16,280

  North East Thames

  650

  150

  550

  580

  240

  10

  520

  2,710

  120

  160

  20,050

  South East Thames

  650

  70

  650

  390

  280

  10

  490

  2,540

  60

  100

  16,620

  South West Thames

  520

  70

  560

  280

  180

  —

  290

  1,910

  150

  130

  14,120

  Wessex

  580

  120

  540

  340

  240

  —

  270

  2,100

  50

  80

  14,130

  Oxford

  550

  50

  530

  190

  180

  —

  340

  1,830

  60

  70

  11,320

  South Western

  610

  80

  560

  450

  320

  10

  400

  2,430

  120

  120

  16,130

  West Midlands

  1,010

  140

  950

  690

  420

  10

  620

  3,840

  140

  140

  25,210

  Mersey

  490

  40

  480

  350

  220

  0

  280

  1,650

  40

  100

  12,620

  North Western

  1,100

  80

  950

  790

  490

  20

  510

  3,930

  160

  170

  23,230

  Special health authorities

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  20

  30

  10

  5,050

  England

  9,490

  1,390

  8,680

  6,590

  4,090

  90

  5,380

  35,710

  1,470

  1,680

  243,250

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to include a question on the number of Welsh speakers residing in the United Kingdom as a whole within the next census.

  Mr. Sackville
  Full consideration will be given to the case for including a language question in the next census which would count people living outside Wales who speak Welsh.

  The topic content of the censuses of population in the United Kingdom, planned for 2001, will need to be approved by Parliament, around the end of 1999.

  Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to introduce ring-fenced funding for residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation services.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 2 October 1992 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced her decision that a ring-fenced community care special transitional grant would be made available to local authorities in England in 1993–94 for the implementation for community care, including for the purchase of residential care for people who misuse alcohol and/or drugs.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the financial terms of the appointment of the temporary chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority; what provisions there are for extending his contract; and what financial provisions cover the termination of his contract.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All regional health authority chairmen receive annual remuneration of £20,925. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no decision to extend the appointment of Sir Donald Wilson beyond 30 April 1993 nor are there contractual provisions which cover the termination of such an appointment.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the auditors and legal advisers of each trust in the Gateshead and Newcastle, Northumberland and North Tyneside health authority areas.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The appointment of legal advisers is a matter for each National Health Service trust, and this information is not held centrally. The external auditors of health bodies are appointed by the Audit Commission. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Audit Commission for details of auditors of the relevant trusts.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the membership, remuneration and place of residence of hospital trust board non-executive members in the northern region; and whether she proposes to increase the remuneration scales in the next financial year.
  607
  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of all trust non-executive appointees in the Northern region, together with their place of residence, is as follows.

  National health service trust non-executive directors are entitled to remuneration of £5,000 per annum. No decision has been made to increase the remuneration of chairmen or non-executive directors.

  First wave trusts Northern region

  The Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Border—Newcastle

  Mr. R. Middleton—Wylam

  Mr. J. Ward—Newcastle

  Miss H. Goodworth—Newcastle

  Dr. R. Freeman—Newcastle

  Newcastle Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Mrs. I. Cheyne—Newcastle

  Mr. D. Wilsoner—Newcastle

  Professor I. Ferrier—Newcastle

  Mr. B. Roycroft—Newcastle

  Mr. N. Price—Newcastle

  Northumbria Ambulance NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Moth—Newcastle

  Dr. J. Higson—Newcastle

  Mr. A. Ferguson—Ashington

  Mr. A. Knight—Hexham

  Mr. D. Smith—Newcastle

  Second wave trusts Northern region Northern Tees Health NHS Trust

  Ms. Jean Slater—Stockton-on-Tees

  Mr. Paul Jackson—Stockton-on-Tees

  Mr. Nevile Tate—Stockton-on-Tees

  Mr. Robert Stewart—Guisborough

  Mr. Charles Porter—Stockton-on-Tees

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. David Collier—Richmond

  Mr. John Webster—Redcar

  Mr. Roger Kingdon—Stockton-on-Tees

  Mr. Simon Still—Darlington

  Mrs. H. Thompson—Middlesborough

  Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust

  Mr. Terry Weastell—Northallerton

  Ms. Susan Bush—Northallcrton

  Mr. Kevin Fletcher—Middlesbrough

  Mr. Keith Hellawell—Saltburn

  Mrs. Patricia Campbell—Guisborough

  Gateshead Community Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. Penny Remfry—Whitley Bay

  Mr. Malcolm Scott—Gateshead

  Mr. David Mitford—Newcastle

  Mr. Ronald Dixon—Blaydon

  Dr. R. Jackson—Blaydon

  Northgate NHS Trust

  Ms. Susan Adams—Wall

  Mrs. Jocelyn Stephenson—Morpeth

  Mr. Jeremy Handley—Morpeth

  Professor John Rear—Newcastle

  Mr. G. Rutherford—Morpeth

  The RVI Infirmary and Associated Hospitals Trust

  Professor John Davison—Newcastle

  Mrs. Susan Wilson—Whalton

  Miss Audrey Willis—Hexham

  Mr. P. Stoddart—Sunderland

  Mrs. K. Brunton—Corbridge

  Third wave trusts Northern region

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. David Dickinson—Whitehaven

  Rear Admiral Ian Pirnie—Ulverston

  Mr. J. Clayton—Carlisle

  608

  Mrs. Fiona Cartnell—Kendal

  Mr. Peter Simpson—Penrith

  Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. Michael Hemingway—Barnard Castle

  Mr. John McIndoe—Ponteland

  Professor Charles Baker—Durham City

  Mr. Neville Martin—Durham City

  Gateshead Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. Nancy Cookson—Sunderland

  Mrs. Ann Cooper—Newcastle

  Mr. David Irwin—Newcastle

  Dr. James Dalgleish—Gateshead

  Miss Mary Davies—Newcastle

  Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. Jean Turner—Whitley Bay

  Mr. John Herron—Hexham

  Professor Mary Bromly—Whittingham

  Mr. Stephen Gibson—Blyth

  Mr. Dennis Davison—Ryton

  South Cumbria Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. Madeline Davies—Kendal

  Mr. Linden Davies—Windermere

  Mr. Julian Davies—Grange-over-Sands

  Mrs. Susan Godfrey—Waberthwaite

  Dr. Rodney Leach—Windermere

  South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mr. David Bowles—Sedgefield

  Mr. Geoffrey Crispin—Middlesborough

  Mrs. Hillary Sillars—Middlesborough

  Dr. Susan Miller—Northallerton

  Mr. James Wilson—Darlington

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  Mrs. Frances Walker—Sunderland

  Mr. Martin Wright—Cleadon

  Mr. Edward Russell—South Shields

  Mr. Robert Graham—Jarrow

  Mrs. Margaret Mills—South Shields

  South West Durham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Mr. John Scally—Shotley Bridge

  Mrs. Caroline Hillery—Bishop Auckland

  Mr. Norman Hart—Durham City

  Mr. Paul Briggs—Durham City

  Mr. David Bright—Durham City

  Westmorland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. Claire Hensman—Kendal

  Mrs. Shirley Evans—Grange-over-Sands

  Mr. Morten Lund—Kendal

  Mr. David Hawkes—Kendal

  Mr. George Turnbull—Silverdale

  West Cumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  Mrs. Rosemary Porter—Millom

  Mr. David Gill—Cockermouth

  Dr. Peter Inglis—Cockermouth

  Mr. Graham Lamont—Cockermouth

  Mrs. Claire Madden—Cockermouth

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of whole time equivalent general practitioners and the total number of general practitioners in each regional health authority in each year since 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  609

  Whole time equivalent unrestricted principal GPs by RHA

  RHA

  October 1990

  October 1991

  April 1992

  Northern

  1,609.00

  1,607.25

  1,609.00

  Yorkshire

  1,919.25

  1,917.50

  1,913.50

  Trent

  2,360.00

  2,370.75

  2,385.50

  East Anglia

  1,085.75

  1,095.00

  1,106.50

  North West Thames

  1,959.00

  1,922.25

  1,924.75

  North East Thames

  2,013.25

  1,991.25

  1,994.75

  South East Thames

  1,920.00

  1,923.25

  1,928.25

  South West Thames

  1,547.50

  1,534.25

  1,531.75

  Wessex

  1,553.75

  1,553.25

  1,563.50

  Oxford

  1,322.75

  1,331.00

  1,329.50

  South Western

  1,926.00

  1,922.75

  1,941.00

  West Midlands

  2,694.50

  2,661.00

  2,663.50

  Mersey

  1,231.00

  1,223.50

  1,221.00

  North Western

  2,007.25

  1,986.50

  1,995.75

  Number of unrestricted principal GPs by RHA

  RHA

  October 1990

  October 1991

  April 1992

  Northern

  1,639

  1,652

  1,657

  Yorkshire

  1,953

  1,964

  1,968

  Trent

  2,402

  2,424

  2,445

  East Anglia

  1,112

  1,128

  1,142

  North West Thames

  1,998

  1,968

  1,975

  North East Thames

  2,050

  2,042

  2,046

  South East Thames

  1,947

  1,965

  1,980

  South West Thames

  1,576

  1,575

  1,578

  Wessex

  1,591

  1,605

  1,624

  Oxford

  1,357

  1,374

  1,377

  South Western

  1,980

  1,994

  2,018

  West Midlands

  2,736

  2,721

  2,725

  Mersey

  1,249

  1,250

  1,249

  North Western

  2,032

  2,024

  2,039

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from their general practitioner's lists in each month from January 1992 to January 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what stage(a) drafts and (b) copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within her responsibility, in response to parliamentary questions, are submitted to Ministers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Chief executives reply directly to hon. Members on matters delegated to them. Ministers have the opportunity to see replies when they are published in Hansard.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had in regard to compensating people with haemophilia who have contracted hepatitis in the course of treatment under the NHS; what reply she is sending; what action she will be taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I shall be writing to the right hon. Member in response to his representations soon.

  The Government recognised the special case for making payments to haemophiliacs and recipients of blood or
  610
  tissue infected with HIV through medical treatment within the United Kingdom. There are no plans to extend these special payments.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on drug costs in each member state of the European Community.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health does not formally monitor the levels or movement of prices for individual drugs in the other member states.

  The consensus which emerges from various independent studies carried out in this field is that prices in the United Kingdom are slightly above the average for the EC. The most recent information available is for 1990 and is taken from a study by Dr. Diener of the German Pharmacists Association, ABDA. He in turn based his work on a 1988 study by BEUC, an umbrella grouping for European consumer organisations.

  If the price of a basket of commonly-used pharmaceuticals is adjusted for local factors, such as varying rates of VAT, prices were higher in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. The adjusted price, for the same basket of drugs, was lower in all the other member states.

  Many member states are currently taking steps to reduce central government expenditure on drugs, by a variety of means such as across-the-board price reductions, limiting the availability of certain products, increasing patient co-payments and encouraging more rational prescribing.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the composition of the advisory committee on NHS drugs; for how long appointees have served on the committee; and what was the level of remuneration, where appropriate.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of the members and the dates they were appointed are as follows:

  First appointed

  Chairman

  Dr. Jeremy Metters

  1989

  Members

  Professor Alasdair Breckenridge

  1985

  Professor Mark Castleden

  1990

  Mr. David Coleman

  1985

  Professor Hugh Edmondson

  1987

  Professor David Ganderton

  1985

  Dr. Iona Heath

  1990

  Dr. Derwyn Jones

  1992

  Professor Ronald Jones

  1990

  Mr. Alan Kerr

  1990

  Dr. Elizabeth Poskitt

  1989

  Dr. Jane Richards

  1989

  Dr. Charles Swan

  1991

  Professor Peter Tyrer

  1989

  Dr. Dorothy Ward

  1991

  Members other than the Chairman receive a fee of £100 for attending each meeting.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list what is the procedure for(a) pharmaceutical companies and (b) those who prescribe drugs to (i) ask for a particular drug to be included in the selected list and (ii) overturn a decision to blacklist a drug from the selected list.
  611
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Manufacturers are notified before their products are reviewed by the advisory committee on national health service drugs and given a further opportunity to make representations against any decision to add a product to the list of drugs which cannot be prescribed under the NHS before it is finalised. Prescribers can also make their views known to the committee.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the representations she has received from(a) the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, (b) those who prescribe drugs and (c) others, to extend the number of drugs on the current selected list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received no such representations.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with(a) representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and (b) the advisory committee on NHS drugs, about research and development into new products and medicines that may be affected by the selected list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on 19 November and discussed the implications of extending the selected list scheme. The advisory committee on national health service drugs is able to take into account any matters brought to its attention by the manufacturers of individual products, in the light of its remit to ensure that drugs to meet all clinical need in the specified categories can be provided as economically as possible under the NHS.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures are in place to ensure the effectiveness of the advisory committee on NHS drugs;

  (2) what consultations there have been on the effectiveness of the advisory committee on NHS drugs since its introduction.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The committee has demonstrated its effectiveness by enabling downward pressure to be applied to the growth of the drugs bill without patient care being prejudiced. We expect it to continue to do so.

  Drug Prescription
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list those drugs which have been deleted from the current selected list and their manufacturers;

  (2) if she will list the drugs that have been included on the selected list since 1985; and if she will list them and their manufacturers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The selected list scheme specifies those categories of drugs which are to be reviewed by the advisory committee on national health service drugs, with a view to advising the Health Departments which particular products within those categories should not be available for NHS prescription. The list of drugs which currently cannot be prescribed by general practitioners under the NHS is published in the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulation 1992. Names of the relevant manufacturers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Over-the-Counter Medicines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the availability of over-the-counter medicines.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We intend to extend the range of medicines which may be supplied over the counter without prescription where this can be done safely. We have recently revised our procedures to facilitate and speed up reclassification of medicines from prescription only to over the counter status.

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has held with the Wessex regional health authority on the confidential district auditor's report on the Wessex RHA RISP—regional information systems plan—project; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Management Executive have held a number of discussions with the Wessex regional health authority about the RISP project and the findings of the district auditor.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role her Department played in the decision of the Wessex regional health authority not to take legal action against IBM and Andersen regarding the RISP project.

  Mr. Sackville
  This was and remains a matter for the regional health authority.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role her Department played in the settlement obtained by the Wessex regional health authority with AT and T Istel, in connection with the RISP project; and what sums were paid to the Wessex regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The settlement reached between AT and T Istel in connection with the RISP computer project was entirely a matter for the Wessex regional health authority and AT and T Istel.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date she received the district auditor's confidential report on the Wessex regional health authority RISP project; what action she took; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Wessex regional health authority supplied the Department with a copy of certain confidential material provided by the district auditor in July 1992. The RHA is taking action to follow up that material and the Department is closely monitoring the position.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken on the report of the district auditor into losses on computer contracts by Wessex regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Remedial action has been taken by the Wessex regional health authority to address many of the problems associated with RISP. These have included:

  (i) bringing the IBM 3090 computer into use on the basis of independent advice, and the disposal of surplus computing equipment;

  (ii) an investigation of payments made to some contractors;

  613

  (iii) an investigation of allegations of fraud;

  (iv) a review of IT contracts and the procedures used to negotiate them;

  (v) the creation of an IT directorate and the provision of effective contract management;

  (vi) a comprehensive review and overhaul of all financial systems. Standing Orders have been revised;

  (vii) legal action to recover amounts overpaid to contractors;

  (viii) seeking competitive tenders and letting contracts for the provision of computing services on the basis of independent advice;

  (ix) a move away from central control of IT towards a more client orientated/partnership approach;

  (x) the commissioning and implementation of new procedures for the control and letting of contracts together with improved monitoring procedures;

  (xi) rationalisation of future computer usage; and

  (xii) improvements in the standard and style of reporting on all major issues to all members of the WRHA.

  This action is reported and commended in the district auditor's report.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish the confidential district auditor's report on the Wessex regional health authority RISP project;

  (2) what plans she has to publish the district auditor's report on Wessex regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The district auditor undertook an investigation of the RISP computer project at the invitation of the Wessex RHA's regional general manager. A report in the public interest was published on 24 July 1992.

  The publication of any additional confidential material is entirely a matter for the RHA. As the district auditor made clear in his statement of 4 February 1993. the information he provided, outside of the report in the public interest, if published, may prejudice police inquiries and civil proceedings.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 46, to whom in the Wessex regional health authority advice was given regarding the inclusion of penalty and performance targets in the contract between the RHA and Wessex Integrated Systems; what reply was received; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on contractual matters was given to the then regional general manager, who indicated that the regional health authority would consider the Department's advice when reviewing the contract between the RHA and WIS.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 46, to what extent action taken by Wessex regional health authority officials regarding the inclusion of penalty and performance contracts in the regional health authority's contract with WIS was in accordance with her Department's advice.

  Mr. Sackville
  Detailed information about the contract entered into by the Wessex regional health authority with WIS is entirely a matter for the RHA.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve the management of Wessex regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.
  614
  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service in Wessex delivers a good service to patients in the region and I am confident that management in the regional health authority is discharging its role properly.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions have been given to senior staff at Wessex regional health authority about discussing losses on computer contracts with the press and hon. Members.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Drugs Advisory Committee
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the representations there have been from pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding the new posts on the advisory committee on NHS drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Director of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 December on this matter. A reply was sent on 25 January.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria appointees to the advisory committee on NHS drugs have to meet.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Members are appointed to the advisory committee on national health service drugs on the basis of their professional expertise and experience in relevant areas, following consultation with appropriate professional bodies.

  Chemical Entity Products
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those new chemical entity products that were made available to the NHS since 1985 that would have been covered by the areas on the original selected list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The United Kingdom licensing authority has no information as to whether products have been made available to the national health service. Product licences for the following new chemical entities have been granted by the United Kingdom licensing authority since 1985 in the therapeutic categories originally covered by the selected list scheme.

  Therapeutic category

  Product name

  Drug name

  Indigestion remedy

  Prepulsid

  Cisapride

  Laxative

  Importal

  Lactitol Monohydrate

  Vitamin

  Elcarn

  L-carnitine

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those new chemical entity products covered by the areas on the new selected list that have been made available to the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The United Kingdom licensing authority has no information as to whether products have been made available to the national health service. Product licences for the following new chemical entities have been granted by the United Kingdom licensing authority in the therapeutic categories to which the selected list scheme has recently been extended.

  Therapeutic category

  Product Name

  Drug Name

  Anti-Diarrhoeal

  Imodium

  Loperamide

  Allergic Disorders

  Zirtex

  Cetirizine

  615

  Therapeutic category

  Product Name

  Drug Name

  Semprex

  Acrivastine

  Tavegil

  Clemastine

  Tinset

  Oxatomide

  Hismanal

  Astemizole

  Triludan

  Terfenadine

  Hypnotics and Anxiolytics

  Rohypnol

  Fluntrazepam

  Lexotan

  Bromazepam

  Xanax

  Alprazolam

  Noctamid

  Lormetazepam

  Zimovane

  Zopiclone

  Buspar

  Buspirone

  Frisium

  Clobazam

  Loprazolam

  Loprazolam

  Appetite Suppressants

  Adifax

  Dexfenfluramine

  Vaginal and Vulval conditions

  Gyno-Pevaryl

  Econazone

  Contraceptives

  Femodene

  Gestodene and Ethinyloestradiol

  Cilest

  Norgestimate and Ethinyloestradiol

  Ovran

  Levo Norgestrel and Ethinyloestradiol

  Noristerat

  Norethisterone Enanhate

  Marvelon

  Desogestrel and Ethinyloestradiol

  Drugs used in Anaemia

  Eprex

  Epoetin

  Topical Antirheumatics

  Difflam

  Benzydamine

  Drugs acting on the Ear and Nose

  Exterol

  Urea Hydrogen Peroxide

  Syntaris

  Flunisolide

  Flixonase

  Fluticasone

  Rhinolast

  Azelastine

  Drugs Acting on the Skin

  Retin A

  Tretinoin

  Visderm

  Amcinonide

  Daktarin

  Miconazole

  Sulcosyn

  Sulconazole

  Decoderm

  Fluprednidene

  Iodosorb

  Cadexomer Iodine

  Bactroban

  Mupirocin

  Exelderm

  Succonazole

  Modrasone

  Alclometasone

  Mycospor

  Bifonazole

  Epogam

  Gamolenic Acid

  Lyclear

  Permethrin

  Loceryl

  Amorolfone

  Neotigason

  Acitratin

  Dovonex

  Calcipotriol

  Travase

  Sutilaine

  Lamisil

  Terbinafine

  Dermovate

  Clobetasol

  Eumovate

  Clobetasone

  Debrisan

  Dextranomer

  Tigason

  Etretinate

  Roaccutane

  Isotretinoin

  Halciderm

  Halcinonide

  Trosyl

  Ticonazole

  Exoderil

  Naftifine

  Skinoren

  Azelaic Acid

  Efalith

  Lithium Succinate and Zinc Sulphate

  Elocon

  Mometasone

  Community Care Support Force
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply of 2 February, if he will list those local health authorities that have invited the assistance of the community care support force.

  Mr. Yeo
  The community care support force has visited 27 local authorities. It is not appropriate to list these authorities by name.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the level of capital expenditure on the new ward block at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle after the completion of the initial contract in July 1991;

  (2) when she expects the obstetrics and gynaecology wards to open at the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary Trust new ward block; and what further additional capital cost will be involved;

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 2 February, col. 155, if she will list the value and purpose of the additional contracts, capital spending or post-contract variations at the Newcastle Royal Victoria infirmary's new ward block.

  Mr. Sackville
  The post-contract modifications to implement the decision to amalgamate obstetrics and gynaecology at the new ward block, are expected to cost £6.2 million. The gynaecological ward will open on schedule on 29 March 1993, and the obstetric ward is planned to open on 8 November 1993. Additionally, the antenatal clinic on the site is expected to cost £2.1 million and is also planned to open on 8 November 1993. No additional capital costs are anticipated.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the original estimated capital cost for the unified ophthalmology service at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle when selected by her for special funding; when this estimated cost was submitted; and what the cost is now.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated capital cost of unifying ophthalmology services at the Royal Victoria Infirmary when the scheme was submitted to the Secretary of State on 2 May 1992 was £7.6 million. The final cost should be contained within this sum.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the ward and other facilities for kidney treatment in-patients to open at the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary Trust new ward block; and what further additional capital cost will be involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ward 36 for renal medicine and transplant services was opened as planned on 5 January 1993. Ward 37, for dialysis of both in-patients and out-patients is open and in partial use. No further capital costs will be incurred in commissioning these facilities.

  Hepatitis B Vaccination
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review her Department's guidelines on the screening and vaccination of health care workers in relation to the hepatitis B virus.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1992 edition of "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", issued to all doctors and to
  617
  other health professionals with immunisation responsibilities, contains advice on immunisation against hepatitis B for risk groups, including health care personnel.

  The advisory group on hepatitis, which advises United Kingdom health departments, has produced revised guidelines designed to prevent transmission of hepatitis B from health care workers. These have gone out to consultation with professional bodies and the national health service, and they should be available for distribution later this year.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health service authorities have used their capital reserves to maintain dental services since July 1992; and how much they are spending from the reserves.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no reason to believe that any family health service authority is using capital reserve funds for this purpose.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the computerisation of each region of the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no specific plan to review computerisation of each region of the national health service. There is a national strategic framework for the development of information management and technology which contains major computing elements.

  Individual regions will make plans within that strategy and the NHS management executive will monitor the approach of each region against nationally defined standards.

  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date she asked local authorities to bid for the available capital funds to provide secure accommodation for juvenile offenders; and if she will place a copy of the invitation in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  Following the national steering group's assessment of demand for an additional 60–65 places 618
  nationally, last summer, local authorities were approached collectively and individually to consider how they would respond to meet the national steering group's assessment.

  Regional Health Authority Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the contracting out of services undertaken by each regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The White Paper "Competing for Quality" published in November 1991 set out the case for the use of market testing procedures to test the quality and cost effectiveness of services in central Government and the national health service.

  Revised guidance on market testing will be published shortly. Regional health authorities will be asked to follow the guidance where they undertake market testing of their own headquarters and other services.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities have used their reserves in the last quarter of the financial year 1992–93 or have plans to use their reserves, and by what amount; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the effects of high doses of hormones on women taking oral contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: Oral contraceptives containing high doses of hormones are more likely than low-dose preparations to cause side-effects. The most serious side-effects include high blood pressure, thrombosis and thromboembolism involving the heart and lungs, but occur rarely in women without predisposing factors. To minimise side-effects doctors are advised to use the lowest effective dose and the use of oral contraceptives in those with significant predisposing factors for cardiovascular disease is discouraged.

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

Organophosphate Sheep Dips
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that Section 19, as defined by Section 132 of the Medicines Act 1968, has been adequately considered when licences have been granted to manufacturers of organophosphate sheep dips.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the provisions of the Medicines Act have been applied properly to organophosphate sheep dip products. Nevertheless, all sheep dip products are currently being reviewed by the Veterinary Products Committee to ensure that they meet up-to-date standards of safety, quality and efficacy.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. When licences for organophosphate sheep dips were first issued, was the licensing authority aware that sulfotepp, which is 60 to 100 times more toxic than diazinon—the basic constituent of sheep dip—is an integral and unavoidable part of the production process and is much more stable than diazinon and therefore does not break down in the soil but becomes residual? If they were aware of that—I hope the Minister will not hide behind Section 118 of the Medicines Act (the secrecy clause)—are they satisfied that the licensing authority has taken sufficient care to ensure the safety of users and the community and that the quality of the product is satisfactory, considering that the manufacturers are expected to do the quality testing, and that the original laboratory testing—
Noble Lords: Too long!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am asking a question. —was done on the pure products and not on the manufactured ones?
Earl Howe: My Lords, tepp and sulfotepp are known human neurotoxins which can arise as manufacturing impurities and as degradation products from diazinon, which is an active ingredient within some sheep dip formulations. Manufacturers of sheep dips include a stabiliser in the product formulation to prevent any breakdown to tepp and sulfotepp. The specifications for such products set upper limits for the impurities so as to ensure that no significant toxicological hazard can arise.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, for those who are less expert in these matters than the noble Countess, will
526
my noble friend tell us in simple terms whether the scientific evidence supports the anxieties that she has expressed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the scientific evidence on the safety of organophosphate-based sheep dips is inconclusive. That is why a number of research projects are currently under way to verify the facts.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, are there any statistics on how many accidents or illnesses there have been as a result of the use of sheep dip? We have been dipping sheep for a long time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in the period January 1985 to 27th January 1993, 338 reports, involving 423 people, relating to organophosphorus sheep dips have been received. A significant proportion of the reports received since 1990 relate to historical cases where a suspected adverse reaction had occurred more than one year previously. To put those figures into context, during the same period over 1 million sheep dippings would have been carried out.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that work by the Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital, the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow and the South West Environmental Protection Agency all indicate that there is at least a strong possibility that sheep dips are dangerous to human life? Is there not now a need for a proper inquiry and a statement on the matter from the Government to clear up a matter which is now causing considerable anxiety to the agricultural industry?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend a moment ago, the scientific evidence is inconclusive. Licences are issued on the basis that a product is safe if used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. To ban organophosphate sheep dips, without hard evidence, would be unwarranted and would have serious consequences in terms of animal welfare.
Lord Carter: My Lords, have not the manufacturers indicated that the users of sheep dip should use protective clothing? Have we not just discovered that phenol acts adversely on natural rubber? That was not known until recently.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the labels and instructions for the use of organophosphate compounds containing phenols have been updated from time to time to reflect the latest advice from the Veterinary Products Committee about operator and environmental safety. They have all been included in the review of sheep dip products which is now being undertaken by that committee.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, what scientific evidence relating to which particular substance is inconclusive? Are we talking about organophosphorous compounds or some other substance about which there are doubts? Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that organophosphorous compounds are the nerve gas compounds.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that certain nerve gases were developed many years ago using organophosphate compounds. However, they incorporate organophosphate compounds which are different from those used in sheep dips; they are not the same at all. I referred earlier to the fact that evidence on whether organophosphatebased sheep dips are not safe when used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions is inconclusive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the poisons unit at Guy's Hospital, which is involved in research into these matters, will not be disbanded on the latter's merger with St Thomas' Hospital?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the number of cases of organophosphate poisoning may be seriously under reported for several reasons? The first is that farmers are stoical and they carry on working regardless of their complaints. Another reason is that GPs have not been good at diagnosing chemical poisoning. Yet another reason is illustrated in reports which I have received from two Welsh farmers and I should like the Minister to take it up. They have reported that their driving licenses have been removed and they have been forced to take eyesight tests because they reported their sheep-dip poisoning to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of the particular instances which the noble Countess cites but I shall look into them. It is a matter which the Government take seriously, as they do all suspected adverse reaction reports. Every case that is reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is investigated. I repeat that we must get the matter in proportion and that at present the evidence is not conclusive.

"Braer": Environmental Damage
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What estimate they have now made of the number of birds killed and of the damage to fish (including shellfish) and to farm crops resulting from the wreck of the "Braer" on the coast of Shetland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the total number of birds found dead is now close to 1,600. The number may increase as dead birds are washed ashore or are found in locations which have not yet been searched. Some birds recovered alive for cleaning may not survive. Some oil was carried on to the land by high winds and has affected an extensive area in the south of Shetland. Vegetables on some 25 crofts have had to be condemned and some 2,000 sheep have been moved off the worst affected grazing. The impact on sea fisheries and fish farming has been greater. But it is too
528
soon to say what the full extent of the damage will be. Any long-term effect on the fish—for example, of ingestive hydrocarbons—is still being examined.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer, especially as sufficient time has passed for rough estimates to be made. What redress is available to the owners of farmed fish which have been rendered inedible and will probably have to be slaughtered—thought to be about one-quarter of the Shetlands stock—and what redress is available to sea fishermen whose customary fishing grounds lie within the exclusion zone?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am pleased to report to the House that last week the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund agreed to accept claims for salmon due to have been harvested this year but which will now have to be slaughtered. It is too early to take decisions about other farmed salmon. If sea fishermen find that their catches in the exclusion zone are down it will be open to them to claim compensation from the fund. However, it would be premature to reach a conclusion about the future. I understand that the likely cost of claims for the salmon which would have been harvested this year is in the region of £7 million. Clearly, that matter must be worked out between those insuring and those making the claims.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, considering the magnificent work done by voluntary and other organisations to save the lives of the employees on the "Braer", have the owners of the ship been asked to contribute towards the damage that it caused?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are two funds from which compensation will be payable. As cargo insurers Skuld P & I Club of Norway has a limited liability of £5.5 million. In addition, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund will amount to some £50 million. It is still early days but there is every expectation that all legitimate claims will be met out of those sums.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I realise that my question is marginally outside that on the Order Paper. Has my noble and learned friend any information on otters and seals?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes, I have some information about otters. I understand that of the otter population of Shetland four have been found dead, as have approximately 12 seals. Surprisingly, a large number of seals are basking on rocks not far from the position where the "Braer" foundered and they are surviving satisfactorily.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has given an indication of the various funds out of which compensation may be paid. Is he aware that time is of the essence of the contract as regards many people who are affected? In view of the fact that some of the claims may take some time to settle, will the

529
Minister undertake that the Government will make an effort to ease the cash flow problems of the firms and companies involved?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has established a bridging fund of something like £1 million which is to be administered by Shetland Islands Council. Its purpose, pending the settlement of claims, is to provide the cash flow cover to which fish farmers in Shetland in particular must have access if their businesses are to survive.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the effect of the disaster goes wider than the fish farmers, does it not? Crofters have lost grazing land and vegetable growers have lost crops and are unable to get their crops to market. Will the fund also help those people?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, certainly. I singled out salmon fish farmers as they are clearly the most affected group within Shetland. However, as I said in my original Answer, vegetables and crops have been damaged and a number of sheep have been moved away. I understand that the insurers are already paying for additional fodder and grazing on other parts of the island. Those people thus affected will have access to the fund should they require it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not accurate to say that the consequences would have been infinitely worse had it not been for the violent weather at the time?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords. It was originally anticipated that the consequences might be quite as disastrous for the wildlife as the disaster in Alaska. However, it is clear from the final casualties of the sea bird population that nothing like the same degree of damage has been caused to the wildlife, although I regret to say that there have been losses of, for example, the great northern diver, a rare species.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since sand eel colonies are affected by oil spillages, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the current research into sand eel populations will be extended by the Government? I understand that the present project is almost finished. Has the Minister yet had the results of the present project and will it be continued in view of the accident? Has the JNCC finished identifying all those areas which need to be identified as special protection areas?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot indicate to the noble Baroness the outcome of that research although, in a broader sense, the population of the sand eel is critical not only to fish around the Shetlands and Orkneys but also to the bird population. However, there will be continuing research in relation to the exclusion zone and the fish population around the Shetlands in order to identify whether there is any longstanding damage to the fish caused by the hydrocarbons.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce the remarks made by my
530
noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as regards the number of claims made for compensation. We must remember that many of those affected will be small businesses which will be in dire straits. I hope that the Minister will give some idea of how many claims have been made and how rapidly they will be processed. Will he make sure that there is no red tape which will delay the payment of compensation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the news last week that the fund has already agreed to make payment of compensation indicates that claims are being settled in the Shetlands very much faster than elsewhere in the world where comparable disasters have occurred. I cannot give the noble Lord a figure of the number of claims but I can indicate that of some 64 salmon fish farmers operating 148 sites in the Shetlands, there are only about 17 sites in the exclusion area which presently have fish in the water.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords is my noble and learned friend aware that the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, to which he referred, has operated well in previous tanker disasters of this kind? However, the process takes a considerable time. Will the Government do what they can to make sure that the mechanism for payment is speedy because the salmon fish farmers in particular will need interim payments if they are to stay in business?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I trust that the mechanism which we have set in place—namely, the bridging fund within the agency of the Shetland Islands Council—will be sufficient to meet any interim claims. However, I assure my noble friend that should any difficulties emerge, the Government are very keen to ensure that the fish farmers in Shetland should not be affected by the disaster.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I understand that following the "Exxon Valdez" disaster, the United States of America insisted that tankers using its waters should be insured with unlimited liability to ensure that the polluter really did pay for the damage that he caused. Are the Government considering any comparable legislation as regards British waters?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that matter will have to await the outcome of the inquiry which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is undertaking. However, I assure the noble Lord and the House that funds are available to those who have suffered loss and damage on the Shetland Islands from the two sources I have indicated. It is anticipated that those two funds will in no sense be exhausted in meeting the claims which those individuals have.

Metropolitan Police: Batons
2.55 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reverse their decision not to consider equipping the Metropolitan police force

531
with side-handed or expanding batons, so as to provide police officers with better protection against assaults by criminals.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have agreed to the Metropolitan Police conducting trials of an expandable baton, subject to the outcome of a full scientific evaluation of its wounding potential. We have also agreed to the Metropolitan Police conducting trials of variants of the straight baton which can be carried in the truncheon pocket. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not believe that the side-handed baton is a suitable piece of equipment for use by police officers.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am grateful and encouraged by the noble Earl's reply. I am sure that he will agree that scarcely a week passes without the press reporting a murderous assault on a police officer. Was it not alarming that until very recently the Home Office was not even willing to consider looking into the matter? I am greatly reassured by the news that the Home Office will now do so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as regards the number of police officers who are assaulted. That is quite appalling and intolerable and causes a great deal of anxiety to Her Majesty's Government. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise also that it is important that the style of policing should not change. Manufacturers estimate that a side-handed baton has a wounding potential nine times that of ordinary batons.
Lord Annan: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl, a change in the style of policing does not seem to me as important as giving police reasonable protection against these murderous assaults. We are not living in the age of "Dixon of Dock Green", when a villain who is faced with a policeman immediately says, "All right guy, it's a fair cop". We are now dealing with a very different situation. Perhaps the noble Earl will reconsider his statement that the style of policing is all important. What matters is the safety of the police when they are dealing with murderous villains.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, but the style of policing is important. If police officers are to be equipped with weapons which can cause great harm—I repeat that the manufacturers estimate that a side-handed baton will do nine times more damage than an ordinary baton—the noble Lord may wish to take into account what would happen if a police officer were robbed of his baton and it was then used against him. For such reasons, my right honourable friend considered that use of the side-handed baton was not suitable.
Lord Mellish: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Mellish: Go on, Common Market!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like me to talk about the Common Market, I will do so at any time. However, at present I wish to talk about this Question. Is it not a fact that it is not the arms which the police carry which are causing the problem at present? Is it not that society is paying far too much attention to criminals and their rights and too little attention to the victims of crime and to society generally? Is it not a fact also that the police are sick and tired of taking cases to court when they know that severe penalties will not be imposed on criminals but at the same time decent citizens are being clobbered through the unit fine system? Substantial fines are imposed for small peccadillos while criminals leave the courts laughing at the small fines which have been imposed upon them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, captivates the House as usual by expanding the Question to cover pretty well everything to do with the police. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he says. The amount of crime that takes place is quite appalling. I ask the noble Lord to consider the following. People are always asking what the police are doing and why they do not catch criminals. However, I ask the noble Lord to consider what it is that makes a tiny baby of six weeks who is dependent on others for everything become a criminal by the time he is 15 or 16 years old. The peak age of criminal activity is between 15 and 18. All of us, and home and school backgrounds, have a great part to play in preventing that from happening.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, has the bobby on the beat been asked whether or not he wants this thing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are several bobbies on the beat and I do not think they have all been asked their opinion. However, the organisation which represents them has given the view of the police. It has said they would like this equipment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, our police do a remarkable job of work but from time to time they find themselves in some difficulties. Is there constant liaison between the noble Earl's department and the representatives of the police as regards matters the latter think should be discussed with Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is constant liaison between the police and my department. It is understandable that the police want to have a piece of equipment which will adequately protect them. However, if we give them that piece of equipment, we will alter the style of policing and we will equip the police with a weapon that is capable of causing considerable damage. If an attacker were to remove such a weapon from the police, he could then use it against them. On the whole that is considered to be undesirable.

Pharmacists: NHS fees
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the average time taken to reimburse pharmacists for work on NHS prescriptions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, pharmacists receive some 80 per cent. of their National Health Service fees and payments within a month of submitting their prescriptions to the Prescription Pricing Authority. The balance is paid a month later when the authority has calculated the exact payment due.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. However, does she accept that it is somewhat at variance with the information which I have been given? Is she therefore satisfied that her information is complete? Does she accept that my information is that on average £189 million at any one time is withheld from pharmacists for up to 90 days? Does she consider that this is in line with the Government's policy of supporting small businesses? Does she understand that this can impose considerable burdens on small community pharmacists who have a liquidity problem like any other small businessman? Will she look further into the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should be delighted to look further into the matter. However, it would not be possible for the Prescription Pricing Authority to calculate 100 per cent. of all prescriptions within one month. The maximum it can achieve is estimated at around 95 per cent. However, the cost of moving from a payment level of 80 per cent. to one of 95 per cent. would be between £45 million and £50 million.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister happy that at present the total amount owed by the Government is estimated to be £459 million? Not all of that sum has been owed for a long time. Cannot something be done to make some payment in advance or speed up payment so that small businesses do not suffer?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that pharmacists find this a bitter pill to swallow. However, the 1990 CBI, Cork Gully survey showed that a significant number of firms were obliged to accept a period of 60 days or more for payment. One in five businesses are accustomed to normal payments exceeding 75 days. That compares favourably with the department's record of paying 80 per cent. within one month of pharmacists submitting their prescriptions to the Prescription Pricing Authority.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to put the figures of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, into perspective, will my noble friend say what is the total amount paid each year to pharmacists by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the total amount paid to pharmacists in terms of fees and charges is £206 million.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the period of two months or 60 days which she mentioned is probably acceptable to the small pharmacist, but it is the payments after 90 days that cause the problem? I hope that she will be able to look into that matter.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have given an undertaking to look further into the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister think again about her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale? When she was asked about the total amount paid to pharmacists she gave a figure of £206 million for fees and charges. Will she tell the House the sum that is paid to pharmacists for drugs, which I think is the figure that is required?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I regret to say that the figure that I gave was for the costs of pharmacy that are met from charges that are paid by patients. Of course 80 per cent. of all items that are currently dispensed are free of charge. I shall inform the noble Lord in due course of the figure which he seeks.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the revision of dispensing fees for pharmacists for 1992 been held up—that was due in April 1992—in the same way as it has for dispensing doctors?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the system is complicated. I am prepared to let the noble Countess know in full the differences between the dispensing doctors and pharmacists. There are some differences which are difficult to elucidate upon at the moment. I am prepared to do that but it would take a long time. I would rather write to the noble Countess in due course.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993, the Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 10th February
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Chalfont set down for Wednesday next shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Baroness Stedman set down for the same day to 2 hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill: Instruction
3.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that Amendments Nos. 71 to 86 be considered after Clause 2; and that Amendments Nos. 90 to 95 be considered after Clause 8. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to the Minister and to the Government for acceding to my request yesterday that these amendments should be taken with the clauses to which they refer. It would have made the proper consideration of the business extremely difficult if that had not been agreed to. I am grateful that the Government have been able to agree to that request.
However, a wider point arises which is that it is frequent and normal in longer Bills for schedules to be taken with the clauses to which they refer. That is not a universal custom but it is one which has taken place on many considerable Bills in your Lordships' House. When I use the word "considerable" I intend it to relate to the number of amendments and not just to the sheer physical length of a Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that it is for the convenience of the House that schedules which refer to particular clauses, and therefore cover the same subject matter as those clauses but in more detail, should be taken with the clauses as a matter of course.
It was not until a Government Instruction to that effect failed to appear that I was aware this was not the Government's intention on this occasion. However, I hope it will be thought proper that, unless there is some good reason to the contrary, it should be normal for schedules to be taken with the clauses to which they refer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for having been so courteous as to express his content at the Motion which I nearly forgot to move. If we can be of assistance to the Opposition we are only too happy to do so. I appreciate that the noble Lord would prefer the amendments which appear as a specific part of a schedule to be discussed in the earlier part of the proceedings this afternoon. I am glad that we have been able to meet the noble Lord over that matter and that we have started on such a felicitous note. I hope that he will ensure that that continues throughout the proceedings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks. It is not only the Opposition who are affected; it is the responsibility of the whole House to ensure that Committee proceedings on Bills are carried out in a logical and open way. I suggest, not merely to the noble Earl but to the Government as a whole, that as a rule, unless there is good reason to the contrary, schedules should be taken with the clauses to which they refer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
3.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AMPTHILL) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Interpretation]:
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert:
(""claim for asylum" means a request made by a person to be allowed to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee under the Conventions, and to be treated accordingly; and").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 1, which is grouped with a number of other amendments in the list of groupings which is before the Committee. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for enabling us to conduct this business in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and for being so courteous in acceding to the wishes of the Opposition. I hope that in considering the amendments we propose his courtesy will extend even further and that he will accept them.
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to widen the definition of a "claim for asylum" set forth in Clause 1 of the Bill. The definition set out in the Bill requires the Government of the United Kingdom to observe only Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 convention. Important as those articles are they are not the only legal standard to which refugees should be entitled. The amendment is therefore drafted to extend the scope of that definition of a claim for asylum by removing those elements which circumscribe and restrict it. In other words, it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention for a claimant to be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom.
While we welcome the primacy of the Geneva Convention, the definition, as I have argued, effectively provides only for the UK Government to observe Articles 32 and 33. The 1951 definition of a refugee was in many respects a creature of the Cold War. Despite massive movements of population in the period immediately following the end of the Second World War, the definition of a refugee adopted by the United Nations was one which was applicable to individuals rather than to groups and attached a rather restrictive idea of persecution in that refugee status was seen as being obtained by a conflict between an individual and his convictions and the ideology or tenets of the political system of his country of origin.
Since the 1950s, when the UN definition was agreed, flows of refugees of a very different nature have occurred as a consequence of a number of

537
factors. They are most apparent in the third world. They have increased as a consequence of the development of air travel and of television. The nature of migration has changed considerably since that definition was drawn up. Now, owing to the events in Yugoslavia, that pattern of population movement has spread to Europe, and Germany is now experiencing the kind of problem with which many third world countries, particularly in Africa, are now familiar.
It is in the light of that changed nature of the movement of populations, and in response to the changing patterns of migration and of refugee status, that wider definitions of a refugee have been adopted by the Organisation of African Unity and the OAS and in the wider remit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Hence the reference in the amendment to the convention, whose definition, in our view, should be taken into account in this Bill.
In 1990–91, 40,000 people sought asylum in this country. Of those, 25 per cent. were granted refugee status; 60 per cent. were granted asylum on other grounds; and 15 per cent. were refused asylum. Those proportions should be borne in mind when we consider the clauses of the Bill.
As I understand it, if left as it stands Clause 1, in which a claim for asylum is defined as a claim,
"that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention for him to be removed",
is extremely restrictive in the light of those figures. It excludes the 60 per cent. to whom I have referred and those who have arrived via another country. It excludes also those who have good grounds for making the UK the appropriate country for claiming asylum under the recent Dublin convention.
There are, of course, other conventions to which this country is a party such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many of the articles of that convention are relevant to this Bill. We ratified that particular convention and we made a reservation that it should not apply to nationality or immigration. That reservation was not extended to asylum law. The convention, therefore, applies to asylum law. Article 3 of that convention is relevant to our discussions. It provides:
"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Can he say whether that convention also defines "refugee"?
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. However, it certainly applies to our treatment of children who are refugees, or so I would argue. This Bill does not make any distinction whatsoever between children and adults. That is a weakness which it is imperative should be corrected. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also contains elements which are applicable to this Bill.
It is because all those conventions to which we are party and which relate to the matter under discussion need to be taken into consideration that a widening of
538
the definition from the very narrow one set forth in Clause 1 in accordance with the amendment to which I speak is so necessary. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that it has been agreed that the amendment will be taken with a number of other amendments. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I specify which amendments are part of the group. They are Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 6, 22, 27 to 29, 31 to 33, 35, 37, 101, 103 and 104. All those amendments have a similar effect to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. They seek to extend the definition of "asylum" from the very limited, negative definition of Article 33 of the 1951 convention. The noble Lord referred to the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. The subsequent amendments refer to other conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I wish to say a word or two about the relevance of the other conventions to the subject matter of the Bill.
First, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been signed by the United Kingdom. It was dated 1966. There is no particular reservation by the United Kingdom Government to any part of the convention. Although it is claimed that the provisions of the Bill cannot be in contradiction of the 1951 convention, we argue that some of them are nevertheless in contradiction of the 1966 international covenant. In Article 2.3(a) of the international covenant it is stated:
"Each State Party … undertakes: to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognised are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
That immediately raises the whole issue of appeals. They are the subject matter of the Bill, as well as asylum. It is such an important element of the Bill that it has been included in the Short Title as well as the Long Title of the Bill.
We shall later debate clauses which specifically take away the right of appeal and therefore take away the effective remedy which is required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Government adhered in 1966. Although the Bill provides for some kind of appeal against refusal of asylum, it does not provide for any appeal against detention. We argue that detention is a violation of rights and freedom which requires an effective remedy under the conditions of the international covenant.
Under the Immigration Act 1971 the position is that asylum seekers may be detained with no reason given by the immigration authorities for their detention. We understand that the use of detention will not diminish, and that provision is being made for increased places of detention when the Bill has been passed. There have been very unhappy experiences of detention of asylum seekers in this country in recent years. For example, when large numbers come from

539
particular countries, they tend to be put into detention en bloc without consideration being given to their individual cases.
When Tamils came from Sri Lanka in 1986–87, they were put into what can only be called a convict ship, the "Earl William". When the convict ship broke away from its moorings and ran aground in the hurricane of October 1987, it was clear that the conditions that existed were unsatisfactory and the use of the convict ship had to be abandoned. Similarly, when Kurds came from Turkey in recent years, they were put into a number of detention centres in Harmondsworth and elsewhere. When two of them attempted to commit suicide by setting themselves alight—one of them did commit suicide; he died later in hospital—urgent efforts (one might say panic efforts) were made by the Home Office to clear the detention camps of large groups of Turkish Kurds.
Detention is clearly part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government for seekers of asylum. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the Government seek to use detention as a way to deter asylum seekers. I claim that that is in conflict with the international covenant. The inclusion of that international covenant would protect human rights in that important respect.
There is a further aspect under the same covenant: the issue of bail. If the Bill were to come within the terms of the international convention, detained asylum seekers would have the right to go before the courts for bail. The provisions of the Bail Act 1976, with its presumption in favour of bail, would apply. That is not the case under the Bill. The inclusion of the international covenant would ensure that the rights of people in respect of bail were protected.
I turn now to the European Convention on Human Rights. That is not only a treaty binding on all signatories of the Treaty of Rome; it was also adhered to by the United Kingdom long before Britain signed the Treaty of Rome. It has been accepted throughout the country by all political parties as being a proper part of our international obligations, although the Government have consistently refused to write it into British law. Because the Government have not written it into British law, I shall not open a wider debate at present. However, I do not think that those who believe that it should or should not be written into British law will deny that the effect is that it can sometimes take months, or even years, for cases to be decided. There is no legal aid for the preparation of the case which would go to the European Commission of Human Rights.
The European Convention on Human Rights extends not only to those who are nationals of the member states—in this case nationals of the United Kingdom—but to all those within the jurisdiction. For example, it provides protection against inhuman or degrading treatments. We argue that the extension of this European convention to which we are signatories to those who are within the jurisdiction extends the protection of the European convention to asylum seekers. We believe that that ought to be recognised in
540
the scope of the Bill, and that therefore this European convention should be given comparable status to the United Nations convention of 1971.
Perhaps I may give one specific example of the effect of that provision. It is a matter to which we shall return later. It is the provision of exceptional leave to remain. One can argue the case both ways. The Government tend to argue that because most of those who are refused asylum are given exceptional leave to remain they are not as wicked or exclusive as might appear simply from the asylum statistics.
However, of course, one can take another view of it. The view we take is that instead of entry to the country being a right defined under law and under international commitments —which would be the case if asylum law were properly drafted—we have a much larger number of people being admitted to this country under no rules but simply under the prerogative of the Home Secretary. It is not a matter for Parliament as to how the Home Secretary should decide whether people are given exceptional leave to remain. It is not a matter for Parliament how long passes before they are allowed to bring their dependants; nor is it a matter for Parliament as to how long passes before they are considered as having permanent settlement here.
Thus we argue that the distinction which exists between asylum and exceptional leave to remain is in conflict with other international commitments of this country and that the exceptional leave to remain provision is an example of that, rather than an example of the rule of law in the country.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and subsequent amendments, would significantly not only add to the protection for those who seek asylum in this country but they would add to the effectiveness of the rule of law in the country as a whole.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: There are many who welcome the United Nations convention of 1951 being on the face of the Bill and who believe that it is a significant step that the convention and the United Kingdom's obligations under it are mentioned in the Bill. I am glad to note that the Government consistently state their intention to honour those obligations.
However, I believe that the drafting of the Bill leaves us with too narrow an understanding of "refugee" and those who are able to seek asylum. I wish to argue that case in three regards. First, in regard to the wording in Clause 1 which refers to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention for such a person:
"to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom".
In other words, a "claim for asylum" definitely refers to those who are under some threat of being removed from this country. Article 33 of the United Nations convention refers to that, but as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has already said, there are other articles under the convention which are apparently not mentioned in the Bill. That is why Amendment No.1

541
is of such significance. It requires the Bill to refer not simply to Article 33 of the convention but also to other obligations.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has expressed its dissatisfaction with the drafting of the Bill in that regard and that dissatisfaction is shared by many of us. That is my first ground for believing that the definition of those seeking asylum needs to be widened.
Secondly, I wish to look at a particular category of refugee: those who have been subjected to torture. There is no mention of torture in the 1951 convention, but there is mention of it in the other conventions and documents mentioned in one of the amendments we are considering. In particular, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
The United Nations convention against torture defines "torture" as:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession".
We are well aware of the use of torture, sadly, in many countries in the world. We are aware of the enormous trauma that such torture inflicts on many people, especially young people. In a country I know well—Sri Lanka—it is commonplace for young people to be taken into custody and then tortured by such means as beating or hanging upside-down by the feet and so on—horrible acts which are dreadful to contemplate. It is not surprising that people who have undergone such torture should be highly traumatised and suffer for many years afterwards.
Many of the people who come to this country have been subjected to torture. Some are the clients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. That organisation has pointed out that many of its clients, when their claims for asylum are eventually decided, are not numbered among those who are granted asylum because at the moment the grounds for asylum are the grounds of the 1951 convention; that is to say, a well-founded fear of persecution on the five grounds.
Many of those who are tortured have their cases considered. They come under the category of those whose claims are considered to be unfounded because they do not fall within the 1951 convention. Yet it is surely clear to most of us that, having suffered torture and possibly being subjected to it when they return to their country, they must be treated as having a proper claim to asylum.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, the majority of those who are not granted asylum are given exceptional leave to remain. Many of those who are tortured fall into that category rather than into the category of those who are given asylum. It seems clear that we need to extend the definition of asylum in order to include a number of categories which were not included within the 1951 definition. Here I support what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said.
Finally, a third ground on which I believe the definition needs widening is that there is no mention in it of those who suffer from civil war. Many of the
542
refugees in our world today are such because civil wars are raging in their country. They have lost homes and livelihoods, many finish up in neighbouring countries. Those from the civil war in Sri Lanka are mostly to be found in India, when they are not in Sri Lanka. Very few find their way to our country, but when they do, at the moment they are not treated as those who deserve recognition as needing asylum because they do not fall within the category of having a well-founded fear of persecution. Yet civil war is a reality and many people suffer under it. We should surely not return to lands where that kind of violence rages those people who are likely to suffer from it.
It seems to me that the 1951 definition has a subjectivity to it. It speaks of those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. I argue that for those who are subject to torture there is no question of a subjective element. Torture is objective, it happens to a person. Therefore, there can be no question of making a judgment about whether or not a person is in fear; it is a perfectly clear ground on which someone ought not to be returned to his own country. He ought to be granted asylum. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments.
Lord Renton: This well-intentioned group of amendments makes the Bill wider, but I am sorry to have to say that it will lead to endless wrangles in the courts and will cause disappointment in many cases. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that the definition in the Bill at the moment is too narrow. I respectfully beg to differ from him. I suggest that the convention relating to the status of refugees and the protocol to it will cover all genuine cases perfectly adequately.
However, if we add those various other conventions, I can only see confusion and argument arising. Reference has been made to them, but perhaps I may develop the theme a little further. First, perhaps I may take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in moving the amendment, that things have changed since 1951. He relies upon the later conventions as a way of dealing with a new situation. But these other conventions are not all very new. I remember the European Convention on Human Rights because—perhaps like some other Members of the Committee—I took part in discussing it in the Council of Europe in the early 1950s. It was certainly, if I recollect correctly, accepted by about 1954, but not as part of our own law. It is still not part of our law; it is part of the law applicable in the European Court of Human Rights, which is somewhat different. It goes much wider than the question of asylum and refugees. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, whether it contained a definition of "refugee", he was not sure. I must confess that I have not turned it up myself.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I understand on further examination that it specifically refers to refugee children.
Lord Renton: That is splendid—and so does the convention on the status of refugees. I remind the Committee that in accordance with the way in which

543
our statutes are interpreted in our courts, the same word may have a different meaning in different contexts. I believe there is a danger that if we refer to other conventions which have a different purpose—perhaps a much wider purpose—from the convention on which the Government are asking us to rely, there could be confusion.
Let us consider the other conventions mentioned in Amendment No. 4. There is the United Nations convention against torture. Torture is a horrible thing, but that convention has a different purpose. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights goes very wide indeed. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has a more limited purpose. But the point is: are we doing any real kindness, or any real service, to those who should be given, and would be given by the interpretation of the Bill, a right of asylum—the right to be treated as refugees—if they do not appear to come strictly within the convention on refugees, but are tendentiously and it is to be hoped made to apply by those representing them and are submitted to the court by those other measures? I believe that we would be doing a disservice to them.
I remind the Committee of what my noble friend Lord Ferrers made clear at Second Reading: the purpose of the Bill is to prevent abuse, as well as the human purpose, on which we are all agreed. It is to help people who are victims of oppression abroad and who have a right to come here within our tradition. But that right has been so much abused that the Government are right to put the matter beyond doubt, and they are carrying out a public service in doing so, by fastening our law to the European convention on the status of refugees. Surely that is the right way to do it. One admires the sincerity, and indeed the ingenuity, of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate, among others. But I believe that they are defeating their own purpose.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may follow up the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in reference to refugees. I believe that Article 2 gives the answer:
"States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status".
That is a general non-discrimination clause. The rest of the convention should be read in that context. It helps to ensure that a child's status as an asylum-seeker or a refugee should not mean any diminution in rights or services. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is fairly recent—1989. We have ratified it. I thought that if we ratified a convention, that covered the matter and we should pay attention to it.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to ask the right reverend Prelate one question. He gave the example of
544
a Sinhalese or Tamil refugee from Ceylon going first to India with the implication that he could then come on to this country. Surely the whole point of the Bill is to make sure that we only take people who come to this country as a place of first refuge, not as a kind of stepping-stone refuge. If we allow the stepping-stone refuge principle to come in, it will make a very large hole in what is already a difficult situation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to explain. I am sorry if I did not explain myself properly. I did not mean to imply at all that refugees would go first to India and then on to this country. As he probably knows, India is now attempting to return the bulk of them to Sri Lanka. My point was that the bulk of those who are refugees are still in Asia and do not come to this country.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: It was not my intention to intervene in the debate. But I heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose experience on these matters we all greatly respect and he caused me to reflect on what I think is the essence of the amendments. Is anyone likely to be excluded by the present state of the Bill who we would all normally all want to say was a refugee? I have not even brought with me the text of the Geneva Convention because I had not intended intervening. But I believe it was the noble Lord who reminded us that the criterion in the Geneva Convention is a well-founded fear of persecution.
"Persecution" as I understand it, means the deliberate infliction of suffering. It seems to me that there is now a very substantial class of people who do not fall within that definition—those who have to leave their homes because their homes have become a battleground in a civil war. It may well be that no one wishes them any particular harm. On the whole armies do not wish any great harm to civilians who stand in their way. The trouble is that they are just indifferent to the suffering which they inflict on them. Those people have to leave their homes not because of a fear of persecution, but because they are likely to suffer in the course of a battle.
Lord Renton: I had not intended to interrupt the noble Lord, but as he seems to think that I was trying to do so—which I was not —I shall take advantage of the opportunity so generously given to me. He is talking of civil war in another country —and there is a horrible one going on now. If all those people who were victims of that civil war and simply wanted to leave that country were to be given admission under any of those conventions, this country could be made to accept tens of thousands of such people at a time when we have nearly 3 million unemployed ourselves. I hope that, on further reflection, what has just been said is not truly relevant to this debate.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am not sure that it is irrelevant. What troubles me is the way in which the noble Lord has now rather moved the argument. As I understand it, no one is suggesting that everyone who

545
has to leave homes in Croatia because of the civil war should flood into this country. That is not the proposal; it is not the proposal in the Bill; it is not the proposal in any of the amendments tabled.
We are at a much earlier stage of our consideration. We are considering who may make a claim as a refugee. They would first need to come to this country and establish that this was the country of first instance under the convention. A whole number of steps would need to be taken before they found themselves able to stay here. At this stage we are simply discussing who is a refugee. My question was whether the Bill in its present form would exclude from consideration or prevent anyone even directing their minds to someone whom most of us, using ordinary English and applying common sense, would want to call a refugee.
The people to whom the noble Lord referred, on any possible definition, are tragically refugees. They leave their homes because if they stayed there they would face death, injury or other forms of suffering. I stand to be corrected. It may be that when the noble Earl replies he will assure me that they do fall within the Geneva Convention. As I say, I do not have the text with me and to my shame I confess that I have not researched the question. If the criteria is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution, then persecution is not the word that we would apply to that situation. If that is the case, then it is likely that a whole group of people whom anyone would wish to say were refugees, do not begin to qualify; they fall at the first fence. It seems to me that that gives rise to real anxiety.
Earl Ferrers: We have had an interesting debate on this subject. Nobody would disagree with those who have expressed their anxieties in regard to people who are subjected to the most horrifying torture, beatings and so forth in other countries. If I may say so the right reverend Prelate made an impressive speech on that topic.
Nobody disagrees and nobody would seek to defend that; there is nobody who would not sympathise with the people undergoing that treatment. But our obligations concern our system of asylum. As my noble friend Lord Renton says, this group of amendments would considerably broaden the scope of the Bill by incorporating into primary legislation a number of international agreements. It would widen the basis upon which asylum seekers, whose application for asylum had been refused, were able to appeal. The amendments are misconceived as regards appeal and would not work in the way intended. I shall explain why in a moment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, asked, in a somewhat broad brush way, whether there are people who would be excluded by the amendments if their applications were refused, and whether people would be prevented from having their cases considered.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: If I may intervene, I asked whether there are any people whom, normally, all of us, as a matter of ordinary English and common sense, would want to call refugees who would not be accepted?
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making his observation more precise. I do not believe that that is a suitable way in which one can address asylum legislation. It must be specific. All kinds of people may be excluded and all kinds of people may be included. We are addressing a specific state of affairs and as our asylum system stands and as we intend that it should work under the new legislation, it is designed to ensure the protection of refugees as defined by the 1951 convention.
Under the 1951 convention our obligations are very clearly defined. They are first, to recognise as a refugee anyone meeting the convention criteria or who has been so recognised by another country and, secondly, to refrain from returning a refugee to a country in which his life or freedom would be threatened for a convention reason.
It is important to stress that the convention itself does not specify how an asylum claim should be determined, nor does it require states to facilitate the entry of asylum seekers to their territory. It is on those precise grounds that the convention works and is subscribed to by such a large number of countries—over 100, in fact. It is unlikely that there would be any universal agreement should we wish to change the current framework. Arbitrary changes by one member state would only lead to confusion.
In the operation of the system we naturally ensure that we do not breach any of the United Kingdom's obligations under other conventions—a point about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, was concerned—and that we respond to other compelling humanitarian factors. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said, over 60 per cent. of asylum cases are given asylum on other grounds. Only a small minority of asylum seekers are actually recognised as refugees under the 1951 convention. The majority—over 60 per cent. in 1991—received exceptional leave to remain. That is not the same as asylum. In some cases it may be given for genuine humanitarian reasons such as those referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Often, it is simply as a result of the delays in determining the claims that it becomes impossible to enforce the person's removal. That is one of the points which the Bill seeks to address.
There is a considerable degree of overlap between cases which involve our obligations under the 1951 convention and those which involve issues under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the United Nations convention against torture. The rare cases which raise issues under either of those conventions but do not fall within the 1951 convention, are appropriately dealt with by the grant of exceptional leave to remain to which I have just referred.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wanted the European Convention on Human Rights to be given similar status to the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. But neither of those conventions—the one on human rights or the convention against torture—are fundamental to the determination of asylum claims. For instance, the

547
European Convention on Human Rights is concerned with a far wider range of human rights than just the protection of individuals against persecution. Therefore it would not be at all appropriate to incorporate those conventions in a Bill that relates solely to asylum. The United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, contain an even broader set of factors. Again, it would not be appropriate to link those with asylum issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to interrupt. He used two expressions that do not correspond with the meaning of the amendments. First, he said that it would be inappropriate to incorporate those conventions into the Bill; he then said it would be inappropriate to link them with the Bill. The amendments we are discussing would not do either of those things. They would add them to the provision in Clause 2 which says that,
"Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention".
That refers to the United Nations convention of 1951. All we are saying with these amendments is that nothing in the Immigration Rules shall be contrary to these other conventions and covenants—not that they should be incorporated into the Bill as a whole.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I do not understand what the noble Lord is complaining about. He said that he just wants to add them. He complained that I said that they were going to be incorporated or linked when all he wants to do is to add them. So far as I can see, add equals incorporate or link. The noble Lord looks bored by it. But, as I understand it, what he is trying to do is to add, incorporate or link the provisions of these two conventions to the Bill. I was trying to persuade the Committee that that would be a very undesirable and inappropriate thing to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not bored by it at all. What I am trying to do is to set the record straight. What the amendment provides is that the 1951 convention shall apply to this Bill so far as the Immigration Rules are concerned. Clause 2 states:
"Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention".
If our amendments are agreed to, nothing in the Immigration Rules shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the other conventions as well. That is not linking or incorporating. The Minister is simply wrong.
Earl Ferrers: I can only say that I shall have to try to study the noble Lord's diagnosis of these words more carefully. The Bill says that nothing should be done in contravention of the United Nations convention. The noble Lord wants to ensure that nothing is done in contravention of the other two conventions as well. Whether that is adding, linking or incorporating is really an irrelevance. I understand the noble Lord's concern, but the Bill deals with asylum. It deals specifically with asylum. I have tried to explain that if one incorporates, adds or links these other
548
matters into the Bill as well one is adding or linking into the Bill issues very considerably wider than matters of asylum.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The amendment is not going outside the question of asylum. What it is saying is that this Government and previous governments have undertaken to observe certain other conventions in addition to the one that is mentioned on the face of the Bill. These other conventions also touch on the matter of asylum. What noble Lords on this side of the Committee are seeking to do is to incorporate into the Bill those matters relating to asylum which are contained in the other conventions. The Government are bound by those conventions. All we are saying is that those undertakings which have been given on an international basis should be honoured within this Bill and that there should not be this narrow restriction to the earlier convention.
Earl Ferrers: Of course there is bound to be a narrow restriction because one is dealing with a narrow fact. One is dealing with asylum. What is asylum? A definition of a refugee, or he who will become a refugee after he is granted asylum, is contained in the United Nations convention. "Ah", says the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, "let us widen this so as to incorporate other conventions". I have given the Committee the assurance that we do not breach any of the United Kingdom's obligations under other conventions. Of course we do not. And we do respond to other compelling factors, as was witnessed by the figure of 60 per cent. which was given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. But the amendments would require claims to asylum to be determined by reference to all the conventions cited. That is very much greater than simply requiring that the Immigration Rules should not contravene those conventions. That is what the Immigration Rules should do. They should not contravene those conventions to which we are properly and correctly subscribers.
Amendments Nos. 1, 27 and 31 seek to provide that an applicant may apply for leave to enter or remain under the terms of any one of the conventions or in the case of a refusal, he or she could appeal on the grounds that the refusal was contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations in any one of those fields. This is simply not possible given the way our immigration legislation is framed. This is very important. The international instruments lay down broad guidelines and principles to which states must adhere. The practicalities of entering or of leaving a state and the regulations attached thereto are for individual states.
For the United Kingdom this means that leave to enter or to remain can only be granted by virtue of the Immigration Act 1971 and that any right of appeal is also set in train only by a decision under the provisions of the Act and not by the basis on which a person wishes to remain here.
Amendment No. 27 seems to suggest that a person might apply for leave as a "refugee" not under the 1951 refugee convention but under the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights. The 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees is the

549
only instrument to which we are a signatory which defines a refugee. It is that about which we are talking. Refugee status is a unique one. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it confers rights—inalienable rights —on people, rights which cannot be taken away. It is entirely independent of any other status. This definition has no link with the substance of other instruments which deal with different social issues.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, 31 to 33, 35 and 37 would broaden the basis on which a failed asylum seeker could appeal. A person whose application has been rejected could appeal by referring to any obligations under other conventions. Amendments Nos. 101, 103 and 104 would make consequential amendments to the procedure rules for asylum appeal.
I can only repeat to the Committee that it is very Important that the United Kingdom remains committed to its obligations towards genuine refugees. We believe that our proposals will ensure that these obligations continue and will be met. When one defines what are our obligations towards refugees, one has to define what a refugee is; and that comes under the United Nations convention. That is what we are determining; and within that determination come all the other humanitarian factors with which noble Lords are concerned. But it would not be right to equate those factors with the very narrow field of asylum.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend has noticed that not all the consequential amendments to which we are entitled to refer in this debate would have quite the desired effect. For example, Amendment No. 27 seeks to insert the words,
"as a refugee under the conventions".
One convention would of course be enough if the argument which we have had put before us were to prevail, which, with respect, I hope it will not.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is quite right that at the moment a refugee is only categorised under one convention, which is the 1951 convention. The amendment which noble Lords opposite seek to incorporate would enable the other conventions to have an equal and similar status, which is not right.
Lord Renton: It would require it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may press the Minister on one point. As I understand it—the noble Earl has explained the position —asylum is a legal status granted to those who fall within the definition of a refugee. There are some who fall outside that strict definition who are granted exceptional leave to remain. We are delighted that at the moment the administration grants that leave in humanitarian cases. But our concern is that, while asylum is a legal obligation, exceptional leave to remain is a discretionary decision. It is not written into legislation. Therefore those who at present fall outside the definition of refugee, which includes those who have been tortured, have no, as it were, legal status. They are here only on a discretionary decision. Our concern is that some of those seem to fall within the definition of "refugee".
550
I instance those who have been tortured as an example. It is clear that some of those people are at present given exceptional leave to remain, but because there is no legal obligation a future administration could operate in a different way; such people who have been tortured could be returned to their own country where they might be subjected to further torture. At present there is no legal obligation that we should provide asylum for them.
It is that distinction between the legal and the discretionary which is our concern. I wonder whether the noble Earl could give any indication of how that anxiety might be met.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having expressed his concern so clearly. The best way in which I can explain the position to him is that any country has to operate some form of immigration rules. That is the only way in which one can work; otherwise everyone would try to come in, which would be impossible. Therefore we have immigration rules, and anyone who comes into this country is subjected to those rules which, in the vast majority of cases, are fairly broad.
In order to overcome the specific difficulties of people who are persecuted there are the asylum regulations. Those have been agreed by over 100 countries throughout the world and there is an international obligation. They all work on the same basis. If one country starts to operate on a different basis, it throws the whole situation out of kilter.
The right reverend Prelate says that there are these other people whom we really feel sorry for and whom we should like to see come in. I do not believe that it is possible to write into legislation a guarantee of acceptance for those people. The individual circumstances vary enormously and the potential numbers are vast. It cannot be done. That is why, when a person comes here, asks for asylum and is not given it, those who have to take the decision very often grant that person exceptional leave to remain, for the very kind of purposes which the right reverend Prelate has in mind: "You may not qualify legally under asylum, but we think that your situation is so awful that you ought to be allowed in". But that is different from having an internationally accepted legal status.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I have listened with great interest to the point that the noble Earl has just made, and I operated these rules in my time. But he has raised a point in my mind on which I should be grateful for his advice. I should like to come back to the Immigration Rules, which are basic to the question I am asking.
The Immigration Rules are those that are interpreted by the immigration appeals procedures in their different forms, as I understand it. As the noble Earl has said, it is not possible to broaden a definition of refugee status, or if not refugee status something like it, to the degree that large numbers would come into a country. This is a natural matter for a government to be concerned about, but it is also natural for a government to be concerned about operating the rules in a proper fashion. As I understand the point made, other than the 1951

551
convention on refugee status, which is basic to all we are talking about, there are other conventions which say what they say, without going into them. Could those conventions be called in aid when an appeal is made under the immigration appeals procedure? Are they relevant in any way?
Earl Ferrers: When a person applies for asylum and his case is considered, if it is found that it is such that he cannot be granted asylum, the immigration officials have a duty to consider our obligations under the other conventions to see whether, if this person is sent away, such action would contravene obligations under other international conventions. So the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, is that the matter is taken into account.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: This debate has been interesting and has raised some points of significance. The fundamental difference between the two arguments is that the noble Earl says that the result of this amendment would be to widen the scope on the basis of the Bill. That is precisely what we are trying to do. If we did not succeed in widening the definition of claim to asylum by these amendments, we should totally fail in our purpose. That is a rather basic difference of opinion which divides the two sides in this argument.
A second argument was deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he said that the purpose of the Bill was to prevent abuse. Although it is important that abuse should be prevented, I do not regard that as the primary purpose of the Bill. I thought the primary purpose of the Bill was to decide on the rules which would apply in law to those people who are granted asylum in this country. That is very different from preventing abuse, although clearly you would have clauses in any such Bill which dealt with abuses of rules which were laid down. It is perfectly clear from what has been said that exceptional leave to remain has played a very large part in dealing with the problem which faces us. The fact that 60 per cent. in this country are people who have been given exceptional leave to remain as opposed to those who have been given asylum shows that the present definition is totally inadequate; otherwise that would not be the case.
We shall argue that one of the results of this Bill will be to erode exceptional leave to remain, and one of its purposes appears to be to diminish the discretion exercised by the Home Secretary in those special cases to which the right reverend Prelate referred. We shall be coming to that later. It is one of the aspects of the Bill which I find most unsatisfactory.
The noble Earl said that we do not breach the conventions to which we are party. I am not sure whether he is altogether right. I think we shall find, in looking at certain aspects in the schedule, that we are going to breach them, if we do not do so already. If one takes the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which I have already referred, Article 10 provides:
552
"Applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a state for the purposes of family reunification shall be dealt with by states parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner".
People who come here with exceptional leave to remain are unable to unify their families until they have stayed here for four years. I suggest that that is in clear breach of the convention to which I have referred. Therefore, the danger of our breaching conventions to which we are party is very real and should not simply be dismissed as something which does not occur.
We come finally to the point of dispute between the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Tordoff about what we are trying to do in references in these amendments to the conventions to which we are party, all of which are much wider and cover much wider ground than the Bill covers but all of which include references to refugees, and all of which have extended and widened the meaning of "refugee" to take into account the changes to which I referred in my opening remarks in the years since 1951 in the nature of the people who are refugees. It seems to be rather unwise to suppose that a definition devised in 1951 to deal with a situation which pertained then and which was highly influenced by the conditions of the Cold War should be relevant today in a totally different situation. The Cold War has gone, and we need to look at the problem of refugees to which the right reverend Prelate referred so eloquently, which is a genuine humanitarian task which this country has to face together with other countries of the world.
I believe that this amendment attempts to address that in a way that the Bill as at present drafted does not. I think we should discover the feelings of the Committee on this matter.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 178.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Adrian, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Banks, L.

Eatwell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Birk, B.

Falkender, B.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Fitt, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Foot, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bridges, L.

Galpern, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Geraint, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Grey, E.

Butterfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Healey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollick, L.

553

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Richard, L.

Hylton, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Jay, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jeger, B.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Roskill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Russell, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kennet, L.

Schon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Shackleton, L.

Longford, E.

Shannon, E.

McCarthy, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stallard, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

Whaddon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wharton, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Colnbrook, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Alport, L.

Cranborne, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cranworth, L.

Croham, L.

Arran, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davidson, V.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L.

Barber, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Derwent, L.

Beloff, L.

Downshire, M.

Belstead, L.

Elibank, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Blake, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blanch, L.

Faithfull, B.

Blatch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Blyth, L.

Flather, B.

Boardman, L.

Forbes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Geddes, L.

Brentford, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Gisborough, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Goold, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goschen, V.

Burton, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gridley, L.

Cadman, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Caithness, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Caldecote, V.

Haddington, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Carnock, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Harvington, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hemphill, L.

Chilver, L.

Henley, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Hives, L.

Coleraine, L.

Holderness, L.

554

Hood, V.

Prentice, L.

Howe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Huntly, M.

Reay, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Renton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renwick, L.

Joseph, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Knollys, V.

Romney, E.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

Liverpool, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lyell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Slim, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Spens, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stewartby, L.

Margadale, L.

Stockton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marsh, L.

Strafford, E.

Merrivale, L.

Strange, B.

Mersey, V.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinton, E.

Mountevans, L.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teviot, L.

Munster, E.

Teynham, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V.

Onslow, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Vinson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vivian, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Palmer, L.

Wakeham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Waterford, M.

Peel, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wolfson, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wynford, L.

Porritt, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 5 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Primacy of Convention]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In accordance with the Instruction agreed to by the House earlier today, the Committee will now consider Amendments Nos. 71 to 86 on page 12 of the Marshalled List. I therefore call Amendment No. 71.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 71:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  Schedule IMMIGRATION RULES Asylum
  1. A person subject to immigration control may seek to enter or prolong his stay in the United Kingdom by applying for asylum as a refugee or may otherwise indicate a fear of being required to return to his country of origin or habitual residence. All such cases are referred to in these rules as

  555
  "asylum applications". An asylum application made by a person at a port or airport in the United Kingdom will be referred by the Immigration Officer to the Home Office. All asylum applications will be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Until such a case has been determined by the Secretary of State no action will be taken to require the person's departure from the United Kingdom.
  2. A person will be granted asylum in the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

  (a) he is in the United Kingdom or has arrived at a port of entry in the United Kingdom; and

  (b) he is a refugee, as defined by the Convention and Protocol; and

  (c) refusing his application would result in his being required to go (whether immediately or after the time limited by an existing leave to enter or remain), in breach of the Convention and Protocol, to a country in which his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

  An application which does not meet these criteria will be refused. The Secretary of State may decide not to consider the substance of a person's claim to refugee status if he is satisfied that the person's removal to a third country would be consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations. More details are given in paragraph 11.
  Grant of asylum
  3. If the Secretary of State decides to grant asylum and the person has not yet been given leave to enter the Immigration Officer will grant limited leave to enter; if leave to enter has been granted (whether or not the leave has expired) or where a person has entered without leave the Secretary of State will vary the existing leave or grant limited leave to remain.
  Refusal of asylum
  4. If a person seeking leave to enter is refused asylum the Immigration Officer will then resume his examination to determine whether or not to grant him leave to enter under any other provision of the Immigration Rules. If a person who has been refused leave to enter applies for asylum and that application is refused, leave to enter will again be refused and removal will proceed, provided that the applicant remains ineligible for admission under the Immigration Rules.
  5. When a person in the United Kingdom is notified that asylum has been refused he may at the same time be notified of removal directions or served with a notice of intention to deport, as appropriate. When a person with limited leave is refused asylum the leave may be curtailed if he does not meet the requirements of the rules under which leave was granted. Before any decision to deport is reached, full account will be taken of all the relevant circumstances known to the Secretary of State, including those listed in paragraph [164 of the Immigration Rules HC 251].
  Consideration of cases
  6. A failure, without reasonable explanation, to make a prompt and full disclosure of material factors, either orally or in writing, or otherwise to assist the Secretary of State to the full in establishing the facts of the case may lead to refusal. This includes failure to comply with a notice issued by the Secretary of State requiring the applicant to report to a designated place to be fingerprinted, or failure to complete an asylum questionnaire, or failure to comply with a request to attend an interview concerning the application.
  7. In determining an asylum application the Secretary of State will have regard to matters, which if no reasonable explanation is adduced, may damage an asylum applicant's credibility. Among such matter are:

  —that the applicant has failed to apply forthwith upon arrival in the United Kingdom, unless the application is founded on events which have taken place since his arrival in the United Kingdom;

  —that the applicant has made false representations, either orally or in writing;

  556

  —that the applicant has destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim;

  —that the applicant has undertaken any activities in the United Kingdom before or after lodging his application which are inconsistent with his previous beliefs and behaviour and calculated to create or substantially enhance his claim to refugee status;

  —that the applicant has lodged concurrent applications for asylum in the United Kingdom or in another country.

  If the Secretary of State concludes for these or any other reasons that an asylum applicant's account is not credible, the application will be refused.
  8. The actions of anyone acting as an agent of the asylum applicant may also be taken into account in regard to the matters set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.
  9. If there is a part of the country from which the applicant claims to be a refugee in which he would not have a well-founded fear of persecution, and to which it would be reasonable to expect him to go, the application may be refused.
  10. Cases will normally be considered on an individual basis but if an applicant is part of a group whose claims are clearly not related to the criteria for refugee status in the Convention and Protocol he may be refused without examination of his individual claim. However, the Secretary of State will have regard to any evidence produced by an individual to show that his claim to refugee status should be distinguished from those of the rest of the group.
  Third country cases
  11. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a safe country to which an asylum applicant can be sent his application will normally be refused without substantive consideration of his claim to refugee status. A safe country is one in which the life or freedom of the asylum applicant would not be threatened (within the meaning of Article 33 of the Convention) and the government of which would not send the applicant elsewhere in a manner contrary to the principles of the Convention and Protocol. The Secretary of State shall not remove an asylum applicant without substantive consideration of his claim unless:

  a. the asylum applicant has not arrived in the United Kingdom directly from the country in which he claims to fear persecution and has had an opportunity, at the border or within the territory or a third country, to make contact with that country's authorities in order to seek their protection; or

  b. there is other clear evidence of his admissibility to a third country.

  Provided that he is satisfied that a case meets these criteria, the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consult the authorities of the third country before the removal of an asylum applicant.
  12. In any case where it appears that an asylum applicant could be sent to a third country under the terms of paragraph 11 the Secretary of State may nevertheless decide exceptionally to consider his claim to refugee status substantively.
  Previously rejected applications
  13. When an asylum applicant has previously been refused asylum in the United Kingdom and can demonstrate no relevant and substantial change in his circumstances since that date his application will be refused.
  14. When an asylum applicant has come to the United Kingdom from another country which is a party to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its Protocol and which has considered and rejected an application for asylum from him, his application for asylum in the United Kingdom may be refused without substantive consideration of his claim to refugee status. He may be removed to that country, or another country meeting the criteria of paragraph 11, and invited to raise any new circumstances with the authorities of the country which originally considered his application.
  Rights of appeal
  15. Where asylum is refused the applicant will be provided with a notice informing him of the decision and of the reasons for refusal. The applicant will be given a copy of any interview notes and any other documents referred to in the refusal decision. At the same time that asylum is refused the applicant may be notified of removal directions or served with a notice of intention to deport, as appropriate. The notice of refusal of asylum will also explain any rights of appeal available to the applicant and will inform him of the means by which he may exercise those rights.").
  The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I introduce my remarks on Amendment No. 71 not only by repeating my thanks to the Government for the Instruction that they put down earlier this afternoon but also by explaining the purpose of the amendment, the amendments to it in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and subsequently Amendment No. 90 that introduces a new schedule on procedure rules. As will be obvious, we have consulted very widely on the Bill. We have consulted those who are concerned not only with the welfare of immigrants and asylum seekers but those organisations concerned with the application of the law in matters of asylum and immigration. We have consulted organisations such as Justice and the Law Society who are concerned with the application of the law in general. The view almost universally expressed to us is that this Bill—which after all is quite a short, clear Bill—is not adequate for the parliamentary scrutiny that it deserves because the real meat of the Bill is not contained on its face. The real meat comes first in the Immigration Rules, which are an administrative matter and do not come before Parliament at all, and, secondly, in the procedure rules, which are the subject of the negative instrument procedure and will be laid by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  When one reads the Committee stage proceedings in another place—it is not a practice that one readily recommends to anyone who does not have to do it —one realises that honourable Members in considering these matters had great difficulty in getting at the guts of the subject about which they wished to speak. As I said, the meat of what ought to be in the Bill is not there. What we have done is to table in Amendments Nos. 71 and 90 the draft Immigration Rules as they presently exist and the rules for procedure. The purpose is to illustrate the extent to which, in our view, the rules conflict with the 1951 convention and the other conventions which your Lordships have agreed not to write into the Bill. What we then propose to do with Amendments Nos. 71 to 86 is to illustrate point by point those matters in the Immigration Rules which in our view conflict with the convention and with what we wish to see in Immigration Rules applied under the Bill.
  I appreciate the concern that may be felt at the risk of lengthening a Bill by amendments such as these. I see the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his place. If the amendments are accepted the Bill will probably be doubled in length, but I believe that that is a price worth paying if it subjects to parliamentary scrutiny
  558
  the very important ways in which in practice immigration officers determine applications from refugees or, as the Bill puts it, asylum seekers.
  The concerns are probably best expressed by the Refugee Legal Centre, formerly the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the body that the Government propose should be responsible for handling appeals from asylum seekers. The centre has expressed the view that many of the rules are inconsistent with the convention and that if they are not subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny and if some of the fundamental flaws are not addressed the new system will be beset with problems from the day that the legislation comes into force. It has also expressed the view that the decision-making criteria in the rules appear to be closely modelled on those contained in the resolution of the European Community Ministers of 30th November 1992 on manifestly unfounded claims. They are so widely drawn that they have attracted criticism from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as well as from Amnesty International. Both believe that many genuine refugees will have their claims deemed manifestly unfounded and therefore excluded from any serious consideration without there being adequate investigation of substantive claims. The Refugee Legal Centre has expressed the view that the tight deadlines and expedited procedures will need to be counterbalanced by strong procedural safeguards that should be guaranteed by the Immigration Rules. That is partly a matter for the Immigration Rules and partly for the rules of procedure that we will be debating later in the Committee proceedings.
  The clear view of all expert witnesses—those involved in the implementation of the law and in the representation of asylum seekers—is that these matters should be debated in Parliament. We have adopted this procedure for doing so. I invite the Committee at this stage to accept that we move on to consider the amendments to the amendment. When those amendments have been disposed of we can return to consider the draft asylum rules as a new schedule to the Bill in a form which, I hope, we will be prepared to put formally to the decision of the Committee. I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 72, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 73:
  In paragraph 1, after ("Refugees") insert ("the United Nations Convention against Torture, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention of Human Rights.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 73, it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with it Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77. I can take this group of amendments quite shortly because we have already discussed in relation to the Bill many of the issues that are germane. We are now dealing with the practice; it is the practice that matters for the reasons that my noble friend Lord McIntosh outlined. We say that the purpose of the amendments is to cause the rules to come into line with the

  559
  principles adumbrated before; otherwise, if we do not discuss these matters now we will not have an opportunity to discuss them. Our concern is that as far as the practice is concerned for those considered to be at risk there should be full and proper protection. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: At this stage I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 73, 76 and 77 only. With deep respect, I should have thought that the amendments should be regarded as being out of order, because the Committee has already made a decision on the reference to "convention" in Clause 1, and schedules to a Bill have to be consistent with what has gone previously in the clauses. If in the schedule we are going to add to Clause 1 in the way the Committee has recently decided, after a Division, not to act, then it could not be right to try to bring in the same issue as an amendment to a schedule. I know that in this place we do not have the same strict rules of procedure or the same great discretion given to the Chair—I address my remarks to the Deputy Chairman—and so, in view of the decision taken on Clause 1 by the Committee, I should have thought that the amendment to the first schedule should not be made.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I be clear about what the noble Lord is saying? Is he referring to Amendment No. 73 only or to all the amendments to Amendment No. 71?
  Lord Renton: I started by saying that I was speaking only to Amendments Nos. 73, 76 and 77, which have just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as amendments to the new schedule.
  Earl Ferrers: I was going to say only that I had assumed that the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, moving Amendment No. 71 was to give us an opportunity to discuss the draft asylum rules. He explained that that was what he wanted to do. I do not believe that many people would seriously propose that the practical and administrative points covered by the rules should be included in primary legislation. The asylum rules will form part of the Immigration Rules made under the 1971 Act. Those rules and any subsequent changes to them will be laid before Parliament and can be debated. It is only to be expected in any matter such as this that changes to procedures will be required from time to time—for example, whether to impose or remove a visa requirement.
  Our present system sensibly allows us an opportunity to discuss important issues while enabling administrative changes to be made relatively easily and quickly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not have any intention of voting on the amendment and so including in the Bill a regime which would become totally inflexible and which would normally, and rightly, be outside the statute, so that it could be adjusted from time to time and be subject to parliamentary consideration.
  If the noble Lord were to try to put the amendment into the Bill, I would advise the Committee to reject it.
  560
  I think that the noble Lord wishes to use the amendment as a vehicle for discussing the asylum rules by which officials will operate the Bill's provisions which the Committee is discussing. I should have no objection to doing that. The Government have published the rules and sought comment upon them. If the Committee wishes to comment upon them under the guise of this and subsequent amendments, that is fine.
  I come now to the point made on Amendments Nos. 73, 75, 76 and 77 by my noble friend Lord Renton. He said that the principle had already been decided by the Committee and it might therefore be —I use the word loosely—improper for that matter to be put to the Committee for a second decision. Of course it is correct and reasonable to discuss the issue. All I would say is that I made the Government's position clear on the first amendment, upon which we had a Division. The remarks I made then apply equally now.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As always, the Minister is seeking to help the Committee in its consideration of these matters. I am grateful to him for what he has said. He is right when he says that our primary purpose is to see that the Immigration Rules which exist and which the Government have publicised do not conflict with the general obligation set out in Clause 2. That is the thrust of the bulk of our amendments. The intention of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is to ensure that the Immigration Rules do not conflict with Clause 2. We claim that there is a contradiction in how the Bill is to be operated, if not on the face of the Bill.
  This is the Committee stage. As to whether we divide on Amendment No. 71, if it is our view that the conflict between the rules and the convention is so great that it is necessary to insert the amendments into the legislation and leave to the Government the problem of reinserting a degree of flexibility, then we may do so. I make no promises one way or another.
  As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the four amendments in the group, I recognise the validity of the point he makes: that these amendments, although none of the others, relate to matters which have already been decided upon Division, and it might be better if my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis were to see fit, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: It has been worthwhile putting the amendments before the Committee because there is a distinction to be drawn between the rules which will be operated by immigration officers and the definition of "asylum" in Clauses 1 and 2. It is important to distinguish between the rules which, as the Minister has said, come before this place for debate but which cannot be amended by Parliament, and, by convention, are not rejected by this place. So this is a proper device in order to bring these matters forward. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will probably withdraw the amendment, and I support that. Nevertheless, there is a

  561
  distinction to be drawn between the point that was made before in relation to the definition of "asylum" on the face of the Bill and matters relating to conventions in the operation of the rules. It is interesting to note that the Government will apparently draw up rules which make no reference to those other conventions, but which are rules that will have to be operated by immigration officers at our ports of entry.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The position is slightly worse than the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggests, because Immigration Rules do not come before Parliament in any form. The procedure rules would come under negative resolution, but the Immigration Rules which are the subject of Amendment No. 71 have no parliamentary status.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is the Immigration Rules as much as the Bill itself which arouse such anxiety. There is a sense of frustration that the Immigration Rules are beyond debate. This may be a device to enable us to debate them. It is important that we should be able to do so, not just because, as we glance at them, it seems prima facie that some of them are hardly fair or just, but because they are at odds with Clause 2, which asserts the primacy of the convention. It is that difference between Clause 2 and the Immigration Rules which is causing us such difficulty, as we shall illustrate when we come to debate some of the amendments to the rules themselves. I am glad that we are able to debate the issue. It enables us to express our grave disquiet about the way in which the rules have been framed; that is, in a narrow spirit and at odds with the spirit of Clause 2 of the Bill.
  Lord Hylton: If the amendments that we are discussing were to be accepted flexibility would remain. I say that because under another part of the Bill the Secretary of State will retain his rule-making power. That disposes of the immediate question of flexibility. The advantage of accepting the amendment means that at a later stage the text of the rules can be amended in this Chamber.
  Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may clarify one or two points because there appears to be a slight element of confusion. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the rules do not come before Parliament. Actually they do; they are presented in a Command Paper. That is presented to Parliament and can be Prayed against. Therefore, Parliament can have the opportunity of discussing the rules. Admittedly, the Prayer is either accepted or rejected, but the rules come before Parliament in the form of a Command Paper.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that it is right to consider the matter because the rules are different from the definition of "asylum" with which we dealt in the first amendment. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord because the rules operate only under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, if the Act defines "asylum" in a certain way, the rules will operate
  562
  according to the Act. The suggestion that they are two separate items is not correct because the rules depend upon the Act.
  I return to what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not wish to make too much of the issue; your Lordships' procedures are fairly lax and it is reasonable to discuss the matter. I believe that, procedurally, we should be wrong to vote upon the amendment because the decision was taken in relation to the first amendment, which dealt with the same issue.
  Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may make a slight correction. The noble Earl said that the Prayer can be voted against. Of course, there is in this Chamber a convention that Members do not vote on Prayers but we may debate them. Members in another place may well vote on Prayers, but that is not the case in this Chamber.
  Lord Renton: We are being asked to do in primary legislation—albeit in a schedule and not in a clause —what we have previously done as a matter of secondary legislation but of a kind which must be laid before Parliament. There are two advantages in secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, anticipated what I believe. The first advantage is that it saves putting a great deal of detail into primary legislation. The second is that the Immigration Rules—for whose administration I was once responsible—need to be considered in the light of changing circumstances. The circumstances in which they have to be administered might require them to be amended from time to time. For such amendment to be made the subject of primary legislation each time could cause delays when that should not be the case and could create an added burden for Parliament and be quite unnecessary.
  I believe that it is far better for us to adhere to the practice which has been built up since 1971—that is, more than 20 years—of having the rules made by the Secretary of State and requiring them to be laid before Parliament. I am sure that that is the best way. Alas, the new schedule would alter that procedure.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The House has already set up a Select Committee on delegated legislation. I was afraid that it might not have enough to do so I thought that I would provoke the noble Lord, Lord Renton, into speaking his words of wisdom. The committee can then consider them in considering its terms of reference.
  Lord Renton: Under the noble Lord's amendment the rules would cease to be delegated legislation. This legislation would be primary legislation and that committee would not have the power to consider it.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a salient and reasonable intervention and I accept the force of his arguments. Nevertheless, I thought that he was out to spoil my day. I could not have forgiven him for that because I have a host of other amendments to move. There appear to be a number of important points relating to the principle that we are discussing, apart from the issues raised in

  563
  the specific amendments under debate. The first is that we would have no opportunity in any debate to amend what might be unfounded and unjust rules. The main reason for our dealing with the matter in this way—I readily agree that the procedure is somewhat arcane —is to put under scrutiny that which by virtue of the rules we would not normally he able properly to scrutinise.
  Moreover, if the Committee were to declare itself in a particular way on some or any of the amendments, the Government might be induced to recognise that the rules must be changed. Therefore, the exercise is valuable from that point of view. However, my noble friend Lord McIntosh leads on these matters and if he says that I should withdraw the amendments, of course I shall do so. In fact, I was thinking of doing so before he prompted me. The debate has put into perspective the issues that we shall discuss later, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment to Amendment No. 71, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 74, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 75 to 77, as amendments to Amendment No. 71, not moved.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 78:
  In paragraph 2, leave out from ("An application") to end of paragraph.
  The noble Lord said: In tabling the amendment we seek to address the issue of the mandatory refusals of applications which do not fall within the criteria. Exceptional leave to remain is a doctrine which falls outside the Immigration Rules and it has always been accepted on that basis. As a result of our debate on Second Reading and debates in another place, it is clear that the Government are not concerned about providing proper protection but they are concerned about the numbers. That is our contention, but no doubt the Minister will disagree.
  I agree with what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter; grants of exceptional leave to remain are likely to be significantly reduced and applications which otherwise indicate a fear could fall into the typical class of an ELR application. That is categorised as an asylum application, to be refused only on the basis that it does not meet the rest of the criteria.
  I believe that a refusal along those lines could indicate that we are coming to the end of ELR. That is also the view of many people who are concerned with the day-to-day application of the rules. That is a point which the Minister needs to address, because I am sure that this point has been made repeatedly in representations to him and his colleagues. The anxieties which have been expressed by the bodies dealing with refugee matters and ELR—the two are intimately connected—need to be assuaged, if they are capable of being assuaged.
  This point needs to be addressed. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say about the matter. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: I support the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Again, we are quite close to the heart of how the Bill will work in practice and we return to the question of what is the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent abuse. The interpretation of this clause becomes more serious if the purpose of the Bill is what I have described it as being—namely, to lay down rules under which people might justifiably claim the status of refugee and claim asylum in this country.
  If, as has been suggested in some quarters, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the numbers, once more we must look at the matter in a more sceptical light. That is what I fear it is. That is why the whole position of exceptional leave to remain is so important. I suspect that it will be discussed again and again during the course of this Committee stage. I hope that the noble Earl will confront the issue fairly and squarely. The passage which we wish to omit calls for mandatory refusal of applications that do not meet the criteria. That may well have the effect which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggests. Therefore, as he did, I look forward with interest to hearing the interpretation which the noble Earl puts upon those words.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to comment on that part of the rules which refers to the Secretary of State's discretion to remove a person to a third country if he is satisfied that that would be consistent with the UK's international obligations.
  I see a difficulty in that regard. Article 33 of the Geneva Convention prohibits removal to a country where a person will be at any risk of persecution or at risk of onward removal. In the rules there is no indication of the criteria by which the Secretary of State will satisfy himself as to the situation of a third country or, indeed, whether there is any risk of somebody who is removed to that third country being "onward removed" to a country where he is at risk. My chief anxiety is as regards that removal to a third country.
  Lord Renton: As my noble friend Lord Ferrers is against the schedule, would it not save time if, instead of pressing him to comment on the various amendments moved to it, we were to leave any discussion on those amendments between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and those who have moved the amendments to his new schedule? That may save time and save my noble friend Lord Ferrers a certain amount of trouble.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: We are not necessarily interested in saving the time of the noble Earl, although I am sure that it is invaluable. We wish to save from injustice people who seek asylum upon whom injustice may fall. With respect, I should have thought that that was a rather more cogent point.
  It is only by addressing the points one by one in the way that we have that we are likely to receive a meaningful answer. Otherwise, we may become caught up in a general debate about these issues and points may be lost. That is the sort of thing which

  565
  happens on Second Reading. Although I always value any point of view expressed by the noble Lord —I did so in another place when I was there with him—I disagree with him about this suggestion. I do not believe that it would be conducive to the interests of the Committee if we were to proceed along that route nor do I believe that it would be in the interests of those whose applications must fall to the authorities to he dealt with.
  Lord Hylton: It is a sad fact that four or five years ago the majority of people arriving in Britain and seeking asylum were given full refugee status. Since then, it has become the practice to give more and more people exceptional leave to remain and fewer and fewer people full refugee rights.
  That has dramatic consequences for the people concerned. Once they have been given ELR it means that they cannot bring in their wives, children and immediate dependants. That has been clearly shown in the case of those Kurds from Eastern Turkey who arrived in this country in large numbers in 1989 and in somewhat smaller numbers since that time. Most of them were not given full refugee status. However, the Secretary of State was sufficiently impressed by their cases to give them exceptional leave. He thought that it would be dangerous to send them back to Turkey. However, he seems to have failed to take into account the circumstances of their wives, children and close dependants, who were and still are subject to police harassment and deprivations of all kinds caused to them by the authorities. Those families remain divided.
  At present there is a hunger strike taking place close to the Home Office building to protest about the status that people are given and the consequences for them. I urge the Government to have second thoughts about this whole matter.
  Earl Ferrers: First, I express my deep gratitude to my noble friend Lord Renton for his courteous anxiety that I should not have any more work to do than is necessary. I value that. I hope that he will continue to exercise his mind in that direction and I invite Members of the Committee opposite to do the same. That would be extremely helpful.
  I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that it would be wrong, for the reasons which were explained earlier, to put the rules into the Bill. These are administrative matters which are dealt with better in secondary rather than primary legislation. If dealt with in primary legislation, they are inflexible.
  Having said that, I realise that Members of the Committee opposite wish to ask the Government various questions about the rules. We published the rules and we have said that we are happy for them to be considered. If this is a vehicle by which that can be done, it satisfies a public desire.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, refers to various people who sit outside the Home Office. He says that their rights should be considered. The right reverend Prelate was also anxious about that. We are implementing what are internationally agreed rules;
  566
  that is, the determination of who is a refugee. I return to the point that that is qualified by the United Nations Convention on Refugees.
  Having defined what is a refugee, you then have to work out how you are going to deal with that person and the other applicants who come into this country who may seek asylum but who may be determined not to be true refugees.
  The point about the amendment is quite simple and it is a matter about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon is anxious. The best way to help him is to explain what might happen. A person might come from another country and might come to England having travelled via a safe third country. According to international convention one only takes a refugee in when he has come from a country where it is considered he is in danger. It is an accepted convention that a person only has the right of asylum in the first country to which he goes. He cannot therefore pick and choose. He cannot go to France, for example, and then decide to come to England because he thinks England might be better.
  The rules are quite clear. If a person comes from a safe third country, he has to be returned to that safe third country. That principle is accepted by all countries that are parties to the United Nations convention. If this amendment were to be applied, it would mean that we would be obliged to accept anyone who had come, from a country, admittedly one where he was being persecuted or enduring other suffering, but who had then gone to a safe third country, for example France, before coming to England. The rules are perfectly clear and the convention is perfectly clear. People are not accepted when they have come from safe third countries. Asylum seekers are only accepted when they have come from their country of origin.
  Baroness Seear: I ask this question merely for information. Does this really mean that if someone has merely stopped over as it were, for example in Austria—I understand huge numbers of refugees have gone there—while fleeing a country where he has been in great danger, he must stay in Austria indefinitely and he has no rights to go elsewhere? That is extremely hard on Austria apart from anything else. Is that really correct?
  Lord Bonham-Carter: I hope I may add to those comments. I am informed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees with reference to another clause in this Bill that,
  "The rules embodied in paragraph 11 appear to be based on the assumption that there is an international principle whereby a person who has left his country in order to escape persecution must apply for asylum in the first safe country he has been able to reach. It should however be pointed out that no such international principle exists".
  I do not know whether the High Commission is right, but it appears to speak with some authority on this matter.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I make a further point in relation to this matter. I could envisage circumstances in which a person leaves one country, for example, passes through another country and ends up in the UK. He or she may have roots in this country; for

  567
  example he may have friends in this country or a community with which he or she is in touch. England in that case would be the natural country in which that person's claim is considered. The fact that a stop-over or a pause has been made in another country does not seem to me to be sufficient reason for the UK to deny the determination of such a claim to remain here.
  Earl Ferrers: The right reverend Prelate says that a person may leave a country because he is in fear, go to another country and stop over there and then come to Britain, for example, because he has friends here. If one is seeking asylum one does so because one wants to leave one's country of origin because one is being persecuted there. The principle is that it is the first country one enters which has the obligation to accept one as a person seeking asylum. The right reverend Prelate says in a most charming way that if someone has some friends in England he may prefer to seek asylum there. One cannot operate a world-wide asylum system by allowing people to choose the country to which they go.
  The matter that concerns the right reverend Prelate would be covered under the principle of exceptional leave to remain. If a person were to ask for asylum in this country and were told he could not be granted asylum because he had already gone through a safe third country, it may be that under certain circumstances, perhaps because the person concerned had connections with this country, an immigration officer may decide to grant that person exceptional leave to remain. However, that is different from giving such a person a categorical legal right merely because he is an asylum seeker. On that basis alone such a person, having passed through a safe third country, would not have the right to remain.
  The Earl of Onslow: I hope that my noble friend can help me on this matter. What happens if someone arrives, say from Croatia, and he has stopped a fortnight in Austria on the way and we tell him that he is not entitled to asylum here and therefore he must go back to Austria? Do the Austrians have to accept that person or does that person remain in perpetual motion travelling from Vienna to London and back again?
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I have tried to explain that if a person leaves a country and goes to another country and sits like a bumble bee in that country for a fortnight he cannot then move to another country and then demand asylum. He is obliged to accept asylum in the country to which he goes when he leaves his own country. One cannot run a system which permits people to hop around the world and choose the country where they wish to claim asylum.
  The Earl of Onslow: I am in total agreement with the Government on this point. I am merely asking for my own information what happens if a chap arrives here from a previous safe country and he is not allowed to remain here. Can we send him back to the
  568
  previous safe country? What physically happens to him? I ask this question for information. As I have said, I totally agree with my noble friend on this point.
  Earl Ferrers: I can only tell my noble friend that each case has to be considered on its own merits. It would be invidious of me to say what would happen in a particular case when I do not know the conditions of that particular case. If a person comes here seeking asylum and he does not qualify for it, but nevertheless there are extraneous circumstances, he might well be given exceptional leave to remain. The view of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is that European Community member states' acceptance of the Dublin Convention and the resolution of the host third countries shows that there is an internationally accepted principle here. The convention forbids a return to a country where a person's life or freedom would be threatened. That is the principle under which we operate and that is one of the reasons why we accepted the Dublin Convention. No doubt we shall discuss that convention later. The United Kingdom is a signatory to that convention. It provides a clear route in this matter.
  Lord Mishcon: I hope that the noble Earl will kindly help me on rather a different issue on this amendment. My suggestion is that the paragraph which the amendment seeks to remove from the Immigration Rules is completely unnecessary in any event. I invite the Committee to consider paragraph 2 which states:
  "A person will be granted asylum in the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State is satisfied that",
  the three conditions that are mentioned in the paragraph are met. The first condition is that the person,
  "is in the United Kingdom or has arrived at a port of entry in the United Kingdom".
  He has to satisfy the authorities that that is the situation. Secondly, he has to satisfy the authorities that,
  "he is a refugee, as defined by the Convention and Protocol".
  Therefore a necessary condition of his being granted asylum is that he is found to be a refugee within the convention. The third condition of his being granted asylum is that if the Secretary of State were to refuse his application the person would be returned to a country, wherever that may be, where he would be persecuted. I hope that I may paraphrase the condition printed in the Marshalled List.
  If those three conditions have to be satisfied for asylum to be granted, will somebody kindly tell me —I look to the noble Earl to do so—why one needs the additional statement that,
  "The Secretary of State may decide not to consider the substance of a person's claim to refugee status if he is satisfied that the person's removal to a third country would be consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations"?
  That condition already appears under heading (c). The following statement adds nothing at all. If an applicant has to satisfy all those three conditions, would someone explain to me—I say this with all humility—why the final statement is necessary in any event?
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sought help and invited me to provide it. I shall do my best to assist the noble Lord. It is curious for one such as myself to be in the position of helping an eminent lawyer such as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I am happy to have a shot.
  If the noble Lord looks at paragraph 2 he will see that it reads:
  "A person will be granted asylum in the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State is satisfied that".
  Certain conditions are then listed. However, at the end of the paragraph it is stated that he does not even have to consider the substance of the claim if the person has come from a third country. That is what is meant by the words,
  "if he is satisfied that the person's removal to a third country would be consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations".
  One of those international obligations is that one does not accept a person from a safe third country. Therefore, if someone has come from a safe third country the asylum officer dealing with the case can say that that particular man has no case. He would not even have to consider the substance because that person had already come from a safe third country.
  Lord Mishcon: I acknowledge the noble Earl's courteous description of me. I invite him to repeat it as often as he wishes. However, although that was a very polite answer, it was not by any means a relevant answer.
  If the paragraph said that the substance need not be considered should the refugee applicant have come from another country which was safe, I would understand the noble Earl's reply. It says no such thing. It says that the Secretary of State need not consider the substance of a person's claim to refugee status if he is satisfied that the removal of that person from this country to a third country —not the arrival here from a third country—would be consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligation. As I read that paragraph—and I may be incorrect in my interpretation—it means that where the Secretary of State is satisfied that removal to a third country would be consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations—for example, removal to France, which the Secretary of State knew happened to have vacancies at that time for refugees—he could say that there was no point in his looking into the three conditions, namely, that the man was a refugee and had arrived in the United Kingdom and so on. He could say to that person that he had made arrangements with his opposite number in France and the man could go to France. That is what it means. It has nothing to do with the country from which the person comes. It relates to the country to which the refugee may go.
  I find it extremely difficult to understand, first, the paragraph in relation to the Minster's explanation of it, and, secondly, why it is necessary in any event in view of the three conditions which have to be satisfied and which are set out in paragraph 2. Obviously, I am anxious not to waste the time of the Committee if my point is not of substance, but it appears to me that one of the arguments for agreeing to the amendment is that the last paragraph is not necessary in any event.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would never waste the time of any Committee because his points are always of interest. He will also realise that the rules are drawn up to be interpreted and understood by people whose speciality lies in many directions but may not lie in the same direction of legal finickiness, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The paragraph is included as a matter of clarity. It says that an application which does not meet those criteria will be refused. It then goes on to say that more details are given in paragraph 11. The person reading that can then look at paragraph 11.
  The noble Lord shakes his head. I am not succeeding in convincing him. I am merely trying to tell the noble Lord, that, as I understand it, the paragraph indicates that where a person comes to this country from a third safe country he can be sent back. I see that I have not convinced the noble Lord. Perhaps the best that I can do is to take clearer advice and write to the noble Lord. I can assure him that if he is not satisfied by that he will not be satisfied by anything.
  Lord Mishcon: Any chance of receiving a letter from the noble Earl is very welcome.
  Lord Tordoff: If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reads paragraph 11 he will see that his suggestion that the Secretary of State, or whoever it might be, may have been in touch with a third country is not necessarily the case. That paragraph states specifically that:
  "Provided that he is satisfied that a case meets these criteria, the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consult the authorities of the third country before the removal of an asylum applicant".
  That makes the case worse rather than better.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If we needed any evidence as to the necessity of the procedures which we have adopted of tabling the schedule for debate and then considering amendments to it, this debate has proved that we were right to do so. We have shown, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon in particular has shown, that the Immigration Rules are badly drafted. They contain cross-references which in themselves contain contradictions. We have also shown that the Minister does not understand them. The Minister in his response, in which he made a blanket statement that no applicants coming from third safe countries will be accepted, has shown that he does not understand the complexity of the wording of his own rules.
  If the Minister were right and we had never accepted applicants coming from safe third countries, then we would have no asylum applications whatever. There are no direct flights from Mogadishu; there are no direct flights from Adana in eastern Turkey or Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq; there are no direct flights from northern Sri Lanka. If there were there would have had to be very complex arrangements for visas to be issued in those places in the first place before people could be allowed on planes subject to the carriers' liabilities conditions of this very Bill.

  571
  I grant that the rules seek to find a way of dealing with applicants who come from third safe countries. We have a Minister who asserts that they do not do so.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is running away with himself. I did not say that we do not do so. I tried to explain to the noble Lord that there is an obligation under law concerning people who seek asylum. One can send them back to safe third countries but one does not have to send them back. If one does not send them back one gives them exceptional leave to remain.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said very generously that I do not understand the rules. That was a little extreme, even for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have understood the rules perfectly clearly. What I tried to do was to explain to noble Lords opposite what they are. Perhaps I failed to do so.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may be allowed to rephrase my remarks. I certainly do not wish to give offence to the Minister for whom I have a great deal of respect. He has brought out into the open the inadequacy of the draft Immigration Rules. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis seeks to deal with one particular inadequacy of the drafting. I, as the mover of the original amendment, would be happy to accept his amendment to my own.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: This short debate has yielded some interesting points, not least the inexorable logic of my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I was not his articled clerk for nothing. I would not say that my noble friend has shown the Minister not to understand all the rules. That would be fantasy. The Minister has indicated to the Committee that he wishes to think about the explanation that he has given. He is rightly concerned that he has not persuaded us as to why the paragraph should remain.
  It is not enough, however nice it may be for my noble friend Lord Mishcon to receive his missive, that it should be confined to the two of them. The issue goes wider than that. The public have a right to know. I hope that it will not be just a piece of confidential information passing between the two of them, however elegant the correspondence may be.
  In a later debate we shall return to the subject of international obligations, raised by the noble Earl. I question the point raised in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The UNHCR has not added the qualification to the basic point that it makes. However, we shall return to the issue later; I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee now.
  I wish to raise a point on the legal pernicketiness on the part of my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I do not believe that it is the case. We are anxious that the rules should be comprehensible. If they are open to ambiguity—it is plain that they are because the noble Earl indicated that he would take advice and return to the point in one way or another—that is not legal pernicketiness. People who are seriously affected by the rules must understand them, as those advising on such matters must understand the rules. If someone
  572
  with the legal experience of my noble friend has difficulty in understanding the point, I am sure that it is a matter which should exercise us all.
  I do not propose to take the matter any further. My noble friend has indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment. I am grateful. I find it surprising that he is so generous. I accept what he has said immediately.
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 79, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 80:
  In paragraph 4, line 7, leave out ("under the Immigration Rules.").
  The noble Lord said: As drafted, the rule impairs the discretion to admit entry outside the rules. It abolishes the possibility of exceptional leave to remain being granted. Therefore that provides an inconsistency in itself. In the amendment we seek to ensure that the discretion to grant exceptional leave to remain stays. I beg to move.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: In dealing with the last amendment, the noble Earl did not confront the question of whether or not the inevitable consequence of the Bill is to reduce the numbers granted exceptional leave to remain. The amendment moves in the same direction. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will tackle the point. It is the view of many people on reading the Bill that one of its functions is to reduce the numbers of people who are granted exceptional leave to remain in this country. With all its disadvantages—the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to them—it has been a safety net for a large number of people.
  Earl Ferrers: Let us deal with that point first. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid abuse. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, believes that there is no abuse to the system. The result of that abuse is that the system becomes clogged. One of the results of clogging-up the system is that some people are given exceptional leave to remain. It is not the purpose of the Bill to cut down the number of people who are given exceptional leave to remain, but that may well be one of the results. If the result of the Bill is expedition of people's claims for asylum and for immigration, and such claim is satisfied in one way or another more quickly, then the number of cases granted exceptional leave to remain is likely to be fewer.
  Amendment No. 80 omits the reference to the Immigration Rules. I believe that there is a misunderstanding. The person who is refused asylum will automatically have his circumstances examined to see whether he can nevertheless be allowed to enter the country on an exceptional basis—in other words whether he can be granted exceptional leave to remain. Exceptional leave, by its very definition, is outside the Immigration Rules, and is therefore not

  573
  referred to in paragraph 4. Where the applicant who has no leave to enter is refused asylum, and there is no case for exceptional treatment, he will be further examined to see whether he can qualify under one of the Immigration Rules. I hope that that answer satisfies the noble Lord.
  Lord Hylton: I accept from the Minister that there has been a limited number of cases of abuse. They are few. What clogs up the system is not abuse; it is what is occurring in the world. It depends on how much persecution, civil war and violence exists. That is the first consideration.
  The second consideration with regard to the system in this country is this. How many people from the remainder of the world succeed in arriving in this country despite such factors as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act?
  Earl Ferrers: I do not like to disagree with the noble Lord. He accepts that there are a few occasional abuses but states that what messes up the system is what is happening in the rest of the world. I do not agree with that. What clogs up the system is the number of people who come to this country and abuse the system. The troubles in the world cause more people to move about and cause more people to wish to come to this country.
  However, one has to have perfectly reasonable rules. Even the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will agree that one has to have reasonable rules for immigration, otherwise the country will be open to everyone. The problem arises when people abuse those rules. That is totally different from saying that there are so many people moving around the world that more people wish to come to this country.
  Lord Hylton: There is a third factor which I have omitted. What is the capacity of our system for handling the people who present themselves? We all know that the number of immigration officers, and people dealing with asylum cases, has been considerably increased during the past 12 months. That has made a considerable inroad into the backlog.
  Earl Ferrers: It is perfectly true that many extra people have been involved in trying to deal with the backlog. However, so many people have the right and ability to remain, and to appeal—and while they appeal they stay longer—that the time it takes to satisfy the application runs into years. Very often it is because they have abused the system; that as a result of having stayed in the country so long, our system is obliged to keep them.
  We are trying to simplify the system so that those who justly come here are able to come and do not have their applications messed up, but those who do not have a right to come, should not do so.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether I should be glad or sorry that we are bringing out into the open matters which the Government may not have wished to be brought into the open. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his place again. On an earlier amendment he said that the purpose of the Bill was to prevent abuse. The Government have not
  574
  put it quite so crudely. I should have thought that the purpose of the Bill was to establish a just and workable system for dealing with refugees coming to the country.
  I was discouraged from thinking that—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right—when I heard what the Minister has just said. He repeated what I can only call the canard that what is wrong with the immigration system—the reason it is clogged up —is because of abuse. That is not the reason why the immigration system is clogged up at all. It has been clogged up in the past because it has been under-staffed and has not had the facilities to deal with the increasing number of applicants.
  It is another canard, I suggest—and one repeated by the Government and their supporters all over the place—that those who are refused admission under asylum rules are automatically those who are abusing the rules. Of course they are not. The rules are extremely tight. They rely on the 1951 convention, which, as we have seen, is out of date in many ways. There are plenty of genuine applicants who under a more just and equitable system would be granted entry but who are not granted it under our rules. That is the reason we are debating the rules. To say that all those who fail to obtain entry are abusing the system and causing it to clog up is a misrepresentation of the true situation.
  Once again, I think that my noble friend's amendment and our persistence in putting the rules before the Committee have revealed a situation which is profoundly unsatisfactory. I suggest to the Committee, without in any way wishing to curtail debate, that it may wish to support my noble friend's amendment.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I have listened carefully to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl. It seems to me that the evidence points to the case lying with the noble Lord. It seems absolutely clear that the backlog of cases was due to the enormous number of people coming into the country—far more in 1989 than previously. Almost all the extra people who came in 1989 came from countries such as Somalia, Uganda and the Kurdish part of Iraq. The backlog to which the Minister referred was created because of the greatly increased numbers. It was brought about by those circumstances.
  To refer, therefore, to this situation as an abuse of the system does not seem to me to be justified. How are these people said to be abusing the system when all that happens is that they are waiting for their case to be determined? It takes a long time because of the backlog, but I cannot see how the word "abuse" can be used in those circumstances.
  Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may put the right reverend Prelate's mind at rest. I did not say, nor did I imply or intend to imply, that those who were appealing or clogging up the system were abusing it. I did not intend to give that inference at all. I said that there are people who abuse the system, and I defy any Member of the Committee to say that there are none. I can tell the Committee, as I told the House on Second

  575
  Reading, that one person so abused the system that he applied for social security under 50 different names. In my book that is abusing the system. However, I certainly did not wish to give the inference that all those who appealed were abusing the system. Of course that is not so.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I gather that my noble friend is once again exercising his generosity and accepting my amendment. Perhaps I may add two or three words to what has already been said. I am glad that the noble Earl qualified an inference that some of us drew from what he said which he thought was unjustified. None the less, it was an inference that we felt he was making.
  When we get the situation into proper perspective, the abuses that have resulted in convictions before the court number 27. However inconvenient that may be, it is not tantamount to clogging up the system. Of course it is not helpful; none of us is in favour of abuse, but we need to get it into a proper context. The truth is that staffing shortages were recognised by the Government, albeit late in the day. They have taken steps to rectify the position.
  I do not wish to pursue the point further at this stage. My noble friend indicated that he was prepared to accept the amendment and I am content with that.
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 81:
  In paragraph 5, leave out second sentence.
  The noble Lord said: Again I can be brief in moving this amendment. Its purpose is to underline a point. The rules indicate a proposal to serve a notice of intention to deport at the same time as the refusal of asylum. The possibility of curtailment of leave is at the least a threat to intending asylum seekers of the draconian consequences of a failed application. Consequently, we feel that the amendment is wholly justified on that basis. I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord McIntosh, are having a fine afternoon. One puts up an amendment and his noble friend then accepts it. It is curious that Members of the Committee opposite are rewriting the immigration laws, but that is a little bit of fun that they may have.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I have been known to withdraw an amendment or two.
  Earl Ferrers: I look forward to that. It will be fun. I shall deal with this amendment simply, unless the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to accept it, as he has the others.
  Amendment No. 81 would delete the provision relating to curtailment of leave. The powers to curtail a person's stay are in Clause 7, to which there are a number of amendments. I think that it would be best to discuss it then. If we were to amend the rules under this amendment, it would have no effect as the powers to curtail would still be in the Bill under Clause 7.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Earl is going to be surprised; I am going to withdraw the amendment! I beg leave to do so.
  Earl Ferrers: Does that mean that the noble Lord has realised that he has made a mistake?
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Far from it. I never recognise such a possibility. It is just that I think that it is more appropriate to have the debate on another occasion.
  Amendment to Amendment No. 71, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 82:
  In paragraph 5, after second ("deport") insert ("or remove").
  The noble Lord said: This is simply a drafting amendment. What we seek to arrive at is that all persons who are threatened with enforced departure should have their cases considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances. I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 82 would require consideration to be given to the factors which are listed in paragraph 164 of the current Immigration Rules not only before a decision to deport a person is taken but also before a decision to remove a person is taken.
  The Immigration Act 1971 makes a distinction between those who are or have been lawfully in this country and those who have not been here lawfully. Those who have been here lawfully can be removed only by the process of deportation, and consideration must be given to the factors listed in paragraph 164 to determine whether deportation is the appropriate course in their particular case. Paragraph 164 is not concerned with those who have never been here lawfully and who are subject to removal; that is, people who have been refused leave to enter or illegal entrants. I suggest that the amendment would blur that distinction.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not convinced by the Minister's argument and am disposed to accept the amendment of my noble friend.
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 83:
  Leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
  ("6. Failure to assist the Secretary of State in establishing the facts of the case, without reasonable explanation, may lead to refusal.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment will take a little longer to discuss. I start with a point which is significantly missing from the whole environment of the way in which these issues are dealt with. People who are subjected to persecution and torture are in an extremely vulnerable position and condition. In the course of preparing for the debates on the Bill, large numbers of people came forward with great experience in this field, including the UNHCR, the Refugee Council, which I chair, and many organisations which I do not propose to list here and now. They are involved in seeking to succour the victims of

  577
  torture. They came not only to see us; they came to see the Government. They made representations to the Government on numerous occasions. They tried to persuade the Government. Frequently it is extremely difficult to persuade people who are seeking asylum to trust other people who are invigilating their position. It is necessary to secure their confidence if justice is to be done and to break down barriers to try to influence them, in the friendliest way, to enable them to tell those investigating the cases about the traumatic experiences that they have suffered.
  We have had experience after experience, not simply within the particular area that we are considering now, of people who did not want to talk about their war experience; people who did not want to talk about being imprisoned as prisoners of war; and people who for some considerable period of time did not want to talk about the situation affecting them following an accident.
  I am a solicitor. I used to be involved in litigation and I know how difficult it sometimes is—I am sure that this is the experience of other lawyers in the Chamber—to persuade perfectly genuine people to talk about something which they have experienced and which in their lives is utterly terrible. The situation those poor people are frequently in is precisely that. They may have been threatened with torture. They may themselves have been tortured. Certainly most of them, I suggest, suffered from a measure of persecution. I wonder whether the Minister accepts that that is the situation. It requires a great deal of sensitivity in order to raise that measure of confidence.
  I have to say, from my experience in this field, as a lawyer and as a Member of another place, that sometimes even today they are treated with great hostility and a lack of understanding. That may not be so in every case, but it happens. The Minister must acknowledge it. Mistakes occur in the Immigration Service just as they occur in the police force.
  I should like to know whether the Minister accepts that a hostile approach or, to put it a little differently, an approach which is not necessarily intended as hostile on the part of the immigration officer but which is perceived as such by the asylum seeker can simply build up those inhibitions which I was talking about a moment ago. Is it therefore beyond the bounds of reasonable possibility that such people simply will not open up to an immigration official, whether at a first interview or a second interview, or whether it is to another immigration official altogether, in order to reveal those intimate details about their experiences?
  That is why we say that the issue merits special attention, as indicated in the handbook issued by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Paragraph 198 states:
  "A person who because of his experiences was in fear of the authorities in his own country may still feel apprehensive vis-á-vis any authority. He may therefore be afraid to speak freely and give a full and accurate account of his case".
  That statement comes from a body which is renowned internationally in terms of dealing with refugees. It has insisted it is something which must appear in a separate paragraph in its handbook. That is, I believe, simply an acknowledgment of a reality to which, with
  578
  respect to the Government, no attention is given in the checklist or elsewhere in the draft rules. I want to know why not. Why not simply adopt that UNHCR procedure in the rules themselves?
  The significance of the omission, in the words of the rules or in practice, can be absolutely devastating so far as a genuine asylum seeker is concerned. We regard the matter as very important indeed. I know that we shall debate the issue of fingerprinting later, but that too is relevant to what we are considering now. It may even be regarded as potentially an even more traumatic experience in the eyes of somebody genuinely seeking asylum in this country.
  One can perceive fairly easily that this situation may represent to somebody who is escaping from persecution a symbolic association with the very sort of authority from which he or she has been escaping. I do not believe it is any answer to say, in those circumstances and in the circumstance to which I was alluding a moment ago, that fingerprinting is the norm in many other countries and that in this country we can go along this line because we do not associate it with criminality. I do not see that in practice that is how the matter will be perceived.
  I am sure that at the present time in this country only people who are suspected or convicted of crimes are fingerprinted. I do not believe that we should depart from that practice and widen it. It is not beyond the realms of probability that a later rational explanation for the refusal or failure to be fingerprinted, or indeed a failure to report—it simply becomes the same sort of thing—is likely to fall on deaf ears. That is the risk. In the eyes of the Home Office, a person who refuses to acknowledge such issues, which stand out in the Immigration Rules, effectively stands condemned. The psychological realities can lead to risk of penalty being ignored.
  The amendment is designed to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are not so penalised—perhaps victimised would be a better word to use—and that a sensitive and compassionate view is taken of the situation in which the asylum seeker finds himself or herself in the process of the application being determined. I believe that those are realities. If the UNHCR can recognise them, I think it behoves the Government to do likewise. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Gridley: Perhaps I may give some explanation of the way I feel about Amendment No. 83. The Opposition speak of people who have been tortured. Torture has taken place in many parts of the world. It is relevant to find out why. It is because various factions in a country where it is practised use their method of torturing a person to get something out of him. It means that the country is being run under various systems.
  It is only too easy for people to come to this country and say that they have been tortured when in fact they may not have been. Are we to accept their word entirely? To think that under those circumstances it is possible for the British Government to go all over the world trying to find the relevant evidence to substantiate the claim would be most unreasonable.

  579
  I speak from personal experience because I was tortured by the Japanese. When I happened to go back to that country after the war I found a system in place where every faction was against every other faction in trying to run things. People were telling all kinds of stories about themselves. That kind of thing happens when people lose confidence. Therefore, I say tonight that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we must trust people and they must trust us is beyond what is required in the Immigration Rules. What is required is evidence that the truth is being produced in this country and that the person has definitely suffered from torture.
  Lord Hylton: I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in moving Amendment No. 83. I am in regular touch with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. That organisation was formed in the first place by the medical section of Amnesty International. During the five or six years it has been in existence it has treated and cared for some thousands of people who have experienced torture in third countries and have come to Britain.
  I should like to quote from what the foundation said in a document dated January 1993, which simply repeated the substance of previous documents prepared in relation to the earlier Bill on the subject. The foundation says:
  "The testimony of our patients has shown that people who have been imprisoned and tortured find it very hard to talk about their experiences with anyone. This difficulty is similar to that of rape victims who, feeling degraded, find it very hard to reveal what happened. And rape is often part of torture. Such asylum seekers are often fearful that information may be passed back to their own country and endanger family and friends. They are not always aware without advice of what information is relevant, or it may not be readily available".
  In relation to the Government, the Bill and the rules, the foundation went on to state:
  "We urge that an assurance be given that the difficulties experienced by tortured asylum seekers in recounting their experiences should not be held against them so as to prejudice their claim".
  That I can heartily support.
  In that context I should like to mention also that the question of interpreters being used when people who do not understand or speak English are being interviewed and assessed is of paramount importance. I suggest that it is necessary to have fully fluent interpreters who are capable of taking a sympathetic approach to an asylum seeker and in particular to one who has suffered torture or other maltreatment.
  Finally, the training of immigration officers and of adjudicators who have to handle those matters is another aspect which probably needs more thought and certainly the greatest amount of care.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Of course one understands the feelings of those who have been subjected to inhuman practices and abuse and that they may well be in a neurotic state. But if the Committee will look at paragraph 6, which the amendment proposes to delete, it offers a perfectly reasonable set of proposals.
  Of course, one must assume, as I do, that the British officials who will administer the provision will do so with sensitivity and taste. But it is also their job to get
  580
  at the facts. It is known that a good many people seek to enter this country who are not entitled to qualify as refugees but who simply regard life in this country —sensibly as it happens—as a great deal more preferable to life in most other countries. Therefore it is necessary that they should be carefully examined. Paragraph 6 seems to get it about right. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
  Lord Mishcon: I rise because of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He is right to refer to the wording of the clause about which we are talking. The benefit of the debate I hope will be that the Secretary of State, with the able assistance of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to look at the Immigration Rules and see whether they are too harshly worded and whether an immigration officer who is not too sympathetic to the applications made to him will want to act rather like the barrack-room lawyer one often found in the Army: he would look at his little book on the Army Act and decide in stern circumstances to administer what may have been even more than a rebuke to a recalcitrant soldier.
  I accept the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am looking at the rule and pretending for a moment that I am an immigration officer, well trained to ensure that the rules are abided by. Let us look at them and then look at the amendment.
  First, the rule refers to,
  "A failure, without reasonable explanation".
  Therefore I must give an explanation which the immigration officer thinks is reasonable. What if I fail to do that? I must not only tell him about "material factors", but I may fail to "make a prompt" disclosure. I suppose I may do it a day late in his view, or I do not do it when he asks me; it must be prompt.
  There must be "full disclosure". That is not just a disclosure; it must be absolutely full. It must be "of material factors". Therefore I must disclose in regard to material factors, but not only in regard to material factors, because it goes on,
  "either orally or in writing, or otherwise to assist the Secretary of State".
  Therefore, it is not only a question of my making a prompt and full disclosure of the material facts; there may be other things that I have not done. Although I have done all that, I have not fulfilled the "otherwise" or "to the full". I do not know why the word "full" appears again after the words "full disclosure" in the second line. I suppose it makes the bureaucratic case a little more substantial.
  The paragraph goes on,
  "in establishing the facts of the case may lead to refusal".
  The provision then talks about a failure to keep an appointment for fingerprinting and so forth. I do not want to go into that because I then say to myself, having heard the words uttered so far, "What are we trying to do?" Are we not saying to the applicant, "If you do not establish the facts of your case to our reasonable satisfaction, you know that it may lead to a failure"? When exercising the powers of the person interviewing the applicant that is surely all we want to say to any human being. In the words of the amendment we say,

  581
  "Failure to assist the Secretary of State in establishing the facts of the case, without reasonable explanation, may lead to refusal".
  It is simple, it is humane and it is not punctilious.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Lord sits down, is it not a considerable advantage to the applicant to have spelt out, as paragraph 6 spells out, the kind of things which he is expected to establish? The few words of the amendment give him no guidance and no lead at all as to that. Surely if the noble Lord himself were in that position he would find it helpful to have spelt out in advance the headings of the matters on which he would have to satisfy the authorities so that he knew what to say and what he was ready to do.
  Lord Mishcon: I have been invited to answer a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I do so very readily. I do not think that this is here for the advantage of the applicant. The words which make it prompt, full and so on are there for the person who is exercising the discretion to determine whether the application that is being made should fail. If the noble Lord visualises that the normal applicant who will come to our shores as a refugee will find it helpful if someone shows him the wording of this rule as it now exists in paragraph 6, I think that we are dealing with a very unreal situation.
  I by no means wish to attack our immigration officials. They do a very difficult job in the main, but they are human. Like policemen, who are human, we find that there are a few members of the flock who not only take their responsibilities too seriously but act in a way which was never meant by Parliament or by a Minister. I say that you get all that you want by giving an immigration official the discretion to say, and I repeat these words, "You have failed to assist the Secretary of State in establishing the facts of your case. You have done so without reasonable explanation. This may lead to refusal". What more does one want?
  The Earl of Onslow: It seems to me that the amendment allows the immigration official to be more of a barrack-room lawyer than does paragraph 6. Furthermore, if someone wants to come here and establish the fact that he is a genuine asylum seeker, he has to prove the case and prove it properly. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, it is much fairer to have it spelt out than to accept the words proposed in the amendment. The amendment contains the words "without reasonable explanation". What is a reasonable explanation? The amendment would allow the immigration official almost to say, "You are not speaking the Queen's English", or something like that. The existing provision is much fairer. The man must be allowed, or must be asked, to make a full and prompt explanation and disclosure of why he wants to come here and why he should be allowed asylum. That seems to me much fairer than the amendment proposed by noble Lords opposite.
  Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Earl sits down—I promise the Committee that this is the last time that I shall speak on this amendment—he will find the words "without reasonable explanation" in Rule 6.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for giving our debate some substance. I had felt a certain air of unreality about it as we went through amendment after amendment conscious that there was a substantive amendment to be considered in due course. In inviting the Secretary of State along with the noble Earl the Minister to take note of our debate in considering the Immigration Rules, he has indicated that we are perhaps doing something of significance in the Chamber this evening. I certainly believe that we are. It seems to me that for the first time in considering these rules we have come to a point where there is a widespread disquiet among those who work in this field about this rule. What we are attempting to do is to express that disquiet in this Chamber. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has done that extremely well.
  The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, talked about people coming to this country in a neurotic state. I do not think that that word is quite the correct one. Surely the word "traumatised" would more accurately describe the state in which they arrive. It is our concern that people who come to this country in that state should have proper treatment that underlies our desire to amend the rules as they stand.
  The proposed amendment is a more balanced and fair one. It is not in any way intended to be a guide for those who seek asylum. I cannot see asylum seekers wanting to seek out the Bill and to look up copies of it. From where will they get copies of the Bill? They might indeed look to proper advice at that stage. Such advice would be from those who have knowledge of the Bill. The Bill and the rules are to provide some kind of guidance for the immigration official and for those who are advising asylum seekers—not for the seekers themselves. The revised amendment more properly gives a fair balance and a better account of the situation. The rules as they stand undoubtedly give a kind of narrow view. Like many of the rules, they seem to be a number of hurdles over which asylum seekers have to jump rather than a way in which immigration officials can be guided fairly to make a proper and just claim of their desire to seek asylum.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: The right reverend Prelate raised an interesting point when he said that people may seek advice. That is one reason why they may not wish to give a prompt explanation. Before giving an explanation of why one is seeking asylum in a foreign country whose rules one does not know or understand, one of the things an intelligent person might do is to seek advice. If one has to seek advice, there may be some delay. If there is some delay, one will fall foul of one aspect of the provision that we are trying to amend.
  However, the point I want to raise is one which I have raised before. The Bill makes no distinction between adults and children. Does this clause really apply to children? If not, should it not be made clear that it does not apply to children? If it does apply to children, it is absolutely ludicrous. Do we really expect an unaccompanied child coming to this country to

  583
  carry out all those steps which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described so aptly? We should have an answer to that simple but nonetheless important question.
  Earl Ferrers: I am quite happy to give the noble Lord an answer to that simple but fundamental question. Of course it applies to children. All immigration matters apply equally to children as they do to adults. We shall come to children later so let us dispense with that for the time being. But to suggest that one could have a form of immigration that did not apply to children would not be at all suitable.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Surely it would be possible to have different rules applying to children and adults. That happens in many aspects of life. Children are not allowed to do some things which adults are allowed to do. The law of England in many respects distinguishes between adults and children. I do not see why immigration law should be an exception.
  Earl Ferrers: I suggested that we would come to children a little later on. What we are dealing with here is the consideration of cases. I was glad to see that noble Lords opposite accept that asylum applicants have a duty to co-operate as fully as possible in the asylum process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It would be quite wrong if there was a hostile approach to people when they came here or if the approach of immigration officers was perceived as hostile. That could frighten people. If that were to be the case, people would get frightened. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that these matters should be handled with taste, decency and care. I would hope that they would be.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that the torturing of asylum seekers and the effect that it had had on them should not prejudice their claim to asylum. All I can say to that is that it certainly should not; and I hope that it would not. That is why one cannot make laws about this matter. One must depend on the way in which the individual officer deals with each individual case.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why we did not include the handbook of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The handbook is a very valuable and worthwhile guidance document, and all asylum division staff are issued with a copy. The views of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are widely respected. Indeed, they are often sought, and regard is had to any court judgment which affects asylum seekers. But the handbook is not exhaustive, as is acknowledged by the authors; nor is it in any way definitive. Both the handbook of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and court rulings can only be guides, and they are subject to change and challenge. On this basis I think it would be wrong to incorporate them into legislation which is necessarily much more unwieldy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invited your Lordships to extend your imagination, I think to the limit, when he suggested that we should consider what
  584
  it would be like if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were an immigration officer. I have thought of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in many guises, but not until this evening had I thought of him in that guise.
  It is very difficult for the Government, because when we spell out matters noble Lords say "It is too long. Why don't you shorten it?" When we make it shorter, noble Lords say "Let's spell it out and find out what the Government mean". I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it is better when it is spelt out. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that these rules were not designed for the advantage of the applicant. That is true. They were designed for the instruction of the officer and how he should carry out the rules and the law under which those rules are made. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he thought that it would be much better to have the proposed amendment in the Bill because it would give the immigration officer much more discretion. However, earlier, the noble Lord had referred to the barrack-room lawyer. One wonders what that person could do if he had wide discretion. If the noble Lord and others are frightened of what immigration officers could do, I think it is better clearly to spell out what they should do.
  Also, this amendment deletes two requirements which we believe to be crucial in establishing the bona fides of the applicant and in ensuring a system which is free from delay and misuse. The aim of the whole system is to speed up and unclog the decision-making process at all levels. At present many applicants delay claiming asylum until they have exhausted all the other immigration avenues. Others take many months to return a questionnaire. Others fail repeatedly to attend for interviews, or they progressively change their stories.
  Earlier this evening I was tackled about the question of abuse. I am bound to tell your Lordships that some 15,000 cases were refused last year for the simple reason that the applicants failed to attend the interviews or to provide information despite repeated requests. That is an abuse of the system, and it also clogs up the system for the genuine applicant. In some cases this may be the result of fear and confusion, but in others it is not; it is a case of dragging out the procedures. I think that that is unacceptable.
  Applicants will continue to be able to seek professional help and advice in presenting their cases. They will be given every opportunity to put their stories in writing and at interviews, but there must be some onus on them to take advantage of these opportunities, and there must be some sanction against people who are deliberately non co-operative. It is right to spell out in the rules the lines the immigration officer should take, and I think that the rules as prescribed are correct.
  Lord Tordoff: I should have thought that the people who have been described by the noble Earl would have been caught within the terms of the amendment. Clearly, in many cases the sort of people he was describing are people who have failed to assist the Secretary of State.
  I should like to ask a specific question about paragraph 6, where it says:

  585
  "This includes failure to comply with a notice … or failure to complete an asylum questionnaire".
  What does that mean exactly? Do we know what is in the questionnaire? I do not think it is in the rules. I have seen questionnaires that ask all sorts of questions which I could not answer. I can imagine some people coming from foreign parts finding it difficult to answer the question about their mother's maiden name. Would that preclude them from coming in under the rules? People are afraid that there are artificial trip wires being put into the rules and that they may be used, by people who are not necessarily as scrupulous as one might wish, to prevent people getting in.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says that there are some artificial trip wires being put up for these people. That is not the case at all. It is a very simple questionnaire —I do not have it in front of me —asking about personal details of their family. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says that they might find that very difficult to answer. All I can say is that I should be surprised if the person cannot provide his family details. I have no doubt, if we are not careful enough—I am not suggesting this—that we shall have the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, putting down a questionnaire, and then your Lordships will be invited to alter it and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept your Lordships' alterations. But I really think that is going too far. The questionnaire is perfectly simple, and if people fail to complete it, indicating what they are doing and where they have come from, that is a perfectly good reason for saying "You can't be a genuine applicant".
  Lord Tordoff: But there are cases where people cannot answer apparently simple questions—people coming from areas of great turmoil, for instance the children to whom my noble friend referred coming from Bosnia who have been split from their families at an earlier stage. They may very well not be able to answer the kind of questions that may seem quite simple to us.
  All I am saying is that, on paper, this appears to be a very rigid set of rules. Admittedly, there are not too many of them, but they can be interpreted extremely rigidly. The amendment seeks to widen the scope for discretion.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister should not tempt me. He should know that I have been a market researcher for 35 years and I spent all that time writing questionnaires, and if I am tempted I will put a questionnaire into the Bill.
  Earl Ferrers: I did not want to tempt the noble Lord. We must let him concentrate his efforts where they are better used.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I prefer a questionnaire to some of the econometric equations which tend to appear in government legislation.
  The thrust of this useful discussion has been about the issue of whether it is better to spell things out or to allow flexibility. In general, I would agree that it is more helpful to spell things out. Unfortunately, on this occasion the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is quite explicit: that
  586
  spelling out conditions is not advisable and not welcome when all those conditions are designed to help refusal. That is the thrust of paragraph 6 of the rules which we are now considering. It is also the thrust of paragraphs 7 to 10 of the rules. If the spelling out is all one-sided it is undesirable, and the flexibility proposed by my noble friend in this amendment is desirable.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like from my own experience as a lawyer dealing with immigration cases to illustrate briefly what my noble friend has said. It seems somehow to be in conflict with the experience of the noble Earl.
  Immigration officers do abuse their authority, bully people and treat them scandalously. That is not acceptable. I am not seeking to assert that all immigration officials behave in that way. As I said earlier, that would be a travesty of the position. But, if these rules are for the benefit of the immigration official as the Minister said, why should we not draw to the attention of those who do not understand their duties properly the fact that a person—who, because of his experiences, is in fear of the authorities in his own country—may still feel apprehensive vis-á-vis any authority? He may be afraid to speak freely and give a full and accurate account of his case. A reminder is needed. If the Minister says that the measures are for the benefit of the immigration official, I do not see why he is reluctant to include provisions like those contained in the rules.
  Earlier on the Minister said that it was for the benefit of the asylum seeker because he wanted to know where he stood. So the Minister is seeking to have the matter both ways. However, since my amendment is accepted I am content.
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 84:
  Leave out paragraphs 7 to 10 and insert:
  ("7. In determining an asylum application, the Secretary of State will have regard to matters and criteria contained in the UNHCR Handbook of procedures and criteria for determining refugee status and such other guidance as may from time to time be given by the UNHCR or decisions of the European Court of Justice and Court of Human Rights.
  8. In determining an asylum application from a child under the age of 18, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

  (a) the ability of the child to articulate a well-founded fear of persecution; and an assessment of that child's ability shall in all cases be made by an independent childcare expert who has particular experience in dealing with refugee children;

  (b) specific characteristics of the child's ethnic, national or religious or other social group, and the effect that this may have upon the child's application for asylum; and

  (c) the whereabouts and circumstances of the child's parents and other family members or guardians, either in the country from which refuge is sought, or elsewhere.").

  The noble Lord said: I fear that this amendment is going to take a little longer because it encompasses a checklist which we are seeking to scrutinise and amend. The whole concept of a checklist of this kind

  587
  has been assailed briefly in the last debate by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I endorse that particular point of view.
  Another purpose that we should be seeking to fulfil is, as I said a moment ago, to have regard specifically to certain criteria which are set out in the UNHCR handbook and such other guidance that may be given from time to time by that body or by decisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Court of Human Rights.
  In the case of a person under the age of 18 we say that there should be a requirement that the Secretary of State should have regard to the matters which we set out in the amendment under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Our objection to the draft regulations is wide. The regulations state:
  "In determining an asylum application the Secretary of State will have regard to matters, which if no reasonable explanation is adduced, may damage an asylum applicant's credibility".
  Does that mean all matters? I believe that it must because no other construction is possible. It is tantamount to saying, as these rules do, that refusal will almost certainly follow if an application fails to meet any of the criteria which are listed. I believe that there is a likelihood of the Secretary of State drawing adverse inferences as regards the applicant's credibility which could lead to palpable injustice.
  Perhaps I may go through these matters. The first is,
  "that the applicant has failed to apply forthwith upon arrival in the United Kingdom, unless the application is founded on events which have taken place since his arrival in the United Kingdom".
  That point was made earlier by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. The use of the word "forthwith" is very much more onerous than Article 31 of the 1951 convention provides. I am not at all sure that it is not seriously in conflict with that article which states:
  "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
  Article 31.2 states:
  "The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country".
  That is not applied as far as this matter is concerned.
  Then there is the question of false representation. The second matter reads,
  "that the applicant has made false representations, either orally or in writing".
  Do such false representations include those made to authorities elsewhere in the country from which the asylum seeker is fleeing? Are they false representations to the airline staff to enable the refugee to get on board an aircraft? Is it false representations—which I assume is what the Minister has most in mind—to the immigration authorities here? That is contrary to Article 1 A of the convention itself. I shall not burden the Committee with that at this stage. But there is a palpable conflict as far as that is concerned.
  Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean. The article itself defines a refugee as a person who has a
  588
  well-founded fear of persecution outside his country of nationality. There is no reference to the circumstances or the means whereby that person came to be outside his country. But the essence of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is that refugees cannot get out of their country of persecution without visas or travel documents.
  These issues were addressed by Mr. Justice Schiemann in Yassine (1990) reported in immigration Appeal Reports at page 354. He said this:
  "He who wishes to obtain asylum in this country short of prior contact with the Home Secretary offering him asylum, has the option of:

  1. Lying to the United Kingdom authorities in his country in order to obtain a tourist or some other sort of visa;

  2. Obtaining a credible forgery of a visa;

  3. Obtaining an airline ticket to a 3rd country with a stopover in the United Kingdom".

  I believe that the learned judge summarised the issues very clearly indeed. The issues set out here simply do not address the merits of an application for asylum. In this amendment we are seeking to address the realities which are ignored in the criteria which have been adopted in the draft rules.
  The third element here is,
  "that the applicant has destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim".
  That is a point raised in previous debates. Sometimes the refugees simply have no alternative but to get rid of their travel documents or passports in order to escape. Does not the Minister accept that? Another ground is,
  "that the applicant has undertaken any activities in the United Kingdom before or after lodging his application which are inconsistent with his previous beliefs and behaviour and calculated to create or substantially enhance his claim to refugee status".
  Again, that blithely ignores the experience which is set out in the handbook itself in paragraphs 94 to 96 which deal pertinently with these specific issues. The handbook recognises that persons can become refugees—using the jargon "sur place"—where they cannot show that the authorities knew of their political beliefs before they left their own country but where their true state of mind gives rise to a fear of persecution if they are required to return.
  The terrors of persecution in their home country can be such that any hint of opposition can result in persecution, torture and imprisonment. It is only when the refugee comes to a free country and a safer environment where he knows that he will not be subjected to those kinds of pressures, that he feels sufficiently safe to express his genuine views in public. He may feel impelled to do so because of the injustice that is happening in his home country. To take that into account as an assessment of whether or not he should be given asylum seems an absolute travesty of what ought to be happening. Should not a genuine refugee in a democracy feel that there are obligations upon him to speak of his experiences and his thoughts? That may make him more vulnerable if he is returned home, but to impose that kind of condition is utterly absurd and short of reality.
  I turn to the question of the asylum seeker lodging concurrent applications in the United Kingdom or in another country. That point was raised very pertinently by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter,

  589
  in the Second Reading debate. It was never properly addressed by the Minister in his reply. One understands why it is necessary to make concurrent applications. One may feel that there is absolutely no alternative. To regard that as a significant black mark against an asylum seeker is to fly in the face of reality.
  Paragraph 8 of the draft rules states:
  "The actions of anyone acting as an agent of the asylum applicant may be taken into account in regard to the matters set out in paragraphs 6 and 7".
  Is that not utterly absurd? The tragedy is that its absurdity may have the most draconian consequences. How can the actions of people acting as agents of the asylum seeker, if undertaken without the express approval of the asylum seeker, affect the credibility of the applicant? Does it make sense at all?
  I turn to paragraph 9:
  "If there is a part of the country from which the applicant claims to be a refugee in which he would not have a well-founded fear of persecution, and to which it would be reasonable to expect him to go, the application may be refused".
  There is no reference to "a part of the country" in any of the other rules of which I am aware; certainly not in paragraph 91 of the handbook. How does that accord with the spirit of Article 1A of the convention that talks not of a part of a country but of that country?
  Paragraph 10 offends a fundamental premise of the convention and the handbook because it is asserted over and over again that claims should be considered on an individual basis. The Government contravene those provisions by saying that it is permissible to deal with people as a group. There is a presumption that if one is involved in the activities of a group one is tainted. The burden of establishing that one is innocent in one's purposes falls upon the asylum seeker. It is very difficult to discharge that burden. I believe that it is not only wrong in law but absurd in practice.
  Paragraph 7 of our amendment deals with children. We anticipated this matter in some respects in earlier debates. I agree wholly with the the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the law prescribes that children are dealt with on a totally different basis from the generality of the law in many respects. Why should the law relating to asylum be different? Part of the preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reads:
  "The child by reasons of physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguards and care".
  That is recognised in many areas of the law and should be recognised in the law relating to asylum. The matter is also dealt with in the 1988 guidelines for refugee children and in paragraphs 213 to 219 of the handbook. I suggest it is obvious to most of us in this Chamber that children have to be dealt with separately and therefore need to be dealt with separately in the rules. It makes absolutely no sense that that should not be so. As this is perhaps one of the few occasions when we are able to scrutinise the rules, I hope that the benefit of the debate will be that the Minister will say that the Government have to do something about it.
  I shall try to be brief because I bear in mind that time is passing. We believe that because the rules are
  590
  to be dealt with for the benefit of immigration officials, there is specific reason for making sure that children are mentioned definitively. I do not know why the Government have chosen not to do that. No doubt the Minister will seek to explain. I believe that the sense of those on this side of the Chamber, and I hope of some on the other side, is that the case that we make out to deal with children specifically and differently is an overwhelming one. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It is becoming clear that the objections of some of us in the Committee to the Immigration Rules rest not only upon our difficulties with particular rules but upon the overall effect of them. I referred earlier to the rules as a set of hurdles. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to them as a set of trip wires. In the paragraphs of the rules we see a whole series of factors. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed objection not only to the draft rules but also to the effect of the rules in totality. In measured language the UNHCR says that evaluation of credibility is a process that involves the consideration of many complex factors, both objective and subjective, that are impossible to enumerate and all possibly of equal importance. As such, any selection of factors which should be given special consideration when assessing a claim will necessarily be arbitrary.
  The real point is that if in addition the selection is made with the declared aim of providing the Home Office with a list of reasons to refuse applications for asylum the impression conveyed is one of bias against asylum seekers. The heart of our objection is that the rules convey the impression of bias against asylum seekers. If that appears to be the case to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees it also appears to be the case to some of those in this country who are working in the field. I refer for instance to the Refugee Legal Centre. The centre was set up by the Government to provide advice and legal representation on appeal to those seeking asylum. The centre has expressed objection both to the rules as a whole and to particular rules. I do not want to go through the list as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has already done so. However, one particular rule seems to put asylum seekers in a virtually impossible situation. I refer to the rule dealing with the destruction of documents. Not only does rule 7 apparently contravene Article 31 of the 1951 convention, which prohibits the imposition of penalties upon refugees on account of their illegal entry or presence, but it also seems to provide an almost insurmountable hurdle to their ever arriving here at all—a hurdle that was made higher by the carriers' liability Act.
  Many asylum seekers are in a Catch-22 situation. Someone cannot be recognised as a refugee unless he has left his country of origin and sought asylum elsewhere. Yet, as we know, there is no provision in the asylum rules to grant entry clearance as an asylum seeker for someone overseas. How are they to reach this country? In many cases it can be only by the acquisition of false documents. The fact that those documents are destroyed during the journey surely

  591
  does not make the seeking of asylum of any less merit. That is the only way in which a person can reach this country. That rule seems to contravene the spirit and the letter of the UN convention.
  Lord Finsberg: Perhaps I may make a brief contribution, because I spent 22 years in another place with a constituency that had a large immigrant population. Without its support I may not have held that seat for 22 years. I found that two kinds of people would come to me for advice on the old rules and, looking at the new rules, I do not see that much difference. There were those who spun one the most heart-rending stories. They produced documentation, and, I must confess, for the first few years I believed them. I took up every case. I became more and more disillusioned, because there was clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to flout the then rules to enter this country illegally. During those 22 years I found only two cases where I felt that the immigration officers had acted unfairly and harshly. I should like to pay a warm tribute to immigration officers for the difficult job that they do. It is all too easy to criticise them, and yet they are doing a job. As my noble friend the Minister said, when they are investigated many of the cases turn out to have a non-response.
  The other type of case was one where a man would come and say that he wished to bring in his wife and children. I cannot recall one case where a child, by itself, was the subject of a problem. So I shall not address that issue, because I have no real experience of it. However, I can see that there may be problems. One has to decide what age is a child. There are many children capable of mastering the most intricate computers, something which most Members of the Committee cannot do. So I do not necessarily say that a child's standard of intelligence is not sufficient to cope with the questions put by an immigration officer. Nonetheless, I can see that there can be problems, and I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's reply to that point.
  It is helpful to have the rules spelt out as they are now proposed. I take the point on the destruction of documents made by the right reverend Prelate. One clearly needs some documentation to reach this country. It is not always false documentation that is required. The flexibility and the knowledge of an immigration officer would be helped greatly if the refugee said, "In order to get out of the country, I had to get forged travel documents. Here they are." That would command more respect and more likelihood of being admitted, other things being right, than if the refugee tore up the documentation and so put himself or herself outside the new rules. On balance, the amendment is not one that is worthy of support.
  Lord Wilberforce: I can well appreciate the desirability of spelling out a number of points for the benefit of the officers who have to deal with difficult cases, and of the person who is applying. I have no comment to make about paragraph 7 and what is set out there. I leave that to other Members of Committee. The paragraph that troubles me greatly is paragraph 9 which deals with "a part of the country".
  592
  As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, dealt with the issue rather briefly, perhaps I may spend a few moments looking at it. The paragraph puts the officer dealing with the case, and the applicant, in an impossible position and creates a mass of bureaucratic requirements and procedures which will clog-up the machinery.
  Let us bear in mind that the person involved (the asylum seeker) has, to start with, satisfied the requirement of showing that he is a refugee within the convention. He is a person who has escaped from a country in which he was under a genuine, well-founded fear of persecution: he was in a village in Croatia which was attacked by the Serbs; his house was burnt down; his village was destroyed; his relatives may have been shot; he cannot possibly return there. He has, on the face of it, fulfilled every requirement for being a refugee. Are inquiries to be made about whether there is some other part of the country to which he can go where there is no persecution, which may be 100 miles away with armies in between? Will the adjudication officer have to consider such a situation? That relates not only to a place such as Yugoslavia, but to somewhere such as Somalia where at the time there may be some remote area of the country where there is no persecution. Are inquiries to be made into whether there is such a place to which he should go?
  One looks at the paragraph and one asks, first, who is to prove what? When the unfortunate officer has someone in front of him who has left a country and who satisfies him that he has been persecuted and tortured, does he then have to inquire as to whether there is some other place in the country to which he could have gone? If he has to do that, is he not in great difficulty and likely to involve a great deal of complication and difficulty.
  Even worse, of course, is the position of the refugee seeker. The officer may say, "You could have gone to Kosovo; you could have gone to Macedonia; you could have gone to the north of Somalia. Why did you not go there?" How will the unfortunate man, woman or child be able to satisfy those requirements?
  Even at the first instance that will greatly increase delays and complications. It will provide every opportunity for difficult appeals and will clog-up the machinery. One may perhaps compare the position with what happens in homelessness cases. The paragraph may have been drafted by reference to and analogy with cases of homelessness. One knows that it is a defence available to a local authority called upon to provide accommodation that someone has rendered himself voluntarily homeless. One then embarks upon a great many difficult inquiries: he was in a house; he could have stayed there; there was plenty of room for him; he was able to be looked after; there were cooking facilities; but he says that is not possible because there are already 10 people in the house; he could not get on with his mother-in-law; and it was impossible to live there. Those are genuine cases which occur in relation to homelessness and British subjects in this country who are well able to deal with such a situation. How much more difficult

  593
  would it be for officers, who may not be well-trained to deal with such cases, and for the unfortunate person who has left a country of persecution.
  The amendment suggests deleting those precise requirements and substituting a general reference to the handbook. There is a good paragraph in the handbook (paragraph 42) which says in general terms that one has to have knowledge of the conditions in the applicant's country of origin, which is an important element in assessing the applicant's credibility and so on and whether his continued stay in the country of origin had become intolerable for the reasons stated in his application. Surely that provides the adjudication officer with enough authority and a basis to deal with a case along broad lines rather than having to have to follow this legalistic paragraph which will make his life difficult, the life of the refugee impossible, and the administration of the paragraph a cause of delay and difficulty.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to accept the amendment and that the Minister may be able to reassure us that that proposal or a reference to the paragraph is a better way of dealing with the matter.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may comment on paragraph 9. I listened with my usual sympathy to what my noble and learned friend said, but I find it difficult to know exactly what the paragraph means. It states:
  "If there is a part of the country from which the applicant claims to be a refugee in which he would not have a well-founded fear of persecution, and to which it would be reasonable to expect him to go".
  It is not a part of the country to which it would have been reasonable to expect him to have gone. Is the paragraph dealing with the situation from the point of view of the aspiring asylum seeker sitting in Heathrow? The question then is, "Would it be reasonable to expect the asylum seeker to buy a ticket to the part of the country in which he would be safe?". If the answer is yes, I can see every reason for refusing him asylum. However, if what is meant is, "Is there another part of the country to which he should have gone?", that might be a reason for refusing asylum. However, as he has not gone he is faced with a slightly different situation. That issue should be clarified.
  I seek clarification on part of paragraph 7. I do not believe that I have met professionally a case in which documents have been destroyed. I should like to know what is the experience of the Home Office as regards the destruction of documents. Everyone seems to be assuming that asylum seekers destroy forged documents. Why would an asylum seeker destroy a forged document which he has used to leave the country? I should rather expect an asylum seeker to destroy a genuine document with which he had left the country. If an asylum seeker leaves the country of his alleged persecution with a brand new passport recently issued by the authorities, doubt is cast, although not conclusively, on his relations with those authorities. I should have thought that there was force in paragraph 7, but perhaps I do not understand the facts of the situation on the ground.
  Earl Russell: I wish to ask the noble Earl only one question. How large an area of the country will qualify as a part?
  Lord Wilberforce: The noble Earl might have amplified his question by asking what, for this purpose, is a country?
  Earl Ferrers: That is the kind of problem which arises when one starts to discuss all these different matters. We see here another example of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, trying to remove a great hunk of the rules and replacing it with something smaller. I have no doubt that his noble friend Lord McIntosh, when asked whether he accepts the amendment, will say that he does. It really is a most curious procedure when one Member of the Committee opposite proposes an amendment and his noble friend on the same Front Bench accepts it. It is nothing to do with the Government as the two carry on a lovely tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee act. It is great fun for some.
  We have written down clearly in the Immigration Rules the kind of matters to which immigration officers ought to address themselves. Having done that, some Members of the Committee say that that is not fair, that this is not right and that that is unclear. I find it extraordinary that they are prepared to remove those rules and insert something which is far more vague. They will give immigration officers wider carte blanche rules with which to make the wrong decisions.
  I appreciate what was said by my noble friend Lord Finsberg about immigration officers. His experience showed that they seldom make a mistake. But everyone is human and people will make mistakes. I agree that immigration officers have a difficult task which they carry out with astonishing ability.
  Amendment No. 84 removes paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the rules, which set out the criteria by which cases are to be considered. That would leave no guidance to those who operate the asylum procedures nor to the applicants. The determining of an asylum claim is a complex matter, as the handbook issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees makes clear. Since the convention lays down no rules by which that should be done we must approach the problem by considering what it is that must be established and how best to achieve it.
  The various methods which have evolved in this and in other countries, with the guidance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, are the result of experience. Ideally, one would wish for conclusive independent corroboration of everything which is claimed by an applicant. That would be of benefit both to the applicant and to the assessor. However, in reality, that is rarely possible. As a result, the asylum division staff must rely on a combination of factual information which is obtained from a variety of sources and an assessment of the individual who is making the claim. In other words, the credibility of the asylum seeker is a key factor. When interviewing him and speaking to him, his credibility is a key factor. In reaching a judgment, it is impossible

  595
  to ignore certain factors. It is perfectly natural and justifiable to query why a man did not claim asylum as soon as he arrived in a safe country.
  The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon was concerned also about the concealing of a man's identity by destroying documents. It is perfectly reasonable and right to question a man about why he has destroyed his documents. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I must point out that we have had experience of people destroying documents. I cannot say whether they were legal or illegal documents because, of course, they were destroyed. If the destroyed documents were legal I agree with the noble and learned Lord that that is curious. However, the fact is that people come into this country having destroyed their documents. In some countries the fashionable process is, as they say, to flush them down the toilet. Why one should want to do that I do not know but the fact is that people enter the country without documents. It is perfectly right and reasonable that they should be questioned about why they have no documents. It may be that the applicant has a perfectly good reason and the draft rules make it clear that only in the absence of an explanation will refusal be allowed.
  The amendment also deletes the provision which allows account to be taken of the actions of an agent who represents an applicant. I regret to say that we have seen examples of agents being paid sums of money to produce what they call "an asylum package". That will ensure the applicant entry into the United Kingdom or an ability to stay here. It cannot be possible to ignore such events; they happen.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was concerned about other "parts" of a country. It is not unreasonable to question whether an applicant might reasonably have sought refuge in a safe part of his own country. In many countries unrest or other political or internal problems are localised perhaps because of the actions of a particular group. Other parts of the same country may be perfectly safe and the residents there may be able to enjoy a secure and trouble-free life. It would seem more logical for an applicant who claims to fear persecution to stay within his own country but in a safe part—a country with which he is familiar and where the language and the cultures are the same and where he is closer to family and friends—rather than travelling to a remote country with which he has no connections at all. Therefore, it is not irrelevant for that question to be asked.
  With regard to the proposal relating to group refusals, it is not intended that that power should be used frequently. If no one in a group claimed anything distinctive as an individual but relied on the general circumstances of the group and it was clear that those circumstances raised nothing in relation to our convention obligations, we might refuse entry to the group. There may be occasions on which a party arrives and it can show no reason why its members should be admitted under asylum procedures. That would occur where the claim was made on behalf of the group. However, any individual who is able to
  596
  show that his claim can be distinguished from that of members of the group would be dealt with in the normal way.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked why we do not use the handbook. As I said earlier, it is not an exhaustive document and the fact that it is not was acknowledged by the authors. It is not a definitive document. It must be a guide. It can be subject to change and challenge. On that basis I suggest that it would be wrong to incorporate it into legislation, which is necessarily a far more cumbersome vehicle.
  Perhaps I may turn to that part of the amendment which deals with children. I know that that is a matter about which your Lordships are anxious. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is anxious about it even though he has prevailed upon himself not to intervene on this amendment. It would add a new dimension to the legislation by incorporating special provision for all child asylum seekers, whether or not they are unaccompanied. I am not sure whether the noble Lord intended to include extra safeguards only for children who are unaccompanied, but the amendment would have a wider effect than that.
  It is clearly important that any dealings with children should be conducted in an understanding and sensitive manner. None of us would take exception to that. All immigration officers and asylum division staff are aware of that and they act sympathetically. Unaccompanied children are placed as quickly as possible with an appropriate carer, whether a relative or a member of the local authority social services department. In assessing an asylum claim, the whole range of circumstances of an individual is taken into account. Children are not returned to any country where it is not clear that there are adequate reception arrangements in place which have been confirmed in advance. Indeed, few children who arrive here are ever returned simply because of the problems which surrounds such arrangements.
  A claim for asylum must be assessed against the convention criteria. It does not matter whether you are a child or adult, the convention criteria are the criteria by which the asylum application must be considered. Due allowance must be made and is made for the maturity and ability of the child to express himself. Obviously reliance is placed on the assessment of social or welfare workers.
  To develop a formal system of the type envisaged seems to be over-elaborate and might actively encourage people to place their children within our system. The current systems offer adequate safeguards. I should not have thought that such a system would be necessary for those who arrive as part of a family group. To proceed in such a way would complicate the handling of family applications.
  I recognise that there is anxiety about children, and in particular children who become involved in the asylum process and how they are dealt with. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and I know that this will bring a smile to his face—that I shall consider the position of children. I shall see whether we can give

  597
  further consideration to including in the final version of the rules which will be laid before Parliament appropriate guidelines on the treatment of children.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: Goaded by the noble Earl, I shall make a brief intervention in relation to Immigration officers. The Committee should not go away with the idea that immigration officers are infallible. Of visitors' appeals to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, 25 per cent. are upheld. That is quite a substantial number.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister had his moment of fun about the procedures that we have adopted and I do not begrudge him that. However, the quality of the debate that has taken place on the amendment, the interventions from the two noble and learned Lords and the last remarks of the Minister have fully justified our initiative in taking this step. It would be proper for us to accept the amendment into the substantive amendment so that we can go forward with the progress that we have already made.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said in the final sentences of his reply. As my noble friend said, that wholly vindicates the position that we have taken in tabling the amendment. Whether or not the Government will draft something in similar terms remains to be seen.
  The Minister kept on asking why an immigration officer should not ask certain questions. It is not the asking of the questions but the presumptions of guilt which arise from the application of these rules to which we object. I am delighted that my noble friend has accepted the amendment.
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 85:
  Leave out paragraphs 11 to 14 and insert:
  (".If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a safe country to which an asylum applicant can be sent his application will normally be refused without substantive consideration of his claim to refugee status. A safe country is one in which the life or freedom of the asylum applicant would not be threatened (within the meaning of Article 33 of the Convention, and the provisions of the other Conventions listed in paragraph 1) and the government of which would not send the applicant elsewhere in a manner contrary to the principles of the Conventions and Protocol.
  .The Secretary of State shall not remove an asylum applicant without substantive consideration of his claim unless he has no connections with the United Kingdom and—

  (a) the asylum applicant has not arrived in the United Kingdom directly from the country in which he claims to fear persecution and has had an opportunity, at the border or within the territory of a safe third country, to make contact with that country's authorities in order to seek their protection under the Conventions and Protocols; or

  (b) there is other clear evidence of his admissibility to a safe third country.

  .Before returning a person under this paragraph, the Secretary of State is under an obligation to provide written confirmation from the authorities of the safe third country that the applicant will be admitted to its asylum determination procedure.").
  The noble Lord said: I must be brief but this is an important issue that needs to he argued more fully. At an early stage of our debates this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked the Minister what was the assumption behind his assertion that there is an international principle governing the situation of a person who has left his country to escape persecution; namely, that he must apply for asylum in the first safe country which he has been able to reach. Attention was drawn to the UNHCR briefing on this point. Therefore, I ask the Minister on what he bases that presumption. Is there any principle or rule in international law which prescribes the situation? According to the UNHCR, the answer is that there is none.
  I wish to ask a few other questions of the Minister. In relation to paragraph (10) what indication is there of what might constitute exceptional reasons for a person's claim to be considered here? Does having family members in the United Kingdom constitute exceptional reasons? What duty is there on the Secretary of State to consult the authorities to ensure that no refoulement will take place in the safe country? As was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, there is a risk that some refugees could be shunted from one country to another and treated rather like pariahs, with no country being prepared to accept responsibility for them. We say that safeguards should be introduced in order to deal with that situation. There are many other points which I should have raised had time permitted. I beg to move.
  Lord Tordoff: I should like to point to the fact that cases exist in which people are sent back to third countries where the authorities of this country obviously believe that they are safe but they are wrong about that. I refer to today's Guardian which states:
  "Kurds win compensation. The Home Office has agreed to make ex gratia payments of £5,000 each to three Kurdish asylum seekers detained by the Turkish authorities for 34 days after their plane was sent back".
  Those people were presumably sent back to Turkey because the authorities of this country believed that they would be safe there. The authorities were clearly wrong and the Home Office has had to pay £15,000 to clear up that matter.
  Earl Ferrers: It will come as no great surprise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to hear me say that we believe Amendment No. 85 contains several unacceptable provisions. In keeping with earlier amendments which we have already debated, it seeks to incorporate other international conventions into the text. I have explained our position on this to the Committee. We do not think that it is appropriate to include provisions of other conventions, however good they are, and even where we have signed up to them, in a Bill which is specifically concerned with asylum. We simply cannot have, as part of the arrangements for dealing with asylum which require international effort and co-operation, provisions which go wider than asylum and which may not evoke international unanimity. Of course these matters are important: they form the backdrop against which our decisions are taken, but I respectfully suggest that they go wider than the specific obligation to individual refugees.

  599
  If a country is told by another that the latter is sending back an applicant because he has arrived from the former, and is asked whether it will receive him, the country's natural reaction is to let him stay where he is because he will be safe. The right way out of this difficulty is to get international agreement on the criteria for assigning responsibility. This we have done in the Dublin Convention, which we have ratified and which we hope can be brought into operation in the near future.
  The amendment further provides that an applicant may not be removed unless he has "no connections" with the United Kingdom. It is already our practice to waive our normal third country policy if a person arriving here can show that he has close ties with this country. It is not possible to specify exactly what these might be in every case, as situations vary so much. However, as a general rule, immediate family members might constitute such a tie, particularly if there were a degree of dependency on such family members involved. However, the effect of the proposed text would be that any possible connection, however weak—for example, a holiday in London 10 years ago, membership of Manchester United Football Supporters' Club which a person had joined by post or a connection with a relative, however distant—perhaps a second cousin once removed—would oblige the United Kingdom to take responsibility for examining the claim, even if the applicant had stronger ties in the third country from which he had arrived. That cannot be right.
  The other major change proposed is that the Secretary of State should be obliged to obtain written confirmation from the receiving country that the returned applicant would be admitted to the asylum procedures. I do not think this is necessary, given that the Secretary of State must first satisfy himself that the third country is indeed safe—in other words, that the applicant would not be at risk there and that it would not send the applicant elsewhere in breach of the 1951 convention. These safeguards guarantee the applicant's safety. It is then for the other country to determine on what basis to treat the applicant.
  Lord Tordoff: With all due respect, that does not answer my question about the Kurds, where the system has clearly been shown to fail.
  Viscount Buckmaster: I support this amendment. I believe it is thoroughly sound. I had a post in Uganda, where I was responsible for refugees. I remember cases where mistakes were made and refugees were sometimes sent to countries which were not safe and several refugees suffered considerably as a result. I remember a classic case of this which occurred in London. At the time I was in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A young Ugandan man came to Britain. He was refused admission to Britain and he was sent to another country. I believe that country was Zaire. However, the authorities in London did not check the route that his plane was to take. The plane went to Zaire via Uganda. The man was hauled out of the plane by the Ugandan authorities—this occurred in the time of Amin's persecutions—and he was
  600
  imprisoned and suffered greatly. He managed ultimately to escape. That incident was entirely due to the fact that the authorities in London had not taken proper precautions and had not made the proper preparations for dealing with his case.
  Earl Ferrers: It is always difficult to comment on individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to Kurds. The Kurds in Turkey may base their claim on particular actions of security forces in the South East. Many Kurds of course live perfectly normal lives in Istanbul. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned compensation. I do not think that that matter is relevant. If people were returned to Turkey, for example, and there were subsequent doubts about whether they had sought asylum, compensation would not be a matter of concern.
  On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 86, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have carefully considered the position as it was discussed when Amendment No. 71 was first moved some hours ago. I know the Minister feels strongly that this is not a matter that should be put to the vote. However, I have taken into account the high quality of debate that has taken place on the amendments to Amendment No. 71. The amendments are on the record as substantive criticisms of the way in which the Government have approached the formulation of immigration rules. They have been supported by many outside organisations with a deep understanding of this matter. I believe it would be proper for the Committee to show its appreciation of the debate that has taken place by approving the original amendment as now amended. That may result in problems for the Government in terms of flexibility. However, I have enough confidence in their ingenuity in finding ways of securing by further amendment the flexibility that they feel they require. It is proper that the Committee, having given this matter its consideration, should now express its view.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cannot get away with it quite as easily as that. He has drawn the rules to the attention of the Committee. He has provided a great service in doing so. We have had an interesting debate this afternoon about the rules. They are complicated and they are sensitive. The Committee has criticised them, has expressed anxiety about them and has asked questions about them. The noble Lord is anxious about the time, as we all are. However, I must say that I do not think it is right to include these rules in statutory legislation. They are inflexible. The whole point of having such rules is that they should be subject to subordinate legislation. It is not right to include them in statutory legislation.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suggested that, if the Committee were to accept the amendment and the rules were to be included in statutory legislation, the Government would find some way of maintaining flexibility in this matter. However, with the greatest of respect, I must say that is an

  601
  irresponsible way in which to treat legislation. Either the rules should be included in the primary legislation or they should appear in secondary legislation. In my view they should appear in secondary legislation. I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment.
  7.28 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71), as amended, shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 117.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Longford, E.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Barnett, L.

  McNair, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Birk, B.

  Meston, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Nicol, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  David, B.

  Richard, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Desai, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Russell, E.

  Fitt, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Serota, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Grey, E.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

  Hollick, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Underhill, L.

  Howell, L. [Teller.]

  Whaddon, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Winstanley, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Alport, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Annaly, L.

  Denham, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Donaldson of Lymington, L.

  Arran, E.

  Downshire, M.

  Astor, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Barber, L.

  Elton, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Finsberg, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Flather, B.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Braine of Wheatley, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Gisborough, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Goold, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Burton, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Hacking, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Henley, L.

  Chilver, L.

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hives, L.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Howe, E.

  Cranborne, V.

  Jeffreys, L.

  602

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Renton, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Kimball, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Long, V.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Strange, B.

  Margadale, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller]

  Mersey, V.

  Morris, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Mottistone, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Munster, E.

  Ullswater, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Vivian, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Pender, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Wise, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Reay, L.

  Young, B.

  Rees, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment, as amended, disagreed to accordingly.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage resumes at 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993
7.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993 be approved. I shall speak also in favour of the approval of the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. Both orders were laid before the House on 21st January 1993. I shall formally move the Northern Ireland order later. The orders are made respectively under Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and Section 2(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.
The maximum number of Lords Justices was increased from 23 to 28 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1987 and there are now 28 judges holding appointment. The order proposed will increase that maximum number to 29.
In considering the justification for a further increase in the number of Lords Justices in England and Wales I hope that it may be helpful to set the matter in the context of demands on the Court of Appeal Civil Division and the resources which have been available to that court in recent years.
At the end of 1991, my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the then Master of the Rolls, in his review of the legal year, drew attention to the need for a:
"small increase in the judicial establishment of the Court of Appeal",
which at that time, in addition to himself, stood at 27 Lords Justices. In the following year the new Master of the Rolls echoed that call by identifying an increase in the number of Lords Justices sitting in the Court of Appeal as one means of helping to reverse a trend of increasing backlogs of work in that court.
The number of final appeals received in the Civil Appeals Office over the last seven years has remained roughly constant at about 900 cases a year. Although interlocutory appeals over that period have increased from under 700 receipts to nearly 800 in 1992, it still seems unlikely that the rise in backlogs of about 25 per cent. can be accounted for by the number of additional appeals. Rather, it seems that the number of cases disposed of has fallen. It is not easy to determine the exact causes lying behind that fall, but the increase in reserved judgments from 15 per cent. in 1986 to 31 per cent. in 1991 suggests that one reason is that cases are becoming more complex and are therefore taking longer to dispose of. That view is reinforced by an increase in the number of civil appeals which take more than a week to hear.
In the light of the increasing backlogs and the call made by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson for a small increase in the judicial establishment, which his successor echoed, an additional Lord Justice was appointed last month. That brought the complement up to the statutory limit and my wish to add a further Lord Justice to the strength has necessitated the order which we are considering this evening.
I recognise that it may be argued that, given the current position in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, an increase of two Lords Justices is not in itself sufficient. I should explain to the House that the ability of the Court of Appeal to get through its business is not determined solely by the number of Lords Justices. An internal report in 1989 which the then Master of the Rolls endorsed made it clear that the need for Lords Justices could be lessened by employing more legal staff in the Civil Appeal's Office. It was in recognition of that fact that I have since provided for five new legal posts in that office.
For the sake of completeness the House in considering the justification for the proposed increase in the limit will wish to bear in mind, the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal aside, that Lords Justices also sit in its Criminal Division and in the Divisional Court as well as undertaking extra curial work such as public inquiries and the chairmanship of such bodies as the Security Commission.
The second named order—the Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 1993—will increase the maximum number of puisne judges of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland from six to seven, thereby enabling the appointment of another judge. At present in Northern Ireland the High Court
604
is comprised of the Lord Chief Justice and six puisne judges, which is the maximum number permitted under Section 2(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.
I have reviewed, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, whether the appointment of an additional judge of the High Court would be justified at this time. The High Court judges in Northern Ireland perform a wide range of functions in the superior courts. In addition to dealing with the business of the three divisions of the High Court itself, the judges undertake a proportion of the criminal work of the Crown Court, in particular the trial of serious terrorist cases at Belfast Crown Court. The judges are required also to assist in the work of the Court of Appeal on a regular basis.
In respect of criminal trials, these are demanding an increasing commitment of judicial time. Some 80 per cent. of the Crown Court caseload dealt with by the High Court judges consists of the most serious terrorist trials, which are often of considerable length and complexity. It is obviously important for delays in all court proceedings to be kept to a minimum; this is particularly so in criminal cases, where the liberty of the subject is often involved. Accordingly in my discussions with the Lord Chief Justice we have agreed that the appointment of an additional judge will ensure that more judicial resources will be devoted to the work at Belfast Crown Court.
Measures have been taken already to ease the pressure on the High Court in respect of some civil work; the most notable step is a number of staged increases in the civil jurisdiction of the county courts in Northern Ireland which are likely to help by removing the more routine and lower value cases from the Queen's Bench Division. That measure has recently started. My information is that it is working well. We shall continue to keep its working under review.
It is clear nevertheless that the work of the High Court in a number of areas is steadily increasing. For example, the business submitted to the Queen's Bench Division increased overall by 23 per cent. between 1987 and 1991. The number of applications for judicial review increased three-fold between 1988 and 1991. In addition, a new commercial list has been recently introduced to give higher priority to commercial actions.
After careful consideration of the current and predicted workload of the Court of Appeal and the superior courts in Northern Ireland, I have reached the conclusion that additional appointments are necessary at this time and will assist in the more efficient dispatch of the business of those courts and that this House should further discharge its responsibility by approving the draft orders. I commend the orders to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clear exposition as to the background for the two orders. It is plain from the judicial statistics for 1991 that the increase is necessary. In 1990, 912 final appeals were set down in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. Nine hundred final appeals were disposed of during that year and 642 were still outstanding at the end of 1 he year. In 1991, 866 final appeals were set down; 782 were disposed of and at the end of the year 722 (an increase) were still outstanding. Similarly, in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal more appeals were outstanding at the end of 1991 than at the end of 1990. As the Lord Chief Justice said in your Lordships' House recently, it is approaching a national scandal that those who are awaiting their appeals in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and who may have their convictions quashed should be languishing in custody.
We on this side welcome any attempt to increase the speed and efficiency with which appeals in the two divisions of the Court of Appeal are heard. We welcome the proposals, in so far as they go.
I make two observations. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, the Lords Justices are not confined to judicial business. At present Mr. Justice Scott is heavily and fully engaged in other work. That means that his contribution to the Court of Appeal will have been removed for a period of many months.
The other observation I make, since I do not believe that a former Master of the Rolls could reasonably make it, is to pay full tribute to the work of the individual Lords Justices. It is exceptionally onerous work. It is not confined to sitting in court. There is an enormous amount of out-of-court work in terms of pre-appeal reading, the preparation of judgments and so forth. I believe that all lawyers from other jurisdictions who see our Courts of Appeal at work marvel at the quality of the work and the way that that quality of work is delivered with insufficient resources.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on other matters. The position lower down in the court system still troubles us. The single most important cause of delay is shortage of full-time judge power. In the Crown Office list waiting time for judicial review is at least 18 months. Bearing in mind the nature of the cases and the applications for judicial review, that simply is not tolerable. Should the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill pass through without substantial modification, delays will grow. In the Chancery Division at present a trial requiring more than three days of judicial time will wait almost two years. There is substantial delay in the Queen's Bench Division, in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and for criminal trials which need to be heard by a High Court judge. The Answer given in your Lordships' House recently indicates that the average period of waiting by an appellate from an industrial tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is about two years.
I am regretfully surprised and a shade disappointed that, despite all that has been said from both this side of the House and, more pertinently and powerfully, from those who hold high judicial office, we are not
606
today considering a request from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for an increase in the number of High Court judges, which I respectfully suggest is long overdue.
We therefore welcome the increase but are troubled as to whether the noble and learned Lord has given himself enough room for manoeuvre. Last Wednesday, your Lordships' House heard from the Lord Chief Justice that the present Master of the Rolls has estimated that 20 per cent. of the sitting time in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is taken up by litigants in person. If the eligibility proposals which we debated fully on an earlier occasion are forced through, that percentage will undoubtedly increase. That will involve further delays.
In 1987 your Lordships' House considered a request for an increase in the number of Lords Justices of Appeal from 23 to 28. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said on that occasion that the most important thing in a system of justice is that it should be quick in order to suit the needs of the people. Priorities may have changed since 1987. There may be a colder, harsher economic wind. Some may believe that these days delay is not the most significant denial of justice. Certainly in this House and in another place Ministers provide us with alternative injustices almost daily. Delay remains a significant blemish on the face of our system. As I said earlier, we therefore welcome this modest step but regretfully believe that it is too modest.
I turn succinctly to the question of Northern Ireland. The quality and distinction of the judges there are quite unmatched. Outside those who deal with Northern Ireland and its judicial system, that quality may well be largely unknown. It is certainly insufficiently commended. I willingly pay tribute to the quality of the judges in Northern Ireland since I can in part speak from personal experience. I do not think that any of us can begin to contemplate the burdens of the judges in Northern Ireland with all normal domestic life taken from them and with the necessity for 24 hour security. There are constant burdens not simply on the judges but on their families and those who know and love them. But we believe that the judiciary in Northern Ireland is severely overstretched.
As the noble and learned Lord indicated, delays in criminal trials, particularly where the allegations are of terrorist activities, are substantial. I have to say at once—again because I have carried out personal research with our colleagues at the Bar in Northern Ireland—that some of the delays cannot be attributed to the judges or the insufficiency of their number. Many defendants in terrorist cases request adjournments themselves because they want—not unreasonably it may be thought—counsel of their choice. But for whatever causes, trials in Northern Ireland are continuing on the unhappy basis that defendants have waited in custody, without bail, for up to two years. That cannot be right from the defendant's point of view nor from that of the complainant or witnesses nor for the repute of our system in Northern Ireland, when it is looked at by people abroad who may not be entirely favourable or generously inclined towards us.

607
The suggestion that we make—I hope in a spirit of helpfulness—is that it is essential to have three High Court judges sitting continuously at Crumlin Road court-house in Belfast. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm that the increase of one judge will lead to that situation. Though recognising that the noble and learned Lord has a good deal more intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland than we do, we suggest that those pressures would point to an increase of two High Court judges in Northern Ireland rather than the present one. Accordingly, we on this side of the House welcome the step that is proposed but are regretfully pessimistic that it may not be sufficient.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I speak only to the English order, wishing to support the views which have just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. This is a depressing and hardly revolutionary order. It suggests that the powerful case for more judges in the High Court, which was put before the House in the clearest terms on at least two occasions in the past year, has not so far had any effect.
The procedures and administration of the Court of Appeal have been immensely improved and streamlined in recent years, thanks to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in the Civil Division. I like to think that both branches of the legal profession have responded to the combination of carrots and sticks which he offered during that period. That has undoubtedly mitigated the problems, but the pressures of work in the Court of Appeal clearly remain. As has been said, the work is onerous and often complex and quite serious delays persist, not least because appropriate priority has to be given to certain categories of urgent cases such as those involving children.
The Court of Appeal therefore still has to rely upon puisne judges who are needed elsewhere and upon retired judges. The pressures on the Court of Appeal inevitably have an effect on the rest of the administration of justice. It is a great shame that the opportunity has not been taken to address the wider problems of manpower in the High Court about which your Lordships have recently heard. For example, your Lordships may remember being told of the problems in the commercial court. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reminded us, yesterday we were told at Question Time that the average delay in securing a hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal is two years. That means that in employment cases, a matter may come before the Court of Appeal years after it was first heard in an industrial tribunal.
Now is not the time to expand upon those problems, particularly as they have been discussed recently in the House. But I ask at this stage whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate whether anything more can be expected in the foreseeable future.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be aware of the crucial importance of the courts in Northern Ireland. There is a divided community where it would appear that on
608
occasions a significant section has no faith in and does not place its trust in the judicial system and the judiciary. I have never taken that view, but I am realistic enough to know that certain sections of the Northern Ireland community would like to cast aspersions or suspicion on the whole judicial procedure in Northern Ireland.
I refer only to Northern Ireland, after some years of experience there. It is of crucial importance that the one judge—and it has already been advocated that there should be two—should have the support and trust of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I can see difficulties arising in the future and I should like to put a case to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
In the late 1960s a vacancy occurred in Northern Ireland for a judge. There were many applicants at that time for the position because it was before the advent of the civil rights movement and before the danger became obvious to judges. One of the applicants for the vacancy in the High Court was a man who had a brilliant war record with many military honours for his service in the Army during the war. He had many academic qualifications, as well as legal and other qualities, and he applied for the job. However, before his application was put in he knew that he had little chance of getting it. Through some of his friends an approach was made to me. I asked why he had not got the job —he was an ex-serviceman; he had many military commendations and all those academic qualifications. The reason given was that he was a Catholic and therefore at that time he could not be appointed to the position.
I was then a Member of another place. I approached the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General at the time and told them that in my estimation, without any legal qualifications whatever, I thought that the man might be a possibility for the position. They told me that they would look into the matter, see what were his qualifications and speak to me later. Both did so. They came back to me and told me that they were under a great deal of pressure—the words which they used were that they were "under an awful lot of pressure"—from the Northern Ireland Government which was still in existence, to appoint (again using their words) "one of their own". That meant that he was not to be a Catholic.
The whole matter dragged on for a few months and then I was told from someone in another place that the Lord Chancellor, who always had the responsibility for appointing the Northern Ireland judges, was under such extreme pressure from the Northern Ireland Government that he could not appoint a Catholic on his own. Remember, that Catholic had a brilliant war record and excellent academic qualifications. In order to escape the pressure being exerted, the Lord Chancellor would appoint two judges. So they appointed the person I spoke of and they appointed another judge who was the Unionist nominee. That is a very sad reflection on the whole judicial system in Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be aware in relation to the judge who is about to be appointed that there will be people

609
in Northern Ireland who will be looking at his religious affiliations rather than his judicial qualifications.
I am only too well aware that at the present time there are many Catholics in Northern Ireland who are unwilling to accept the position of a judge of the High Court. As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Williams, they take upon themselves all sorts of security arrangements. They are under guard 24 hours a day. Many of them are very unwilling. The same thing applies to members of the Protestant community who are doing very well in a financial sense at the Bar in Northern Ireland and who are unwilling to undertake all the responsibilities and security arrangements involved in taking up the position of a judge.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who takes the final responsibility for the appointment which is about to be made, whether it will be done on the recommendation of the Bar Association. Or will there be political or religious considerations coming from Northern Ireland in relation to the person about to be appointed? I only mentioned that case, of which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is probably aware—all he has to do is look at the history; it was in the late 1960s—to point out to him how crucially important it is that the judge about to be appointed has the support and the trust of the whole community in Northern Ireland.
8 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have frequently, consistently and most sincerely paid tribute from time to time to the outstanding powers of advocacy of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that, mindful of the anxieties that have been expressed about the very serious shortage of senior judges, he has focused all those powers upon the Treasury in the hope of remedying the situation. I therefore express my deep sympathy that he will be standing before us today with virtually nothing to offer. I say virtually nothing to offer because, as has already been pointed out, Lord Justice Scott is to be taken away from the Court of Appeal and will no doubt be out of commission for a very long time. That is not an unusual situation. The report which my noble and learned friend will have received from the present Master of the Rolls mentions that last year one member of the court was engaged on an inquiry for the whole legal year, save for five days at the end. That is a recurring situation.
I have no doubt that in the course of exercising his powers of advocacy, my noble and learned friend will have drawn the attention of the Treasury to four quite distinct grounds for increasing the number—not up to 29 but, I venture to suggest, certainly to 35.
The first ground is the report of the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, which was delivered at the end of last year. I quote from only a small portion of it. He starts his introduction by referring to the conclusions of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson as the previous Master of the Rolls, who ended his conclusions for the 1991–92 report with a sad statement, warning that,
610
"if changes are not made, the next report is likely to be considerably more gloomy than this".
Sir Thomas Bingham then added immediately afterwards:
"Regrettably, that pessimistic prognosis has been borne out in the year now under review".
He went on to say:
"the total of appeals outstanding at the end of the legal year, reveals a relatively gradual but very steady increase over the period, from 925 outstanding appeals on 30 September 1986 to 1214 on the same date in 1992. Over the last year alone there has been an increase of 79, from 1135 outstanding appeals to 1214".
I emphasise what follows:
"This is a very significant increase, given that on average one 3-judge division of the Court hears about 75 appeals in a year".
There is therefore a justification for three more Court of Appeal judges, leaving aside the replacement of Lord Justice Scott, merely to keep the increase at bay, let alone account for what exists at the moment.
Continuing with the report, the Master of the Rolls pointed out that the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, has great demands on it outside the civil appellate work.
"Throughout the legal year, 3 Lords Justices sat in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and 2 in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. At any time the judicial strength of the Civil Division was therefore reduced by 5 Lords Justices".
He also went on to say that two Lords Justices, one the Deputy Chief Justice and the other the senior presiding judge have:
"duties in connection with such matters as Judicial Studies and various aspects of Security".
The report produced by the Master of the Rolls is accordingly my first point. My second point, which is quite separate, is the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill, which is shortly to return to this House. Noble Lords may remember that that Bill is about to achieve a number of features. On the pensions side, the judicial pension is to be downgraded for the senior judges and the circuit judges, who will have to serve 20 years for their pension instead of 15. But on the age side, very much in answer to judicial pressure, the retirement age is to go down from 75 to 70; and what is significant to the point I am now making is that, once this part of the Bill becomes law, no judge over 75, retired or otherwise, may sit in a judicial capacity.
On 30th June 1992 on Second Reading of that Bill, I pointed out to the House that figures I had received from the Lord Chancellor's Department over the previous year showed that 500 judge-days had been sat by judges over 75; and, in the Court of Appeal, 100 judge-days by judges over 80. I quoted from the review of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson this statement:
"Retired Lords Justices provide the biggest source of reinforcement and without their help the work of the Civil Division would be in dire straits".
He listed the eight retired Lords Justices who had sat during that year, and five of them were over 80 years of age. The Master of the Rolls currently lists eight judges, four of them—nature having taken its toll—now over 80 and one who will be 80 next year. That makes five out of his eight.
The number of legal weeks sat by retired judges in the Court of Appeal is 48½. In order for that work to be dealt with, at least two more Lords Justices are

611
required unless the provision in the Bill has been included merely for cosmetic purposes and will not be brought into effect for year after year.
The third ground, quite separate and distinct, is the Bill being debated today—the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. As I understand it, it is common ground in the department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and in the Home Office that if the appellate provisions in that Bill remain as drafted, there will be a significant increase in applications for judicial review. That will involve Court of Appeal judges sitting in the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal judges sitting in the Court of Appeal. More judges will be required—a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf on Second Reading.
My fourth and final separate point has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; that is, the consequences of the drastic reduction in legal aid. Around 20 per cent. of Court of Appeal work is taken up by litigants in person. It must follow as night follows day that if those drastic cuts occur there will be more and more litigants in person. It is common ground that litigants in person involve an enormous extra demand on court staff for advice and on judges for ensuring that the litigants understand the case and what is happening in court.
Those four separate grounds show what a pathetic offer has been made by the Treasury; an offer somewhat like the provision of a strip of Elastoplast to staunch a haemorrhage. It is a refusal properly to fund the administration of justice which is beginning to become near contemptuous.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I owe the House an apology. I assumed that the two orders would be moved separately. I find that I am wrong and that they have been moved simultaneously.
I wish to welcome the Northern Ireland order as a small step in the right direction. I say that because I understand that it is possible for a given judge to hear a case in the court of first instance and then again, as a member of a panel of judges, to hear the same case on appeal. That seems a situation greatly to be avoided if at all possible in that we all expect fresh judicial minds to be gathered together at the appeal stage. It is a matter about which I have been in correspondence with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I hope that the situation will soon begin to improve.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, in addressing the House the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that I could hardly be expected to pay tribute to the Lords Justices. I do not know why he said that. Perhaps of all Members present in the House today I know more about the work that they do. I should therefore like to take this opportunity of paying a heartfelt tribute to them.
By definition their work is difficult because of the level at which they are working and the fact that they are examining the work of other judges. Often the
612
problems which face them are novel: at times they are called upon to interpret the law in a way which causes the law to grow. That is not something which is done lightly. They are prepared, as I well know, to sit at all hours should emergencies arise. On many occasions appeals have been brought perhaps in the middle of a Friday afternoon when it was necessary that they be decided before the weekend. Lords Justices have had personal engagements which they have readily set on one side in order that the work of the court may go on.
It should be known that it has never been a case of trying to persuade individuals to sit. The first person who is asked to sit invariably agrees to do so. Whatever else may be in doubt, there is no way in which the productivity of the Court of Appeal can be increased by means of increased effort on the part of the judges. They are working flat out and, indeed, I have heard their work described by other judges as in the nature of working on a treadmill.
The Court of Appeal must be looked at as a whole, not only the civil division but also the criminal division, as has already been made clear. Criminal work has priority. I make no complaint about that. But I, as Master of the Rolls —and I do not doubt that this is also the experience of Sir Thomas Bingham, my successor—while accepting that criminal work has priority, have found it disappointing that our establishment should be imperceptibly whittled away by the legitimate demands of the criminal division. The Lord Chief Justice made clear that in his opinion the present state of the work of the criminal division is wholly unacceptable in terms of the delay in the hearing of appeals. In order to mount an extra court in the criminal division one needs a Lord Justice and two puisne judges. As he does not have the puisne judges to sit to make up the extra division, it may be that there is no immediate need for a Lord Justice on that account. But the moment that he has additional puisne judges—as I hope he will in the near future —there will inevitably be a request from him to Sir Thomas to provide yet another Lord Justice to work in the criminal division. That will compound the problems which face the civil division.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that I had asked for a "small" increase in the civil division. All I would say is that it is not that small. I certainly asked for a small increase; I meant small against the background of 27. I do not have access to the correspondence which I had with the Lord Chancellor's officials while I was in office—not that it was taken away from me but merely that I did not wish to be burdened with all the files. My recollection may therefore be inaccurate but I believe that I was saying to him and to his officials that we need certainly three and probably five additional Lords Justices. Therefore, while the present offering is extremely welcome, it is a crumb in the scale of comfort and far more are needed.
The noble and learned Lord also said that I asked for a legal staff and have now been provided with it. That is true. Two years ago, or perhaps a little more, I asked for legal members of staff and I got them in July of last year. The purpose of having the legal staff was to make the court more efficient in the sense that

613
work when put before the court would be better prepared—papers and the like—and also to ensure that, in so far as there was knowledge within the court as to parallel decisions or lines of argument which needed to be considered by the judges, it was made available to them. But I do not think anyone ever thought —certainly I never thought—that the provision of legal staff would make a very significant contribution to the amount of work which the court was able to get through. It makes some contribution, of course, but not the kind of contribution which perhaps might be implicit in my noble and learned friend's remarks today.
Among the resources that I was able to call upon there was one judge of the family division—a puisne judge—who helped us out for half the year, or perhaps a little more, the other half being provided by the President of the Family Division sitting in the Court of Appeal. It is entirely right that the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor for the Chancery Division should spend as much time as they can in the Court of Appeal. They are very senior judges. We need their specialist experience in developing the law. But they cannot sit all the time. So an agreement was reached some years ago that, in so far as the President of the Family Division could not sit, he would ask one of the puisne judges to sit. But it was only intended to be a temporary arrangement. It is wrong in principle that one should have a puisne judge sitting in the civil division of the Court of Appeal who in many cases has to hear appeals from judges of similar standing. Indeed it could happen—although we administratively tried to avoid it—that the judge concerned was involved with an appeal from a judge who was far senior to him in his own division. It must always be remembered that if he is sitting in a court of three his may be the decisive voice. So at least half a Lords Justice was absolutely essential if we were to be able to replace the Family Division judge, useful though his work is. I fear that this small offering will not enable my successor to do so.
The backlog began to rise at the end of 1991, and I warned of it. Sir Thomas Bingham, giving a report which in fact covered my year of office, said that the backlog was getting worse. My recollection of the monthly figures—I used to watch monthly figures, as my successor no doubt does—showed not only that the backlog was increasing but that the rate of increase was increasing rapidly. That does not seem to be in any way reflected in the proposed order.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill as likely to create more work through judicial review. That may be so—I hope not —but that is more work at one stage removed. Clause 9 provides a direct appeal for the first time to the Court of Appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I was asked if I objected to it. I said that I did not and that I thought that it was right and sensible. But I certainly never contemplated that it would not be used.
There are only two ways of tackling the problem in the Court of Appeal. One is to produce a considerable increase in the judicial strength of the Court of Appeal. The other is to activate the power given under
614
Section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act to put in place a proper filtering system to get rid of hopeless appeals without having a full hearing. The figures show that the rate of success of that class of appeals which has passed through a filter is considerably higher than the rate of success of those appeals which are brought as of right. It is a lesson which should be learnt.
My final point is one which has always caused me both anxiety and irritation. It is that although this House will be told—and rightly told—that it is being asked to increase the statutory limit on the number of judges, what matters on the ground is what is known along the judicial corridors (perhaps "in the trade" is the wrong expression) as the Treasury limit. There are two limits. One is the statutory limit, which is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Then there is another limit. One cannot appoint up to that statutory limit without the leave of the Treasury. For most, if not all, of the time when I was Master of the Rolls we were held down below the statutory limit.
I can well understand that successive Lord Chancellors would not want to trouble each House of Parliament with increases in the judicial establishment from month to month or even on a half-yearly or yearly basis. But what really should be done here is to take a giant leap forward in terms of the statutory limit, putting it as high as can conceivably be required and then use it up with Treasury consent as the case demands. I hope that I can be assured by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that with this very small increase in the statutory limit he also has Treasury concurrence to judges actually being appointed within that limit.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, makes a most telling and sensitively modulated and understated case for the injustices that occur through shortfalls in judicial time arising out of the shortages in judicial appointments in the High Court. However, it is my view—I suspect that it must be the view of others—that the cost of delivering the administration of justice has to be conceived of as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, must bear in mind that a diminution of taxpayers' funds being spent on legal aid might allow funds to be available for the appointment of senior judges or vice versa. It is fundamental to the role of government to avoid single issue politics and to consider cost priorities. That is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's horrendous problem. Those noble Lords who are disappointed by these orders cannot possibly have it both ways.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that I detect no opposition to the approval of the draft orders and so anything more I have to say is really by way of supplement. I begin by assuring my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington that I hope to be in a position to see another Lord Justice in place immediately the order comes into effect.
I quoted from my noble and learned friend's last report as Master of the Rolls the phrase to which he referred in correspondence. He supplemented that and it will not surprise your Lordships to know that his

615
memory of what he was asking for in correspondence is not overstated. When requests were made for staffing of the appeal office it was estimated in support of that application that five lawyers in the office would save the time of about two Lords Justices.
I endorse very much the view that the members of the Court of Appeal do a supremely important job supremely well and extremely willingly. I am very conscious—perhaps not quite as conscious as my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington—of the work that they do and I have had the opportunity of reviewing quite a lot of it in detail in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. I know the high quality and care with which these judgments are prepared, and I think it would also be fair for me to say that one of the matters that continually attracts admiration from visitors is the extent to which the Court of Appeal is able to deliver immediate judgments on very complicated cases, and sometimes in areas with which the members of the court individually were not perhaps particularly familiar in practice but where they have been able to formulate their views quickly, clearly and well and deliver judgments even more rapidly than your Lordships' House is able to do.
I should also like to take this opportunity of saying what I have had an opportunity of saying in public from time to time—that I very much admire the way in which all the judiciary of Northern Ireland carry out their functions. I must say that I have the impression on the whole that the community in Northern Ireland respects the impartiality of the judges. I have heard comments from time to time on the justice process as a whole, but so far as the judges themselves are concerned my impression is that they command confidence.
It is my responsibility to advise Her Majesty on the appointment of judges in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may rest assured that I do so on the basis of the talents and suitability of the individual in question. I am under no pressure from anyone to appoint members of a particular religious affiliation. Of course, I would not yield to such pressure, but it is fair to say that I am not under any such pressure from any quarter. Sense would dictate that one has to have some regard to that factor in the situation in Northern Ireland as a whole. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, knows well, there are Protestants and Catholics on the High Court Bench in Northern Ireland and I believe that that will continue. Certainly, when it comes to an individual appointment I seek to recommend appointment on merit alone.
The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and I have agreed that the extra judge will have the effect of making it possible generally to have three judges sitting at the Crumlin Road. He does not guarantee that it could be all the time because there are sometimes exigencies to be dealt with, but the idea is that there should be three High Court judges sitting at Crumlin Road.
The position so far as High Court judge power is concerned is as I explained it in the answer to an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of
616
Lairg, some time ago. I expect to receive the report of the committee quite soon and then I shall need time to consider its recommendations in detail.
I am aware of the matters to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has referred, and one must take account of all the circumstances. The Government have to take account of all the pressures for resources these days, and at present my position is that I am able to put forward this order in respect of the Court of Appeal. Other matters in relation to the High Court will have to await the report of the working party to which I earlier referred.
The position so far as the Court of Appeal generally is concerned and the list has been described in the present report by the Master of the Rolls for the year ending 1992. He says there that there would appear to be only three ways of reversing the trend of increasing backlogs. The first is:
"To increase the number of cases heard by the Court in a year. Assuming that all divisions of the Court are fully listed … this would mean reducing the time spent on each appeal or on some appeals. Steps have already been taken in this direction (by providing time for pre-reading, and by submission of skeleton arguments)".
This gives me an opportunity of paying a very warm and sincere tribute to the work in that direction which my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington carried out. A great deal was done under his chairmanship. The present Master of the Rolls goes on to end that paragraph by saying:
"Further steps are under consideration".
The second way is:
"To reduce the number of appeals reaching the Court for full hearing".
As has been mentioned, power to alter and require leave to appeal is in the Courts and Legal Services Act, and the present Master of the Rolls says:
"Experience suggests that this could be done"—
that is to say, extending the present requirements for leave to appeal
"with minimal risk of excluding appeals with any chance of success".
The third is:
"To increase the number of Lords Justices sitting in the Court of Appeal".
He continues:
"Courses (ii) and (iii) are matters for political, not judicial, decision. And it seems unlikely that the problem can be solved by adoption of any single course in isolation. It seems likely that some combination of these three courses can alone offer the hope that the present disquieting trends can be reversed".
So far as the other matters that have been raised are concerned, I think none of them would suggest that this order should not be approved. I therefore renew the Motion that your Lordships should approve this order.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he has suggested that other steps would be taken by, for example, activating Section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act. Is he able to tell us that those steps are being taken, because I have asked for them to be taken for a very long time now?
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble and learned friend knows, we have discussed this a great deal. A lot of controversy existed about that provision. A degree of difference of opinion existed about it on the Cross

617
Benches. As my noble and learned friend knows, I have had the intention of bringing forward proposals as soon as possible, and I believe that "possible" is becoming a good deal nearer than it was the last time we discussed it.
In conclusion, I should perhaps say, noticing the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, there, that so far as I understand the position it is not necessary for a judge who took the trial to sit in the Court of Appeal so far as the judicial manpower in Northern Ireland is concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move. Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993
8.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order in Council is to make adjustments to the rules which govern the allocation of jurisdiction to the courts of the different parts of the United Kingdom in civil cases. The first part of the order deals with cases which have a connection with more than one part of the United Kingdom: where the plaintiff is English and the defendant Scottish, for example. The second part deals with rules of jurisdiction in Scotland.
The existing rules allocating jurisdiction within the United Kingdom are set out in Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. They largely —-but not entirely—follow the rules in the 1968 Brussels convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. That convention deals with jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as between member states of the European Community, and the main purpose of the 1982 Act was to give effect to the convention in the United Kingdom. When Spain and Portugal acceded to the Brussels convention in 1989 the opportunity was taken to modify some of the rules of jurisdiction. We have decided, after consulting interested bodies within the legal profession, that the intra-UK rules of jurisdiction in Schedule 4 should also be amended.
The power to do this comes from Section 14 of the 1982 Act. The order makes amendments to Schedule 4 in three areas: contracts of employment, related claims concerning a contract and real property, and holiday lettings.
Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention provides that in contract cases a defendant may be sued in the
618
country of his domicile or in the courts for the place of performance of the contract. That article has now been amended to include a provision relating specifically to individual contracts of employment. The amendment provides that the place of performance of such a contract is the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work. If he does not habitually work in any one country, he may choose to sue the employer in the courts for the place of business through which he was engaged.
The flexibility accorded by this new provision is intended to benefit the employee, as the weaker party in the contractual relationship. I see no reason why Schedule 4 should not be amended to keep it in line with the Brussels Convention in this respect, and the order provides accordingly. For example, its effect will be to make it clear that a person from Belfast who works there for a company based in London will be able to bring proceedings against the company, in a matter relating to his employment, in Belfast.
The order also permits a further choice, which is given to a plaintiff employee by a new fifth paragraph in Article 17 of the Brussels Convention. That paragraph invalidates a choice of court agreement in cases concerning a contract of employment unless the agreement was made after the dispute arose. However, it allows an employee (but not an employer) to take advantage of a pre-dispute agreement which confers jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant's domicile or that of the place of performance of the contract.
A new paragraph 4 in Article 6 of the Brussels Convention provides that, where in a contract case the plaintiff is suing the same defendant over rights in rem in real property, then, if the two actions can conveniently be combined, he may bring both actions in the country where the property is situated. I believe that there is merit in enabling two issues between the parties to be dealt with by the one court in a single set of proceedings. A similar provision has therefore been added to Schedule 4.
Finally, Article 16(1), which gives exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings relating to immovable property to the courts of the state in which the property is situated, has been amended with respect to the particular case of short-term holiday lets. It now contains an exception in cases relating to tenancies concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months. In such cases the courts of the defendant's domicile also have jurisdiction, so long as both the landlord and the tenant are natural persons—that is to say, not companies—and are domiciled in the same contracting state. We agree that this special provision is justified. It would mean, for example, that a dispute between two English people over a holiday letting in Scotland would not have to be heard in Scotland if it was more convenient for it to be dealt with in England. I should add that the consultation paper which preceded the preparation of this order canvassed a slightly different amendment to Article 16(1), but we have since concluded that this cannot be adopted since the powers in Section 14 of the 1982 Act enable

619
amendments to be made to Schedule 4 only if they correspond with those made to the Brussels Convention.
The second part of the order consists of amendments to Schedule 8 to the 1982 Act. This schedule contains the rules as to jurisdiction within Scotland. At the time of implementation of the Brussels Convention it was decided to take the opportunity to review and codify the Scottish rules of jurisdiction. Following the recommendations of the 1980 Report of the Scottish Committee on Jurisdiction and Enforcement, chaired by Lord Maxwell, it was decided that the Scottish rules should generally follow those of the Brussels Convention. Schedule 8 therefore provides a comprehensive code of jurisdiction for Scotland.
After consulting representatives and members of the legal profession in Scotland and receiving a favourable response, I have decided that the rules in Schedule 8 should also be amended to bring them into line with the revised Brussels Convention. The Lord Advocate has agreed with that view. The amendments made by the order to Schedule 8 have the same effect as those for Schedule 4 which I have already explained.
I believe that these amendments are useful. They have the support of the judiciary and interested bodies within the legal profession. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we express our support for this order.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I join in welcoming this proposal, in particular the flexibility in employment cases which it is to introduce even though it is apparently to deny Englishmen the delights of litigation in Scotland.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry that it should have that effect. I am not sure that it would. I am grateful for the support which the proposal has received.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Fingerprinting]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 8.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("his;") to end of line 8 and insert ("except that asylum-seekers under the age of 18 years, whether unaccompanied or a dependant, shall not be finger-printed.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we start our discussion of Clause 3. Looking at our
620
amendments on this clause I feel that we are only scratching the surface of the absurdities that exist there—that is to say, the extent to which a full-blown fingerprinting procedure is brought into asylum law without any clear indication of how it is going to operate, what effect it will have or what relationship it will have with fundamental civil rights.
I am not an out-and-out opponent of fingerprinting under all circumstances. I myself have been fingerprinted at 3.30 in the morning when awakened by the police, who said that they had stopped somebody driving a car in the boot of which there was stolen property which had come from my house. They insisted on coming round at that moment to obtain a statement from me and also to obtain my fingerprints. At 3.30 a.m. one is not very conscious of one's civil rights. On reflection I am sure that I should have said "What are these fingerprints to be used for? Can I be assured in writing that they will be destroyed when the occasion for their use has expired?" and so on, but I did not do that. I was anxious to make my statement and to get back to bed. I was so anxious that I wrote the statement myself rather than trust a policeman to write it for me and then I signed it. The police thought that was an extraordinary procedure.
So, of itself, fingerprinting is not objectionable. However, the fingerprinting of asylum seekers is a very extraordinary procedure. When the original Bill first came before another place in November 1991, Ministers described it as being a process to maintain our system's integrity and to help check cases where there is evidence of multiple social security claims. That is what it is intended to do.
That is all very well, but every time we have asked about multiple applications for asylum we have come down to very small figures. Only this afternoon the Minister admitted that there were only 27 convictions for multiple applications. One or two of them have been very dramatic and Ministers quote them at all possible opportunities. But that does not mean of itself that it is a very serious problem.
It is now being claimed that fingerprinting is going to be used for other purposes as well. It is to be used for co-ordinating the activities of the Department of Social Security and the Home Office Immigration Service. I do not see any explicit plans for that to be done. I do not see any provision that fingerprints are going to be obtained by the Department of Social Security and, when inquiries are made of the Home Office, produced for checking against the Home Office records compiled under this clause.
If it were suggested that the Department of Social Security were to begin fingerprinting applicants for benefit I believe that there would be a much wider outcry than there has been on this particular provision. I certainly do not see how in practice the proposed fingerprinting will be effective. I realise that to some extent I am speaking about the wider issues that can be covered in a debate that the clause stand part of the Bill. I promise the Committee that that means I will not repeat my arguments when we come to that debate, but I think it is proper that

621
amendments on particular subjects should be introduced by a general conspectus of the position as regards fingerprinting.
Ministers, in dealing with the previous Bill, did not give any assurance that fingerprints would be kept confidential in any way; indeed, they said they were not persuaded that there were any grounds for treating them any differently from even more sensitive material. A number of people will feel that there are grounds for treating fingerprints with a good deal of confidentiality and that we are far down the road to a police state if we start to fingerprint those who are not accused of any criminal activity. I must remind the Committee that that is the situation with asylum seekers. They are not being accused of any criminal activity, nor, to refer back to my own case, are they being required to be witnesses in any case involving criminal activity. For the first time fingerprinting is being extended to what is in effect a civil proceeding, even though it may be thought of as an international civil proceeding.
That leads me to my next query about fingerprinting. What are the international implications of fingerprinting? If it is to be effective and government are worried about concurrent applications to different countries, will the fingerprints be made available to immigration departments in other safe countries? If so (in the classic phrase) I believe that we should be told. But we are not being told how those fingerprints will be used. We are told in subsections (6), (7) and (8) about the provisions for the destruction of fingerprints. I welcome that. However, that does not give any indication of the kind of provision that there would have to be analogous to that in the Data Protection Act 1984 if the security of fingerprinting and the transfer of fingerprints to unsuitable third parties were to be prevented.
I turn to the first of the specific amendments on the Order Paper in the name of myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. The noble Baroness sends her apologies. She is lecturing in Guildford this evening and is unable to be with us. In this amendment we turn to perhaps the most obvious and extreme of the intrusions on civil liberties introduced by Clause 3, that is, the proposal that fingerprinting should be extended to children under the age of 18 or (if you like) to minors. I find the proposal quite extraordinary. In the context of what I have already said I can just about understand that the Government may seek to argue that the fingerprinting of adult applicants is a justifiable procedure, although I disagree with that argument. But to argue that it should be extended to those under the age of 18 seems to me absolutely extraordinary.
I invite the Committee to consider the position of these children coming to this country. We must assume for the purposes of debate that they are coming from countries where there has been oppression, persecution and perhaps torture and where action has been taken against them and their families by the authorities, because it is authorities that undertake these actions. The idea that one of the first things to happen to them in what is supposed to
622
be a safe haven is that their hands should be plonked down on an inked pad and then on to a sheet of paper is most extraordinary. The right reverend Prelate correctly said that the state in which they find themselves is traumatic. Surely, this is exactly a situation that will revive all the worst fears that they have. It will revive the trauma and reduce or remove their confidence in the independence and justice of the authorities in the country in which they find themselves. I do not believe that as a civilised country we should in any circumstances wish to impose these fingerprinting procedures on children coming to this country. Certainly, this extension of what otherwise is a procedure adopted in criminal cases seems quite extraordinary. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: During the Second Reading debate some of us expressed our disquiet over the matter of fingerprinting. I expressed disquiet on the ground that I was not convinced that it was necessary. I inquired why the standard acknowledgment letter should not be a sufficient requirement to avoid multiple applications. I understand that the purpose of fingerprinting is primarily to avoid that. I have seen very little evidence that the standard acknowledgment letter is not successful in greatly reducing the number of multiple applications. The Minister replied at Second Reading that he felt fingerprints were the only totally safe way, but I have yet to see evidence that there is multiple application under the standard acknowledgment letter. I am by no means convinced that this is necessary. If to that is added the weight of argument that we have already heard it seems to me that there is a strong case against fingerprinting.
The case has been argued on the ground that it is an infringement of our civil liberties. It is not the custom in our country to do it except when people are accused of criminal offences. As I argued on Second Reading, for those coming to this country the association between fingerprinting and what they may have already experienced will be a traumatic experience.
When we apply the provision to children the case becomes even more overwhelming. I can find no evidence that children under 18 are making multiple applications. Why is it necessary that they should be fingerprinted? Why should it be included in the Bill when there is no apparent abuse that is sought to be remedied? If that is the case, I also argue that children and teenagers are more likely to be in trauma than adults as a result of experiences they have had in their own country. I believe that the amendment that asylum seekers under the age of 18, whether unaccompanied or dependent, should not be fingerprinted is a wise and proper one.
The Government have made the concession that children under 16 must be fingerprinted only in the presence of an adult who is not an authorised person. That is a welcome concession, but there is no indication of who is an appropriate adult. Further, there has been no real concession on the matter of age. Is it not possible for the Government to consider setting a minimum age for fingerprinting along the

623
lines of the amendment? I believe that because fingerprinting is unnecessary for children we should take serious note of the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: In the absence of my noble friend Lady Seear who, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said, has an engagement elsewhere tonight, I should not want the argument not to be reinforced from these Benches. It is a subject upon which Liberals, from way back, have felt strongly. That is not to say that these days one might not take a slightly more relaxed view about it. Indeed, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I have been fingerprinted in somewhat similar circumstances. After arriving at Heathrow at 12.30 a.m. and finding that the car that was going to take me back into the centre of London had been broken into, the police wanted my fingerprints to check with the fingerprints that were already in the car to see whether any extraneous ones could identify the miscreant. I gave them willingly because it was late at night and I did not worry too much about my civil rights.
On the other hand, it is clearly in the minds of people in this country, let alone people from overseas, that fingerprinting is something which is attached to criminality. It is that flavour of criminality associated with fingerprints that we do not want to attach to people who are seeking refuge in this country. The Government may think that they are all criminals, I do not know. But they should not give that impression. The case was argued well by the right reverend Prelate. I shall not add to the argument. I wish merely to say that I am entirely behind the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Faithful: One is bound to ask, why fingerprints? There is another side to the coin. It might be in the interests of some children to have their fingerprints taken, because, for instance, under the Children Act 1989 it is sometimes possible to reunite children with their families. Some families who put a child on an aeroplane to save it for the time being, but hoping to see it again later, have the child's fingerprints taken before it comes to this country so that they may reclaim the child later. That sounds far-fetched, but it has been known to happen. There is another side to the coin.
Lord Renton: The effect of Amendment No. 7 would be to exempt all people under 18 from fingerprinting. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it clear that he did not object, in principle, to the fingerprinting of adults. How right he is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should make myself clear. I do not object to fingerprinting under all circumstances, but I have not said that I would approve of the fingerprinting of asylum seekers.
Lord Renton: If I may say so, the noble Lord's experience in this matter —I am looking at it in the broad—must be some years out of date. It is now known, and well-established—some statistics can be
624
given I understand—that many people come here under one name and seek asylum. The application is turned down. They then try again under another name. That is called making multiple applications. There are vast numbers of them. There are those who succeed in avoiding the net, and the social security people have great problems. People sometimes apply for social security under more than one name. That has been done on a considerable scale.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he suggesting that the whole population should be fingerprinted so that no one should be able to make multiple social security applications? It does not seem to me that the social security benefit argument bears upon the asylum argument. It is a smokescreen that has been put up by the Government.
Lord Renton: I hope that it will never come to that, but it so happens that there are people who have been given the privilege of coming to this country to live who have done that more often than the native people of this country. Perhaps noble Lords will look at the Explanatory Memorandum where Clause 3 is explained. They will see how fingerprinting will work. Clause 3:
"provides for a person who has made a claim for asylum to be required to have his fingerprints taken, or to attend for fingerprinting, and empowers an immigration officer or constable to arrest without warrant a person who fails to comply with a requirement to attend".
It continues:
"Fingerprints are to be destroyed at the end of ten years or (if sooner) one month after the person concerned has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Similar powers may be exercised in relation to any dependant of such a claimant but a child under 16 may only be fingerprinted in the presence of an independent adult".
We come to that point in greater detail in the next amendment.
I should mention, because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not seem to be aware of it, that there are many countries which fingerprint all or some of the people arriving in those countries. I have been fingerprinted in two different parts of the world on my first visit to friendly countries. I only hope that it has not been found so necessary to do that in more recent years. Within the European Community, it is only the Republic of Ireland which has not taken some power to fingerprint asylum seekers. In France and Switzerland, where extensive computer checks have been run on asylum applicants, between 5 per cent. and 20 per cent. have been found to be multiple applicants; that is to say, people trying to make applications more than once.
A strong case as regards fingerprinting has been made out. I believe that the Government have it about right. For social security purposes it is only right that there should be a power to take the fingerprints of people under 16, but in the presence of a person of full age who is not an authorised person—in other words a police officer or an immigration officer. I hope and expect that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will feel it right to resist the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: The statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not of his usual high standard. He said that people who come into this

625
country are more liable to be social security scroungers than people who are indigenous to this country. That statement is unworthy of him.
Lord Renton: I understand that the position I described is the actual position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hesitate to interrupt on the same basis because I know that the Minister has yet to reply. I admit that in a sense I opened the debate widely to encompass social security matters. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is usually most meticulous in confining his remarks to the particular amendment before the Committee. I must remind him that it refers to those under the age of 18. As social security benefits were taken away from 16 and 17 year-olds there are no social security implications under this amendment.
Lord Renton: But we must bear in mind that where people on social security have the right to claim benefit in respect of dependants it is only right that the position of the dependants should be known. There should not be multiple applications in respect of dependants.
Viscount Buckmaster: I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about multiple applications. The other day I was talking to some Bangladeshi friends in the Gloucester Road area. After careful interrogation one man told me that he had a friend who had five different houses in that area and they were all obtained by completely false applications made through the usual channels.
Although the practice of fingerprinting has largely died out it used to be common in the Persian Gulf and parts of Arabia, which I knew well. Fingerprints were widely used as receipts on payrolls. The practice has largely died out but in the minds of primitive Africans the fingerprint is still thought of as a receipt.
Viscount Brentford: To ensure that I have no friends in the Committee perhaps I may say that I am as unhappy with the amendment as I am with the original draft of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I am unhappy with the provision for the unlimited fingerprinting of minors under the age of 18 in particular. Tonight during the supper break I spoke with a friend who is or has been chairman of the National Consumer Council. She said that if one fingerprints children who are asylum seekers they will be traumatised for life. I am unhappy with the proposal.
On the other hand, I take account of what was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers on Second Reading. He said that often when people arrive in this country without documentation one cannot tell their age. If the amendment were accepted it would be easy for someone to say that he was 17 when in fact he was 20. One would have no evidence to dispute that.
Rather than accepting the amendment or the provisions in the Bill, will my noble friend accept an amendment along the lines of the words he used on Second Reading. They fit exactly with what I believe should be in the Bill. He said that one of the difficulties that would arise if we were to put in the age would be wrangles about that person's age. He added:
626
"We made it perfectly clear that we had no intention of routinely fingerprinting young children".
But the Bill gives the Government the power to do so.
"but we think that it is important to retain the possibility of fingerprinting in particular cases, to avoid creating a loophole which could be abused".—[Official Report, 26/1/93; col. 1221.]
I should strongly support the amendment as drafted if it included the provision that in certain particular cases the Home Office had the power to fingerprint children. I do not accept the Bill as it is drafted, but I should be prepared to give my noble friend that exemption if it would be an acceptable compromise.
Earl Ferrers: I sometimes think that we get too fussed about fingerprinting. It is a fairly modest thing to do and as a result of having done it people who conduct their lives correctly have nothing whatever to fear. It is only those who conduct their lives improperly who have cause for fear. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he has had his fingerprints taken and that he did not object to it in principle provided that it was applied under all circumstances. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also said that he had his fingerprints taken. I accept that there is a degree of apprehension at the thought of fingerprints being taken but I believe that that is exaggerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that it is reminiscent of a police state. In this case, this has nothing to do with the police at all. In fact, it was not the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who said that but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This is entirely a matter for Home Office officials dealing with asylum cases.
The right reverend Prelate said that there is no evidence of multiple applications. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave my noble friend Lord Renton a rocket in the most delightful way and said that my noble friend's speech about social security had nothing to do with the amendment because the amendment deals with whether or not children under the age of 18 should have their fingerprints taken. I thought that that was a bit rich coming from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who spent the first five minutes of his speech on a clause stand part debate discussing the merits of fingerprinting. My noble friend was quite right to refer to that.
People who contravene those rules make false applications. The right reverend Prelate is worried about that. However, I can tell him that 27 people have been convicted of making multiple applications, which involved 700 different identities. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that that is not many. It is rather like the proverbial maid who, when she was accused of having an illegitimate baby, said, "well, it is only a small one". However, those people have committed crimes and have been convicted of them. Of course, there may be others who remain undetected.
The Government are merely saying that we must fingerprint people in order to prevent such abuse. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that that is not fair and that people are traumatised. I accept that people who come to this country under these circumstances may be in a traumatic state.

627
However, if they are in such a state, it seems a fairly modest request merely to ask them to put their fingers on a pad, if that is what they must do to get from an uncomfortable country into a more comfortable one. I do not believe that that is a particularly difficult request when it is known that many people come here fraudulently.
My noble friend Lord Brentford was kind enough to quote what I said on Second Reading. It is not anticipated that it will be necessary to fingerprint every child. We do not intend routinely to fingerprint very young children. However, there will be circumstances in which fingerprinting is both necessary for identification purposes and desirable in the child's interests. It is important that we should have the power to be able to do that without hindrances which would necessarily result from complex exemptions.
A small proportion of unaccompanied children arrive here seeking asylum in their own right. It can be very difficult to asses visually the age of such children who arrive here without documents. A rigid requirement to treat differently children of a particular age would be operationally difficult as well as inappropriate, particularly if the age limit were as high as 18.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned that there should be a minimum age. He and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, accept that it is difficult to assess people's ages. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate has looked at any 15 year-olds lately but he might have mistaken them for 18 year-olds. It is always difficult to judge. The policy to exclude those below a certain age from the fingerprinting provisions might exacerbate the considerable problems posed by the disposal of identification documents. A 19 year-old might find it very helpful to dispose of his papers and then claim that he is only 15. There is no reason why a child might not be drawn into fraud by making false applications in the same way as adult applicants are. We need to prevent that.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wanted to know whether the Department of Social Security would have access to fingerprints. The department will not take fingerprints nor will it have access to fingerprints taken by the Home Office. The Home Office will take fingerprints to establish the identity of asylum applicants before issuing the standard acknowledgement letter which the Department of Social Security will expect to see produced when an asylum seeker claims benefit. It is a simple process that we are suggesting should be included in the Bill. Members of the Committee have suggested making a cut-off date. I believe that would prove to be complicated in practice. I repeat the undertaking that I have already given: it is not expected that every child should always be fingerprinted. However, the power should be there.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I wish to press the Minister on one point. He referred to the 27 cases of multiple application. I accept that those took place. My query relates to whether those occurred before the present form of standard acknowledgement letter was
628
in place or after that date. Can the Minister tell the House how many cases have occurred since the present form of the standard acknowledgement letter was established? I have heard it said by those involved in this field that that device has been successful in reducing multiple applications.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot answer that question. I shall try to find out about it. The point is that many of the people we are discussing make fraudulent applications. If a fingerprinting system were established, it would go a long way towards preventing those fraudulent applications. If this is a case of "belts and braces"—though I do not think it is—there is nothing wrong with that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure the Minister in his reply made what he thought was an uncompromising speech about this amendment. The Minister may not welcome this suggestion but I believe his response was bristling with opportunities for compromise and with opportunities for reaching a reasonable solution. He has already said the matter we are discussing would not be a routine procedure. Ministers in another place have said the same thing.
The Minister has made it clear that one of the problems with choosing the age of 18 is that it is possible that some people over the age of 18 would pose as under 18 year-olds. The obvious solution to that is to state that fingerprinting could be used on those who appear to be, or are deemed to be, over the age of 18. Some such formula could be used. If the problem is the age of 18, perhaps the Government should adopt the age of 14, the age of puberty, or the age of 10. Any contributions would be gratefully received on that matter, as the power the Government are taking is clearly above and beyond the requirements of the situation.
There may well have been 700 claimed identities in the 27 applications we have discussed. However, one should not insert a whole clause in the Bill on the basis of 27 convictions, particularly as the Minister could not answer the relevant question asked by the right reverend Prelate on whether the multiple applications took place before the standard application document had been brought into force.
I suspect that a great deal of what is in this Bill represents sheer stubbornness on the part of the Government. They introduced it in 1991 and it fell before the 1992 general election. During that period it was possible first of all to increase the number of immigration officers so that the queue for asylum decreased dramatically. Secondly, it was possible to introduce a standard application letter with a photograph so that problems of mistaken identity, or misuse of identity, were reduced. I suspect that the situation in late 1992 and 1993 is that the vast bulk of this Bill is not necessary at all. It is only rigidity and a sense of amour propre on the part of the Government that has made them bring it forward under changed circumstances.
But surely there is room for compromise on the fingerprinting of children. That is a specific point. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, talked about multiple applications in vast numbers. That needs some

629
substantiation if the Committee is to take it seriously. I regret that the noble Lord referred to his supposition that people who come into this country are more likely to make false social security applications than native people. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not think that that is worthy of him or that that is the way his mind really works. Nor do I believe that there is any evidence that that is the case.
The noble Lord assumed that I did not know that fingerprinting is required in countries in the European Community other than Ireland. Of course I know that fingerprinting is required. But I am concerned that we should retain our civilised attitude towards such matters and should not be drawn into fingerprinting simply because other countries already require it.
The most effective and valuable speech was that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. I beg the Government to listen to him and perhaps to talk to him between now and Report stage. In his reference to what the Minister said at Second Reading he appeared to identify a spirit of compromise which could be acted on. I should he very pleased to talk to the Minister between now and Report stage. I do not ask him to agree to any particular course of action, but I believe that this is a matter to which we ought to return at some stage. On that basis I would prefer not to press the amendment at present. I believe that there is room for manoeuvre. I hope and believe that the Government will recognise that when they consider the arguments which have been put forward tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and who is either the parent, guardian or advocate of the child, or a social worker or other responsible adult aged 18 or over who is not employed by the police or the immigration service.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and since my noble friend Lady David is unable to be present, I am the only person in the Chamber whose name appears on the amendment. Therefore I rise to move the amendment, and I shall do so fairly formally.
The amendment was put forward in another place by Mr. Robert Maclennan. It seemed to me a very modest and reasonable amendment. I thought from Ministers' responses in Committee in another place that it had struck home to some extent and that there might be room for manoeuvre. It was the only Liberal Democrat initiative in Committee in another place and I am happy to leave the thrust of the argument to them. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: In the absence of my noble friend Lady Seear I should like to speak to the amendment. It relates to the same subsection as the previous amendment. The subsection as it stands states that:
"fingerprints shall not be taken from a person under the age of sixteen except in the presence of a person of full age who is not an authorised person".
It is interesting that the Government are apparently able to distinguish those people who are under 16 whereas they are not able to distinguish those people who are under 18. We had a long argument in
630
connection with the previous amendment in which it was suggested that it would be very difficult to accept that amendment because it related to people who were under 18. The Government said that it was very difficult to tell the age of people from various parts of the world. However, apparently they can tell when people are under 16 even though they cannot tell whether they are under 18.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in the case of people under the age of 16 the,
"person of full age who is not an authorised person",
is someone in whom the child can have confidence and that it is not accepted that it is not a policeman or immigration officer but is someone who is nominated by a policeman or immigration officer. The amendment is intended to define a group of people in whom the child can have trust and in whom the system can have trust. It spells out a number of people —parents, guardians, advocates of the child or social workers. We are talking about people who understand children and are able to talk to the child and act as an interpreter for the child in a very difficult situation.
The amendment is self-explanatory. I commend it to the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say this with deep respect. The two noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment have indulged in a self-defeating exercise. They want exemption for children under 16. The Bill is more generous than their amendment in that respect. It refers to,
"the presence of a person of full age who is not an authorised person".
Those words in the amendment are unnecessary because an "authorised person" is defined under Clause 3(1) as,
"an immigration officer, constable, [or] prison officer",
and so on. Therefore the words,
"who is not employed by the police or the immigration service"
are unnecessary. They overlap what has gone before, and, indeed, narrow the provision.
The expression,
"parent, guardian or advocate of the child, or a social worker or other responsible adult aged 18 or over",
is a fairly full definition. However, it is of less wide effect than the words in the Bill, which are,
"in the presence of a person of full age".
That is a very wide definition. We know that the motives of the noble Lords opposite are well intentioned. I should have thought that they would wish to leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have seldom heard from the noble Lord a more profound misunderstanding of the purpose of an amendment. It is most unlike him. The intention of the Bill as drafted is to provide that the witness to the fingerprinting shall be,
"a person of full age who is not an authorised person".
Indeed, it is a concession which was agreed by Government in another place. However, we are asking that the protection of children be extended by ensuring that the person is not merely qualified by not being an authorised person—that is a police officer, immigration officer, or whatever the case may be—but

631
should genuinely be someone who can be relied on to have the interests of the child at heart. Therefore it is precisely that closer definition of a person who is not an authorised person and is a witness of the fingerprinting which is required by the amendment.
We are conscious of the Bill's provisions. We are conscious of what the amendment states. It is not a mistake on our part. That is the provision we seek. We are looking for someone who can be relied on genuinely to have the interests of the child at heart. We do not refer to someone, for example, who is simply plucked off the streets, as used to be the case with coroners' juries.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has said that I do not understand the purpose of the amendment. All that I can say is that he has no idea of its effect.
Earl Ferrers: I do not like to interrupt this repartee across the Floor of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made great play with the point that on the last amendment the Government had said that one cannot tell whether a person is over or under the age of 18, and yet in this case one can tell who is or is not under 16. The noble Lord believed that he had made a good point. I say this to him. Had the last amendment succeeded, people were going to be excused the requirement to be fingerprinted. Under the Bill as drafted, people under 16 will be given a right. The right that they are given is to be attended by an adult. If a person says, "I am under 16", it will be up to them to show that they are under 16. In the Bill we give them a right.
I can assure the Committee that we accept the principle that the person should be someone who is independent of the immigration authorities and the police. Where the child has a parent, guardian or legal representative, or a social worker who is already known to him, we normally expect that person to be present during the procedure. However, I shall certainly consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage to put that beyond doubt.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said, the essence of the amendment is to make sure that the person who is with the child is someone with whom that child can communicate and who is on the child's side. If the noble Earl can work that into the Bill, we should be most grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall have to find some occasion to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in order to avoid the accusation which the Minister makes that we always agree with each other. However, I do agree with him. The Minister's last sentence was extremely encouraging when he said that he would look for a way on this. I shall not try to
632
paraphrase what he said but it was that action might be taken between now and a later stage. On that basis and on the basis that I shall be glad to talk to him about it between now and the later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was rightly chided for raising wider issues in introducing the first precise amendment but I promised that I would not repeat the arguments that I put in support of Amendment No. 7 at this stage. Let us be quite clear about the position of the Opposition on fingerprinting. We are not opposed to it as part of the detection of crime, whether it is fingerprinting of criminals or presumed criminals or of witnesses—as was the case with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and myself.
What we are opposed to is the extension of fingerprinting to what is not a criminal activity. We are not impressed by the arguments from the 27 cases that there is a vast amount of criminal activity involved in the seeking of asylum. We are certainly not impressed by the argument that because a high number of applications for asylum fail, that itself is evidence of abuse. We think that that accusation is a misuse of the English language.
We suspect that the vast majority of the asylum applications which fail do so because of the peculiarly restrictive nature of our asylum rules. We are borne out in that assertion by the fact that a high proportion of asylum applications which are refused result in the granting of extended leave to appeal.
These are matters to which we shall return at Report stage. I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time of night that we should seek to divide the Committee on the clause as a whole. We shall keep our powder dry on these matters and I shall not pursue my opposition to the Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord is kind enough to keep his powder dry, I too shall keep mine dry. Clause 3 agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  COASTAL POLLUTION: DONALDSON INQUIRY
  COASTAL POLLUTION: DONALDSON INQUIRY
  TAXICARD SCHEME
  TAXICARD SCHEME
  THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
  THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
  SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1992: IMPLEMENTATION
  SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1992: IMPLEMENTATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY RECYCLING PLANS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY RECYCLING PLANS