Sitting of 18 May 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HARRIS TWEED BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position of the Eurofighter 2000 project.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Progress on the Eurofighter project is generally satisfactory. The development phase is proceeding in line with the agreement reached with our partners last December and we expect the first flight later this year.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not have the Eurofighter that will severely restrict our defence capability and it will be a disaster for British industry and British jobs? Does he welcome the more positive approach being shown by German Defence Ministers?
    Mr. Aitken: I certainly subscribe to all the views expressed by my hon. Friend. We need Eurofighter for our future defence capability. We can certainly benefit from the ߞ approximately—28,000 jobs that it will create in our defence industries when the production phase comes into account. Three hundred companies will have contract work under the Eurofighter contract, including one, Cossor Electronics, in my hon. Friend's constituency. I welcome the highly positive and co-operative approach now being shown by the German Government.
    Mr. Martlew: In the Gulf debate on 21 January this year, the Secretary of State acknowledged the cross-party support that there had been for the Eurofighter 2000 project. He said, however, that despite the importance of Eurofighter it had to be affordable. Why, then, have the Government allowed the costs of the fighter to increase by 50 per cent., from £21 billion to £31 billion? Will that affect the number of aircraft that will be ordered for the RAF? Will it affect the aircraft's specifications?
    Finally, Eurofighter was due to make its maiden flight in 1991. It is now unlikely to fly before the autumn. Why?
    Mr. Aitken: I certainly acknowledge the good-cross party support that we have received from the Opposition—I hope that it is not being undermined today by the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    I urge the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads about prices, even in the most eminent newspapers. He should remember Evelyn Waugh's definition of a newspaper library—that compendium of other journalists' mistakes which newspapers have the audacity to call a library. The report of 50 per cent. price increases did not include an allowance for inflation. The real cost increase in the programme compared with the 1988 baseline is under 10 per cent., not 50 per cent., as was reported without allowing for inflation. The increase is unwelcome, but not unusual for a project of this size and complexity. I can confirm that the RAF still intends to order about 250 aircraft.
    Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend not be dismayed by the siren voices opposite? The Eurofighter is absolutely essential for the defence of Europe. It is part of a programme that we cannot discontinue. If we did, that would be a return to the old days when we scrapped aircraft when they were just about to fly. That would be quite wrong. Although the costs have risen by 50 per cent. since 1988, we should remember that this has been a time of inflation when costs have had to be adjusted. I ask the team to stand firm on this project.
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend speaks for Britain. He remembers that Britain has a proud record of aircraft manufacturing, going back to the great days of the Lancaster and the Spitfire and now continuing with the Eurofighter 2000. That record has been blemished only by the misguided cancellation by the Labour party of the TSR2. I can certainly confirm that we intend to stand by the project.

    Kuwait
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made as to what percentage of total orders of defence equipment from Kuwait since the Gulf war has been won by United Kingdom firms.
    Mr. Aitken: We estimate that in 1991 and 1992 United Kingdom defence-related sales to Kuwait amounted to some 30 per cent. of the value of total orders placed by that country.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that the word around the defence industries is that there have been very few firm orders from Kuwait since the Gulf conflict? Does he further agree that the defence sector of our manufacturing base is still vital to this country? lf, in competition with the Americans, we cannot gain more orders from places such as Kuwait, is not it about time that we took steps to enable our defence manufacturing sector to diversify more quickly?
    Mr. Aitken: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman supports the export successes of our defence industries. He will therefore be pleased that I am able to tell the House that the latest figures for the year ended 31 December 1992 show that we managed to achieve export orders of £5·1 billion, which is 20 per cent. of the world market. Both of those are record figures, and ones of which we, and especially the defence industrial base, can be proud.

    141
    On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about Kuwait, it is true that only limited definite orders have been placed so far. However, they are good orders and United Kingdom defence successes have included contracts for mine clearance, naval base reconstruction, tactical radios and technical school equipment. The biggest projects of all are the tank project, which went to the Americans, and the Warrior and Piranha contracts, which we hope will come to us. We believe that, on a Government-to-Government basis, there are good grounds for having confidence that the contract will soon be negotiated. The Kuwait Government have announced that they have selected the Warrior and the Piranha for their armoured vehicles, so we are optimistic about those exports.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing our defence industry to learn the lessons of Kuwait and sell to those countries that are presently barred to it? After all, our NATO and European friends are allowed to sell to those countries.
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that, as well as our tremendous record of export successes, Britain has a high record for exporting responsibly. We examine all export licences on their merits, taking into account a wide range of considerations including human rights and the stability of the countries concerned. We manage to combine great success with a full sense of responsibility.

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reappraisals have been done of the "Options for Change" programme.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I assure my hon. Friend that we keep the "Options for Change" programme under constant review. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlined to the House on 20 April, Official Report, columns 175–76, we have also undertaken a detailed analysis of how resources are taken up in meeting our commitments around the world, and expect to report the results in this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while we are rightly proud of the high standards of our armed forces, the growing and worsening gap between our commitments—some of which were not envisaged two or three years ago—and the resources available is beginning to undermine morale and professional standards? A number of indicators are beginning to show that, such as the over-subscription of those applying for redundancy and the massive shortfall in applications for Sandhurst. In view of the great overstretch in our regular forces, it is not the time to be considering further cuts in our volunteer reserves.
    Mr. Hamilton: The position on commitments is not just one way. My hon. Friend will have noted the recent announcement that eventually we will be withdrawing the garrison from Belize. That is good news as it was part of the emergency, tour plot that had to be rotated through there. The position remains as it was—if there is a major change in our commitments, we shall reconsider. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of
    142
    State did when he restored two battalions under his recent proposals. Therefore, matters are not fixed; we keep the position under review, depending on commitments. We shall be making an announcement on reserve forces by the end of the year.
    Mr. Hutton: Will the Minister confirm that "Options for Change" envisaged a submarine strength for the Royal Navy of 16 vessels, but that now the Government are actively trying to dispose of all the type 2–400 diesel submarines to a foreign navy? What strategic assessment underlies that surprising change of policy?
    Mr. Hamilton: We have made it clear that the hon. Gentleman must wait for the White Paper when it will be made clear what realignments have been made in our force structures and that will include the submarine fleet.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this dangerous and troubled world in which we live, the demands that are likely to be put on our armed forces require him and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence constantly, as he says, to keep under review what is required? Is he aware that on the Conservative Benches there are many who would support him and his colleagues if he had to go to the Treasury for more money?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, there may well be, but we are spending one and a half times the European average. There are good reasons for doing that, and I suspect that, despite the cuts that we are making in the defence budget, we shall continue to spend about one and a half times the European average, as our European partners cut their defence budgets as well. In those circumstances, I am not sure whether, with a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement, it would be right to seek significant increases in the defence budget.
    Dr. David Clark: Do not all the random cuts in our defence capabilities about which we have been hearing in recent weeks merely show that the Government have no long-term defence strategy? Instead of playing around with "Options For Change", why does not the Minister listen to the Opposition, the Select Committee on Defence and many experts and set up a full defence review so that we can match our forces to our commitments?
    Mr. Hamilton: But that is precisely the position that we are in. We can match our forces to our commitments and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise. What we cannot do is to take on endless new commitments without severely overstretching our forces, and that is something of which we must be mindful. I find it quite cool for the Opposition to tell me how insufferable that position is when we know that their party conference passes motions annually saying that our defence budget should be slashed by 25 or 30 per cent. It is about time that they sorted out their own shop before they criticise us.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when preparing his end-year review of the reserve forces their immense value to our country? They are efficient, enthusiastic and highly cost effective —a resource enjoyed by no other country. Never leave them out of account.
    Mr. Hamilton: I have to take my hon. Friend's view, but I think that she will agree that our reserve forces want roles that are relevant to the future and that is something on which we are working at the moment.

    Royal Navy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of (a) admirals in the Royal Navy and (b) capital ships in May 1970, May 1980 and at the present time.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Records are not held for May of each year. Using a definition of capital ships as major warship platforms, including aircraft carriers, commando ships, SSBNs, SSNs, cruisers, destroyers and frigates, there were 92 capital ships and 74 admirals at 1 April 1970, 85 capital ships and 62 admirals in 1980 and 59 capital ships and 42 admirals in 1993.
    Mr. Prentice: Those figures are at variance with the figures that l have received from the House of Commons Library which tell me that, for the first time ever, we have more admirals than ships in the Royal Navy. At a time when the Navy is cutting back on exercises by 25 per cent. to save fuel, and when Swan Hunter is being closed, what consideration is being given to the nuclear component? Specifically, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no progress will be made with the tactical air-to-surface missile, which most Opposition Members think would be a complete waste of money?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am rather confused about what that question was supposed to mean. The comparison between admirals and the number of ships is not a good one, because only three out of the 42 or 60 admirals, or however many we have at the moment, drive ships. The admirals administer the men and organisation of the Royal Navy, which spends some £6 billion per year, for which we need a structure of senior managers.
    On the hon. Gentleman's question about TASM, I think that he knows that we are reviewing what we should do about our tactical nuclear system and he will have to wait for an announcement.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the great tradition of the Royal Navy to consider crew and family welfare as a priority? Does he acknowledge that many of the crew who man our nuclear deterrent submarine force are home-based in Scotland? On that basis, does he believe that it would be a great advantage to ensure that the maintenance of the Trident fleet remains in Scotland?
    Mr. Hamilton: Absolutely. Considering the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the Trident facility in Scotland, it is sad that we have not received more thanks from Opposition Members for that enormous investment, which is one of the largest in western Europe.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that in his confusion about figures today he has revealed that the Government intend to reduce the Royal Navy to fewer than 40 ships? As a result, we shall not need four warship building yards. With that in mind, will he confirm that that was the reason why Swan Hunter was sacrificed? Will he support the Opposition's call for an inquiry into the events
    144
    surrounding the tender for the helicopter landing ship—a call which was endorsed by the Select Committee on Defence this morning?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is the most extraordinary assertion. When that contract was awarded it was made clear that there was an enormous gap—in excess of £50 million—between the two bids. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have accepted the Swan Hunter bid, although it would have cost the taxpayer more than £50 million more than the VSEL bid, he should say so. That is an absolutely ridiculous way to carry on. If the Select Committee wishes to investigate and feels that the National Audit Office would like to look at the figures, it is more than welcome to do so and we shall be happy to show them why we reached our conclusion.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Spanish Defence Minister to discuss the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend will meet Senor Vargas at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers next week. That will provide an opportunity to review progress on Eurofighter 2000.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that that project represents the right sort of European defence co-operation between us and our EC partners? Does he agree that it is vital to impress on those partners that the project is flexible, state of the art and able to meet all the defence challenges that our armed forces might need to tackle during the coming years?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him. I met my opposite number in Spain, Senor Flos Bassols, and the other four partner-Government equivalents a few weeks ago and we concurred with the view that, in the more worrying strategic environment, a first-class aircraft with the capabilities of the Eurofighter is needed for the defence of our country and Europe in the 21st century.

    Belize
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the British garrison in Belize to discuss the future of the garrison.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: I plan to visit the British garrison in Belize at the end of the month.
    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Minister confirm that the recently announced decision to start withdrawing British troops from Belize was taken without the request or desire of the Belize Government? Does he also agree that the decision is precipitate and that the withdrawal will take place before Guatemala and Belize have reached full agreement? Does he accept that the decision does not represent a strategic move but the chaotic state of planning in his Department, whereby we have too few troops and too many roles and responsibilities for them to fulfil?
    Mr. Hamilton: No, I do not accept at all what the hon. Gentleman says. Guatemala has now recognised Belize and our assessment of the security threats to Belize is that they are very low. In those circumstances, it is only right

    145
    that we review our commitment to having a battalion permanently based there. If we continue to take the view that we should have garrisons around the world which have been sent out to help and are then never withdrawn, the British Army will be very extended.
    Mr. Garnier: When my right hon. Friend travels to Belize next month, may I suggest that he travels via East Midlands airport? In doing so, he will go past the Glen Parva Army records office which may be relocated in Scotland. If he travels to Belize via Leicestershire, will he take the opportunity to see the benefits for the Army of maintaining that records office in Leicestershire rather than moving it to Scotland? But if it is—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was a very good and amusing try by the hon. Gentleman. I shall be careful not to look his way for a very long time
    Mr. Hamilton: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. On my way to Belize, I will certainly bear in mind the claims that my hon. Friend has made for some time for the Army records office to be in his constituency. As he knows, a proposal has now been made for Glasgow. Although we are going through a consultation period, I hope that it will end up with the decision that we have put forward.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister so sure that democracy in Guatemala will be enduring and that a real solution will be found to the territorial waters dispute, for example? All historical precedent is to the contrary. Does not he realise that the withdrawal of British forces from Belize not only provides the possibility for political instability in the area, but, because the presence of British forces produces 15 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Belize, is likely to undermine the economy of that country? What firm will invest in an insecure Belize?
    Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, if we thought that there were unacceptable risks in the proposal, we should not put it forward. Our assessment of the position in the area and Guatemala's attitude towards Belize have enabled us to make the decision. Our high commissioner has assessed our contribution to the GDP of Belize to be no more than 3 to 4 per cent. I agree that that is a significant amount, but it is not as large as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security of a very small country in a highly unstable part of the world merits more than a written answer on policy two days ago and a flippant supplementary previously? Belize is the best place, apart from Brunei, for training in jungle warfare for Her Majesty's forces. The Belize defence force has no significant air force. Its neighbours are strong and prone to rapid changes in regime, and there is drug running. I do not believe that the Government have the support of the United States Administration. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that?
    Mr. Hamilton: We shall continue training. We have been asked by the Belize Government to continue our training there and we shall continue to take advantage of the perfectly excellent facilities to which my hon. Friend alludes. Belize will have to look to regional arrangements to ensure its security in future. We have, of course, been in touch with the United States over this and we have kept it informed of what we are doing.
    Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister tell the House whether the group of people who advised him of the threat assessment to Belize were the same as those who advised his predecessor of the threat assessment to the Falklands in 1982?
    Mr. Hamilton: No, things have changed since 1982. There are now different people giving similar advice.

    Defence Exporters
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department gives directly and indirectly to British defence exporters.
    Mr. Aitken: We give extensive advice and support to British defence exporters, mainly through the Defence Export Services Organisation.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that if we had listened to the CND lunatics opposite, there would not be a defence industry at all? Will he confirm that we are not about to cut defence spending by 25 per cent. and that we are not about to wipe out the Royal Air Force? That is exactly what the lot opposite planned. Will he ask them once and for all, "Yes or no?"
    Mr. Aitken: I always listen to my hon. Friend in preference to the CND types opposite, either current or old. I gladly confirm that we have absolutely no plans to make the savage cuts that my hon. Friend suggested the Labour party supported at its party conference. We believe that our defences are in good shape for many years to come.
    Mrs. Mahon: On defence exports, how many dead or tortured East Timorese are acceptable to the Government in exchange for a defence contract with Indonesia?
    Mr. Aitken: That is a ridiculous question. The British Government do not export arms of any type to any country without very careful export licensing. By means of our export licensing process, we seek to avoid the export of arms that could be used for the repression of individuals.

    Nuclear Policy
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Government nuclear defence policy.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Government intend that our independent nuclear deterrent should continue to provide the ultimate guarantee of our security, underpinning our defence strategy and providing a significant contribution to alliance deterrent forces.
    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government's nuclear defence policy will remain firm and consistent, unlike that of the socialists opposite? Will my right hon. Friend also take this opportunity to say that the Government do not intend to follow the Labour party's lead yesterday when, once again, it changed its nuclear defence policy and said that it would leave this country undefended by negotiating away our minimum deterrent, while other countries remain nuclear powers?
    Mr. Hamilton: At this point, I should make an apology to the House. At the last Defence Question Time, I said that the Opposition Front Bench had gone through a 180 deg turn on nuclear deterrence. That was clearly wrong. The Labour party had gone through a 360 deg turn on nuclear deterrence. It is alarming to me that only yesterday the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) talked about negotiating away our deterrent. I think that his only proviso was that the Labour party would not give Trident away for nothing. Personally, I do not find that very reassuring.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As NATO's nuclear doctrine is now one of minimum deterrence, is it not time that the Government abandoned the strategic anachronism of the tactical air-to-surface missile and declared that when Trident is deployed it will carry no more warheads than the Polaris system which it is to replace?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is asking two questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he will have to wait for an announcement on the tactical air-to-surface missile, or whatever replacement we choose for the WE177 system. No decision has been made on the number of warheads that will be carried by Trident, but I suspect that it will be more than those that we are carrying on Polaris.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's announcement by Mr. Aspin—that America is no longer to develop an orbital global missile defence system—is dangerously premature and complacent? Will my right hon. Friend ask him to think again?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes. What has changed is the American conception of the threat from Russia, but America is still very much involved in a theatre defence system which can be deployed against any errant nation that might want to fire off ballistic missiles. One should not assume that the whole of that programme has been abandoned. It has not. It has just been restricted to a theatre system.
    Dr. Reid: Given the Minister's dislike of 360 deg turns, does he recall that it is now two years since I and other members of the Opposition Front Bench told him that it was absolute nonsense, in the face of the current threats, to spend £3 billion on a new tactical nuclear weapon while cutting the infantry? Now that he has done a 360 deg turn on the infantry and accepted that we were right, can he confirm that he is reviewing and preparing the ground for his second 360 deg turn by abandoning the tactical air-to-surface nuclear weapon referred to in the White Paper? Can he also confirm that the money that is saved by that abandonment and his correct 360 deg turn towards the policy of the Labour party will not be frittered by economic madness but will be ploughed into the infantry and the Territorial Army, which are needed by this country if it is to fulfil its present commitments?
    Mr. Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman suffers from a certain amount of overstatement in saying that the restoration of two infantry battalions is a 360 deg turn on the British Army. As usual, he is asking me to pre-empt the decision about the replacement for the WE177 nuclear bomb. I have made it clear that we shall not do so. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an announcement.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for encouraging deregulation within his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Aitken: My Department is enthusiastically supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative in a number of ways.
    Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise that small firms competing for bids face a disproportionate burden under regulations? Will he give an undertaking that, in considering deregulation, the special needs of small firms will be borne in mind?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes an entirely good and valid point. We wish to encourage small businesses to win defence contracts from the Ministry. We are simplifying our contracts procedure and the form filling that sometimes must accompany it, and I can tell new business seekers from the small business world that the small business group of the new suppliers' service exists to deal with their inquiries and to facilitate their efforts to win our contracts.
    Mr. Cohen: What regulations will be deregulated? Will they be the low-flying regulations, the disciplinary regulations or the command structure regulations, or is this only an attack on low-paid workers such as the Ministry's cleaners and an attempt to replace guards at our defence establishments with those run by Group 4—in which case, God help our security?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman's lack of enthusiasm for defence matters is such that he might be the sort of Minister who would like to deregulate our disciplinary regulations and make our armed forces undisciplined. When I referred to deregulating, I was referring to business regulations and restrictions. The Ministry is not a regulator of business; nor are we responsible for any primary or secondary legislation. We are entering into the spirit of the deregulation initiative by getting rid of a number of over-complex, over-bureaucratic systems, such as unnecessarily irksome contract procedures, and are simplifying forms and so on. We are not entering the fantasy fields that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to place an order for attack helicopters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Aitken: Yes, as I advised the House on 3 February, an invitation to tender for the supply of attack helicopters has been issued to potential bidders. It is our intention to acquire a complete weapons system, together with an associated support package.
    Mr. Luff: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf war was the importance of flexible and mobile forces, including attack and support helicopters? In the context of the reply that he has just given and that comment, will he say how many attack helicopters he expects to order and when he will be in a position to confirm the six-year-old requirement for 25 EH101s in the support role for the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Aitken: I agree with my hon. Friend about the renewed emphasis that is needed in the aftermath of the Gulf war and about the need for greater mobility and flexibility in our weapons-carrying helicopters and support helicopters. I am reluctant to be drawn into great detail on the number of helicopters that we shall order because, to some extent, it must depend on the bids that we receive, but if I suggest a figure of about 100 attack helicopters, that is a reasonably clear signpost. I cannot confirm any order for support helicopters, but I am conscious of the remarks that were made to Parliament by previous Ministers.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the internal study group in the Ministry of Defence is considering the subject of attack helicopters and the carriers from which they might fly? Does the Ministry intend ever to procure a helicopter carrier or any other warship from Swan Hunter on Tyneside?
    Mr. Aitken: We all share the hon. Gentleman's sadness about the events at Swan Hunter. However, a contract was put forward and won fairly in open competition by the competing yard, VSEL. It is not for me to say what future Swan Hunter in receivership may have. That depends on the new ownership, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as the receivers confirm, my Department is taking a positive and constructive approach towards its current problems.

    United Nations Forces
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the world are currently assisted by British forces.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The United Kingdom is currently providing forces for United Nations operations in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Cambodia, the western Sahara and on the Iraq-Kuwait border. More than 3,500 personnel are committed to those operations.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, wherever in the world British peacekeeping forces have been deployed, they have shown the highest possible standards of fairness, restraint and general professionalism? Are they not a great credit to the country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain's contribution to United Nations peacekeeping forces is now one of the most extensive and generous of any country in the world?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. We are running second only to the French in the number of troops we have deployed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about their being professional troops. So many of our European colleagues still have conscription; therefore, we have a great advantage. The experience of our troops in Northern Ireland means that they are some of the most professional —if not the most professional—troops that can be deployed on peacekeeping forces. That is one of the reasons why people want them all the time.
    Dr. Godman: Given that United Nations peacekeeping operations are likely to increase rather than decrease over the next few years, may I remind the Minister that British infantry soldiers make excellent United Nations peacekeeping soldiers? With that in mind, will he ensure that the
    150
    Scottish infantry regiments are not further run down, thereby damaging our commitment to those essential United Nations peacekeeping activities?
    Mr. Hamilton: As I made clear earlier, we are always keeping force levels under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that, although it is not a United Nations commitment, we have been involved in a peacekeeping operation of a sizeable proportion in Northern Ireland, where we now have some 19,000 troops. Of course, the main onus of that falls on the Army. That is the biggest peacekeeping activity in which we are involved and it therefore makes it more difficult for us to be involved in any future United Nations operations.
    I think that the burden of peacekeeping in Europe should be shared more by our European partners. I am very encouraged by the progress being made in changes in the constitution and deployment of professional forces who may be able to carry some of the burden as well.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit the Falkland Islands to discuss the activities of the British garrison there.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the Falkland Islands in March and was fully briefed on the activities of the garrison. He also had meetings with the governor and the councillors.
    Mr. Sweeney: Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government will maintain their commitment to the Falkland Islands? Does he agree that the plan produced by the Labour party to cut £6 billion from the defence budget would jeopardise that?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. I can certainly confirm our firm commitment to the defence of the Falkland Islands. Despite improving relationships with Argentina, we have to maintain a garrison there which is certainly worthy of the name. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the idea of cutting the defence budget put forward by Labour party conferences year after year. That would have a dramatic effect on our defence capability, not least in the Falklands.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British ground forces are stationed in Bosnia.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the contribution of British troops to securing peace in Bosnia.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The actual numbers of British armed forces personnel deployed to the former Yugoslavia in support of United Nations operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina fluctuate daily. On 16 May, however, there were 2,082 personnel, including 90 personnel from the Royal Naval Fleet Air Arm.
    British troops have made a great contribution to the vital humanitarian aid operation which has alleviated the suffering of thousands.
    Mr. Madden: Although everyone congratulates the British forces on the way in which they have performed

    151
    their duties in Bosnia, does the Minister agree that the international community might have adopted a more decisive, interventionist policy had the main aggressors in Bosnia been Muslim and the main victims non-Muslim?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not accept that at all. The reason for a certain amount of hesitance to involve ground troops in an offensive action in Bosnia is that whoever went in would be embroiled in a civil war. That is why the international community has shown a reluctance about going into Bosnia before a ceasefire is established.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the valuable humanitarian role being carried out by our troops in Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend confirm that great caution will be exercised before agreeing to further military intervention that might put our troops at risk?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. As I have said, it is important that a clear ceasefire is in being and then, if it is a question of monitoring that ceasefire, I think we will be more encouraged to commit further troops. Until the Vance-Owen plan has been signed and a ceasefire agreed, we are very reluctant to get further involved.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.
    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.
    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend, in his busy schedule, had time to see a report of the National Consumer Council about international trade, which states that the dice are loaded against the consumer by the European Commission trade barriers and regulations which are costing billions of pounds extra every year, including £230 on a car, or £750 if it is imported into the Community, more than £1·2 billion extra on electronic goods and £17 per week on my grocery bill every time I push my trolley around Tesco? [Interruption.] Yes, and Norma. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and, more important, consumers outside the House that he will stamp on that tremendous waste and tell the European Community to put its house in order? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    Mrs. Gorman: I have not finished yet.
    Madam Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Lady has finished.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that reducing trade barriers does lead to lower prices and economic growth. That is why, above all, we want to get the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade completed—to bring down tariffs and barriers in order to increase trade to the benefit of both the industrialised and the non-industrialised world. As to the European Community, to which my hon. Friend made passing mention, the single market should remove trade barriers within the Community. I very much hope that it
    152
    will live up to its expectations. It was a British initiative, negotiated by a British Prime Minister and concluded by a British Prime Minister.
    Mr. John Smith: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our whole-hearted sympathy to the parents and families of the victims of Beverly Allitt? Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full extent of the anger and apprehension among parents throughout the nation at the fact that it was possible in one of our hospitals for a nurse with a known psychiatric disorder to destroy the lives of children in her care? In view of the appalling negligence which has obviously occurred, why have the Government refused to have a full public inquiry, with the powers to require the evidence of witnesses to be given on oath and to compel the disclosure of all documents?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I say that I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sympathy for the parents. I know that that view is echoed across the House. The main thing about this inquiry—and this, too, will be generally shared—is to have one that will be most likely to get at the truth and to ensure that, in the future, there is no likelihood of a repetition. We take the view that the inquiry to be conducted by Sir Cecil Clothier is likely to be the most effective. Sir Cecil has taken the view—this is an important matter for the House to consider—and said this afternoon:
    "In my view, people will be more willing to speak frankly to my inquiry than to a public inquiry."
    I share that view and I believe that, on that basis, it is right to proceed with the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil.
    Mr. Smith: No one doubts the competence or integrity of Sir Cecil Clothier, but how can he know whether people will be willing to give evidence? Surely, in the public interest, we should have an inquiry with the fullest powers. Does the Prime Minister not take into account the fact that the parents of the children concerned and the majority of the nursing staff want a full public inquiry so that nothing can be concealed? What is wrong with such a reasonable request?
    The Prime Minister: Sir Cecil has agreed to see the parents of the children, and that is welcome—[Interruption.] If Sir Cecil wishes to have further powers, he will come back and seek them from the Government, and we will provide them. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sir Cecil, as a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Health, not only commands the confidence of the House but has a great deal of experience in this area. I am happy to accept his judgment on what is the most appropriate way to carry out the inquiry that he is set to chair.
    I must also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman—because I know that he will regard this as important, too—that there has already been a lengthy public trial which has brought many of the key facts to light. There has been an independent inquiry into the quality of management. In addition, Sir Cecil is now heading an independent inquiry into events at the hospital. If he needs further powers, he will come and ask us for them.
    Mr. Smith: Should not the nature of the powers be a matter for the Government's responsibility, not a matter

    153
    for Sir Cecil Clothier? Was not the trial concerned with quite different issues than what is concerned here—[Interruption.]— and is it not inappropriate—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not inappropriate—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not inappropriate for the inquiry to be set up and to be asked to report to the very regional health authority whose own actions may be a subject of the inquiry? Is it not totally unsatisfactory, as a solicitor for the parents has pointed out, that the Secretary of State for Health has apparently given more weight to the wishes of the health authority than to those of the parents of the children? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that, on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be ashamed of some of the things he just said. We want a rigorous and swift inquiry. We want an inquiry that will deal with the most important aspect of all, which is one that gets at the truth, not one that just raises party political points. My right hon. Friend has established such an inquiry —[Interruption.]— and she has appointed to head it someone with unique experience of the nature of the events. That man who is heading the inquiry has himself said that he believes that the people attending it will be more willing to speak freely to his inquiry than to a public inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept that advice.
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hendry: In between the cheap jibes of Opposition Members, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the report into the future of local government in Derbyshire published yesterday? Is he aware of the massive local opposition to the proposal that the whole county should be divided into two vast unitary authorities? Does he share the view of Conservative Members that local government should be as close as possible to the people it represents and that there is not, and never could be, any shared sense of community between my constituents and those in Chesterfield or, dare I say it, Bolsover?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that, as far as possible, the structure of local government should reflect local tradition and a local sense of community. That is, of course, one of the main points of the present inquiry. With regard to the Derbyshire inquiry, as my hon. Friend says, the Local Government Commission preference is for two unitary authorities. However, I understand that it has also put forward alternative solutions. I have no doubt' that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make his views clear to the commission.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's policy of encouraging the reduction in the payment of benefits across post office counters will, it is
    154
    calculated, result in the closure of up to 5,000 local rural post offices? Will the Prime Minister tell the House that he is now prepared to reconsider that foolish policy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman thinks of a number and then doubles it for domestic consumption. I am surprised that he raises that matter today. I direct him to the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs gave in the House a day or so ago. He said, for the avoidance of doubt,
    "we are…committed to the maintenance of a viable network of post offices",
    including rural post offices. Pensioners will continue to be able to receive their pensions from the post office. We have encouraged them to make payments into their banks on a voluntary basis. But it is
    "not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the post office."—[Official Report, 13 May 1993, Vol. 224, c. 1035.]
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this year's public expenditure review is likely to be one of the toughest on record and that any restraint there must be in public expenditure must be shared to the fullest extent by local authorities as well as by Whitehall? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities would be wise to plan on the basis of no real growth in expenditure for the next financial year and that the Government are prepared to back up their policies by the fullest use of their capping powers?
    The Prime Minister: We certainly have to consider the range of public expenditure, both centrally and for local government, in the public expenditure discussions that will begin very shortly. Those discussions will be concluded soon and we will make our views known to local authorities and others. On the general principle, my hon. Friend is clearly right to believe that we need to restrain public expenditure in the interests of the economy as a whole.
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious and grave concern of all housing associations about the cut in Government resources for affordable housing? Is he also aware that if that policy continues, rents will rise sky high and people will not be able to afford housing? Is he prepared to listen to housing associations in relation to their concerns about affordable housing and will he also listen to local authorities which have the resources, finances and ability to provide affordable housing?
    The Prime Minister: We have not in the past only listened to the Housing Corporation and to housing associations; we have acted on the basis of what they have had to say to us. In 1992–93, we spent more than £2·3 billion on the Housing Corporation, £350 million or so through estate action and more than £1·6 billion through local authorities. We have also provided specific help for the homeless, with nearly £100 million over the past three financial years and £86 million made available over the next three financial years. As a result of the measures that we have taken throughout the past decade, there are more home owners than ever before; council tenants have more

    155
    control over their own estates—I know that that is not popular with Opposition Members—the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people has been cut by 38 per cent.; the rise in mortgage repossessions has been reversed; and the number of people sleeping rough in central London has more than halved. Why did the hon. Gentleman mention none of that?
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Italian people got it absolutely right when they rejected proportional representation through the ballot box? Does he believe that those people who are rather cynically toying with the idea are doing that simply because it is the only way in which they will get their sticky little fingers on the levers of power?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that, and I know that I have a lot of support on the Opposition Benches for that particular view. Last year, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said:
    "Any move on electoral reform by Labour would be interpreted as defeatist."
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House which of the technical reasons that make it impossible to privatise Northern Ireland water within the lifetime of this Parliament do not apply to Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: We are still considering the consultation in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I think that it is better to reply after we have considered all the consultation.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has been entirely right to reject calls for further substantial military action in the Bosnian region? Such action would lead to guerrilla warfare, substantial loss of life and—given recent comments—bomb outrages on the streets of London without any furtherance of the peacemaking process or helping to find a permanent solution to the problem.
    The Prime Minister: There are many complex difficulties to be solved in the particular problems faced in Bosnia. I believe that the stance that we have taken, which has been shared by many of our allies, has been entirely the right stance in Bosnia. We continue to work with our allies towards a series of objectives. I hope that we will soon be able to bring permanent peace to that area.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek your help and protection. I tabled a question for written answer yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the number of integrated administration and control scheme forms that were received before the deadline on Saturday. The answer that I was given, which is in the Official Report, was in terms of simple generality—no figures whatever were given. I asked my office to communicate with the Minister's office to see whether a mistake had been made, and figures were still not available.
Within a matter of minutes of that being raised, I understand that the figures were made available to people outside the House, including the media. Not only did the figures appear this morning on "Farming Today", which was recorded within a matter of minutes of my question being answered, but others outside the House have received detailed figures. I submit that this is yet another example of arrogant contempt from the Minister for the House, and I seek your protection.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that, of course, I cannot comment on the adequacy or otherwise of ministerial answers to questions. However, if information has been made available to the media—the hon. Gentleman tells me that it has, and I must accept his word for it—which has not been given to the House, I certainly would deprecate such action. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman tells me, he might like to take the matter further with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or perhaps seek to catch my eye during the spring Adjournment debate so that he can raise the matter more fully across the floor of the House.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order refers to Hansard of 29 April, when the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a reply to a private notice question on cervical screen testing at Inverclyde hospital. At the time, I was assured that none of my constituents were involved. Indeed, the Secretary of State said that the matter was so urgent that it had to be cleared up straight away. Today, I received a press release from the same health board saying that my constituents are involved. In a meeting that I had with the board on 29 April, no mention whatever was made of that.
Given that it is now three weeks since that statement and the fact that public concern has been aroused yet again, and in the light of the Secretary of State's previous remarks, I ask you whether an opportunity has been made available for the Secretary of State and his Department to make a ministerial statement further to his answers to the private notice question on Thursday 29 April.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Minister that any further statement is to be made in the House.

Upwards-only Rent Review Clauses (Abolition)
3.33 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish upwards-only rent review clauses in commercial leases; and for connected purposes.
To the uninitiated, the subject matter of the Bill may sound rather obtuse and dry. However, it is of profound importance to the micro-economies of all our constituencies.
Most commercial and retail properties are leased. The type of commercial lease currently used for most shops and offices has its origins in the mists of time, but leases are now regulated by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1984 and are in a fairly standard form, which is widely used across the country. Apart from the usual protection of the landlord and the tenant, the key features of the English commercial lease are that it runs for anything between 10 and 25 years, and that the rent is set at the outset.
However, as market rents over a long period are hard to predict, leases also provide for a review every three to five years to reflect changes in the market. If rents in the local vicinity have risen, the tenant will have the rent raised at his rent review to reflect the local market conditions.
A rational person would expect rents to fall if the market has fallen. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since the 1960s, an insidious clause has been introduced into commercial leases, the effect of which is that, at the review, the rent can never go down, but can only go up. It is called an upwards-only rent review clause, and it is in wide use. To anyone with the barest understanding of economics, it is obvious that there is a conflict between the requirements that rents be set at a market level and that they only go upwards.
The House may wonder why the matter has not been brought to its attention before. The answer is simple. Since the clauses were introduced in the 1960s, the market has always been rising, so the inconsistency has never caused a problem until now. Commercial leases currently undergoing review had their last review in the late 1980s, when market rents were at an astronomical high. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) said in her Adjournment debate last November, demand for commercial properties far exceeded supply in the 1980s. Between 1985 and 1990, rents rocketed by no less than 145 per cent., when the increase in the retail prices index was just 33 per cent.
Likewise, office rents were subject to similar increases. As an illustration, the high water mark of office rents was probably set by Messrs. Saatchi and Saatchi, who rented their headquarters in Berkeley square at £68 per square foot. That set a precedent in the west end, which led to spectacularly high rents in all the surrounding properties. But since then, the, market has plummeted. The current tenants of Saatchi's building are now sub-letting empty space at £35 per square foot and making up the difference out of their own pocket.
Opposition Members may feel that that could not happen to a better company. However, not only the smart offices of Mayfair are affected. Some small shopkeepers in Croydon are going out of business because such high rents are demanded of them. I am sure that all hon. Members have heard similar stories in their constituencies.

159
The quarterly survey of small business in Britain, published by the Small Business Research Trust, states that probably more than 250,000 firms are now locked into agreements which allow no downward flexibility in rent. That fact alone has a significant impact on the economy, and it brings me to my central point: that such clauses should be abolished, for the simple reason that they distort the operation of a free market.
How can a shopkeeper compete with a new tenant who moves into empty property next door paying current low rents, while he is bound by high rents set at the height of the boom in the late 1980s? A market that permits an upward ratchet of prices but does not allow them to fall is a distortion. It cannot be in the national interest.
Some may argue that the Bill is contrary to the right of parties to negotiate freely the terms of their lease. Some may argue that people can sit in the landlord's office for a cosy chat and ask to have the onerous clause omitted. First, anyone who has had to negotiate a commercial lease in recent years will probably say, "Tell that to the Marines." For decades it has been a landlords' market. Any attempt to renegotiate a lease is simply met with the response, "Take it or leave it".
Secondly, we have introduced many laws to ensure the operation of a free market. Those measures include the abolition of retail price maintenance, the restrictive trade practices legislation and the anti-monopoly laws and the establishment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We have given many powers to the Office of Fair Trading. The House has not hesitated to ensure the fair operation of a free market, and should not do so now.
Some people may say that bankers are less likely to lend money for property development if they feel that the rental income will fall, but that is a fallacious argument. There is
160
little point in businesses being driven to bankruptcy by the operation of such clauses when they are manifestly seen not to have worked. A constituent recently came to see me. He ran a small tobacconist shop in Coulsdon and said that he could not continue in business at the present rent when rivals could open up in the empty shops next door at a fraction of the cost—
Mr. David Winnick: Tories.
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman says that it is being done by Tories, but it is happening in his constituency as well. Is it in the best interests of the banks, tenants or general public? The excessive rents that many businesses are paying are both inflationary and a cause of continued business failure. They have failed in their sole original function to guarantee rents to the landlords and their bankers.
It is important that we learn valuable lessons from the recession, so that it may lead to a sustained recovery. I believe that the abolition of upwards-only rent review clauses in commercial leases will be beneficial to the future economic health of this country. That is why I seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. David Congdon, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Michael Stern, Mr. John Townend and Mr. John Watts.

UPWARDS-ONLY RENT REVIEW CLAUSES (ABOLITION)
Mr. Richard Ottaway accordingly presented a Bill to abolish upwards-only rent review clauses in commercial leases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

Adjournment (Spring)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th May, do adjourn until Monday 7th June —[Mr. Wood.]
3.42 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I always think that this is a useful debate, and I speak in it with great regularity. I see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has a wry smile on his face; he probably knows what is coming.
I spoke in the Easter Adjournment debate on I April and mentioned two subjects, one of which was the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken some action. He has shown that he has listened to what people are saying. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows because he has been in politics a long time, there are times when one simply cannot win. Some people are saying not that my right hon. and learned Friend listened to what they were saying, but that the Government have done a U-turn.
The second subject that I mentioned on 1 April I shall raise again today, as I promised on that occasion that I would continue to speak about it until something was done: the vexed question of the South Trafford community hospital. When he replied on 1 April, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he understood that I was going to see the Secretary of State for Health. I saw her on 21 April, and made my views known to her. I asked her if she would intercede and stress to the North Western regional health authority how essential that project was.
It is a facility for which we have waited for many years. I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to an article in the Sale & Altrincham Messenger on 7 May. it was headlined: "Future health looks bleak says Labour", and said:
"The outlook for future hospital care in Trafford is 'bleak and unsatisfactory' according to Broadheath Ward Labour Party. At a recent meeting, Trafford Community Health Council representative Ray Holden said a new community hospital for the south of the borough was still a dream."
The sad thing is that Broadheath Labour party is like its big brothers and sisters in the Labour party, and thrives on doom and gloom. It does not greet any good news with joy.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: On the topic of gloom and doom, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell me what good news the Conservative party has brought to Tyneside in the last week.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman knows that I come from Tyneside, and of course I am sorry about what is happening there. He also knows as well as I do that what is bad news on the Tyne is very good news indeed in Barrow. Unfortunately, the tender from the yard on Tyneside was not as low as the one from Barrow. I hope very much that something will be done, because I have a great admiration for that shipyarad, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Now, with his permission, I will continue.
It would be very good news if we got a community hospital in our area. Strangely enough, on 7 May I had a letter from somebody who signed his or herself "K. Riley", without saying whether it was Mr. or Mrs. When I wrote a letter to the address at the top of the paper, it was
162
returned to me marked "Not known at this address". The thing that caused me great concern was that K. Riley wrote as follows:
"I am writing to Virginia Bottomley to tell her that we do not want, or need, 'a New Community hospital'—we have already got a perfectly satisfactory one, plus St. Anne's, which is under-used and could quite easily house more elderly people."
I really despair of people like that, who simply do not understand the problems in our area.
Of course, Altrincham general hospital has provided excellent care over many years. In 1978, I had my gall bladder removed there. It is an excellent hospital, and certainly I could not have had better care. But we also have to face the fact that there are several disadvantages at that site, particularly the difficulty of providing care for elderly people. The health authority in Trafford has stated:
"The layout of the wards and the availability of rehabilitation services is not conducive to modern medical practice and can be remedied by a new building. Car parking for visitors and staff is very difficult at Altrincham General Hospital particularly on market days. There is no room for expansion and it is planned that in the new Community Hospital facilities currently inappropriately provided at Sale & Brooklands and St. Anne's Hospital would all be moved on to this site. A much improved environment with all the back up facilities would be available in purpose built accommodation. Additionally, the running costs would be much lower than in a new building than the existing one which would enable rationalisation of items such as having only one boilerhouse rather than the present three for the three separate hospitals. This would release much needed monies for reinvestment in providing healthcare services for Trafford."
I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the Secretary of State for Health to ignore the solitary complaint from the mysterious K. Riley, who could not even give the correct address. A new community hospital would be popular in my constituency and would provide a much-needed facility. I reiterate what I said in the debate on 1 April, on capital schemes since 1980, that Trafford is the only district in the whole of the north-west that has not had a large capital project.
The second issue that I want to touch on briefly is affordable housing, which I raised in an Adjournment debate on 26 April. Housing associations throughout the country are concerned by the proposed cuts in grant rates. Housing associations are now the main providers of new homes for people with low incomes. If the Government provision of 72 per cent. of capital cost of new housing association funds drops to 55 per cent. in the period 1995–96, 1 fear that it will create tremendous problems, because the poorest members of society who are now being housed in the newest social housing will find themselves in a poverty trap. The rents will be so high that they will be dependent upon benefit, and it will not be worth their while to take jobs. I wonder whether that is the sort of society that we want to encourage.
I am also concerned about elderly people who have been thrifty during their working lives, because, under the rules, with capital of between £3,000 and £16,000, a notional amount of interest is assumed at the rate of £1 per week for every £250 capital. I wish that somebody would give me that sort of interest on my savings. It is ridiculously high, and a disincentive to saving.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could say whether the Department of the Environment has reached any decision yet on housing association grant rates. I do

163
not want people to be penalised because they want to work; and I certainly do not want the elderly to be penalised for their thrift.
That brings me to my final point. Like every other hon. Member, I have been inundated during the past week by letters from elderly people who are terrified because they have been told that they cannot collect their pensions and benefits from post offices and sub-post offices. They believe that they will be forced to use what is called automatic credit transfer to receive their pensions.
I understand that the Department of Social Security has run a pilot scheme to encourage pensioners to use ACT to have their pensions paid directly into a bank or building society account. That has caused enormous problems. Under the scheme, 24,000 people soon to collect their pensions for the first time have been sent letters advising them of collection arrangements. The first 8,000 letters point out the advantages of using a bank or building society but include the option of using a post office. Another 8,000 give advice only about banks and building societies; those interested in post offices have to send away for further information. The final 8,000 give no option besides direct payments into bank or building society accounts.
This is just not good enough. I have always believed that this Government believe in choice. If people want to use ACT, so be it—it is more secure and a more reliable means of payment—but we must bear in mind the elderly people who do not have bank or building society accounts.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fears that they are expressing? They like to go to their post office or sub-post office every week to collect their pensions. In letter after letter, they stress the kindness that they receive from people in sub-post offices, who keep an eye on them. If a regular face does not appear one week, no doubt someone in the post office will do something about it. The human touch is missing from automatic credit transfer.
I ask my right hon. Friend to make it crystal clear that people still have the choice, thereby allaying the anxieties of many elderly people who are confused and worried about how they will collect their pensions. I hope that he will make the Secretary of State for Social Security aware that the emphasis in the pilot scheme on automatic credit transfer was too great and that not enough importance was attached to post offices.
Before we adjourn for the spring recess, I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me satisfactory answers on these three issues.
3.52 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I wish to raise two distinct topics, which could perhaps be woven together under the theme of law and order. The first is the case of Nurse Beverly Allitt and the killings at Grantham hospital. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister at Question Time, but I do not think that what he said went to the heart of the anxieties that ordinary parents must be feeling.
For parents of small children it is frightening to think' that the latter might have their lives endangered in a children's ward of a hospital. If there is one place they might expect their children to be safe, it would be there. The Prime Minister focused on the legal aspects of the case at the expense of parents' real fears. Both times, when questioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he referred to
164
what Sir Cecil Clothier wanted. What is important, however, is what parents want. As they read the press reports, they must be wanting reassurance, and they can only get that from a public inquiry that is not accountable to the regional health authority.
Many of the parents involved in the case and many other parents who have seen the media coverage of the case must be asking how someone with a history of mental instability came to be hired as a children's nurse—the more so given that she had attended the casualty department of the same hospital for physical injuries arising from that mental instability. Why was she hired? Did it have anything to do with the desperate shortage of paediatric nurses? Why was action not taken earlier, when it was evident that a series of babies were either dying or being hurt by unknown causes?
To focus on the legalistic and technical aspects while ignoring parents' real fears does not do the matter justice. The parents whose babies died—indeed, every parent of a small child—will not be satisfied until the Government announces a full public inquiry. I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise the matter this afternoon.
The second issue strictly concerns my constituency—the problem of prostitution in the Stamford Hill area. It is difficult to raise the issue of prostitution in a Chamber where more than 600 hon. Members are male, because for most of them prostitution is either a trivial issue or a Joke—
Mr. Tony Banks: Or a service.
Ms Abbott: That is right.
But thousands of people who live in residential areas, whether in parts of Hackney, south London, Manchester or Liverpool, are seriously affected by the problem of prostitution and the consequent problems of streetwalking and pimps. In the parts of London with which I am familiar, the problem is reaching epidemic proportions.
The problems are complex. Almost any woman can be harassed. It could be a woman walking along the street, going to or from her home. In my area of Stamford Hill, even women taking children to school at 9 o'clock in the morning are propositioned. It is a serious harassment—[interruption.] It is a serious problem—
Mr. David Winnick: Tory Members do not think so.
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend is right. The problem causes not just embarrassment, but fear. I know that that is a joke to Conservative Members, but it is not a joke for women or for Labour Members. Ordinary women taking their children to school are propositioned by men—[Interruption.] I know that it is a difficult issue to raise, especially if one is a woman in a largely male-dominated Chamber. I insist on being allowed to discuss the matter this afternoon, because that is what my constituents want.
Mr. Tony Banks: This is indeed a very serious subject, and I am sure that the majority of hon. Members present this afternoon will take it seriously. My hon. Friend is raising an important issue about kerb crawling and harassment of women by men looking for prostitutes. Does she think that the legalisation of brothels might be one way to deal with the problem? I ask that question in a general and genuine sense of an inquiry.
Ms Abbott: A number of options must be considered if we are successfully to deal with the problem and I shall discuss those in a moment. I want to spell out for Conservative Members, who tend to trivialise the issue, what problems are faced by those who live in areas where prostitution is rife.
Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Lady is making some party political points. Does she recall that, during the last Parliament, our former Conservative colleague Mr. Shelton tried to introduce a Bill to deal with the problem, but it was talked out by the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)?
Ms Abbott: I remember that, and it is one reason why I have taken the trouble to raise the matter this afternoon. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will listen to my remarks about what is a very serious problem that faces people not just in my constituency but in many others.
The first problem caused by prostitution is the harassment of women going about their business, not just in the evening but during the day.
The other problem caused by prostitution is that people can be woken by noise and commotion in the middle of the night. There are areas in my constituency where five or six prostitutes gather on street corners—and these are not necessarily the most rundown parts, but residential areas. People are woken at 2 and 3 am to see groups of prostitutes on the corner of their street. People wake up in the morning to find litter left by prostitutes in pursuance of their business.
In one of the main thoroughfares for streetwalkers in my constituency, there is a block of sheltered accommodation. Old people there get up in the morning to find that, because prostitutes have been carrying out their business in the hallways and doorways, they are littered with syringes and used condoms. It is easy to turn that into a joke, but it is not a joke. Old people who are upset and alarmed by that come to see me.
There are also the serious problems attendant on prostitution—of crime, violence, drugs and the pimps who hang around and are parasitical upon the trade. Therefore, prostitution is not trivial. It brings with it the problems of harassment, violence, crime and drugs for the local community.
I stress that, although I am talking about prostitution, the men who frequent prostitutes, the kerb crawlers and customers, are just as culpable as the prostitutes. I would not pursue any line of argument that focused only on the girls, and women—and boys in some cases—and excluded their customers. We must also focus on the kerb crawlers and the men who frequent the prostitutes.
A few years ago, at a meeting with the Home Secretary, I suggested that the Metropolitan police should do what has been done for some time in places outside London, and write to men who are frequently found kerb crawling. At that point, the Home Secretary rejected the idea, but the Metropolitan police have now taken it up and it has had the effect of embarrassing some of the men, many of them—it goes without saying, but I shall say it none the less—respectable married men who are found kerb crawling and looking for girls.
It is also important to say that part of the rising tide of prostitution has to do with economic pressures which many working-class women face. Men, being men, like to
166
fantasise about what turns women to prostitution. I, being a women, want to stress that it is economic necessity that turns most women to prostitution. No one would seek to earn a living in that way, subject as prostitutes are, every day of their working lives, to threats of violence, abuse and physical harassment, if they were not forced to do so by economic necessity.
Many girls have gone down the road of prostitution in order to supplement their social security and to feed their children, only to find themselves trapped by the violence of their pimps or by a drug habit that has been deliberately induced in them. In addition to thinking about the problems of local residents, we should think about the lives that some of those women lead and in which they are trapped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked about possible remedies. A range of remedies exists for the House to consider. The police should have more resources in order to clear the streets and deal with the prostitutes. There might well be a case for changing the law. For example, Birmingham city council has explored the possibility of toleration zones with almost semi-legalised prostitution. There is also the possibility of toughening up the law on kerb crawling.
I do not seek this afternoon to put any particular proposal before the House, I simply say that street-walking is not a trivial issue. It is a serious matter for residents in areas affected by prostitution and the Members of Parliament who represent them. We should think of all who are suffering—the residents and the girls who are trapped in prostitution. I should like the House before too long to debate the issue and to arrive at some serious legislative proposals. As a result, I hope that at least the Stamford Hill area of Hackney, North and Stoke Newington will become a prostitute-free zone.
4.3 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that anyone who listened to that powerful plea from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) would warmly agree. She must not fall into the error of supposing that Conservative Members take a different line. She mentioned an important subject and did so passionately and eloquently, and I echo almost everything that she said. I sincerely hope that her area is soon a prostitute-free zone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) touched on a popular topic, which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note is felt to be important by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would be quite wrong for elderly people to feel obliged to receive their pensions through automatic credit transfer, but the threat that that would pose to sub-post offices, and to rural sub-post offices in particular, is even more important. That is not the main subject of my remarks, but I want my right hon. Friend to know that my hon. Friend was speaking for many hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I shall briefly touch on two subjects—the first is international and the second more national. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will hardly be surprised that, once again, I want briefly to mention Bosnia. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss with our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether this country should take more of an

167
initiative. I say that not in a critical spirit but because the conflicting and uncertain sounds from across the Atlantic have been confusing to many people.
This country is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council—a role which makes this country a great power, although we are often far too nervous and diffident about admitting it. Our membership of the Security Council and of the Group of Seven and our pivotal position within Europe, which I hope will be strengthened by the end of this week, all make this country a great power. At a time when other countries are diffident about taking an initiative, perhaps because of internal problems or their leaders' lack of experience, we can exercise leadership and I regret that during the past two years we have been a little diffident about doing so. Frankly, I believe that if the calls that I and others made in the autumn of 1991 had been heeded, much bloodshed might have been avoided and many tragic events might never have taken place.
Be that as it may, the killing goes on and the problem is still acute. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary after this debate whether Great Britain can summon a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council in London—there is a conflict about what might or might not have been proposed for New York on Friday—to discuss Bosnia and the Balkan question.
As I promised, I was brief on that subject and I shall now concentrate on a national matter that concerns me and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I was prompted to take part in this debate—I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Speaker—because during Prime Minister's Question Time my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) referred to the Banham commission and its first recommendations for local government reform and reorganisation in Derbyshire.
The preferred solution of Sir John Banham and his commission—that the county should be divided into two maxi-district councils—has not caused delight among Members of Parliament and councillors representing Derbyshire. There has been so much upheaval in local government in recent years and so many financial and other changes, for goodness' sake let us be cautious, let us not embark on a great scheme of reforms, particularly in the teeth of local opposition.
My district council of South Staffordshire has been watching with nervous apprehension as Banham has concluded his deliberations in Derbyshire. We are on the list to be looked at in November and rumours have been circulating which have now been confirmed. The district councils in Staffordshire, certainly my own, would very much like to be unitary authorities. I strongly support my district council's wish to be a unitary authority. If existing district councils were able to become unitary authorities or if there were a strong local desire to amalgamate with a neighbour to become a local authority, and if such moves made local government more directly accountable to the people—fine. I should not oppose that and my district' council would be overjoyed.
I believe—obviously I am biased—that my council's record of prudence and good management is excellent. We have the lowest council tax in Staffordshire, just as we had the lowest community charge, yet we have good services. My council's record earns it the right to unitary status. If
168
the Government do not regard that as a possibility, we do not want to be tampered with. We want our boundaries to remain as they are and we want the county boundaries to remain as they are.
If unitary status cannot be conferred on authorities the size of South Staffordshire, let us keep the status quo. Let us keep the county boundaries and the district boundaries. By all means let us consider specific functions, and let us reapportion them to some degree and give greater control to districts, but let us not be driven into amalgamation with districts with which we do not have a great deal in common and with which we do not want to be amalgamated. That is a strongly felt view.
From conversation, I know that that view is strongly felt not only in Staffordshire, but in the House and in the country generally because we have been through many changes. We do not want to go through more which will result in an even remoter system of local government. The great argument for unitary authorities was that there would be not only greater accountability, but less remoteness because the county tier would be removed. That argument is transformed and put on its head if we are to have enormously large district councils.
Such a change would be wasteful in a variety of ways. It would be wasteful of buildings. When South Staffordshire came into being in the early 1970s following the first great round—"great" may not be the right word—of local government reform in 1972, a new council headquarters was created which had to be enlarged when the community charge was introduced. If we had a maxi-district and if we were linked with two or three of the neighbouring authorities, many of which had done similar things, we should not be able to maintain all the council headquarters. It is not sufficient to say that the buildings could be sold for commercial use, because they are not always fit for such use and there is not always a demand for such buildings.
I tell my right hon. Friend with great feeling that such an amalgamation would also be wasteful of people. It would be wasteful of the elected councillors. There would not be so many of them and there would be fewer councillors representing more people, so there would be greater remoteness. A blow would be struck at the ideal of local service which is so important a motivating force in local government.
It is important to realise that there would also be a severe blow to the motivation, morale and career prospects of many excellent local government officers and officials who have come to identify themselves closely with the district in which they work. For instance, it would not be possible to have three chief planning officers, or three chief executives. Men and women of great experience and dedication would be thrown on the scrap heap, at a time when we should not be adding to the sum total of human misery in that way.
For every possible reason, the direction in which Banham appears to be setting out is, I suggest, unacceptable to vast numbers of people throughout the country. I should like my right hon. Friend, if I may put it in this crude way, to pull the plug on Banham. If it is not possible to work towards the unitary district authorities that I want, for goodness' sake let us pull the plug on Banham. All the wasteful expenditure that Banham would involve would thereby be avoided. In addition, all the disappointment that would be felt throughout the country

169
would be avoided. Furthermore, we should avoid turning this place into a cockpit where local issues, deeply felt, were bitterly argued over, to little productive gain.
I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this unusual type of debate that we have several times a year. It is a valuable part of our parliamentary process. My right hon. Friend always has an extremely difficult task in summing up the speeches at the end of the debate, but I hope that he will at least be able to allude to what I have said and that he will pass on to his ministeral colleagues how deeply I feel on these matters.
4.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on what he has just said. He reflected many of my views on the local government commission, but he went a little further than I would when he said that the Leader of the House should suggest to the Prime Minister that he ought to pull the plug on Banham. Nevertheless, what he said about the additional load on individual councillors and the increased remoteness of local government after Banham are issues which ought to be taken on board. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to them.
I rise for the first tiime in an Adjournment debate to raise two issues connected with our security services. As the Leader of the House knows, last Thursday during business questions I asked whether we could have a debate before the recess on our security services, in the wake of the wide allegations made recently about so-called bugging.
The first issue relates to the continuing spate of allegations in the media, linking our security services with the bugging of private individuals. The second issue, which it is about time the House addressed, is the continuing ban on membership of trade unions at Government communications headquarters in my constituency.
The time has come for a clear Government statement on our security services, including GCHQ. Many talented people who work in the security services feel aggrieved that they are not permitted to answer the allegations of bugging published in national newspapers. Last week's knee-jerk response by the Home Secretary was insufficient either to set the record straight or to give support to those in the security services.
I spoke at the weekend to many people who work at GCHQ, when Cheltenham had another of its famous marches. The town has become notorious for its marches in recent months. We had a march against the Government's proposals to close the coal mines. In January, we had our annual march against the continuing ban on trade union membership at GCHQ. There has also been a series of marches in Cheltenham, and elsewhere in the county of Gloucestershire, against the Government's proposals to cap the county council and force cuts in education, policing and other services.
Those who work at GCHQ feel that the Government are perhaps happy to let the bugging stories run in the media because they divert attention away from the Government's economic and policy difficulties. I do not intend to comment on that, but it is time that the Government made a statement to set the record straight. I cannot understand the Government's reluctance to allow
170
a full and detailed debate to clear the air on the bugging allegations. The allegations go beyond the remit of GCHQ, and its workers want the record put straight because they do not do that kind of thing. It is up to the Government to decide whether they want an inquiry into where the bugging is happening, who is doing it and why it is being published in newspapers. I do not deny newspaper proprietors the right to sell their newspapers, but it must be wrong for those who cannot answer back to be implicated and besmirched in this way.
Workers at GCHQ expect answers from the Government because newspaper stories about leaks from the security services are harming the reputation of staff. The staff have had to suffer much at the hands of the Government and a debate would give the Government a chance to recognise their professionalism, skill and dedication.
In a debate in 1984, my predecessor, Sir Charles Irving, said:
"I assure the House that it would be difficult to find a more noble, loyal, hardworking and sincere group than the 8,000 employees"
at
"GCHQ. They seek only the opportunities to continue with their valuable services in peace and security."—[Official Report, 27 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 42–43.]
Apart from there now being far fewer than 8,000 employees at GCHQ, that statement remains true today.
A debate on GCHQ gives the House a chance to review and, I hope, condemn the ban on trade unions that the Government imposed almost 10 years ago. In January, I had the privilege to march with trade unionists through Cheltenham against the ban. The march has, unfortunately, been an annual feature of the Cheltenham social calendar since 1984 and it will continue to be so until GCHQ employees are given back the right to join a trade union.
I remind the House that 14 people were sacked for the sole reason that they refused to give up their union membership. They were not dangerous left wingers, communists or entryists but decent, hard-working Gloucestershire people. One of them, Clive Lloyd, has carried on the fight as a Liberal Democrat councillor in Cheltenham. The biggest threat to national security comes not from GCHQ trade unionists but from the incompetence, arrogance and stupidity of the Government, who have so damaged the reputation of this country.
As the so-called bugging scandals are now in the public domain, it is vital that the Government come clean. It is no good waiting for the publication of a Bill some time later this year, as the Leader of the House promised at business questions last Thursday. GCHQ staff deserve backing from the Government. They have been attacked by the Government through the union ban and they are being attacked in the national newspapers. Their professionalism is now being called into question by the press and the Government must come clean on the rumours.
4.23 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: I make no apology for taking this opportunity before we break for the spring recess of raising matters about which my constituents feel quite strongly—not local issues that I have raised previously in such debates but national issues. It is the sense of lack of competence and of lack of sense of

171
direction at the heart of government, which I believe was the main cause of the losses in the county council elections recently. In Somerset, these were not local issues.
I mention elements of competence and lack of direction. Of course, there are qualifications to lack of direction. There is no point in having plenty of direction in government if one is going in the wrong direction and I praise the Government's capacity to listen, conciliate and, as we have seen in recent days, retreat where necessary. That is all right, but it would be better—I shall give some examples—if we did not get into such difficulties in the first place.
Underlying much of that malaise are aspects of legislation that this Parliament has inherited from the previous Parliament. Fairly innocuous pieces of legislation that went through the House without much party controversy, such as the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, are now producing a horror of regulations that are affecting businesses, charities, village halls and individuals all over the country.
I know that Ministers are aware of these matters and are anxious to tackle them in the proposed legislation for the next Session, but the horror of damage being inflicted on businesses and individuals continues to cause great resentment and difficulty in rural and urban areas.
Before I give some of the other examples that have come to the fore in recent weeks, perhaps I ought to say that I greatly sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in coping with a press, especially a Conservative press, that I do not think any Conservative Prime Minister has had to cope with since the days of Stanley Baldwin, who had to cope with the Beaverbrook and Rothermere-owned press.
I cannot think of a time in my fairly lengthy experience in working for the Conservative party and being interested and active in politics when a Conservative Prime Minister has had to cope with such bitter opposition from the editors of The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, not only in their leader columns but in the articles that they commission for their newspapers. I think of the rather obsessed tirades from Lord Rees-Mogg and the contribution—not in one of those newspapers—a few days ago from Sir John Nott, a former Member of the House whose main achievement in recent years has been to earn a salary which would make the average chairman of a water or electricity company green with envy.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he realises that he is not succeeding in pulling the heart strings of Labour Members. It is quite clear that Conservative Members "don't like it up 'em" when they get it from the press. Is he aware that this is the sort of hostile press that not only a Labour Government but a Labour opposition has to put up with? Has he ever shown us any sympathy when we have been subjected to these regular tirades or does he expect us to show him sympathy?
Mr. Nicholson: I have always admired and enjoyed the sense of humour of the hon. Gentleman, but I am certainly not looking to him for sympathy and I do not expect my party to look to the Labour party for sympathy. [Interruption.] I am making a statement of fact about
172
what we have experienced in recent weeks and it has not helped my right hon. and hon. Friends in administering some considerably difficult issues.
At the heart of the discontent of those four editors, with very different backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, prejudices and ability to be conciliated, has been the Bill to implement the Maastricht treaty which I hope we will give a Third Reading in the House on Thursday.
There is considerable resentment among Conservative Members at the hysterical opposition to the Bill, not only in the House but outside in the press, which has had a considerable effect on people in our constituencies and was certainly one factor in the recent elections.
Once the Bill is through Parliament, we will have more, better and more easily available information about the treaty. I appreciate the conventions that have hitherto prevented us from allowing that information to go to every household. I also think that my right hon. Friends should not take the consistent voting of hon. Members for that Bill and treaty to imply agreement or assent to the rather rhetorical and exaggerated expectations about European union that exist in certain European countries. I have no time for the concept of a European union. [Interruption.] A European commonwealth—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and all others present that repetitive seated interventions are not part of the traditions of the House.
Mr. Nicholson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The term "commonwealth" is, I believe, understood in this country. I believe that the concept of European commonwealth would be supported by most strands of opinion on these matters. A union implies something that many Conservative Members—who have consistently supported the Bill as a means of ratifying a treaty that reconciles conflicting elements—could not accept. Navigating that treaty and the Bill through Parliament has been difficult for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and that task has not been helped by the attitudes adopted by parts of the press.
One of the prime issues that has caused considerable discontent in recent weeks, especially among elderly people, is the imposition of VAT on fuel. Many of us accept that we need that measure for revenue and environmental reasons, but we also need—and I impress this upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was a skilled and able Secretary of State for Social Security—to protect those elderly people who do not necessarily qualify for income support. That VAT imposition has caused great fear among people who depend on satisfactory heating and they will need to be reassured, and reassured speedily.
Mr. William Powell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the only conceivable way in which the ambition that he has identified could even be approached is if there were an increase in the old-age pension which entirely compensated all old-age pensioners for the VAT increase, which will be approximately £1 per week in the first year and £2 per week in the second year? As my right hon. Friends have ruled that out, and are only prepared to operate through the social security system, is it not clear that the only conceivable way in which the objective set out

173
by my hon. Friend can be met is for the Government to withdraw the VAT proposal and introduce other means of raising the revenue?
Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend was in a minority when he dissented from that measure, and I shall leave him to make his own speech. He and other hon. Members are as concerned as I am, however, to protect the elderly who are above the poverty level. We must try to find some means of doing that.
Another issue of equal concern to elderly people that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) is the threat to sub-post offices as a result of possible measures for which the Department of Social Security may be responsible. I regret that so many people have been scared into believing that they will lose the ability to have their pensions paid into post offices. Whether that scare has arisen through the incompetence of the Department of Social Security or the malignity of a certain union within the post office, I know not. I impress upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I hope that tomorrow's debate on the sub-post offices and the speech from the Secretary of State for Social Security will lay those fears to rest. That is vital because this matter is causing very great concern. Those fears should be met.
I mentioned that there are concerns about the way that legislation—sometimes some years after it has passed through the House—impacts on people, businesses, charities and others. I recall that at the start of each day's proceedings we have a phrase that we should be "godly and quietly governed". I cannot speak for the first of those epithets, but there is great pressure from constituencies that we should be quietly governed, that there should be less interference and tinkering with institutions and systems that, on the whole, work well. I hope that my hon. Friends agree that the malaise shown in the recent county elections makes any proposal to privatise the Post Office in this Parliament a dead duck.
We also have anxiety about the railways, and next week we shall have an opportunity to debate the remaining stages of the Railways Bill. There is concern lest we shall not be able to sustain in this country a railway system that serves passengers, maintains decent fares, transfers freight to the railways from the roads and takes advantage of the benefits that will come from the opening of the channel tunnel. I speak of the cause for which our late hon. Friend Robert Adley spent much of his life. He worked hard and with great expertise for that cause. We shall have his example and work before us when we debate and vote on the subject next week.
In a point of order after Question Time today, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) spoke of IACS, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's new system for administering subsidy from Europe. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place to pursue the matter because in recent weeks farmers in my constituency, and particularly on Exmoor, encountered considerable difficulty and conflicting advice. The Minister issued advice that did not appear to percolate through to local and regional offices of the Ministry.
The new system may look all right on paper to Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall, but it does not seem to have been prepared and co-ordinated sufficiently
174
well to enable those involved to cope with it within the short time available. The forms had to be in by 15 May. Farmers are not bureaucrats. They are not skilled in filling in vast numbers of forms. They feel resentful about what happened. I hope that we learn from our mistakes, some of which can cause immense concern.
There has been a tremendous welling of concern in recent times about law and order and an awareness, particularly among magistrates and police who must administer the system, that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 has not been working as it was intended. I pay great tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for listening to those calls. He has received advice which has enabled him to act in this legislative Session to deal with some of the worst problems that have arisen.
While I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for that, it is a shame that we did not have that move a few weeks earlier, when it might have been of help to our people as they went into the county elections. After all, counties control police authorities and are deeply concerned with the whole issue of law and order. Our people felt, as they went into those elections, that they were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, bearing in mind the considerable problems that were being faced over law and order matters.
On a similar matter, the Secretary of State for Education issued a statement on tests which, though welcome, was only half a loaf or a curate's egg. He has accepted the representations that he received from an enormous number of reasonable people. I refer not to militants and protesters but to Conservative teachers, governors and parents. They all said that the tests were far too complex and bureaucratic. He has accepted that view for next year, but I am baffled as to why he cannot accept it for this year.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, whom I admire and wish success in the difficult task in hand, will forgive me—he is more learned than I—if I wonder whether he had in mind a few lines from "Macbeth" as he decided not to withdraw the tests for this year. The language is lurid, but "Macbeth" is a lurid play. The lines that my right hon. Friend may have had in mind are spoken by Macbeth:
"I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will learn from the considerable experience that we, the Back Benchers, have had in recent months in respect of those tests and listen to what we and others in the education system tell him.
I am sorry for raising so many matters. However, the problems that we have faced in our constituencies and in the recent contests are not simply recession-related or related to the Maastricht debate. They are related to a range of matters, many of which from legislation that the House has passed and from the interpretation placed on that legislation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is responsible for the Government's legislative programme and I hope that he will consider the prayer that we shall indeed be godly, but also more quietly, governed in future.
4.39 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was extraordinary. Opposition Members listened to him

175
attentively. However, it is not blood that the Government are steeped in—it is deep doo-doo, and the Secretary of State for Education typifies that most.
The hon. Member for Taunton began by complaining about the treatment that the Government are receiving from Tory newspapers. He then listed a series of very good reasons why those newspapers should be attacking a Conservative Government. He mentioned VAT on heating and lighting, pensioners being paid through bank accounts, privatisation of the Post Office and of the railways and testing in schools. Those things have been inflicted on the country not by newspaper editors, but the Government.
It was amazing that the hon. Member for Taunton could attack his Government. I would like to know how many of those issues he supported in the Lobby. He should be more careful in the future before voting for policies of that kind which, quite frankly, fully justify the attacks that the newspapers are now mounting on this incompetent Conservative Government. Indeed, the Goverment are beginning to resemble "Eldorado"—rotten actors, lousy scripts and no popularity. Let us hope that the Government quickly go the way that "Eldorado" is shortly to go.
I had not intended to say all that, but I was carried away by the cri de cour of the hon. Member for Taunton as a Conservative Member suffering so badly under the incompetence of his party's Government. The hon. Gentleman now knows how the rest of us feel.
I want to refer to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—the problems of prostitution in the area that she represents. Similar problems are experienced in other residential areas of London. My point is related to what my hon. Friend said. I want to consider the supply and use of illegal substances which, in future, I will refer to as drugs. Although nicotine and alcohol are very potent drugs, when we use the term "drugs" we more or less know that we mean the use of illegal substances.
The criminal activity surrounding the supply and use of drugs is closely linked to prostitution. It tends to be conducted in the same areas of London. King's Cross is perhaps the most notorious area for both in the capital city at the moment although there are few other parts of London not affected in some way by both problems.
The first thing that we must accept is that those problems will not go away. We cannot police prostitution off the streets and, likewise, we shall not police the use of drugs off the streets. That is impossible. I do not say that as son-re kind of child of the sixties. I have never had an inclination to use drugs, I have never used them, and unless a very tempting offer comes along, I have no intention of doing so in future. However, I will not necessarily criticise those who have.
When I heard Commander John Grieve of New Scotland yard speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers recently, I realised that he was saying something which many people who are given the impossible task of trying to deal with prostitution and drugs supply are saying to us as Members of Parliament involved in legislation. He was saying, "What are we going to do about this? These matters cannot simply be policed off the streets."
Commander Grieve said that we should consider whether it was time to consider a form of limited licensing for the suppliers and users of drugs. He did not say that we
176
should legalise. He said, "Let us just look at that," but he was immediately denounced by large numbers of so-called opinion formers in this House and elsewhere.
What Commander Grieve was saying as a senior Metropolitan police officer is something that many senior police officers are saying in London and elsewhere in the country. We must listen to what people like Commander Grieve are saying and look at the matter impartially, without the knee-jerk political reaction that tends to follow such statements.
Shortly after Commander Grieve's statement, the Prime Minister was asked what he thought about it. He said, "No, we will have nothing to do with this. It is a matter of controlling demand and that is what we are going to do." That was rather hypocritical as the Government are cutting the budgets for drug education in schools. They are also cutting the money that drug rehabilitation centres receive from central Government. It is a bit much to start talking about reducing demand by increasing education when the amount of money dedicated to education and rehabilitation programmes is being reduced.
Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the drugs trade, like prostitution, is a private vice with public ramifications? One of the public by-products of the burgeoning drugs trade in London is the number of shootings connected with the drugs trade. There has been a very steep rise in the number of shootings in public places and clubs in London in the past 18 months and they are almost entirely connected with the drugs trade, particularly crack cocaine.
Mr. Banks: I accept that and I want to refer to it in my short contribution. The criminal activity surrounding the supply of illegal substances causes us the greatest concern.
As I have said, I am not here to advocate the legalisation of certain drugs, but I advocate that we should at least be prepared to consider that without bolting for cover because we feel that the subject is too delicate and controversial to raise in this House. As soon as we reach the point when we cannot raise such issues in the House of Commons, we are in real trouble in terms of reaching considered opinions within our democratic processes.
I am most concerned about cannabis, which is the substance which is most usually used. I have never used it, but I am informed that cannabis is non-addictive. It has a tendency to calm users—in contrast with alcohol which, when taken to excess, leads to very aggressive behaviour. Much of the recent rural violence has been associated with over-consumption of alcohol.
If we consider the matter from a health point of view, we should consider legalising cannabis and declaring alcohol and nicotine illegal. Alcohol is involved in many health problems and in violence. As for nicotine, 110,000 people per year die from smoking-related diseases. I have heard of no one who has died from a disease related to the use of cannabis.
Mr. Ray Powell: Some years ago, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on compulsory drug testing in schools. While my hon. Friend is concerned about cannabis, I was concerned about crack from America. Crack is killing people, particularly schoolchildren. Will my hon. Friend consider that?
Mr. Banks: Yes, I tend to agree with my hon. Friend about the problems which are moving from the United States to this country, particularly in relation to crack. I remember raising the issue with the then Home Secretary—the present Foreign Secretary—when he had not even heard of the substance.
We have not taken the problem seriously on this side of the Atlantic until fairly recently. One could almost argue that the American market has reached saturation point and suppliers are looking to the European market, particularly the market here, to continue their trade. We must control the dealers who are responsible for the criminal violence associated with supply. Where there is a demand, there will always be someone prepared to supply.
One of the other arguments that we should examine with regard to possible legislation is that if we legalised certain drugs we would be in a better position to control the supply. It is true that some people who start on soft drugs end up as hopeless addicts taking the hardest drugs. Equally, it can be argued that someone who starts with a small dry sherry may end up as a hopeless alcoholic drinking methylated spirits. Although that happens in some cases, mostly it does not, so we should not be too frightened by that argument.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred to the violence surrounding the supply of drugs. That concerns us in parts of the capital city. There is a demand, so there will be a supply. While the demand is for an illegal substance, control over supply is something that we can only look to the police to deal with, so we are back where we started. The police are already saying that they cannot deal with the problem; they do not have the resources and, indeed, they will never have sufficient resources to deal with it.
To sum up, the Government should be prepared to examine carefully the case for legalising certain categories of drugs, take the best evidence and allow us to consider the matter quietly. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to deal with the violence associated with drug supply and the health problems associated with drug use, and I am sure that we can take out all party political dogma from the subject and look at it as people who, in the end, are responsible for the legislation that is passed through the Houses of Parliament. If we were examining the case for legislation, we could be talking about eliminating the violence surrounding the supply.
Legalisation could ensure the quality of the supply. A number of deaths have been reported recently in the King's Cross area. It is suspected that they were all drug users taking contaminated drugs. Because drug taking is illegal, people cannot go to the police and complain that what they bought in good faith turned out to be baking powder or something worse. That is precisely what is happening in the supply and demand area at present.
Legalisation could lead to greater regulation and control. It would also give us a greater opportunity to educate our young people about the use of drugs and other illegal substances. I simply suggest that perhaps the Government should consider setting up a royal commission to examine the whole subject. It could be looked at dispassionately, away from the knee-jerk political reactions which unfortunately followed the sensible and reasonable statement by Commander Grieve at the ACPO conference recently.
4.52 pm
Mr. William Powell: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does a great service to the House by raising the question of the impact of drugs on our culture and society today, just as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) did in her remarks about prostitution. I strongly support the wise words that have been uttered today and on previous occasions by my namesake the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
Frankly, the most alarming aspect of the drugs problem is the way in which it is reaching more of our youngsters in schools and elsewhere. There is not the slightest doubt, as the chief constable of West Yorkshire said only last week, that so much of the explosion of crime among youngsters at present appears to be drug-related. Certainly, that is confirmed to me by police officers to whom I have talked. The fact of the matter is that we are losing the war against drugs. We must do much more to ensure that more people, especially young people, are not destroyed by these wicked instruments.
Adjournment debates such as this always raise a wide variety of matters—they are among some of the most interesting debates held in the House. At present, my postbag is swollen by two specific issues. One is the question of the threat to sub-post offices. I entirely support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).
Frankly, it is incredible that the Government have got themselves into this absurd position. The heads of those who were responsible for drafting the extremely maladroit letters—to put the matter mildly—should be presented on a plate. It is one of the most serious political misjudgments, and a matter that my right hon. Friends must do much more to correct at once. These things did not happen when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was responsible for the Department which seems to be at fault in this case.
I was amused by what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said about local government reorganisation in Staffordshire. Northamptonshire county council is unloved. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who used to be a member of that county council, knows that it was unloved even when he served on it.
My constituents, whether they live in east Northamptonshire or Corby, are anxious to have a unitary authority that is close to the grass roots—much closer to them than the Northamptonshire county council. If the Local Government Commission proposes what it appears to have proposed in Derbyshire, I am afraid that this will all come to grief. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South was entirely right to raise the matter.
I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said. I merely say to him that the other matter that is swelling my postbag at present relates to the issue of value added tax on fuel. I have thought hard about this matter. I simply have to say that it has been a colossal misjudgment by the Government. It would be greatly to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if they withdrew the VAT proposal and came forward, even at this late stage, with alternative revenue-raising proposals.

179
This matter has caused immense resentment in the country. The number of letters that I have received from my constituents—and, indeed, the constituents of all hon. and right hon. Members—far exceeds anything with regard to the business about the mines last autumn. I have no doubt that this matter will continue to run. The only satisfactory way of dealing with it is to withdraw the proposal and come forward with another proposal before the Third Reading and Royal Assent.
Mr. David Hanson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Does he extend the argument to value added tax on telephone bills, fridges, cookers and other items which pensioners and many other people in our society need to survive and make a decent life for themselves? Surely the whole thrust of the Government's argument is that VAT is a good tax and income tax is a bad tax. Labour Members take the absolutely opposite view.
Mr. Powell: That is not the thrust of the Government's policy at all. I stand by the settlement that was made 20 years ago. Deliberately, the Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—this has since been reaffirmed by all Prime Ministers—decided that those items that impact most on the budgets of the poorer people in our society should be exempt from VAT. Obviously, fuel and power are absolutely essential. I have always made it perfectly clear to my constituents that I would not in any way support the extension of VAT, and I was delighted to vote with the Labour party last week when the matter came forward.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did my hon. Friend note that the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), like those on his Front Bench, gave no commitment whatever to reverse this measure?
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes his point, and I shall make mine. Undoubtedly people will take note of exactly what has been said.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be extremely surprised if 1 did not use this opportunity to say a little more about war crimes in Bosnia. It is not the first time—nor, indeed, will it be the last time—that I shall raise the matter. With each of these Adjournment debates, there has been further encouraging progress towards the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal to deal with the outrageous criminal activities that have been taking place—I stress, on all sides—throughout Yugoslavia.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, under his mandate in resolution 808, reported to the Security Council with a draft constitution for such an ad hoc tribunal on 3 May. That was extremely welcome, not least because he had obviously consulted widely among the members of the Security Council and the member states of the United Nations. So he was able to produce, not a document containing a series of options, as some of us had feared, which could be used as an excuse for further delay in the establishment of such a tribunal, but a specific and detailed constitution which could certainly form the basis for discussion and, I hope, an early resolution and decision of the Security Council.
I hope that the British Government will give enthusiastic suport to the work which has been done by the Secretary-General's office. I hope that the Government will take the lead in ensuring that the ad hoc tribunal is established as quickly as possible.
180
We all know that serious breaches of international law have occurred in Yugoslavia for some time. Those breaches include breaches of the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war; breaches of the Hague convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land and the regulations annexed thereto on 18 October 1907; breaches of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide of 9 December 1948; and breaches of the charter of the international military tribunal of 8 August 1945. Each of those six important aspects of international criminal law has been infringed again and again. The Secretary-General made that plain in his report under resolution 808.
It is not sufficient merely to establish the ad hoc tribunal. We have made a great deal of progress on that, and I am glad to say that the British Government have given much support to the process. However, it is necessary for us to ensure that, having established such a tribunal—when the United Nations Security Council makes that final move—it can operate successfully and earn the respect of the international community for the manner in which it fulfils the responsibilities entrusted to it by the international community under the authority of the Security Council.
I stress to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the point that I made the last time that I raised the matter with him. Preliminary action needs to be taken in establishing the special prosecutor's office. We must ensure that the necessary resources are available to the special prosecutor by way of police and legal assistance. The special prosecutor must have an adequate budget agreed by the members of the United Nations and approved by the Secretary-General. The office must have the physical facilities for the special prosecutor to carry out the work. It must be possible to interview witnesses, many of whom are today refugees from the terrible conflict found in southern Austria, southern Hungary and Slovenia.
The equivalent of a magistrate's jurisdiction must be established, so that charges can be properly laid against those whom it is alleged have committed war crimes. I identify three categories of person whom the special prosecutor must investigate. The first are the policy and decision-makers—the senior Government officials and senior military commanders. The second are field commanders, both military and civilian, who commanded the forces which carried out the violations, or persons who could have prevented violations from being committed by forces under their command. The third are the individual perpetrators who carried out acts of murder, torture, rape and other crimes. All those people should be investigated.
The world must respect warrants issued by that first chamber—we may call it a magistrates court or an indicting chamber. We must make it clear that, if any person who is the subject of such a warrant travels outside Yugoslavia, the world community will be prepared to arrest them and hand them over to the ad hoc tribunal for trial.
Then we must ensure that the trial takes place. It will be a lengthy process. It will not be possible to try huge numbers of people, but it will certainly be possible to try some. I stress to my right hon. Friend that the reason why all this matters is that, in the horror of what is taking place in Yugoslavia, the world community must stand up and identify what is right and what is wrong in terms of behaviour towards other human beings.

181
When there is murder, rape and torture, we must stand up and say, "This is wrong." We may not be able to put it right this afternoon or this evening, but we shall certainly do all that we possibly can to ensure that those who are responsible are brought to an acceptable form of justice—if not this month, next month, next year or whenever.
One of the most effective ways in which we can bring the behaviour in Yugoslavia to a halt is to serve notice that it will not be tolerated by an international community, and that the international community will establish the necessary mechanisms to bring to justice those who are responsible.
I have raised the subject of war crimes again and again with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as he well knows. From time to time, he has been kind enough to pass on my remarks to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend because the last time that I raised the matter, I mentioned a letter that I had written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I swiftly received a most encouraging and effective response from the Prime Minister.
I want my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge our right hon. Friends to take the lead on behalf of Great Britain and ensure that what is established is an effective voice for the world community but also a practical voice in bringing about what the world community most earnestly wishes to ensure—that those who are wrongdoers and those who have committed the most wicked crimes are brought to justice in this world, as in the next.
5.6 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I wish to speak on three matters. I shall not reiterate what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said about pensions and benefits being paid in post offices. I hope that the Leader of the House took into consideration what he said. Fears have been expressed by many pensioners throughout the country, and especially by the 250 members of the Pencoed old-age pensioners association, who sent me a petition and a letter today expressing their fears.
Hundreds in my constituency have written pleading that the Government should reassess the position. I know that two or three other hon. Members have already referred to the matter, but I must emphasise it on behalf of my constituents. I hope that the Leader of the House will take the message back to the appropriate Minister so that action can be taken.
The second matter that I wish to raise is escalating crime. The Glamorgan Gazette published in my constituency last weekend contained yet again a front-page article referring to the escalation of crime in my constituency. Most alarmingly, it said that in the Ogmore valley—an area that was built around the collieries—most shops in small villages were burgled or had their windows smashed, not once or twice in two or three years, but every other week.
Years ago in districts such as Ogmore, the majority of children cut their teeth on a lump of coal and miners were almost the only breadwinners in the valley. They were responsible for their actions and those of their children,
182
and were respected in the community. That community was no different from the one in which I was brought up in the Rhondda.
Where I lived, the front door was always open and the door into the passage was always closed to stop the draught. The only thing that we stopped from outside was the draught; we never stopped our neighbours coming in. Now, in an area that is no different from Ogmore which I represent, residents normally have to unbolt a number of doors before friends and neighbours can come in. That happens not only in Ogmore in my valley, but elsewhere.
Over the past 14 years, crime in our society has escalated, not only among young people but among middle-aged people, because so many people without work are looking for money in communities that have traditionally had a great respect for the elderly and neighbours. My home is no more than five minutes' walk from Bridgend central police authority, which trains police for Mid Glamorgan and most of south Wales.
Crime has escalated in the valleys, in areas that are only 13 miles from that police centre. Crime has escalated elsewhere; on a Saturday night, the centre of Bridgend has become a no-go area for the residents and those who visit the cafeterias after 10 pm. It is high time that the Government took more drastic action to try to remedy the escalation in crime.
Cannot more funding be made available to enable police to go back on the beat, so that we have more police on the streets and fewer in cars? My constituency has a typically close community of friendly, caring people, where families and friends nurture the community spirit. That spirit is being lost in our villages and towns, and there is no control over the escalation of crime.
My agent, Councillor Mrs. Muriel Williams, lives in Nantymoel. She has been a magistrate for 30 years—she knows that crime is escalating in her town, as she can see the evidence from the front window of her home on the main road, and as a magistrate. Only 20 yards from her home is a closed police station, which used to serve the top of the valley but is now to be converted into a home.
Why is it necessary for police stations to close throughout our valley communities? Why cannot we have the same policing levels that we had years ago, so that we could frighten criminals and help curb the escalation of crime? I am sure that, if the Government put their mind to it, they could achieve that goal and stop the elderly from being frightened. It is a crying shame that, when people reach the age of 65 or 70, they are afraid to go out of their homes, which they have to lock and secure. In the community that I represent, people are afraid to open the door and face escalating crime.
Another issue close to my heart and, I am sure, to that of the Leader of the House, is Sunday trading. After last Friday, a number of people are probably sick and tired of hearing about Sunday trading, but it is important to raise the subject, as it is a matter of grave concern. The Leader of the House has often told me frankly that it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that the law according to the Shops Act 1950 is upheld.
Last Friday, the Minister promised that the subject would be considered in the autumn, and that we could probably expect legislation next year or perhaps the year after. Meanwhile, lawbreakers, whoever they are—greedy grocers, or people who support the Conservative party through various funding arrangements—can continue. It is high time that the Government acted to ensure that such

183
people are taken to court. The Government should enforce the Shops Act. It is no good placing the responsibility on local authorities, which have few funds to finance the numerous prosecutions that should take place.
I am sure that the Leader of the House wants to ensure that law and order are upheld in this country. I mentioned the crime wave in my constituency, and the position is the same throughout the country. Some people may ask, if B and Q can commit a crime and get away with millions of pounds, why should not a burglar smash a window in the street in Nantymoel and take away a video? The law should be upheld for the big companies that break the law and pocket millions of pounds, which probably come from the profits of small shopkeepers who are forced to close their businesses. Some of them have been forced out of business by crimes committed by the big retailers which open on Sundays and take most of their trade.
I could continue at length, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were in the Chair last Friday—you kept awake most of the time and maintained much interest in the issue. You mastered the complex subject of voting at the end of the debate admirably. It took some of us the whole week to understand what the procedure would be, and I was grateful for your ruling last Friday.
I spent 12 months preparing a complicated Bill on Sunday trading and presented it in the hope of establishing which of the three options hon. Members wanted—total deregulation as proposed by the Government, partial deregulation as proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council or the proposals in my Bill.
The vote was taken and the result was 127 to 13—a majority of 114 hon. Members in the House on a Friday in support of my Shops (Amendment) Bill. When the Report stage was completed at 29 minutes past 2, a motion was made to the effect that the Third Reading should be agreed to on the basis of the vote that had taken place only minutes before. However, that was rejected, so the Bill is still in limbo.
We are discussing whether we should adjourn for the Whitsun recess on Thursday 27 May. It is not possible for the Leader of the House, bearing in mind his responsibility for arranging, not only the spring Adjournment, but also the business of the House, to ensure that Thursday 27 May is not a holiday, but the day on which the House can perhaps resolve this issue? Cannot the full debate be held on 27 May, so that we can look at the Report stage of the Bill that I presented on Friday, consideration of which was adjourned? We could then resolve some of the issues involved well before Christmas, and avoid yet another escalation of illegal Sunday Christmas trading.
I have before me a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), whose Bill was treated in a similar fashion by the Government. I also have protests from my hon. Friends the Members for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr.. Fisher), whose Bills were treated similarly.
The Bill concerning disabled people presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—to which I referred in a point of order to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—has not yet been debated. The care given to the matter by my right hon. Friend and by numerous other hon. Members should have been recognised by the Leader of the House and the Government. Time should be made available for that Bill to be discussed, as it should for my Bill.
184
It is noticeable that the Government select Bills that they want private Members to put to the House on a Friday. They will pass those Bills if they want legislation introduced by private Members, and they will give them their blessing so that they are introduced.
You said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we should go to the Procedure Committee to try to get a different system organised. The Chair should, and does, protect the interests of private Members, and protection of this interest is long overdue. Everything is done by ballot. If one is lucky on the day of the draw and is first, second or third, one gets the opportunity to introduce a Bill.
When my Bill was drawn out after the last election, I thought that at last my luck had changed—not on Littlewoods pools; I do not want a cheque from them—but because I had drawn No. 3 in the ballot, out of 20, to introduce a private Member's Bill. I was also to be given the princely sum of £200 to assist me in obtaining legal advice to promote the Bill. I thought that it was wonderful.
Twelve months later, I found that the Government were not prepared to listen to reasoned argument. An early-day motion in my name, signed by 258 right hon. and hon. Members, asked the House to pass my Bill last Friday. Despite that, the Government rejected the idea and suggested that we should have legislation in some months' time—perhaps 12 months' or two years' time. It is high time that the Government gave the matter further consideration.
Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is making an important speech. He referred to my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. As he said, the provisions and purposes of that Bill have been discussed on the Floor of the House for seven hours without a vote. The Bill was blocked in the first place by an hon. Member, who lost his seat at the last election, who said that he would not talk it out, and who then proceeded to do so. He made a personal statement of apology to the Speaker and to the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend may wish to know that many right hon. and hon. Members opposite support my Bill; they are among its sponsors; and they are saying that the Bill has been treated "discreditably" in the proceedings that we have had so far.
I back the appeal that my hon. Friend is making to the Leader of the House. This is a House of Commons matter par excellence. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend has said and is saying, and reassure those who think that there is a pattern to the tactics in obstructing Bills that the Government do not want to see enacted.
Mr. Powell: I am very grateful for the comments of my right hon. Friend.
I will conclude now, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that a number of other hon. Members are waiting to be called in the debate.
An article in The Guardian on 10 May is headed:
"Major plans fast law on Sunday trading".
There is an opportunity here to have a fast law on Sunday trading. I tried everything. I asked who wanted to serve on the Committee. I made alterations between Second Reading and Report stage, when we conceded four major issues. The DIY stores, garden centres, extension of the size of the shop—all were agreed in Committee, together with 28 other liberalisation actions on Sunday trading. I

185
thought that would induce the Government to say that that was sufficient and to take the Bill on board, so that we could have a decent law on Sunday trading.
It is high time that the Government took action, and that they remembered that private Members' Bills and activities within the House should be honoured by the Executive.
5.27 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I do not believe that we should adjourn for the spring recess without considering the impact of the proposed high-speed rail link across the borough of Gravesham. The House will recall that we are now in a six months' consultation period and that the clock has been ticking since April. There are certain points that I wish to bring to the attention of the House.
The high-speed rail link runs alongside the A2 and therefore past the homes of some 5,000 householders in my constituency. It is proposed to tunnel beneath Pepper Hill, to what effect on the residents we just do not know. That is why I called in March for a geological survey to assess noise and vibration, if any, and the prospects of damage during the construction period to the properties situated above.
I have been glad to note the appointment of two consultancies: Sir William Halcrow and Partners and Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick and Partners, both of which have geophysical experts on their professional teams. I hope that they will get on with the job, that they will do their soil and chalk testing and that they will carry out an investigation of the presence or otherwise of dene-holes beneath the houses in the area.
But they must make haste. Local people, with the technical support of Gravesham borough council, need to see the results of the survey as soon as possible, because it is only with the survey that they can compare the tunnel route—with the advantages that it brings of low-level running in cuttings alongside the A2—with the alternative route, which involves a wide curve around Pepper Hill through open countryside. The plans for this route have been done only in outline, but they show the route to be at a considerable elevation, which would be detrimental both to Northfleet and to Istead Rise, the nearby village to the south. We certainly need precise details on the alternative route that may be proposed.
I hope that my right hon. Friends will encourage Union Railways to hasten its assessment of putting passing loops into the Ebbsfleet valley. That would allow a realignment at the A227 Wrotham road crossing, which could be at a far lower level and might even pass beneath the carriageway of the road. We also need a careful assessment of the environmental impact on the historic parish of Cobham. I wonder why such wide cuttings are necessary in the plans, and why they cannot be narrow, walled cuttings.
During the period of consultation, I hope that much other work will be done, not least to give careful consideration to the matter of compensation. Homes at Scalers Hill and Henhurst would be severely blighted if the railway were constructed, and the hundreds of residents of Pepper Hill are in jeopardy until the certainty of the plans is established.
186
My constituency is adversely affected by the high-speed rail link. It relies on the Government to ensure adequate environmental protection and compensation. People in Kent are not just apprehensive; they are also looking for opportunities that the railway might bring for jobs and new industries. That is why I wish Blue Circle Industries godspeed with its Kent Thameside project to tie in its landholdings with a potential international station. It has the strong support of Gravesham and Dartford borough councils, and its plans complement the exciting proposals that the Government introduced for the east Thames corridor.
Hon. Members will understand that we of north-west Kent are all under great pressure and are vulnerable to potentially great changes. It will be reassuring for local people to know that the House and the Government understand their anxieties and are sympathetic to their proposals.
My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Corby (Mr. Powell) have clearly articulated the fears of their constituents, of mine and of most hon. Members about the scares surrounding the sub-post offices. Those fears, principally the fears of the sub-postmasters, have put the issue on the public agenda, and it should be looked at fair and square in an attempt, not to scare the most vulnerable people—pensioners and other beneficiaries of social security—but to understand the two distinct elements of the problem.
First, there are problems for the Department of Social Security which pays the benefits. Then there is the future of Post Office Counters and of sub-post offices throughout the country. We need to understand these two different, but intertwined, aspects to learn how to safeguard the future.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just a question of wanting to cherish the post offices and sub-post offices in our constituencies —that it is also a pragmatic question of paying out benefits and pensions? Thirty-five per cent. of those who receive benefits do not have bank or building society accounts, so they rely on post offices to distribute the money. We will therefore seek to defend and protect those post offices whenever we can.
Mr. Arnold: I know that my hon. Friend and many other colleagues do their utmost to defend our sub-post offices. His point is extremely valid.
Let us look first at the problem for the Department of Social Security. It spends £200 million paying out benefits, almost all of them across post office counters. That pays for the administration of more than 1 billion pieces of paper a year. That is phenomenally expensive, and it is worth reflecting that the £200 million would be immensely valuable if most of it could be paid directly to the beneficiaries.
Given my previous employment in the travellers cheque industry I can understand that a system involving 1 billion vouchers is wide open to fraud, which is not only a waste of taxpayers' money but consumes vast amounts of money that could be used in other ways. What on earth is the Department to do about the problem of costs and of fraud? It is looking at a system that has already been partly introduced on a voluntary basis: automated credit transfer

187
to the bank or building society accounts of beneficiaries. To do that effectively, the Department has to find out what beneficiaries will and will not accept.
Much of the problem has arisen in recent weeks because of market testing. A number of new pensioners were offered several options for payment. A small number of them were not given the written option of having the money paid by order book through Post Office Counters. The market testing was carried out to determine the reaction of the beneficiaries. We all know what that reaction was—there has been an extraordinary row, clearly expressing the wish of beneficiaries to have the option of receiving their benefits through vouchers payable at sub-post offices.
It was perfectly proper for the Department to carry out the market testing, and no doubt Ministers will learn the lessons from it, as was intended in the first place. We cannot get away from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—that about 35 per cent. of pensioners and social security beneficiaries do not have bank or building society accounts. They have no means of receiving benefit besides receiving it in cash across the counter at sub-post offices.
The lesson to be learned from this episode is that beneficiaries must continue to be given the choice of how to be paid. I have no doubt that, due to increasing familiarity with bank and building society accounts, there will be a steady swing towards credit transfer and away from the payment by voucher. By common agreement in the House—particularly among Conservative Members, who represent most of the rural and suburban areas of the country—we understand the need for post office counters, both Crown and sub. The House should think about how to find a secure and valuable future for a terrific asset—the sub-post offices of this country.
It is inevitable that the number of vouchers will decrease as pensioners increasingly opt for automatic transfer of benefits to their bank or building society accounts. It will be a gradual change, but it will happen. As I said, I used to work in the travellers cheques industry and I was worried about my future because I thought that the travellers cheque—a paper voucher—was illogical and bound to be phased out. However, the current worldwide travellers cheque market is worth more than $40 billion. It may be illogical, but people want travellers cheques.
The same applies to pensions and social security benefits. Vouchers may be illogical in these days of electronic banking, but people want the security of their order books and vouchers that they can cash. However, post offices should be under no illusion—it is a wasting asset. We should be looking for new sources of business that would give the sub-post offices a viable future. The clearing banks are reducing their enormous branch networks, so that might be one opportunity. In my constituency, Barclays bank has closed its smaller branches at Northfleet and Meopham. That is being repeated throughout the country. Therefore, there is an opportunity for sub-post offices to go into encashment and across-the-counter services for our financial institutions.
I direct the attention of the House to a particularly interesting phenomenon—telephone banking. It is best exemplified by First Direct, a subsidiary of Midland Bank. Although it operates a telephone banking service, it still needs counters. That would be an obvious area of opportunity for sub-post offices. It would provide the
188
counter service to complement the electronic banking service available over the telephone and through computer links.
5.42 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: Perhaps the first thing that the Leader of the House might consider is introducing a Bill to limit the length of time that hon. Members can speak in debates such as this. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) should not be able to drift in and out of the Chamber as and when it suits him and then take up the time of the House with a long speech.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Etherington: No, the hon. Gentleman has had long enough.
Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are a slur. You can testify that I have been here throughout the debate.
Mr. Etherington: I shall not take back what I said about the length of time the hon. Gentleman spoke. I shall try to be brief, although I want to cover a number of issues.
Five hon. Members have already referred to the imposition of value added tax on fuel. I want to talk not about the effect of that on pensioners and other poor people, but about the effect that it will have on charities. They have already received one body blow because of the effect that the Finance Bill will have on their investments. In recent years, the Government have made charities an important aspect of society by hiving off many activities to them. If some of the charities go under, it would be the last fragmentation of society as we know it, especially for the old. As more than half the charities deal with old people, they will lose out through VAT on heating bills and in many other ways. The Government should think about that. I hope that we can debate the issue more fully and not deal just with the financial aspects.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to law and order. One of the problems is the relationship between the police and the public. I am surprised to be able to stand here and say that I have spoken to the recently retired commander of the region in which I live, to the current commander and to the Police Federation and have found them as one: they are all concerned about the lack of confidence and trust that the public have in the police. I am not saying what has brought that about, but if we are to prevent crime and, indeed, correct the effects of crime, the public must be able to have confidence in the police and be prepared to work with them, rather than viewing them as an alien force to be treated with suspicion.
There is also the continuing scandal that, after 14 years of Conservative administration, an increasing number of people still suffer from low pay. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider the deleterious effect of that on the economy at a time when stringent efforts are being made to improve it.
One of the main problems that I come across in my constituency is that of housing. For many years, my constituency had a wonderful public housing record. However, the council has lost more than one third of its housing stock, so families who need housing or rehousing find themselves in difficulty because there is a diminishing housing stock. The Government need to think hard about

189
that, because the housing position is probably worse than at any time in the past 20 years. It is no good the Prime Minister saying, "We are providing the homeless with new cardboard boxes"—we need something definite and effective.
There is also the problem of an aging population—and that, too, is not being dealt with properly. As time goes on, there will be more and more old people and they will be living longer. There is no sign of a concerted effort to try to alleviate the problems before they fully arise. I am thinking of preventive medicine rather than running repairs, which unfortunately is the way the national health service now operates.
The next problem relates to the future education of our children. The Government wax eloquent about the benefits of grant-maintained schools, but they have never fully explained to the House what effect that policy has on local authorities which have to deal with children with special needs. That problem must be dealt with urgently.
Like everyone else, I am pleased that the recession appears to be coming to an end, but there still remains the problem of unemployment. We could spend many weeks debating that subject in this House, because even during the relatively prosperous late 1980s unemployment was still rising. Within that increasing unemployment, there are horrendous regional variations. We are told that currently male unemployment is 14·1 per cent.—that has led to many screams from prosperous areas—but in my constituency male unemployment has stood at more than 21 per cent. for the past 15 years.
No one in the Government has said how, at the end of the recession and with the increasing prosperity that we all hope to achieve, we can get rid of the regional variations. Until something is done about that, there will be a self-perpetuating system of deprivation in certain areas. The country will never be united under those circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) did not please me too much with the length of his speech, but he pleased me with the efforts that he is making to get rid of one of the biggest scandals in Britain: the Government's continuing failure to deal with large firms which break the law on Sunday trading. Whatever people's views on my hon. Friend's Bill, at least he is trying to deal with the problem—which is more than the Government are doing.
There have been years and years of law breaking by those firms, with no prospect of that being put right in the foreseeable future. I cannot help but think that, if those companies were not pouring vast sums of money into Conservative party coffers, the Government might take a different attitude. If a trade union or a Labour council was breaking the law, the Government would act within minutes, never mind years. It is a disgrace, and something must be done about it.
I have greatly admired the Government's stance during recent talks on whaling. They have done what I believe the majority of people in this country wanted them to do, which is to act in a humane and responsible manner. However, it would be better if the Government were to allow hon. Members to decide properly, and without obstruction, whether they want to put an end once and for all to the barbaric so-called sport of hunting. Any country
190
which hunts down animals in the way Britain does can never expect to have the respect of the rest of the world as a decent and good nation. The same applies to the unnecessary vivisection which continues in Britain.
I have not tried to deal with the items on my list in order of merit, and I have missed out one or two to save time, but I come now to the last one and I declare a personal interest. Having waited for more than a year for a hernia to be put right, I cannot help but wonder about those who are suffering more pain and serious injury than I am and who might have had to wait a similar length of time.
Recently I noted that the Northern regional health authority was vociferous about how it had cut waiting lists of those waiting for more than a year and for more than two years, but in the past 12 months the overall waiting list of hospitals in the northern region has risen by 10·3 per cent. At that rate, we can expect them to double in the next seven years. Instead of spending so much time on public relations exercises and putting out glossy brochures explaining how good hospital trusts are, if some of that money had been spent trying to put people right I am sure that everyone concerned would feel much happier.
That brings me to my conclusion. I have not spoken for so long as some hon. Members and I have tried to say what little I had to say in as succinct a manner as possible. As I said at the outset, I hope that the Government will consider introducing legislation to ensure that no one speaks for longer than 10 minutes in the House at any time, thus giving everyone else a chance.
5.51 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me catch your eye. I want to concentrate briefly on one issue. I want to draw the attention of the Leader of the House and his colleagues to the IACS fiasco—the integrated administration and control system. For those hon. Members who do not have farmers in their constituency, I have in my hand the sort of material that has landed on the kitchen table of farmers all over the country. That is the wodge of material that they now have to wade through to qualify for important support.
The so-called integrated administration and control system has become an essential component for a large majority of British farmers to enable them to obtain area aid and arable, beef and suckler cow support. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has already said, there is widespread dismay at the way in which, as usual, the British version seems to be worse than that of any other EC member state.
The Library made a simple analysis for me of the sort of forms and explanatory booklets that were provided for farmers in other states. I take two examples. Denmark had an eight-page explanatory booklet, a four-page form and a four-page additional advice leaflet. France, which we sometimes think is very bureaucratic, had an eight-page explanatory booklet and a four-page form.
In Scotland, I am given to understand, not only was the documentation available earlier than it was in England and Wales, but the booklet of explanation was shorter. There is a persistent rumour that the difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other is that the Minister himself insisted on simplifying the explanatory booklet for England and Wales, with the result that it was issued several weeks late to farmers and

191
it was several pages longer. As a result, farmers in England and Wales were faced with an extraordinary booklet 79 pages long and 12-plus pages of forms. A new verb has been added to the English language—to gunmen Farmers feel that they have been gummered by the bureaucracy.
The problem has been made a great deal worse by the tight timetable that farmers have had to meet to complete the forms. The deadline was last Saturday, 15 May. In the run-up to that deadline and over the weekend, quite rightly agricultural correspondents on the national newspapers drew attention to what was happening. The Daily Telegraph said:
"MAFF + IACS + CAP spell DISASTER".
The well-known and respected member of the political profession as well as of the journalistic profession, Mr. Bill Deedes, referred to
"Mr. Gummer's 11b sleeping pill".
The Guardian said:
"EC paperwork send farmers to the edge of sensibility".
An interesting article based on some notes that were supplied to The Daily Telegraph was headed:
"Never trust those rude farmers, officials are told".
That concerned instructions to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials for dealing with some of the farmers in our constituencies. Perhaps most significant of all was the diary of a farmer's wife in The Sunday Telegraph, headed:
"My sleepless nights over forms of torture".
Farmers all over the country have been faced with such appalling difficulties.
In the farming press, the comments have been even more earthy and it would not be appropriate to quote some of them here. However, I shall quote one or two of the most respectable. For example, Farming News said:
"Will Europe sleep while Britain fills in form?"
Farmers' Weekly said:
"Now comes map muck-up in the IACS saga".
Best of all, Farmers' Weekly said:
"Caught napping from mapping".
The farmers themselves—some of us have had much correspondence with them—are outraged by the extent to which the demands for information have come at such a busy time of the year. I quote from a letter, typical of many, from a farmer in my constituency. It states:
"Our forms were received on 8th April for completion by May 15th, (5½ weeks). We then had to apply for the 'Arable Area Payments' Explanatory Booklet' (44 pages), and get to grips with 'CAP Reform in the Beef Sector' (24 pages), so that the options could be assessed within the context of the IACS booklet (79 pages); ie, the maze and then the minefield. We attended NFU advice meeting for 2½ hours. We queued for maps, (costing £130), for 6 hours in Exeter, (a round trip of 100 miles). We found the maps incomplete (still costing £18·50 each); old versions with the measurements and grid reference numbers but the survey 40 years out of date; new versions resurveyed but giving no measurements or grid references. We had to have fields measured on one map where hedges had been removed nearly 40 years ago; we had to have one new map measured where the re-survey had created different boundaries. Finally when we had done our best we queued for three hours in Launceston for MAFF to check and advise on our completed efforts.
We have actually incurred the loss of a full working week at a most hectic time in the farming year, in an effort to piece together the information required from ill-conceived and ill-prepared material.
I am then obliged to listen to the arrogance and self-righteous conceit of our farm minister, who imputes that problems arising are the farmers' fault, and that they will be heavily penalised for any mistakes that occur".
My constituent concludes:
192
"Farming has become a computer-game, floundering in a quagmire of new strictures and technologically derived directives, and I just hope that IACS does not prove to be the ultimate virus of lunacy totally to undermine, (rather than under-pin), the CAP."
That is typical of, but rather more articulate than, many of the letters that I am sure Conservative Members have been receiving from their farming constituents.
Hon. Members may say and Ministers may attempt to excuse the situation by saying that there was plenty of warning. But I was promised from the Dispatch Box on 25 March that the documentation would be in the hands of farmers on 2 April—the actual date was given—so that they would have more than six weeks to meet the deadline of 15 May. In fact, a sizeable number received their documentation 10 or 14 days after that date, breaking that promise, so they had fewer than six weeks to assemble information and obtain the supporting material, especially accurate maps from Ordnance Survey.
Moreover, there were major mistakes and misprints in some of the documents, so it had to go back for checking. Despite months of warning, Ordnance Survey—an executive agency, after all—was caught totally unprepared. Increased staff at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a huge waste of effort and a huge diversion of precious time have been achieved, at huge cost, by the Minister.
Conscious of the likelihood that there would be some late submissions—with all this muddle, there were bound to be honest mistakes by those completing the forms—hon. Members from other parties and I asked the Minister for some leniency and, crucially, for an independent appeals system. Those who had made genuine mistakes or who, because of the late arrival of forms, had been unable to make accurate submissions in time were entitled to some consideration. At Question Time on 29 April, the Minister dismissed that suggestion out of hand. In those circumstances, it is right that we should seek the support of the ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, with a view to having the role of MAFF and Ordnance Survey investigated.
I do not propose to deal at great length with the latest insult that has been added to this injury, as I raised the matter with Madam Speaker this afternoon. The fact that the Minister refused yesterday to give me figures in answer to a parliamentary question, despite being prepared to allow them to be given to outside bodies and the media, is outrageous and demonstrates contempt for the House. Specific figures were quoted in "Farming Today" this morning.
It seems that, in England alone, up to one quarter—certainly one fifth—of all eligible farmers have submitted completed forms on time. Who can blame them, given the shambles that the Minister has allowed to develop? Yesterday's Western Morning News, under the headline "Farmers Could Lose Grants", made the point that the very livelihood of many farmers may be at stake as a result of this maladministration. The National Farmers Union chairman in my county has drawn attention to the ridiculous fact that one of his fields features in 44 separate boxes in the documentation. That complexity makes it extremely difficult for farmers to complete forms on time.
As we approach the Adjournment for the spring recess, many farmers all over the country are under a threatening cloud. They face not just difficulty, confusion and expenditure of time, but real loss. It is a penalty that could

193
do great damage to their business at a time when they are coming out of the worst recession that the industry has known since the 1930s.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take account of the fact that this is an expensive and oppressive shambles. I hope that he will encourage his ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to apologise not just to the farming community but also to the House for the way in which this system has been handled. They should demonstrate real remorse and proper recognition of the problems that have been caused. I hope that the Leader of the House will insist that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food comes forward before the spring recess with a statement that he is prepared to set up an independent appeals system.
6.3 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: This House should not adjourn without debating education, which is one of the most important subjects with which politicians have to deal. Education is the means by which individuals succeed, and the means by which we shall succeed as a nation. If we get it right, we shall resolve all our problems of wealth creation, the care of pensioners and the provision of a better health service; if we do not get it right, we shall never be able to make proper provision in those areas.
The most important part of education is the primary sector. That is where the three essential lessons are learned of disciplines, skills and enthusiasm for education, yet it is at that level that funding is most scarce. I want to draw attention to the discrepancy, in this regard, between the primary sector and the secondary sector.
The Select Committee on Education has chosen this subject for a major inquiry, which is to commence quite soon. I hope that that inquiry will be a means of directing the attention of the House to this subject.
The Leader of the House, who is listening very carefully to my remarks, is an Essex Member of Parliament, so I shall refer to the funding split between primary education and secondary education in Essex, which has quite simply got it wrong. The local management of schools formula, by which funds are distributed between those sectors, is wrong. The age-weighted pupil unit in the secondary sector is quite generous, but at the expense of the age-weighted pupil unit in the primary sector.
Statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which are available in the Library, show that, during the last year whose figures I have analysed, Essex paid about £80 a year below the comparable shire county average for each primary pupil. In my constituency, that means about £20,000 a year per primary school. Thus, we have vertical integration—mixed-year group teaching, the mixing of nine-year-olds with 10-year-olds—which cannot be effective.
I want Essex—indeed, I want the nation—to look at the funding disparity between primary education and secondary education, so that we may get the balance right. It is at the primary level that the essential lessons are learned.
6.6 pm
Mr. David Hanson: The remarks I should like to make would take much longer than the four minutes that remain for this debate.
I wish to focus on an issue that gives rise to great concern in my constituency—local government reorganisation in Wales. On 1 March, the Secretary of State for Wales made proposals which, because they are fundamentally flawed, must be drawn to the attention of the House before it goes into recess on 27 May. The proposals are flawed in many respects, but I should like to deal with four problems.
First, what is proposed continues the Government's privatisation plans. which represent dogma of the highest order and ought to be resisted by people in my constituency. Secondly, the proposals will result in reduced representation in the new authorities. A major gap is the complete absence of plans for a Welsh assembly. The Welsh Office spends £6,000 million a year, and an army of quangos runs Wales. So much for democratic accountability. Those bodies are accountable entirely to three Ministers, who put forward their views without any reference to the people of Wales, who elected 27 Labour Members of Parliament on 9 April last year.
In my constituency, the most pressing question is boundaries. Delyn borough council, in conjunction with Alyn and Deeside district council, advanced consensus proposals for a merger of the two authorities. The Alyn and Deeside council is Labour-controlled, whereas the Delyn council is not. Despite that fact, one of my abiding memories is of the leaders of the two councils shaking hands and agreeing that the best thing for my constituency was a consensus authority.
Despite the agreement among councillors in the area, the Secretary of State has proposed a new Flintshire authority and a new Denbighshire authority, which would be responsible for half of the area of the current Delyn borough council. This has provoked a response—letters, representations, petitions—such as I have not had previously since my election to this House.
The communities of Whitford, Gwernaffield, Gwernymynydd, Halkyn, Mostyn, Llanasa, Nercwys, Cilcain, Nannerch, Yscefiog and Caerwys have all said very clearly that they wish to be part of the Flintshire authority. It is a matter of history, of geography, of just belonging, but, most of all, of the delivery of services. The main towns of Flint, Holywell and Mold in my constituency will be divorced from the rural hinterland that surrounds them. A whole list of services, such as libraries, schools, housing, leisure centres and transport will be in one authority. The 16,000 people who will be in the proposed Denbighshire authority will be divorced from their libraries, their transport, their leisure services and their community housing.
Denbighshire will be a 71,000 authority if the 16,000 people whom I wish to see in Flintshire are put into it. I urge the Secretary of State for Wales to take on board the strong feelings of my community for self-determination, and I urge that the 16,000 residents in my constituency who look to Flintshire and to the towns of Flint, Holywell and Mold for their public services get them. Before the recess begins, I urge the Secretary of State, in preparing his local government Bill, which will be introduced after the

195
recess, to do so on the basis of the wishes of my local community. I urge him to include a Welsh Assembly and fair representation—a basic good deal for my constituents.
6.10 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) has made a powerful and able contribution to the debate, as have other members of the parliamentary Labour party. I thank them for their contribution. The parliamentary Labour party believes that the House should not adjourn until the industrial crisis facing Tyneside has been discussed here. So that such a discussion is better informed, I shall place on the record some points about the helicopter carrier and about the events that led up to the decision on the contract.
Swan Hunter and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. submitted bids for the landing platform helicopter vessel last autumn. Swan Hunter's bid was for a purpose-built warship; VSEL's bid was for what was essentially a merchant vessel with a flat top which would be built at Govan and would go to Barrow-in-Furness for armaments to be added and for outfitting. Contrary to popular belief, there was not much difference in price between the two initial submissions. As I understand it, Swan Hunter's bid was about £174 million and VSEL's bid was £165 million, leaving a difference between the two of about £9 million. That sum would have been more than covered by the difference in costs to the Ministry of Defence of supervising the Govan-VSEL bid in the different yards. I accept that that would not have been an insuperable obstacle. My point is that last autumn the two bids were similar.
From then on, the Ministry of Defence entered clarification discussions with Swan Hunter and with VSEL to talk about the designs and especially to talk about additional equipment and changes that it required to be made. The crucial point is that it was the Ministry of Defence that required additional changes to the vessel. Swan Hunter is a management buy-out company; it has no large financial reserves. Additional equipment going into the vessel means an addition to the price. On the reasonable and logical assumption that VSEL was being asked to make the same changes, it would know the cost of those changes and would know within reason how that movement would be reflected in Swan Hunter's price.
Unlike Swan Hunter, VSEL has massive financial resources, which have been built up on the profits of the Trident submarine contract. That contract is essentially a cost-plus contract which has left VSEL with a large financial surplus. As well as adding £12·5 million to the contract to raise the standard of weapons systems from the initial bid, the Ministry of Defence altered the specifications for the carrier to require a further £13 million of work to be added to the original Swan Hunter bid. That, with other positive and negative adjustments, took Swan Hunter's price to between £195 million and £200 million.
It is important to emphasise that that price reflects the real cost of changes demanded by the Ministry of Defence. It does not reflect any new adjustments of profitability on the contract, as alleged in the local press by another Member of Parliament. The Sunday Sun, the local Sunday newspaper on Tynesicle, carried the story under the headline:
196
"A bid too far by debt-hit Swan's Cash crisis forced yard to jack up offer says MP".
That is not true. At no time, as I understand it, did the Ministry of Defence suggest to Swan Hunter that the cost of making the changes and additions that the Ministry required should be borne by the company. Nor was it suggested that the company's costs were unreasonable.
As a result of the size of the order and of the relative weakness of Swan Hunter's financial base, the company has been talking to other major British companies with defence industry interests with a view to a closer association. There is obvious logic to that and I was not, and still am not, opposed to that.
I now understand that the talks have been going on for far longer than I realised, certainly since the latter half of last year. The Ministry of Defence was not only aware of the talks, but apparently took the view that the LPH order would be placed at Swan Hunter only if the company was taken over by a major defence industry contractor, almost certainly GEC. My personal view is that a lot of good could have come to Tyneside from a GEC takeover of Swan Hunter, going beyond the narrow question of the LPH order.
It is important for the House to know, however, that the pressure on the directors of Swan Hunter was ultimately not commercially driven, but came directly from the Ministry of Defence. As the final bids for the LPH were submitted on 22 April this year, the Swan Hunter bid moved from about £200 million, give or take £5 million. A more pessimistic view was taken collectively of the overheads that had to be applied to the bid, moving the price up to the £210 million figure that is already in the public domain. That last-minute change was the result of a pessimistic view about other work coming into the yard to cover some of the overheads before work started on the LPH. The Ministry of Defence did not ask for the last item to be revised downwards.
VSEL was in a different commercial position and could take a different view of the charging of overheads. VSEL would know that with Swan Hunter running out of work, the directors had no alternative but to carry the bulk of the overhead costs on the LPH contract. With the Trident programme still in progress at Barrow-in-Furness, no such problem faced the directors of VSEL. The £50 million price difference that the Ministry of Defence is ruthlessly briefing as the real gap in price between the Swan Hunter and VSEL bids means that the VSEL price must have stayed at its original £165 million or thereabouts.
I believe that I heard the Secretary of State for Defence mention £160 million on BBC radio last Thursday. In other words, the additional work that the Ministry required Swan Hunter to do and which had to be paid for in the Swan Hunter contract has been absorbed into the VSEL contract, underpinned by the company's enormous profits on Trident. Clearly the Ministry of Defence would know all those facts.
In the number of different warring factions that make up the Ministry, there are those—essentially in the Royal Navy—who believe in amphibiosity and the helicopter carrier. Others would prefer the amphibious programme to be delayed, if not actually scrapped. Such issues justify the Labour party in its call for a defence review. Conservative Defence Ministers scoff at the call for a defence review. What is not so well known is that the Ministry is carrying out such a review on the quiet. A group of senior officials and one politician in the

197
Department—a gang of four—meet under the nomenclature of the "internal study group", which in effect is conducting a secret defence review. It is especially considering strategic questions such as the amphibious programme and surplus capacity in the warship-building industry.
No doubt it is also considering the logical consequences of its ordering programme on capacity, and even which shipyards will close and which will stay open. It has always been the case that the Ministry of Defence could reduce shipbuilding capacity by delaying warship orders. The Public Accounts Committee has pointed that out and has called for a better working relationship between the Ministry's strategic decision-makers and the industry so that the industry can have more certainty in its forward planning.
The House will remember that the original fight for the LPH related to keeping it in the programme. It seems clearer now than it did then that powerful forces were at work within the Ministry of Defence to delay or scrap the amphibious programme and permanently to take out what they regarded as surplus capacity in the shipbuilding industry. The first move towards taking out surplus capacity was to starve the industry of work and to close the most vulnerable yard. Because of its work load, that yard was Swan Hunter. The successful fight put up by the work force and management of Swan Hunter for the order, and the present position in Yugoslavia, made an overwhelming case for amphibiosity and the helicopter carrier.
The Royal Navy wants and needs the helicopter carrier in its programme. The industry's opponents decided to achieve the same objective of removing capacity, but in a different way by arranging the contract so that it was open to VSEL to hold its price while leaving Swan Hunter with no option but to have its price pushed up by additional requests for add-ons. The price gap was made inevitable and gave the Government an excuse to look surprised and aghast at the price difference and close Swan Hunter.
Whatever else those tendering arrangements may be called, they can hardly be called fair competition. The final decision, as I understand it, was taken last Monday by a small number of Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Defence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has told the House that the Government brought the helicopter carrier forward so that Swan Hunter could bid for it. If that is so, it is remarkable that the Government took the decision on price and compliance without pausing to look behind the two bids: how they were constructed and how the price difference had come about.
The awful truth probably is that there were those in the Ministry of Defence and higher up in Government who never had any intention of letting Swan Hunter win the contract and that the construction of the bids was designed to ensure that Swan Hunter did not win it. The fact that the Ministry of Defence is now briefing to the effect that the Government wanted to save Swan Hunter but could not do so because of the price and that this price increase is all the fault of the company's management adds fuel to the suspicion. The fact that the management of VSEL are
198
this afternoon trying to get the three frigates towed out of Swan Hunter and round to Barrow is yet more cause for suspicion.
I do not believe that there is a shipyard worker in the country who will set foot on Swan Hunter's frigates in these circumstances. The work force at Swan Hunter is working normally and intends to finish the frigates on Tyneside on time and to the highest standard. The Ministry of Defence should let it do so.
I welcome today's call for an inquiry. That call has come from the Defence Select Committee. I understand that the inquiry is to be conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I can think of nobody better fitted to conduct the inquiry.
Among the matters that the inquiry could consider, and indeed should consider, is the question of how the two tenders were evaluated. The inquiry could consider whether both bids deal with detailed questions of compliance. It could also consider the dialogue between the Ministry of Defence and both contractors about price, whether both bids were for a ship to be built to Royal Navy standards and, if not, whether British services personnel are, in effect, being sent into combat in a customised cargo vessel.
The inquiry should also consider the level of merchant shipbuilding subsidy available to Kvaerner Govan and whether it was indirectly applied to the LPH contract. Most important of all, the inquiry should reach conclusions about the level of subsidy in the VSEL bid and about competition policy.
The inquiry will, however, undoubtedly confirm the following brutal truths. Only Governments procure warships. Therefore, by holding back the programme, Governments can close warship yards. Ultimately, the issue is about political decision making. The Ministry of Defence's secret defence review being conducted by the internal study group has decided permanently to end warship building on Tyneside. Last week it got its way. The management and work force of Swan Hunter are being punished for having done everything that the Conservative party asked them to do, post privatisation.
The effects are devastating for Tyneside. The collapse of Swan Hunter will bring other companies down with it. Sustained high levels of unemployment will cost the taxpayer more in lost revenue and in benefit payments than the cost of the contract. Most damaging of all, the Prime Minister has deprived Tyneside of its work and its future and has done so in a peculiarly cruel and malevolent way.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), with whom I do not usually agree, is right to give credit for the decision to the Prime Minister. He did so in last Tuesday's edition of the Evening Chronicle. In its early edition, the Evening Chronicle reported:
"Mr. Trotter was giving much of the credit for the 20,000 tonne vessel order to Mr. Major himself."
For once, the Evening Chronicle is right and it has provided the epitaph for the destruction of Tyneside's industrial base: the Prime Minister deserves most of the credit.
6.24 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): During the past three hours there have been times when I thought we were having a re-run of the debate that took place about a week

199
ago on VAT on fuel and that we were anticipating two debates that are due to take place tomorrow on the defence industries and on sub-post offices, in connection with automated credit transfers. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not attempt a re-run of last week's ministerial speeches and do not anticipate speeches that will be made in tomorrow's debates.
I want, however, to say something about the two issues that have featured in many of the speeches that have been made today: first, the need to provide appropriate help, particularly to pensioners, in respect of VAT on fuel and, secondly, sub-post offices.
It is important for me to underline the clear undertakings that were given about the Government's intention to provide extra help to poorer pensioners and others on low incomes, on the basis of details that will be given in the autumn statement when they have been carefully worked through. It is important also to underline, in view of comments made by my hon. Friends, that the increases in the income support thresholds and rates do not help only those on income support. The structure of the system leads to help feeding through to other income-related benefits—to housing benefit and council tax benefit in particular.
That leads to far more people being assisted than just those on income support. It is estimated that about 8 million people will benefit from increases in the income support rates. I hope that my hon. Friends will note that point, which was emphasised in last week's debate. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General commented on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and adverted to the point that I have just made.
Sub-post offices have been mentioned by almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. The issue was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and for Corby, for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and by the hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
I hope that I have not missed out any hon. Member who referred to sub-post offices. I hope that they were all present at Prime Minister's Question Time today when my right hon. Friend clearly reiterated the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology on Friday, when he underlined the fact that we are committed to the maintenance of a viable network of post offices.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that pensioners will continue to be able to receive their pensions from the post office. He repeated something else that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology said in Friday's Adjournment debate on the subject: that it is not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the post office. Those are clear statements of the Government's position. They will no doubt be more extensively covered in tomorrow's debate. They should, however, go a long way towards reassuring my hon. Friends.
I intend now to turn, though perhaps not as fully as he would like, to what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)—I suspect at least as much in his capacity as the Member of Parliament of a north-eastern constituency, which is much affected by the difficulties to which he referred, as in his capacity as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He will know that I
200
cannot, and do not, accept some of the suggestions that he made about the motivation and actions of those involved in this very difficult decision.
I have no doubt that much more will be said in tomorrow's debate, but my understanding is absolutely clear: VSEL won the competition by a substantial margin —tens of millions of pounds—and against that background it would have been unfair to it, to the Royal Navy and to the taxpayer to award the contract elsewhere. Its bid fully met the specification against which both companies tendered, and that must be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East knows that I had a long and close connection—although, in some respects, not as long as I should have liked—with the north-east and shipbuilding on Wearside as a Trade and Industry Minister four or five years ago. I need no lessons in the problems that the area experiences or, indeed, in the feelings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I spent a year doing my level best to preserve shipbuilding on Wearside, but, to my great regret, I was unsuccessful.
I understand the feelings that have been articulated this afternoon, but I do not think that any good purpose is served by suggesting that there has been a conspiracy or that my right hon. and hon. Friends have acted with less than integrity and good will in their approach to this difficult decision. I hope that some recognition will be given, as I am sure it will be in tomorrow's debate, to the measures that were announced almost immediately to seek to build new economic opportunities in the area, such as those that are operating so successfully in the north-east, the flagship of which is the Nissan factory, which is almost within sight of the former shipyards on the Wear and is a symbol of the new opportunities in the north-east.
I hope that it is clear that I say that not in a bland way, but having recognised the concerns and the background to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred. However, he does neither his constituents nor the House any service by talking in quite the terms that he did about the difficult decision that had to be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale referred to his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about Trafford community hospital, but he told me little about its contents. I must therefore respond with some caution. I hope that it will prove possible to reflect the concerns that he expressed, but I am not sure that I should endorse his request to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to ignore the mysterious K. Riley. However, as it appears that nobody can trace K. Riley, it seems likely that my right hon. Friend will have to ignore him or her, as my hon. Friend wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale also mentioned affordable housing. The cost reductions achieved through lower interest rates and competitive prices in recent years have made possible a reduction in average grant rates, without any significant impact on the affordability of the rents implied by those grant rates. He will know that the Government have expressed the objective of increasing the proportion of private finance in new schemes still further by reducing grant rates in 1994–95 and 1995–96, and before final decisions on grant rates for 1994–95 are taken a full assessment will be made of the likely impact on rents and housing associations' ability to raise private finance.

201
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who evidently has been unable to return for my speech, made a number of comments about the inquiry into the tragic episodes that arose from the crimes of which Beverly Allitt was recently convicted. I should repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon in response to the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is not taking her responsibilities seriously in the inquiry that has been established.
The terms of reference of the Clothier inquiry are so wide-ranging that it would take too much time if I were to attempt to read them. They cover the inquiry into the circumstances that led to the deaths of the children and the need to consider the speed and appropriateness of the clinical and managerial response; to examine the appointment procedures, systems of assessment and supervision in the relevant bodies; to review the recommendations of the regional fact-finding inquiry into paediatric services at the hospital; and to consider such other matters relating to the incidents as the public interest may require.
Sir Cecil Clothier—a person of considerable experience and distinction in this area—will be joined by Miss Anne MacDonald, director of quality at the Royal Manchester children's hospital and a distinguished paediatric nurse, and Professor David Shaw, emeritus professor of clinical neurology at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne. It is a considerable inquiry and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, it is right to respond to Sir Cecil's own view that people will be more willing to speak freely to his inquiry than to a public inquiry and that his is the most appropriate way of proceeding.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to the problems of prostitution. I hope that it was clear to her from hon. Members' reactions that no hon. Member was dismissing or making light of her concerns, as at some points in her speech she suggested. Indeed, the Government are keen to tighten the law on kerb crawling and will seek a suitable legislative opportunity to try to reintroduce legislation following the failure of the Sexual Offences Bill in 1990, which was moved by the former Member for Streatham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) observed, it was talked out by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
I shall not be able to say a great deal about Sunday trading, but the hon. Member for Ogmore suggested that difficulties with private Member's Bills are confined to Bills about which the Government are not enthusiastic. The procedures for dealing with private Member's Bills are well known and well established, and Opposition Members cause at least as much difficulty with such business as Conservative Members.
Of course it is open to the Procedure Committee, if it wishes, to reconsider those procedures and for the House to adjust them, if it wishes, but some of the remarks that were made by the hon Member for Ogmore were a bit over the top. The same applies to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who attributed bad motives or behaviour to Ministers in their approach to what has been a reasonably straightforward matter.
202
As that is one of the particularly important subjects that was raised in the debate, and in view of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East about lengthy delay, I remind him of the speech, which he must have heard, that was made last Friday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, in which he said:
The Government intend to introduce a Bill early in the next Session. I can confirm that we intend, well before the summer recess, to publish a Bill with the major choices in it, together with a commentary describing that those major choices would do in practice and how they would be enforced." [Official Report, 14 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 1070.]
It remains my view that that is the sensible and responsible way for the Government to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, apart from touching on one of the issues that I have already mentioned, suggested an initiative that he felt the Government should take in respect of Bosnia, which I shall bring to the attention of right hon. and hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend made a number of less than flattering comments about the proposals of the Banham local government commission, and I am sure that he will understand if I respond somewhat cautiously, but one of the merits of the way in which the commission was set up and is now operating is that it was given terms of reference that allowed it to consider local circumstances and to take account of local concerns. My hon. Friend clearly does not like what has emerged so far. He has expressed, with some vigour and enthusiasm, some local concerns and I am sure that the commission and my right hon. and hon. Friends who will have to take decisions on these matters in due course, will have heard and listened to what he said.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) followed up a question he asked me last week about the security services. I cannot give him the guarantee of a debate, any more than I could last Thursday, although I would not be as dismissive as he was of the vigorous remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, since one of the hon. Member's concerns was apparently that GCHQ staff could not answer back and that that generated the need for a debate, I would make the point that they would not be able to answer back in a debate either. At best, he might be able to answer back on their behalf, and he has been doing that fairly effectively in the House.
Perhaps this is a slightly lower key way of making the point that my right hon. and learned Friend Home Secretary has made on a number of occasions, but the Government are satisfied that GCHQ has not been involved in the surveillance of the royal family.
I have managed to touch on one or two of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. There was a moment in his speech when I was not sure whether his focus was the newspapers or the Government. Perhaps I might assume that it was the newspapers and not the Government and move hastily on to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) —who once attacked me for not getting round to his speech, and I shall do so by only a fraction this afternoon. He was concerned about the legalisation, or at least with considering the legalisation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
Mr. Tony Banks: It was certainly very fractional.
Mr. Newton: I did at least get round to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
It is being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(Periodic Adjournments).
The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 39.

Division No. 274]

[6.41 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Evennett, David

Amess, David

Faber, David

Arbuthnot, James

Fabricant, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ashby, David

Fishburn, Dudley

Aspinwall, Jack

Forman, Nigel

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Batiste, Spencer

Freeman, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

French, Douglas

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gallie, Phil

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gardiner, Sir George

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Garnier, Edward

Booth, Hartley

Gillan, Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gorst, John

Bowis, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Brandreth, Gyles

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hague, William

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Burt, Alistair

Hannam, Sir John

Butcher, John

Hawkins, Nick

Butterfill, John

Hawksley, Warren

Carrington, Matthew

Hayes, Jerry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sydney

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clappison, James

Hicks, Robert

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coe, Sebastian

Horam, John

Congdon, David

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

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunter, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dorrell, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dover, Den

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Duncan, Alan

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dykes, Hugh

Legg, Barry

Elletson, Harold

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lidington, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lightbown, David

204

Luff, Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, David

Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steinberg, Gerry

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stern, Michael

Mans, Keith

Streeter, Gary

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sweeney, Walter

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Sykes, John

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Milligan, Stephen

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thomason, Roy

Monro, Sir Hector

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trend, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

O'Hara, Edward

Viggers, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Page, Richard

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waterson, Nigel

Powell, William (Corby)

Watts, John

Richards, Rod

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Riddick, Graham

Whittingdale, John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wilkinson, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Willetts, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wolfson, Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wood, Timothy

Sims, Roger

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spencer, Sir Derek

Mr. Irvine Patrick and

Spink, Dr Robert

Mr. Andrew MacKay.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Allen, Graham

Loyden, Eddie

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Ashton, Joe

McAllion, John

Barnes, Harry

Madden, Max

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Mahon, Alice

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Callaghan, Jim

Meale, Alan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Cryer, Bob

Olner, William

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dafis, Cynog

Salmond, Alex

Donohoe, Brian H.

Skinner, Dennis

Dowd, Jim

Steel. Rt Hon Sir David

Eastham, Ken

Wareing, Robert N

Flynn, Paul

Wigley, Dafydd

Gordon, Mildred

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Tellers for the Noes:

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mr. Paul Tyler and

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Nigel Jones.

Johnston, Sir Russell

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th May, do adjourn until Monday 7th June.

Orders of the Day

  Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I should like to reiterate Opposition support for the Bill, which is designed to provide compensation for those unfortunate people affected by Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of Kuwait. We hope that the Government and the United Nations Compensation Commission will give priority to dealing with the claims as speedily as possible.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has been assiduously pursuing for a long time the claim of one of his constituents, Mrs. Major. I congratulate him on that. Can the Minister tell us when that case is likely to be given some priority in the compensation process?
  In Committee, fundamental questions were raised. Although the Minister answered each point, a number of his replies were inadequate, perhaps because the relevant facts were not available. Perhaps the Minister can now provide us with up-to-date information on the major outstanding issues.
  I expressed concern in Committee about the funding of the claims. United Nations resolution 687 called for a percentage of Iraq's oil revenue to be held back and paid into a fund from which people entitled to compensation would receive their money. As I understand it, however, no money at all has been paid into the fund, other than $21 million sequestrated by the American Government from funds that were already in the United States of America.
  What new measures do the Government and the United Nations propose to introduce to enforce United Nations resolution 687 in respect of oil sales by Iraq which are in direct conflict to it? The terms of the resolution lay down that all sales of oil ought to be through, or supervised by, the United Nations, so that 30 per cent. of the revenue will go towards compensation. The issue of oil sales by Iraq was raised in Committee, and the Minister stated that there was some evidence at that time that Iraq was illegally and improperly subverting the resolution by selling oil, either directly or through other parties. Can the Minister elaborate briefly on that?
  Unless some action is taken, I fear that the constituent of the hon. Member for Test is unlikely to receive any money. The Minister mentioned in Committee that $21 million had been sequestrated by American officials from Iraqi assets. Is it possible for us to do some sequestration? Certainly, when it came to the funds of the miners' union during the miners' strike, the Government were able to introduce legislation very rapidly to sequestrate the miners' assets; perhaps they could show the same assiduousness in sequestrating the assets of Saddam Hussein. The Government probably regard the miners of Great Britain as a much greater danger than Saddam Hussein. Will the Minister tell us whether we, or any other country involved in this problem, intend to take the same action as the United States?
  206
  The significance of those questions is obvious because unless adequate steps are taken to ensure the proper funding of the United Nations Compensation Commission, any debate that we have here or elsewhere on the mechanics of dealing with individual claims or claims from businesses and companies will be academic. The claimants include businesses that lost out when they were taken over in Kuwait and businesses that believe that they lost potential work when Saddam Hussein invaded.
  I understand from the statistics given in Committee that, of the 3,000 United Kingdom claims—2,000 from individuals and 1,000 from companies—about 1,000 only have been processed by the United Nations Compensation Commission. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify why just one third of those claims have been forwarded by the Government.
  Under the Bill, as drafted, the process for compensation was fairly slow but the Bill, as amended, now adds another dimension to the compensation process, because a claim must go through the Government to the United Nations Compensation Commission. If the process becomes even slower, it will be an awful long time before people get the money to which they are entitled.
  Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the number of United Kingdom claims that are now being actively considered by the commission? That information would enable us to determine whether the Minister's strong commitment in Committee—to the effect that, if compensation were paid out, it should be paid to individuals first and then to companies and businesses—had been upheld. I understand that the United Nations resolution encapsulates that principle, but the only way in which it can be properly implemented is by monitoring the process properly. Are those expedited categories being monitored now?
  The Opposition welcome the aims of the Bill, but it is important that UN resolution 687 is enforced, otherwise the structure of the UN Compensation Commission and the reason behind the Bill will be undermined. We are anxious to ensure that the commission continues to operate on the criteria it was set up to serve, namely, to compensate all those affected—physically, mentally and financially—by the brutal aggression pursued by Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the invasion of Kuwait.
  7 pm
  Mr. James Hill: The case I wish to raise has been going on for some time, and I will describe the background. An ex-sergeant in the Royal Engineers and his wife and daughter went to Iraq and stayed in Baghdad. He worked for a civil engineering firm named W. S. Atkins. When he wanted to leave, Saddam Hussein said that the would let only the wife and daughter go. The man was kept prisoner and, shortly afterwards, died of a heart attack.
  Mrs. Major, the lady in question, suddenly found that, from having a very adequate income, she had none at all. The authorities foreclosed on her home in the United Kingdom. The family had a retirement home in Spain in which she intended to live, but the authorities foreclosed on that, too. The civil engineering firm acted in a very honourable way and helped as much as it could, but at the end of the day, the family was left penniless.
  I have with me a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dated 27 August 1992. Although it

  207
  made clear that the Department was processing the claim—I accept that it was helpful, and I thank the Minister for his help in the matter—it said in the last paragraph:
  "Every possible pressure is being maintained by the United Nations Security Council, to ensure that Saddam Hussein fulfils all the international obligations he has brought upon himself".
  We have reached the stage where the family has received every possible help from the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association and is now living in penury. That is not a good reward for a British citizen who went out to work for an engineering company. I get the impression that without a debate such as this, there would be no movement towards fulfilling what I regard as a moral obligation to help many individuals.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that it must be a priority that individuals and families are compensated ahead of companies, many of which had great losses. We are talking about many millions of pounds. If Saddam Hussein were the sort of person one could approach, he could be asked for, say, 10 million barrels of oil to put into the compensation fund. But he has no regard for anything other than himself.
  It was the worst possible scenario for the end of the Gulf war to leave that man in charge. We are not getting anywhere with him. I am sure that the Minister will say that Hussein will in no way compensate anyone and that we can only hope that the Government who comes after him will be more amenable. I wait anxiously for the Minister's response.
  7.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): It might be helpful if I reply to this short debate by bringing hon. Members up to date on the current situation in regard to claims for compensation. I shall, in particular, refer to the constituency case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
  I assure the House that the Government are doing their utmost, in concert with their coalition partners and through the United Nations, to ensure that compensation is paid at the earliest possible time to the claimants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Test recognises, against the obduracy of Saddam Hussein, it is not possible to say when that compensation will be available. But I can report the procedure and the up-to-date situation relating to the claims, which hon. Members will be reassured to hear are proceeding, even though there are by no means sufficient funds available at present for the payment of compensation to all the claimants.
  The administrative arrangements in the United Nations Compensation Commission have progressed well since the cease fire in 1991, and particularly during the last 12 months. We have seen the establishment, first, of the claims criteria and, secondly, of the rules of procedure for assessing claims. Those two developments are significant. In the context of claims against other sovereign states for which I am responsible in the Foreign Office, the speed with which the machinery has been set up and the establishment of the rules for assessing claims has been quick in comparison with other situations.
  After the establishment of the claims criteria and the rules of procedure for assessing claims, we have the commission, which is already working on a preliminary
  208
  assessment of the claims it has received. In March, the commission gained approval for the appointment of a first panel of commissioners who will carry out the main assessment of claims.
  We have no problems with the proposed method of assessment of claims which, in the case of individual claims, will involve the use of a comprehensive computer system. Legal officers of the commission will enter all the information on the claim forms into the computer. The commission is supported by experts, who will thus be able to deal with a large number of claims quickly, as a result of the expedited procedures. We hope that the form of assessment will commence in September and November of this year. That is when the commissioners are first due to meet to consider the assessment of claims.
  We do not have sufficient funds available in the United Nations escrow account to pay all the claims. The hon. Member for Rhondda invited me to comment on how Iraq is surviving in the face of United Nations sanctions preventing the sale of oil, except through the procedures allowed by United Nations resolutions. We have no firm evidence to indicate that Iraq is exporting oil in breach of sanctions, but we have made clear to the Iranians and all Iraq's neighbours our views about the need to uphold the sanctions regime.
  We are determined to keep up the pressure on Iraq to implement all the relevant Security Council resolutions in full, but Iraq continues flagrantly to deny United Nations authority across the board. We do not believe that any sanctions should be lifted until Iraq complies fully with all the relevant sanctions.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister said in Standing Committee:
  "Iraq has not started to sell oil in the world markets under United Nations resolutions. I believe that the Iraqi Government have sold some oil outside United Nations monitoring, but they have not started to comply with United Nations resolutions." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 1993; column 7.]
  I gathered from that statement—the Minister would not have made it without some backing—that the Government had some evidence that Iraq was getting round the UN resolutions, under which Iraq is entitled to export $1·6 billion-worth of oil to pay for its own needs. If Iraq is selling substantial amounts of oil, the 30 per cent. due in compensation should be collected.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall comment on the $1·6 billion-worth of oil that Iraq is entitled to export under UN resolutions to place into the escrow account so that 30 per cent. is available for compensation.
  With regard to the availability of funds, as I have said, there is not enough money in the kitty to fund the compensation commission's activities. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, there is $24 million worth of funds available for the compensation commission, largely from frozen Iraqi assets, as authorised under Security Council resolution 778. Those funds have originated from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United States and from Japan. For the moment, that will be enough to maintain the commission and to get the assessment process off to a good start which is an essential preliminary to payments being made. We expect that more funds will become available in due course via the sequestration route, although how much is not clear.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda inquired about the position in Britain, and I wish to comment on the position

  209
  in respect of sequestration in Britain. Under resolution 778, the United Kingdom can take similar action. To give effect to that resolution, an Order in Council was laid before the Privy Council on 12 May. That will come into force on 24 May.
  That Order in Council provides powers to identify funds that represent the proceeds of oil sales and to sequestrate those unencumbered by third party claims for transfer into the United Nations escrow account. However, the difficulty is determining whether they are encumbered by third party claims. The Bank of England will have to investigate that and, under the Order in Council, it has power to ask financial institutions to identify funds. Those investigations will take a considerable time and I am afraid that we will not have the results before the end of the year.
  With regard to any assets that could be sequestrated in Britain, I should say—and it would be wrong of me not to—that the judgment at the moment, although full investigation will confirm whether this is the case, is that 100 per cent. of the Iraqi assets held in the United Kingdom will be subject to prior claims. With regard to assets in Britain, claimants will have to await the payment of funds by Iraq into the compensation fund as provided under the resolutions.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister's first point filled me with great joy. I was pleased that an Order in Council was finally available, although very late in the day in comparison to the Americans, to allow the sequestration of those funds. However, the Minister then said that there are claims on those funds so the money will not be collected.
  If the present $21 million is not sufficient to pay any claims, but is simply money to run the commission, perhaps the Government should consider sequestering that money to pay British nationals under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 instead of allowing the money to fund a massive commission. As I understand it, representatives of 15 different countries have set up a huge superstructure which is sucking in $21 million. That money is not enough to run the commission and the sequestrated money will not go to claimants such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). Instead, it will simply be used to run the machine.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is not true. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are dealing for claims for the whole world. Sequestrations from the United States, Japan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are going into the fund for claimants from all over the world.
  I want to consider the precise position with British claims in terms of timing. We are about to send our ninth batch of claims to Geneva. Some 2,575 claims will then have been dispatched relating to 1,900 claims. We are in correspondence with another 800 to obtain additional evidence for clarification of various points. Only preliminary processing has been carried out in Geneva as yet and that has not covered all the claims that have been sent.
  210
  All the claims are being dealt with in order of receipt and there are huge numbers of them. The process is set in motion and, as I have said, from September and November, the commission will be at work and we hope that, within a few months after that, we will see its determination.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda and the world are aware that determination depends on the payment by Iraq in compliance with United Nations resolutions. We must keep the pressure up to bring that payment about. There is no other way in which claims can be met save by Iraq observing the United Nations resolutions so that claimants all over the world—not just in the United Kingdom—can have their claims assessed and then met. We must keep up the pressure to that end.
  The Bill is an undoubted asset in pursuing that end. When the Foreign Compensation Act was passed in 1950, it was not expected that there would be a situation in which compensation would have to flow from an international organisation or tribunal. Under the provisions of UN Security Council resolution 687 of 1991, the Security Council set up the United Nations Compensation Commission and fund to receive claims for damage or injury to individuals, Governments or corporations as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
  We hope that in most cases it will be possible for the Government to pass that compensation on directly to British claimants. However, there may be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Foreign Compensation Commission to conduct further adjudication of the claims and to distribute compensation between British claimants. The Bill will enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to do just that.
  In conclusion, I want to comment specifically on the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Test. He graphically described the distress of Mrs. Major and his sentiments were supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda who also raised the case of poor Mrs. Major who was bereaved as a result of her husband's death from a heart attack while being held hostage.
  I am aware of that unfortunate case. It took some time, with the assistance of her husband's former employers, to establish the details of her claim. However, all her claims were sent to Geneva on 20 April. They have reached Geneva and they will be in the process which, as I have said, will take place from September. The criteria have been established for the method of approaching the claims and it is now up to the United Nations Compensation Commission to decide whether to make an award and, if so, how much, in accordance with the procedures that will take place from late summer onwards and in accordance with the procedures that will be adopted for the other cases before the UNCC.
  As I have said, the United Kingdom Government have complied fully with all the necessary preliminary work and have sent Mrs. Major's case to Geneva for consideration. On that note, I recommend to the House that the Bill be read a Third time.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed with an amendment.

  Rosyth (Nuclear Safety)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and I know that, although this debate is taking place at this early hour, and although I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Chamber, the debate is occurring at the very time when I should have been hosting the RAF parliamentary group meeting. You could not attend because you had to be in the Chair, and I am now unable to attend because I have to speak in my Adjournment debate.
  I am pleased to have been fortunate enough to be successful in the ballot for this evening's debate. As my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware, I sat through the whole of the Navy debate, but was not fortunate enough to be called. I am indeed lucky tonight and I want to consider the situation of the royal naval dockyard at Rosyth in Fife.
  The House will be aware that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), in whose constituency the dockyard is located, cannot be with us this evening. As the House knows, she has been hospitalised and has undergone a serious operation. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we all wish her a speedy recovery. I know that she would have been present this evening if she had been able to attend. I also know that she would have supported everything that I have to say, because she and I and others have worked hard on what I may call the Rosyth project.
  Safety, especially nuclear power, at Rosyth royal naval dockyard is important—I shall have much to say about that later in my remarks. Before doing so, I draw the attention of the House to the importance of the nuclear submarines to the Scottish economy. Vast sums of public money have been spent to create the Trident base at Faslane on the Clyde. That of itself has brought huge economic benefits to Scotland.
  Together with the facilities at Coulport, the basing of the submarine flotilla at the Clyde bases has resulted in many permanent civilian posts and the purchasing and renting of a large number of private homes throughout central Scotland by the submarine crews. That means that Scotland enjoys a substantial cash flow as a result of the bases being located on the Clyde in Scotland.
  There is a political dimension. A number of local authorities have nuclear-free policies. Many councillors, civic leaders and opinion formers support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and are opposed to any nuclear facilities at all in Scotland. Indeed, it has been a continuing and difficult political problem, and I shall have more to say on that later.
  I was pleased to hear the commitment given by the Government to retain two dockyards because the case for employment at Rosyth and Devonport has been well recorded and well spoken of in the past. The respective bids by each dockyard for the nuclear submarine refits may not now be substantially different. I know that the Ministry of Defence has benefited substantially from the fact that the bases have been in competition, and that has resulted in a substantial reduction in the price tendered to carry out the work.
  212
  The political case has been well argued. To that end, I simply say that it will be difficult to sustain the case for having the nuclear submarine bases in the Clyde with the crews having their permanent family homes in central Scotland if Scotland does not get the nuclear submarine refitting contract. I shall refer to that again later.
  Today, I will not argue the case for Rosyth in any department on purely economic, employment or political grounds. Instead, I hope to demonstrate that Rosyth is the right dockyard to be awarded the nuclear submarine contract on strategic, cost, planning and—primarily—safety grounds. The Rosyth bid, when it is finally made public, will be seen to be keen and competitive.
  What about the nuclear safety and planning problems that will arise at both bases? Because the nearest habitation is further from the nuclear trials berth, the nuclear risks at Rosyth are less for the population. Consequently, the risk to society is much less at Rosyth because far fewer people live close to the site.
  The population distribution and topography of the area surrounding the sites are such that, in the event of an accident, evacuation could be accomplished more readily and with less disruption at Rosyth than Devonport. Although I must admit that nuclear accidents are extremely unlikely, the consequences are such that plans for protection of the public in the vicinity of nuclear submarine refitting sites are absolutely essential.
  The naval reactor accident contingency planning arrangements now include the automatic counter-measure zone—a radius of 550 m. Within that area, all people who are not essential to the management of the accident are evacuated and supplied with potassium iodate tablets. Automatic actions commence immediately on declaration of an accident—or an accident that may be only a warning but not a real accident. One can understand that that often happens in such situations,
  The pre-planned counter-measure zone has a radius of 10 km. A local pre-arranged monitoring scheme is required for that area so that appropriate emergency measures, including evacuation, can be taken in the downwind sector following a severe accident. Potentially, that affects a civilian population that is some two arid a half times greater at Devonport than at Rosyth.
  At Rosyth, the automatic counter-measure zone does not contain any dwellings and is wholly contained within the base site, while at Devonport the automatic counter-measure zone extends outside the site and includes dwellings. I have some interesting aerial photographs that show that clearly. Being an airman, I have no difficulty getting hold of aerial photographs. The nearest habitation to the nuclear trial berth is substantially further away at Rosyth, making assessed individual risk less for a given radioactive release.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. I realise that he is a champion of his constituents. Does he understand that the contract that we are discussing is to maintain the Trident submarine, not the missile or weapon system itself?
  Mr. Walker: It is obvious that my hon. Friend is a new boy. He does not know that, for the past 14 years, it has been my job in Scotland to deal with the peace movement. The one thing I understand is the different parts of submarines, missiles and so on. My hon. Friend will also

  213
  realise that, when one is establishing a refitting base of this sort, it requires local authority approval, and approval from the nuclear bodies responsible. I shall refer to that in a moment.
  There is a greater concentration of population close to the Devonport site in the downwind sectors under prevailing wind conditions. This population is part of the city of Plymouth. There would be considerable pressure on available road routes for evacuation. I shall refer to that later. The number of people living within 2 km of the proposed uprated docks at Rosyth is under 2,000, while it is well over 30,000 at Devonport. At Devonport, the automatic counter-measure zone includes civilian residences. At Rosyth, the nearest civilian population is well clear of the zone.
  That is the present position, but what about the future? Should further limitations be necessary due to a continuing development of nuclear safety standards—one cannot rule that out—the operational impact is likely to be less at Rosyth than at Devonport. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will agree that continuous improvements of nuclear safety standards is a feature of the United Kingdom nuclear industry, including the nuclear submarine programme. Indeed, we can be proud of our safety record in the United Kingdom in that area.
  This can result in requirements to modify safety-related plant or introduce further restrictions in the operations to ensure safety. Examples of both such constraints have been evident in nuclear submarine refitting recently. The possibility of such additional limitations will always exist, expecially for upgraded facilities, whether at Devonport or Rosyth. However, at Roysyth, any such emergent limitations are likely to be less severe because of Rosyth's comparatively remote location.
  All that will have to be taken into account in the planning process, which operates as follows. The MOD produces a notice of proposed development, which is submitted to local authorities for approval. If the proposal is rejected by the local authority, the Government can force the application through. However, in practice they never seem to do so.
  As with all planning applications, local objections can be raised by private individuals or organisations. The local authorities can then rule on the objections or decide to refer the case to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the case of Rosyth, or to the Department of the Environment in the case of anything in England, such as the Devonport base. The Department of the Environment then decides whether to move to a public inquiry.
  The RD57 Trident facility at Rosyth and the recently announced nuclear waste store at Rosyth have both obtained local authority approval for the MOD's notice of proposed developments. So again, Rosyth is much further down the road. That is not surprising, because, way back in the mid-1980s, a decision was taken that Rosyth should be the base at which the nuclear refitting would take place.
  I have demonstrated that the safety case for carrying out nuclear submarine refitting at Rosyth is sound. I have also demonstrated that the bids by Devonport and Rosyth are competitive. I understand that the Rosyth bid is the lower of the two, but that the Devonport bid is close. Whether or not that is true, the bids appear to be in the
  214
  same ball park. Therefore, the political consequences for the south-west of England and for Scotland may be a factor.
  It is wise to note that political factors might influence the decision. If that is so, I draw it to the attention of the House that a 5 per cent. swing against the Government would lead to a loss of nine Conservative seats in Scotland. That would leave only two Conservative Members of Parliament north of the border. In the south-west of England, a similar swing would reduce the 16 Conservative seats by about six, leaving 10 Conservative Members of Parliament.
  Consequently, adverse political reaction to the failure of Rosyth to obtain the nuclear submarine refitting contract would be much greater in Scotland than in the south-west of England. Even worse, such a failure could put the union between Scotland and England at great risk. It is not realistic to imagine that, with two Conservative Members of Parliament, a Conservative Government could handle the affairs of Scotland easily. That would create huge problems.
  The nuclear safety case for Rosyth is also superior. Individual risk at Rosyth is considerably less, because the nearest habitation, as I have said, is much further away at Rosyth than at Devonport, which is situated in the middle of a large city. Rosyth is located in a sparsely populated area.
  In addition, the fuel movements at Rosyth are short. That is important. At Devonport there is greater a concentration of population close to the downwind prevailing wind sector. There would be considerable pressure on the road routes of the city of Plymouth if evacuation were required.
  At Devonport, nuclear fuel will be transported for 1·5 km. The fuel will pass within 200 m of a public highway and housing. I repeat that there is nothing like that at Rosyth.
  Mr. David Jamieson rose—
  Mr. Walker: So on nuclear safety, political and cost grounds, Rosyth is the best choice for the refitting work on nuclear submarines. That is probably why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, when they were at the Ministry of Defence, and my noble Friend Lord Younger, when he was responsible for defence at the Scottish Office, gave pledges that Rosyth had been selected.
  Those pledges were given in the mid-1980s. They were firm pledges at the time. Those pledges, along with the retention of two dockyards, are still relevant today. To refit submarines at Rosyth and surface ships at Devonport is the best cost, political and safety solution.
  Mr. Streeter: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with his kind permission, I might make a two-minute speech when he has finished?
  Mr. Walker: I am afraid that I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman should have asked me before the debate. We could then have had a discussion.
  If a dock refurbishment proposal is selected, the RD57 facility at Rosyth—what I would describe as the massive hole in the ground—could be used to store the decommissioned nuclear submarines, pending final decisions on their disposal. That is important when one is discussing such matters. If we are to continue to locate

  215
  decommissioned submarines at Rosyth before their disposal, we must consider that point. I suggest that that would be acceptable only if Rosyth were awarded the Trident refitting contract.
  Rosyth provides a relatively safe lay-up and storage facility for decommissioned submarines. However, if the submarine refitting work did not come to Rosyth, there would be no site nuclear facilities, technical expertise or back-up, and the people of Fife and Scotland would demand the removal of decommissioned nuclear submarines currently stored at Rosyth. They would welcome the shipment of those submarines down to Devonport, if it could win the contract.
  Studies carried out by Fife regional council have shown that about 18,000 people in Scotland are dependent, on the Rosyth complex. More than 1,000 businesses across Scotland, and in the north and the midlands of England, would be affected if the dockyards were run down. The wider community would suffer extreme dislocation as a result of unemployment., service rundown and housing problems, with the associated local and national Exchequer costs. In all, the dockyard and neighbouring base contribute about £380 million per annum to the Scottish economy.
  I understand the strength of feeling in the south-west on the matter. Anyone who has made any attempt to study defence procurement facilities and expenditure understands that. I do not make the case for Rosyth purely on narrow grounds. I make it because I believe that the Government, having made a decision to retain two dockyards—a wise strategic decision—have an obligation as a result of pledges given previously by Ministers.
  Unless it can be demonstrated that the Devonport bid far outweighs the Rosyth bid in terms of true costs—if that is so, it will have to be taken into account by all those affected—the decision to locate the submarine refitting in Scotland makes sense, as it did in the mid-1980s, in view of its location far from human habitation and close to the base on the Clyde from which the submarines will operate. It makes no sense to ship the crews up and down the country when their submarines are in for refitting. Their homes will be in Scotland, and it would be nonsense for them constantly to travel the length of the country to Devonport.
  It makes sense for Devonport to refit the surface ships, because those crews have their homes in the south and they would not have to travel. All the arguments should be based on the firm pledge that we will retain two dockyards —I welcome that, and I am sure that everyone in Scotland welcomes it. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
  7.38 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): As is traditional on such occasions, I begin by warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on his good fortune in the ballot, and on the characteristically skilful and all-embracing way in which he had presented his case. He is a tireless champion of his constituents and of Scotland, and he is fighting his corner on the dockyard issue, as he is fully entitled to do.
  I am sorry that the debate has occurred somewhat earlier than expected and so had prevented my hon. Friend from hosting the RAF reception downstairs, but I know
  216
  that he will soon be able to follow his other great interest in defence, and join his fellow pilots. However, I am afraid that I cannot say anything tonight that will lead to a celebration; I shall simply be able to set forward the case and give some of the answers to the questions that he has posed in our useful debate.
  I join my hon. Friend in sending a message to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), as I have just heard that she is having a serious operation. Certainly, hon. Members from both sides of the House wish her a speedy recovery. She has been a great contributor to debates on the dockyards; I think that the last time that I was at the Dispatch Box for an Adjournment debate, I was answering her well-deployed arguments. I know that we all hope that she will soon return to her place here.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend when he began by welcoming our commitment to keep two dockyards open—a fact which should perhaps have taken some of the sting out of then dockyard debate. However, I realise from some of the atmospherics bubbling around me tonight that there is still a great deal of passion.
  Lady Eden, the wife of Sir Anthony Eden, once said that she felt that the Suez canal had been running through her drawing room at No. 10 Downing street. In my much humbler political role, there have been times during the past few months when I have felt that a dockyard has already been built in my office in the Ministry of Defence.
  A great deal of material in the debate is constantly being covered and re-covered in our arguments, but my hon. Friend has done the House a service tonight by raising the nuclear safety issues. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to some of them, and I hope that I shall set many of my hon. Friend's fears to rest.
  I shall first place the debate in context by saying that I and all my Government colleagues are deeply conscious of the great importance of the royal dockyards, at both Devonport and Rosyth, to the economies of their areas. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the economic importance of the decision to his constituents in the region of Scotland. I can confirm that we have studied carefully the reports produced by Fife regional council last November and last month on the impact of the possible closure of Rosyth dockyard and naval base.
  The closure of the dockyard and naval base are not being contemplated, but we have noted the forecasts that have been made, and we welcome the reports, which are a useful contribution to our consideration of the local economic impact of any proposal we make. We have received similar reports from the Devonport region.
  The economic impact of the decision is important to both dockyards which each directly employ several thousand people and sustain employment for thousands more in companies across their regions. To their great credit, the companies are among the largest trainers of apprentices in their areas.
  Therefore, we fully recognise the great significance for Fife and for Scotland of the issues which have been raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) are present, I must ensure that I am even-handed by emphasising in almost every paragraph that the same applies to the Devonport and west country region.
  In the ecumenical atmosphere that is prevailing at present, I pay tribute to the work forces of both dockyards

  217
  for the long and devoted service that they have given over many years. We have good reason to be grateful to all who serve there.
  I shall remind the House of the background to our decision-making process. There are two issues which the Government have to resolve—first, where to invest in the expensive facilities which we will need for refitting Trident and other nuclear-powered submarines by the turn of the century; secondly, how to secure the best value for money in the refitting programme as a whole in the long term.
  I have to stress to the House that a failure to achieve best value for money in support activities such as refitting must inevitably increase the pressure on the resources that can be found for the front line. The inevitable result of that would be further reductions in the front line: the teeth a little blunter, the tail dragging a little more heavily. My hon. Friend mentioned that he sat through the Navy debate on 6 May, so he will know the importance of the point that I am making.
  At present, nuclear-powered submarines are refitted, refuelled and decommissioned at both Devonport and Rosyth. Both yards have an excellent record in technical and safety terms in that work. As the House will be aware, the reductions in the armed forces announced in July 1990 mean that there will in future be significantly fewer nuclear-powered submarines in the fleet than had at one time been planned. That reduction, from more than 20 to 16, has opened up the possibility that all refitting work could be carried out at one site.
  A comprehensive study by the Ministry of Defence, which drew on a wide range of expertise in nuclear construction matters—including the companies which manage the yards on the Government's behalf—has shown that it would be feasible, safe and cost-effective to concentrate nuclear work at either Devonport or Rosyth, as opposed to continuing with the previous plans to maintain two nuclear refitting yards. There are no strategic reasons to keep two nuclear dockyards, and we have therefore concluded that we should in future concentrate nuclear work at one site.
  Mr. Streeter: My hon Friend mentioned safety. Can be confirm that the nuclear installations inspectorate has given both Rosyth and Devonport a clean bill of health on the safety aspects of the proposed installations? My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spoke about local authority planning permission. Can the Minister confirm that the members of Plymouth city council were unanimous in their decision to grant planning permission for the nuclear waste store at Devonport, and in wishing the contract to come to Plymouth?
  Mr. Aitken: I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to have his say. I shall say something about the nuclear safety issues and the NII's role later, so perhaps ray hon. Friend will be patient. In broad terms, I can confirm what he has said, and I am grateful to him for mentioning the unanimity of Plymouth city council on the subject.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced on 9 February that we would be concentrating nuclear work at one dockyard, but that further work was needed to determine which dockyard that should be, and that remains the position. I am sure that the House will
  218
  agree with me that it is vital to get the answers right. The issues are of great complexity, and, as I told the House during the Navy debate on 6 May, we are continuing to receive information, and much lobbying, from the dockyard operators which we must take into account in formulating our proposals.
  My hon. Friend's debate has concentrated on nuclear safety, and I know that he and the House will want to know that the Ministry of Defence attaches very high importance to nuclear safety, and is committed to meeting or exceeding civil standards of nuclear safety for comparable activities. It is a complex and multi-faceted area, and it may help the House if I explain briefly the general approach to it as it relates to the royal dockyards.
  The royal dockyards attain high standards of nuclear safety. Their attainment of those standards is checked both by the Ministry of Defence and by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate—NII—which also licences the dockyard operators. It regulates all on-site activities and allows an operation to proceed only when its safety has been adequately demonstrated.
  Ministers are also advised on such matters by the nuclear-powered warships safety committee, an independent organisation whose members have a broad spectrum of knowledge relating to nuclear power and are drawn from both Government and civil organisations. Its advice to me has been that public safety is not prejudiced by day-to-day operations, and that, even in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear accident, the general public would be protected by a range of countermeasures.
  The royal dockyards, in common with all nuclear operators, work to the ALARP—as low as reasonably practicable—principle, and there are continuing efforts in both dockyards to reduce the exposure incurred by workers. That subject was extensively covered by the report of the Select Committee on Defence on radiological protection of service and civilian personnel published in late 1990.
  The Ministry of Defence requires a site safety justification consisting of a series of nuclear safety reports to be produced by each dockyard. Those reports must cover all organisations, special controls, facilities and services whose satisfactory operation is necessary to ensure nuclear safety. Following satisfactory assessment of draft reports, the Ministry of Defence grants approval for the facilities to be used.
  A crucial part of nuclear safety is concerned with the prevention of untoward incidents by equipment, facility or manpower failures. Safety standards for equipment and facilities are also extremely high. As my hon. Friend knows, safety is of key importance in the design of the new facilities that will be needed at either royal dockyard for Trident refitting. The designs and construction of the facilities will be subject to detailed approval at every stage by the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Ministry of Defence.
  There is a set process for this, involving the provision of an early overall safety report, followed by more detailed reports concerning design, construction and future operation. These reports are compiled by professional engineers, and are by no means slim volumes. In fact, the more detailed reports would comprise several large tomes.
  After this initial compilation, the reports must be reviewed by another group of professional engineers who have no links with the first, before being put forward to site

  219
  safety committees who review the logic and content of the reports before they go forward to the NII and my Department.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that neither my Department nor the NII will give approval to anything that does not give proper protection to dockyard employees, service and other MOD personnel and the general public. Equally, the NII is fully involved in approving facilities and arrangements for storing nuclear waste and used fuel within the dockyards.
  The provision of new nuclear waste storage facilities to the latest safety standards is at present being taken forward at each dockyard under the oversight of MOD safety authorities and with the support and backing of the respective local authorities—a point that was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton. I am glad to be able to confirm that the local authorities in Plymouth are just as highly supportive of DML's proposals for concentrating nuclear refitting at Devonport.
  While I am mentioning local authorities, I should also point out that the local authorities in Plymouth are as highly supportive of DML's proposals for concentrating nuclear refitting at Devonport as my hon. Friend is of BTL's proposals to do the same at Rosyth.
  My Department's experts on nuclear reactor and radiation safety, together with experts from other parts of the Ministry, conduct regular and detailed safety audits of naval bases and both dockyards. The audits consistently find that a strong nuclear safety culture exists and that there is a commendable and determined commitment to radiation dose reduction at both dockyards.
  While we are confident that our procedures, equipment and facilities are safe, we have to prepare for the remote contingency of an accident occurring to a reactor while in a dockyard. My Department has a nuclear accident response organisation which conducts excercise5, at all MOD nuclear sites, ranging from paper exercises involving small teams to full-scale exercises involving large sections of the work force, local management, naval arid civil authorities and national response forces. These exercises test procedures at both royal dockyards. I can assure my hon. Friend that we believe that plans and procedures at both would protect the public in the very unlikely circumstances of a reactor accident.
  We are therefore confident, based on our understanding of the safety assessment principles applied by the independent nuclear installation inspectorate, that any of the proposals will be able to meet the NII's requirements.
  My hon. Friend asked a particular question about the operational impact of a further tightening of nuclear safety standards. I can confirm to him that we and the dockyard contractors are working to the latest NII safety assessment principles, which were issued only last year. We are confident that all the proposals can meet the NII standards prevailing at the time that approval is sought. If standards are tightened later, they would not apply retrospectively, unless there were a change of use.
  In the course of informal discussions, the NII has given no indication that it believes that any of the proposals from either dockyard will be unable to meet its requirements. What the NII have not done, nor will it finally do so until the facilities are ready for operation, is guarantee approval for either proposal. So it would not be correct to say that a clean bill of health has been given, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton has indicated. But I believe that I have made the position perfectly clear.
  220
  The dockyard contractors' proposals take full account of the need to seek NII approval for each stage of the design and construction process, and have allowed adequate time for the NII to conduct a proper approval process.
  I must emphasise that both dockyards have conducted nuclear refitting for many years with excellent safety records. To carry out all nuclear refitting in one place entails no increase in risks to safety, and the same stringent criteria, which are independent of the population density in the vicinity, will apply at whichever dockyard is chosen for the work.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of nuclear accident contingency plans. Such plans are developed at each port or naval base used by nuclear-powered warships. These contain comprehensive plans for protecting the public and are drawn up in conjunction with relevant local authorities. Public safety plans set out the automatic measures which would be applied following a nuclear accident.
  Because of the small size of the naval nuclear plant and the multiple safety arrangements and containment barriers, automatic counter-measures are confined to a 550-m radius around the submarine. For all but the most severe and extremely unlikely accidents, there would be no need for any counter-measures outside this area. However, as a prudent precaution, we plan with local authorities that contingency arrangements should be sufficiently flexible to allow the extension of counter-measures beyond the automatic zone, but only if required by a very severe accident of the kind that we do not believe is remotely likely to happen.
  Mr. Jamieson: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I am grateful that he is answering this debate tonight. will he agree with me that, if there were 10 people living near this plant, whether it is in Rosyth or Devonport, the same sort of safety measures would have to be in place as if there were 1,000 or 100,000?
  I am sure that he will be answering these points in a moment, but will he also answer a point made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)? Although, like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I am a new Member, I can recognise half-truth and muddle in this instance. Will he also answer the point that the Minister will not be making the decision on the basis of the number of Tory seats that may be at risk?
  Mr. Aitken: I am certainly glad to confirm, on the last point, that, although I listened to my hon. Friend's psephological predictions of what a 5 per cent. swing might do to either the west country or Scotland, I have no way of knowing whether his calculations are correct. Whatever the hon. Member may be saying, he is perfectly entitled to voice his opinions in the House, and we listen to them carefully, and I can confirm that these political factors are not part of the Government's decision. We are making our decision on the basis of the criteria that I have announced.
  While I will not deny that obviously more members of the public do dwell closer to the nuclear site at Devonport than to that at Rosyth, the key point is that we have worked with local authorities to produce a plan that would protect them at either site.
  I conclude by saying once again that the Government are fully aware of the importance of the future of Rosyth

  221
  dockyard to the people and economy of Fife and of Scotland as a whole, just as they are aware of the importance of Devonport dockyard to the west country. I emphasise that the most stringent standards of nuclear safety are a sine qua non for any yard where nuclear refitting is to take place.
  These factors are among the many that we shall consider as we seek to balance the needs of the Royal Navy and the taxpayer against the needs of south-west England and eastern Scotland, and against the more general needs of the defence of the United Kingdom and the cost-effective use of public funds.
  I can assure my hon. Friend, and all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, that all the proposals are being assessed exhaustively and entirely even-handedly against the same criteria. Clearly, the proposals differ in detail, but our aim is to reach a position in which a like-for-like comparison is possible.
  This has involved much discussion with the two dockyard companies, and detailed evaluation by my Department and its external advisers. Our aim is to ensure that they understand our requirements and how we are
  222
  assessing their proposals, and that we understand precisely what the companies are offering us and what their terms and conditions are.
  These are very complicated issues and many factors have to be taken into account. The amount of work involved has been very substantial. In addition, the companies continue to make representations to us by one means or another, and there are also representations by hon. Members. We must, of course, take account of the points made and of the new information supplied. None of this speeds up the decision-making process, and I regret that it has been longer than I had hoped or have indicated to the House earlier.
  At the end of the day, our aim will be to make a sound comparison of the various proposals and to be able to show all concerned that we have made the comparison fairly and even-handedly. Once we have proposals to make, we shall announce them, and will then be able to discuss their wider ramifications with all interested parties. That consultation process will be immensely important in ensuring that we reach the right conclusions in the end.
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North for the fact that we have had this debate today and that I have had the opportunity to discuss some of the issues that will lie behind the ultimate decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eight o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charters
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the definition of citizen used by his Department for the purposes of conferring benefits through the charter programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Anyone who uses, or might use, a public service.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the cost to date to public funds of the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into Polly Peck.

  The Solicitor-General
  The cost to date of the investigation into Polly Peck by the Serious Fraud Office is approximately £2·6 million but not including work undertaken by police officers.

TRANSPORT

  Trans-Pennine Railway Link
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the electrification of the trans-Pennine railway link.

  Mr. Freeman
  A consultant's report has been commissioned by a consortium of local authorities and passenger transport executives in the area. The report is currently under discussion with the Department. We are currently awaiting the consortium's response to a number of detailed questions. It would be for British Rail to bring forward an investment case for this project.

  Tanker Routing
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further developments have taken place on tanker routing following the consultations on the United Kingdom proposals submitted to the International Maritime Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Following consultations with representatives of the Shetland and Orkney local authorities, local and national fishing interests, United Kingdom shipping interests, international tanker operators and others we have submitted amended proposals to the IMO calling for an extended area to be avoided around the Shetland Islands, new areas to be avoided around the Fair Isle and Orkneys and recommended routes in the Fair Isle channel. In combination these measures should provide a standard 86
  of protection broadly equivalent to our original proposals while respecting the traditional rights of fisher men in that area. Proposals are also being submitted in respect of restrictions on laden tanker movements in the Pentland Firth and Isles of Scilly. We are placing copies of our amended proposals in the Library of the House.

  Submarines (Safety Scheme)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with representatives of the Clyde fishermen on the operation of the Subfacts scheme; what future discussions he has planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No ministerial meetings have taken place with representatives of the Clyde fishermen concerning Subfacts, but my noble Friend the Minister for Shipping and Aviation, the Earl of Caithness, is soon to meet with representatives of the fishing industry, to discuss the matter, on a date and venue yet to be agreed.

  No decisions will be made on the future nature of the Subfacts scheme until this consultation takes place.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the level crossing accidents in 1992 and 1993 to the most recent practicable date, the causes of the accidents and the remedial action where taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of level crossing accidents and any remedial action are published in HSE's annual report on railway safety, which is now prepared on the basis of financial years. Details for the first quarter of 1992 are available in the latest published report, for 1991–92, which is available in the House Library. Collated details of accidents since March 1992 are not yet available and will be published in the 1992–93 report in due course.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about London Underground's plans for the future of the line between Epping and Ongar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have had two representations about London Underground's plans for the future of the line between Epping and Ongar. The line is the subject of statutory closure procedures under sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962. Objectors will be able to give their views to the London regional passengers committee, whose report, among other things, will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision on the closure proposal.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give figures for the construction costs and interest payments associated with the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The construction costs of the road are estimated at some £300 million at current prices. The cost of finance is a matter for the concessionaire.
  87

  Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate as a percentage the number of K registration buses currently in use in Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  By the end of March, K registrations comprised 3 per cent. of the bus stock—approximately 44 per cent. of the stock was under one year old.

  Waste Transportation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to promote non-road based methods of waste transportation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The transport of waste is treated no differently from that of other commodities. We encourage the use of rail and water where practicable. Our enhancement of the freight facilities grant scheme and new track charges grant may help to divert some more waste from being moved throughout by road. I am chairing a group that is examining the scope for making more use of the River Thames for both passenger and freight transport. In addition my Department is considering more generally how best to encourage greater use of inland and coastal water transport.

  Rail and Bus Fares
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what rate(a) the retail prices index, and (b) the retail prices of rail and bus fares have increased since January 1987; what effect Government policy has had on the level of rail and bus fares; and if he will publish a table showing the corresponding increase in real earnings in the rail and bus industries compared with the increase in earnings of white collar workers in the private sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  The data requested are shown in the tables. Detailed rail and bus fare levels are a matter for the operators. Ministers are consulted when British Rail fares are revised in view of their role in setting the financial framework within which British Rail operates. Bus deregulation outside London has promoted competition and reduced operating costs, thereby leading to downward pressure on bus fares.

  Fare indices and the RPI: United Kingdom, 1987–93

  January 1987=100

  Dale

  Rail fares1

  Local bus fares in Great Britain

  Retail Prices Index

  January 1987

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  January 1988

  107·1

  106·4

  103·3

  January 1989

  117·4

  112·8

  111·0

  January 1990

  117·4

  120·7

  119·5

  January 1991

  140·3

  136·8

  130·2

  January 1992

  150·7

  145·8

  135·6

  January 1993

  161·6

  153·5

  137·9

  1 Supplied by the Central Statistical Office. Includes rail fares other than British Rail.

  88

  Average earnings,1 by industry and sector: Great Britain, 1987–92

  1992 prices2

  £ per week at April

  Date

  Railways industry

  Scheduled road passenger transport and urban railways industry

  Private sector non-manual

  April 1987

  284

  260

  304

  April 1988

  293

  261

  325

  April 1989

  296

  253

  331

  April 1990

  274

  264

  333

  April 1991

  301

  264

  332

  April 1992

  307

  275

  338

  1 Full-time employees on adult rates. Derived from the New Earnings Survey published by the Department of Employment.

  2 Constant prices derived using the RPI deflator.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what protection he proposes to give to private passenger train franchise operators from takeovers by companies deemed not suitable for the award franchises.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our intention is that the franchising director will assess the suitability of bidders to become franchisees. He will include terms in the franchise agreement under which the franchising director's consent will be required to changes in ownership of a franchisee.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what obligations will be placed on the new owner of British Rail's freight and parcels subsidiaries to ensure their continued use of rail transport following privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions about whether to use rail will be taken by the customers, as now, on the basis of price and quality of service.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with how many parties he is in negotiation for the franchising of rail passenger services.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Negotiations on franchises will be conducted by the franchising director when he is appointed. I have had discussions with various parties about our franchising proposals.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many British Rail employees will be transferred to the employment of Railtrack;

  (2) which assets currently owned by the British Railways Board he proposes to transfer to Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is too early to say. Railtrack will not be established as a Government-owned company until April 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional resources he intends to make available for the Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate for the discharge of their duties arising from the Railways Bill after April 1994.

  Mr. Freeman
  Agency funds for HSE have been increased by about 60 per cent. in 1993–94 compared with
  89
  the previous year, in recognition of HSE's increased railway safety workload, including British Rail privatisation. Funds for 1994–95 will be agreed following this year's public expenditure discussions. We are committed to ensuring that adequate resources are made available.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what issues are covered in Working Paper 30 on a draft code for the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high level radioactive wastes in flasks on board ship, as agreed at the second technical committee meeting of the joint IAEA/IMO/UNEP working group on the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel by sea held in Vienna on 26 to 30 April; and if he will place a copy in the Library;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Working Paper No. 17, dealing with exports of plutonium from the United Kingdom to Japan, submitted to the technical committee meeting of the joint IAEA/IMO working group on the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel by sea held in Vienna on 26 to 30 April.

  Mr. Norris
  I am placing copies of the working papers in the Library of the House.

  Trans-Pennine Rail Service
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the electrification of trans-Pennine rail services will have on local rail services at Mossley Hill and West Allerton; what discussions he has had with British Rail about the provision of a South Liverpool Parkway station; and what discussions he is holding with BR about the Liverpool to Crewe service and the stopping of trains at West Allerton station.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any decision to electrify the Trans-Pennine rail service would have an effect on local services. British Rail, in conjunction with the passenger transport executive, would need to give the matter due consideration.

  Decisions on the opening of new stations and the timetabling of existing services are for British Rail, and, where appropriate, the local PTE and not something in which Ministers directly intervene.

  Motor Rescue Services
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards restrictions on access to new motorway service areas for motor rescue services including the RAC and AA.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The operators of existing motorway service areas are required under the terms of their leases to permit access at all times to the employees or agents of the AA and the RAC to carry out emergency repairs to members' vehicles. I have decided that this right should be continued under the new regime announced on 6 August last year, and that they should also apply in new motorway service areas. My Department will therefore not agree to provide signs to a new motorway service area unless the operator agrees to permit access to the AA and the RAC. I am considering whether similar rights should be extended to other motor rescue services.
  90

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence has been submitted to him of the numbers of jobs in the United Kingdom railway manufacturing and supply industry which would be created by the total route modernisation of British Rail's west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Any estimate of the number of jobs created by modernising the west coast main line would depend in part on assumptions about the precise nature of the work to be done, which has yet to be finalised.

  Heathrow (Regional Airlines)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the protection of slots for regional airlines at Heathrow.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: I have at present no plans for measures in respect of Heathrow slots for regional air services. I note the operator's announcement that the service from Plymouth and Newquay to Heathrow will continue after Brymon Aviation has become a wholly owned subsidiary of British Airways.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of licensed lorries of 38 tonnes gross vehicle weight for each year from 1985.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The figures for Great Britain are as follows:

  Maximum weight (38 tonne gross) vehicles licensed at end of year

  (000)

  1985

  26·2

  1986

  32·8

  1987

  39·7

  1988

  50·3

  1989

  57·9

  1990

  60·1

  1991

  58·6

  1992

  61·7

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available to hon. Members a copy of the reasoned opinion issued by the European Commission in connection with the complaint under EC directive 85/337 in relation to the east London river crossing and the threat to Oxleas wood in Woolwich.

  Mr. Norris
  Correspondence between the Commission and member states is regarded as confidential by both parties, and the United Kingdom will continue to respect this convention.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the reasoned opinion from the European Commission in connection with the complaint under the European directive 85/337 in relation to the east London river crossing and the threat to Oxleas wood in Woolwich; and if he will make a statement.
  91
  Mr. Norris
  The European Commission's reasoned opinion was received on 27 April. We are considering it carefully but remain confident that we will convince the Commission of the merits of our case.

  Road Schemes (Grant)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, by London borough, and with totals for inner london, outer London and London as a

  Borough

  Major schemes

  Local safely schemes

  Other minor works

  Structural maintenance of carriageways and bridges

  Inner London

  Brent

  0

  390

  738

  898

  Camden

  0

  400

  372

  3,200

  City

  0

  50

  298

  1,696

  Greenwich

  0

  200

  433

  865

  Hackney

  1,334

  244

  296

  532

  Hammersmith

  0

  500

  740

  1,420

  Haringey

  371

  300

  495

  1,958

  Islington

  0

  440

  494

  1,004

  Kensington

  974

  200

  256

  298

  Lambeth

  0

  90

  495

  445

  Lewisham

  7,162

  390

  702

  250

  Newham

  5,324

  350

  799

  3,377

  Southwark

  4,068

  390

  459

  125

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  380

  292

  7,486

  Wandsworth

  610

  790

  562

  3,446

  Westminster

  974

  380

  381

  3,145

  TOTAL

  20,817

  5,494

  7,812

  30,145

  Outer London

  Barking

  734

  290

  375

  1,155

  Barnet

  0

  390

  590

  270

  Bexley

  4,921

  300

  233

  1,144

  Bromley

  3,615

  280

  1,018

  627

  Croydon

  3,500

  490

  814

  1,570

  Ealing

  1,523

  290

  1,276

  677

  Enfield

  3,510

  370

  971

  1,505

  Harrow

  12,310

  230

  217

  747

  Havering

  0

  200

  321

  737

  Hillingdon

  10,334

  690

  1,212

  620

  Hounslow

  4,305

  244

  494

  485

  Kingston

  856

  210

  246

  988

  Merton

  1,238

  390

  906

  235

  Redbridge

  0

  350

  488

  988

  Richmond

  0

  290

  251

  657

  Sutton

  577

  330

  659

  790

  Waltham Forest

  1,167

  390

  666

  515

  TOTAL

  48,590

  5,734

  10,737

  13,710

  GRAND TOTAL

  69,407

  11,228

  18,549

  43,855

  Note: All figures quoted are in £ thousands and represent gross accepted expenditure for transport supplementary grant support. Grant is paid at 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Escorted Prisoners
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the use of staff not trained as prison custody officers to escort prisoners in the east midlands and Humberside regions; if he will list all cases where such staff have been used; and whether the use of such staff breaks the terms of section H of the tender documents or his Department's contract with Group 4.
  92
  whole, the amount of transport supplementary grant payable for 1993–94 for (a) major schemes over 1 million, (b) minor road safety schemes, (c) other minor schemes and (d) other schemes accepted for transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tony Blair, dated 15 May 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your recent Parliamentary Question about the use by Group 4 of staff not trained as prisoner custody officers in the court escort service in the East Midlands and Humberside.No untrained staff have been used by Group 4 to escort prisoners. All staff escorting prisoners have been prisoner custody officers certificated under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.93 On certain days during the first two weeks of the contract, Group 4 used persons other than prisoner custody officers to drive vehicles on which prisoners were being escorted by prisoner custody officers. This was in response to an unforeseen level of prisoner movements and was not Group 4's original intention, which was to use PCOs as drivers. At no time did these arrangements break the contract, nor are they different to current practice in some police forces and some parts of the Prison Service where civilians are used as drivers.

  Mr. Rajanathan (Gun Licence)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the circumstances under which a gun licence was recently issued to the late Mr. Rajanathan of 58 Horsenden crescent, Greenford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Rajanathan was granted a shotgun certificate on 3 April. An inquest into the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Rajanathan was opened on 30 April and has been adjourned to a date to be fixed.

  Police, Staffordshire
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in receipt of the submission from Staffordshire county council setting out the Staffordshire police authority's view of the need for the police authority to be accountable through a democratically elected police authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend received a copy of the document referred to on 7 May. A reply will be sent shortly.

  Mr. Brian Parsons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on behalf of Brian Parsons, Ref. 089, Her Majesty's prison, Kingston; and when he expects to respond.

  Mr. Jack
  We received a number of representations between March 1991 and January 1993 suggesting that Mr. Parsons had been wrongfully convicted. These have all been the subject of detailed inquiries carried out on behalf of the Home Office by Devon and Cornwall police. However, in the light of the results of those inquiries and all the information available to me, I have not been able to find sufficient grounds to justify referring the case back to the Court of Appeal. Those who made representations to the Home Office have been informed accordingly.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) insurance companies and (b) vehicle manufacturers about measures to reduce car crime.

  Mr. Jack
  Both the insurance industry and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders are represented on my advisory committee on car crime prevention. This committee met in October last year and in March this year. A further meeting is scheduled for later in the summer. One of the central concerns of the committee is the measures that should be taken—by the motor manufacturers and the insurance industry, among others—to reduce the opportunities for car crime.
  94
  I have also held separate discussions with senior representatives of the Association of British Insurers to consider what more the insurance industry could do to help combat car crime. The most recent meeting was on 10 May.

  In addition, I have attended numerous motoring events around the country, where I have discussed the question of car security with individual motor manufacturers.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to encourage the fitting of immobilisers to cars.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office has for some time been seeking to encourage motor manufacturers to improve vehicle security and, in particular, to fit effective immobilisers which would prevent the unauthorised use of vehicles. I welcome recent progress in this area, and will continue to encourage the fitting of immobilisers as standard equipment.

  The police scientific development branch of the Home Office is providing significant support in this area through its work on examining and testing the effectiveness of vehicle immobilisers, in conjunction with the motor manufacturers and the insurance industry, and through its technical input into the emerging British standards on vehicle immobilisers.

  It is equally important that the security of vehicles already on the road should be upgraded and encouraging motorists to fit security devices, such as immobilisers, is a central feature of our extensive car crime prevention campaign, which is being continued this year to build on the success achieved in 1992.

  Prison Escort Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory provisions apply to the use of mechanical restraints such as handcuffs by private security firms carrying out prison escort services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 15 May 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your recent Parliamentary Question about the use of restraints by contractors carrying out prisoner escort duties under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.There are no statutory provisions relating to the use of mechanical restraints by prisoner custody officers.Section 82(1) of the 1991 Act gives prisoner custody officers (PCOs) powers of search. Section 82(3) gives PCOs duties to prevent the escape of prisoners from lawful custody; to prevent the commission by prisoners of other unlawful acts; to ensure good order and discipline on the part of prisoners; and to give effect to any directions as to their treatment which are given by a court. Section 82(4) gives PCOs on court premises in which the Crown court is sitting the duty to give effect to any order of that court made under Section 34A of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (power of Crown court to order search of persons before it).Section 82(5) states that the various powers mentioned above shall include power to use reasonable force where necessary and it follows that force may include, in appropriate circumstances, the use of restraints.95

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to ensure that families of Bosnian refugees are entitled to join refugees who have settled within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Spouses and minor children are admitted to join those recognised as refugees under the terms of the 1951 convention on the status of refugees. In such cases Bosnian family members would need first to obtain visas from a British diplomatic post. Close dependants are also admitted to join former detention camp inmates evacuated to the United Kingdom, and we are in close liaison with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross to facilitate their entry.

  In common with all other nationalities, Bosnian asylum applicants may not bring their families here while their applications are under consideration.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions2, 1987 to 1992

  Number of principal applicants

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total applications received

  4,256

  3,998

  11,640

  22,000

  44,840

  24,610

  Decisions2

  Total decisions

  2,432

  2,702

  6,955

  4,015

  5,965

  34,900

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum3

  266

  628

  2,210

  900

  505

  1,115

  Not recognised as refugee, but granted exceptional leave4

  1,531

  1,578

  3,860

  2,400

  2,230

  15,325

  Refusals

  Total refused

  635

  496

  890

  710

  3,240

  18,465

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  635

  496

  890

  710

  2,185

  2,680

  Refused on safe third country grounds5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  270

  595

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration Rules6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  785

  15,195

  1 Includes applications made at ports on arrival and those made in-country.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  3 Excluding South East Asian refugees.

  4 Where it would have been unreasonable or impractical to seek to enforce return to country of origin.

  5 Figures from 1 January 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration".

  6 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

  7 Figures from 1 December 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration".

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he intends to publish the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The regulations were laid before Parliament today.

  Pathology Service
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where the Home Office pathologist Dr. John Rutherford is based; and if he will make a statement.
  96

  Immigration
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants and refugees have been admitted into the United Kingdom in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on persons accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in the years 1987–91 is given in table 9 of the 1991 volume of the annual Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" (Cm 2063). Information for 1992 is given in table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 14/93 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Third and Fourth Quarters and Year 1992". These figures are of persons subject to immigration control who are granted indefinite leave to remain here. Copies of the publications are in the Library.

  Information on the number of applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and on decisions made, in the years 1987–92 is given in the following table. The fall in applications in 1992 followed measures introduced in late 1991 to deter multiple and other fraudulent claims.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Dr. John Rutherford, MRCPath, DMJ(Path), is a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist based at the North Manchester general hospital, Crumpsall, Manchester.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total Home Office budget is spent on victim support; and what actual sums have been allocated for 1992–93 and the current financial year.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1992–93 Home Office grant aid to the national charity Victim Support amounted to £7·3 million, while provisional outturn expenditure by the Home Office on criminal injuries compensation amounted to £145 million. The Scottish Office contributed a further £21·7
  97
  million. In 1993–94 Home Office grant aid to Victim Support will increase by 15 per cent. to £8·4 million, while Home Office vote provision for criminal injuries compensation is £187·9 million.

  Home Office vote provision for supporting victims of crime in the current year accordingly amounts to 3·3 per cent. of the total Home Office vote provision of £5·9 billion.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation with staff unions occurred prior to the announcement on 28 April that the Passport Agency was to be privatised or market tested.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The trade union side of the Home Office departmental Whitley Council was informed in a letter of 23 April 1993 of plans to review future options for the activities of the United Kingdom Passport Agency, including an examination of the scope for privatisation or market testing, as part of the process leading to a review of the agency's framework document. The trade union side of the Whitley Committee for the Passport Agency were informed of these plans at the same time.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if staff unions will have an opportunity to study either the emerging findings or the scoping, report prior to any market-testing exercises at the Passport Agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Emerging findings and scoping study reports of any market tests associated with the Passport Agency will be made available to the unions provided they do not bear any security or confidentiality classification.

  Employment Protection Regulations
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department intends to take legal advice on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981(a) initially at the point of identification of a business, (b) at the conclusion of the scoping study, (c) prior to invitations to tender and (d) prior to the award of a contract; and what is the estimated cost of such advice.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Home Office legal advisers will be consulted at the outset of a market test to establish whether the regulations are likely to apply. They will be consulted at the scoping study stage if that study has identified any material change which might affect the applicability of the regulations. Legal advisers will be consulted prior to the issue of an invitation to tender, and prior to the award of contract. The time spent on the advice will depend on the complexity of the market test and it is not, therefore, possible to estimate this in advance.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if companies involved in future Home Office market-testing exercises will be required to state their policy on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and to take into account the consequences of any such application.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. The invitation to tender documents will require companies to indicate whet her the regulations would apply to their bids.
  98

  Civil Protection Regulations
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to local authorities on the levels of expenditure needed to meet their obligations under the civil protection regulations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The grant allocation proposed by the Home Office to local authorities is intended to be a contribution to the costs involved in meeting their responsibilities under the Civil Defence Regulations. It will be for each authority to decide upon the actual level of expenditure needed to meet all of its obligations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set for the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  The centre's key performance measure is the net balance on its trading account. The target for 1993–94 is a trading deficit of £0·866 million.

  The centre also has a projected overall room occupancy target of 49 per cent., a room hire revenue target of £3·584 million and a revenue: cost ratio target of 1:1·17. The centre will be expected to meet or better all of these projections.

  Waste-to-Energy Schemes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of waste-to-energy schemes in reducing demand for landfill waste disposal sites; what assessment his Department has made of the impact on demand for landfill sites of the closure of existing waste incineration plants after 1996; and what plans he has to review existing requirements to dispose of inert ash residues from waste-to-energy plants via landfill.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 May 1993]: The proportion of waste destined for landfill is expected to fall as a result of the Government's waste minimisation and recycling policies and the development of new waste-to-energy schemes. Some municipal waste incinerators will have to close within the next few years because it will not be cost effective for them to be upgraded in order to achieve the requirements of the directive 89/429/EEC. Others are being upgraded and new plants are being constructed. The directive itself is not thought likely to have a significant effect on the proportion of waste disposed of by incineration. At present, my Department has no plans to review the use of landfill as a disposal option for inert incinerator ash—there is no alternative disposal option.

  Coastal Zone Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what views his Department has expressed to institutions of the European Community on the EC directive on coasts and the community strategy for integrated coastal zone management as highlighted in the fifth environmental action programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The Government will take an active part in ensuring that any

  99
  proposals which come forward from the Community on coastal zone planning and management are workable and effective.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the presentation by the European Commission of the coastal zone directive to the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: At present, the Commission has not published any directive on the coastal zone.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 29 April,Official Report, column 470, what assessment he has made of the burdens that the proposed new waste management licensing system will place on industry; and what consideration he has given to them in the light of the deregulation exercise.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: In considering proposals for new regulations, the Government place great importance on giving due weight to business' perception of the proposal's likely impact on business. To that end, the Department's consultation papers on waste management licensing issued on 10 August and 18 December contained estimates of certain costs that would arise and an invitation to consultees to provide information on additional costs that the proposals would impose on business. No usable information was provided by consultees. A compliance cost assessment will therefore be produced in due course on the basis of official estimates of additional costs; and industry will be invited to comment specifically on that.

  The main consideration relevant to the deregulation exercise is the range and scope of the exemptions from licensing provided in the waste management licensing regulations. We have received a large number of representations on this point and are giving them sympathetic consideration where we can achieve our environmental objectives without licensing.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)Official Report, column 470, on further revisions to the waste management licensing timetable, if he will list those technical problems which have not yet been fully resolved concerning the relationship between waste management licensing and European Community measures dealing with waste; and for what reasons these problems were not identified at the time the EC measures were adopted.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: As well as considering the impact of the EC framework directive on waste (91/156/EEC) on part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, we have had to give further consideration to the effect of the directive on other regulatory regimes which control the handling, keeping, treatment and disposal of waste; particularly where the scope for providing exemptions from the proposed Waste Management Licensing Regulations relies on such regulatory regimes for the implementation of the directive. These are technical problems which affect the detailed
  100
  drafting of the regulations, and could not have been reasonably foreseen when the directive was adopted. It is regrettable that this has delayed implementation of the waste licensing provisions, but it is essential that the implications of the framework directive are properly reflected in the regulations before they are laid, to ensure both that we meet our EC obligations and that we do not place burdens on industry by unnecessarily exceeding them.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the findings of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's report on the timetable for opening an underground store at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The timetable for establishing a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate level radioactive waste is a matter for Nirex.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to delay any decisions on THORP until the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has completed its review of radioactive waste disposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: A decision about THORP will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as soon as the necessary procedures have been completed.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's report for storage of low and medium-level waste from(a) Magnox nuclear reactors and (b) the proposed THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Low-level radioactive waste is, and will continue to be, disposed of at British Nuclear Fuels' site at Drigg. Intermediate level radioactive waste will be stored until it can be disposed of in Nirex's deep disposal facility.

  Waste Managers
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what preparations are to be made for the introduction of certificates of technical competence for waste managers and associated guidance on assessing technical competence under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the further delay in the introduction of waste management licensing under the Environmental Protection Act which I announced on 29 April at column 4708, my Department has been discussing the position of the provisions on technical competence with the waste management industry training and advisory board (WAMITAB).

  The issues delaying the waste management licensing regulations do not throw any doubt on the provisions

  101
  regarding technical competence. I have therefore published today the text of provisions that the Government will bring forward as part of waste management licensing in due course. These provisions would prescribe WAMITAB certificates as evidence of technical competence and include transitional provisions for existing waste managers, and will be embodied in regulations under the 1990 Act to be put before the House as part of the waste management licensing regulations. I have also published an advance extract from the associated statutory guidance on assessing technical competence. I have deposited a copy of this material in the Library of the House.

  This advance information will enable waste managers, waste regulators and WAMITAB to make early preparations for this important part of the 1990 Act.

  My Department has now let a contract with WAMITAB under which it will complete its system for awarding certificates of technical competence based on national vocational qualifications.

  The certificates of technical competence to be offered by WAMITAB will be an important component of the improved environmental standards in waste management to be achieved by the waste regulation provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, and the Government fully endorse the work of the board.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Funds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations to secure non-governmental organisation representation on(a) the United Nations development programme and (b) on the executive council of the United Nation's children's fund.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  International non-governmental organisations can gain observer status on the governing bodies of both the UN development programme and the UN children's fund through the existing arrangements for accreditation of NGOs to the UN Economic and Social Council. We are playing an active role in moves to obtain easier access for NGOs to UN bodies following the success of the wider involvement of NGOs at the Rio summit last year.

  Landmines Protocol
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to ratify the 1981 landmines protocol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The situation remains as set out in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 9 March at column 517.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what investigations the diplomatic and aid wings of his Department have been subject by the Data Protection Register in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will 102
  summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There has been one complaint, in 1989, to the Data Protection Registrar in respect of the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The registrar found against the complainant, who was requesting access to paper files outwith the act. There has been no complaint in respect of the aid wing of the FCO.

  East Timor
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received on the subject of East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have received numerous representations on the subject of East Timor. We welcome the resumption, tinder the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, of the Indonesian-Portuguese dialogue on East Timor and have encouraged both sides to be as constructive as possible. We maintain a regular dialogue on human rights with the Indonesian authorities, bilaterally and together with our EC partners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised our concerns most recently when he visited Indonesia in early April.

  Western European Union (Greece)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union the future of the union in the light of the application by Greece for membership.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The next WEU Council of Ministers in Rome on 19–20 May will discuss inter alia enlargement and the future role of the WEU. Enlargement, including Greek accession, Turkey, Iceland and Norway becoming associate members and Denmark and Ireland observers, will enable the WEU better to develop its role. Greece, as a future member state, and the future associates and observers will participate in the Rome ministerial meeting.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ultimate responsibility is held by Her Majesty's Government for debts incurred by the Government of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Under the constitution the Governor has responsibility to maintain the financial and economic stability of the territory. But it is the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar to service its own debts.
  103

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the Overseas Development Administration's budget will be spent on aid and assistance to Africa, and to each other continent, in the current financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Of the ODA's external assistance vote, as approved in the main supply estimates 1993–94, 36 per cent. is provided, within bilateral programmes, specifically for country programmes, including the aid and trade provision and bilateral assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  This proportion can be broken down by continent as follows:

  Per cent.

  Africa

  44

  America

  8

  Asia

  39

  Europe (including former Soviet Union)

  8

  Oceania

  1

  British Dependencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proportion of overseas aid allocated to each of the British overseas dependencies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The proportions of gross bilateral aid allocated to British dependencies in 1991–92 were as follows:

  Dependency

  Per cent.

  Anguilla

  0·2

  Bermuda

  1—

  British Virgin Islands

  0·2

  Cayman Islands

  0·2

  Falkland Islands

  0·1

  Gibraltar

  0·1

  Hong Kong

  1—

  Montserrat

  0·3

  Pitcairn Island

  1—

  St. Helena and Dependencies

  1·0

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1·1

  TOTAL

  3·3

  1— means less than 0·05 per cent.

  Source: British Aid Statistics 1987–88–1991–92.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid money has been provided to Cambodia to pay for mine clearance to date; and what plans his Department has to increase such aid without using money from existing budgets.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1991–92 we have provided some £260,000 for mine clearance in Cambodia. A further £232,520 has been committed for expenditure this financial year.
  104

  Self-build Projects
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of overseas development funding for each year from 1979–80 was allocated to self-build projects in developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA does not maintain separate records of expenditure on self-build projects. These come within the category of low-cost housing. Figures for expenditure on low-cost housing are only available from 1987–88 and are as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  768,000

  1988–89

  1,232,000

  1989–90

  1,137,000

  1990–91

  1,239,000

  1991–92

  1,080,000

  In addition Commonwealth Development Corporation expenditure in the housing sector has been:

  £

  1987–88

  2,290,000

  1988–89

  1,670,000

  1989–90

  1,250,000

  1990–91

  1,600,000

  1991–92

  Nil

  East Timor
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been given to the people of East Timor in the years following its annexation by Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None of Britain's aid to Indonesia has been used for projects in East Timor in the years since its annexation in 1975, but we are prepared to consider providing financial support for non-governmental organisations who might operate there.

  With our EC partners, HMG continues to follow developments, including human rights, in East Timor closely and welcomes the resumption, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, of the Indonesian-Portuguese dialogue.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Information Technology
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will make a statement on the information technology facilities currently available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Waller
  It is for Members to acquire their information technology facilities, making use of the office costs allowance.

  The computer officer is available to offer Members informal advice on the acquisition and use of IT equipment. The Information Committee has also published guidelines for Members, which have recently been updated and are incorporated in the "Members' Handbook".
  105
  In my reply to the hon. Member on 19 January:1993 at columns 154–55 I referred to computer services accessible via the Library. In the course of that response I also drew attention to the pilot project for a parliamentary data and video network (PDVN) at present being undertaken at 7 Millbank. This is available to Members and their staff whose offices are located at 7 Millbank and who have direct cabling to the network. In addition to database services, which include POLIS and Hansard on CD-ROM, the network also provides electronic mail and outgoing fax facilities.

  The PDVN pilot project is to be reviewed by the Information Committee towards the end of the year as part of its current inquiry into the network.

EDUCATION

  University Colleges
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when a decision will be taken about submissions made by the Standing Conference of Principals in Higher Education about the use of the title university college in their nomenclature; when the submissions were first received by his Department; how many colleges will be affected by the changes; and what criteria are to be used in determining the right of a college to such a title.

  Mr. Boswell
  The submission of the Standing Conference of Principals was received on 19 March 1993. Under its proposals, all publicly funded higher education colleges would be eligible to adopt a "university college" title. I hope to be in a position to reply shortly to the chairman of the standing conference.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received on the subject of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend receives occasional representations on the subject of student loans.

  Computers
  Mr. Steinberg
  TO ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average ratio of computers to students in secondary schools and further and higher education establishments.

  Mr. Forth
  In March 1992, the latest date for which information is available, the average micro:pupil ratio in maintained secondary schools in England was 1:13. Information for further education establishments is not available on the same basis. It is estimated that the workstation:student ratio in further education colleges in March 1992 was generally in the range from 1:10 to 1:15. Information for higher education establishments is not collected centrally.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children with special educational needs had their needs first identified by(a) parents, (b) doctors/paediatricians, (c) educational psychologists, (d) school staff and (e) others.
  106
  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children with special educational needs had their needs identified at(a) below the age of five years and (b) above the age of five years in the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Forth
  In the calendar year 1991 11 per cent. of children for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time were under the age of five whilst the majority—89 per cent.—were five or over. It is not possible to tell how many of the total number of children aged five and over who currently have statements received them for the first time when they were under five.

  Bullying
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will consider appointing special staff to deal with the problem of bullying in schools: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Headteachers are responsible for securing acceptable standards of behaviour and conduct by pupils. The Government expect schools to deal firmly with bullying. To, help them do so, the Department issued "Action Against Bullying" packs to all schools in England in July 1992. Further guidance material is in preparation. The Department has no plans to appoint specialist staff, but local education authorities could bid for support for whole-school action on bullying under the reducing truancy category of the Department's grants for education support and training (GEST) scheme for 1993–94. A number of approved projects incorporate such a component.

  Science Exchanges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the proportion of science exchanges proposed in the expanded TEMPUS programme of the European Commission; and how many expanded TEMPUS programme of the European Commission; and how many science-based exchanges involving United Kingdom projects are currently in place.

  Mr. Boswell
  Although applications for projects under the extended TEMPUS programme, TEMPUS II, have not yet been made, United Kingdom institutions are currently participating in 158 projects in science and related subjects under the existing programme.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Hams dated 15 March concerning the treatment for tax relief purposes by the Inland Revenue of the interest payable on home mortgages.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 14 May.

  Corporation Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a table setting out the total foreign exchange liabilities, broken down by currency, of companies liable to United Kingdom corporation tax;
  107
  (2) if he will publish a table setting out the total foreign exchange liabilities of companies liable to United Kingdom corporation tax, broken down by category of business of those companies;

  (3) what estimate he has made of the ratio of foreign exchange liabilities of companies liable to United Kingdom corporation tax to their total liabilities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Comprehensive information is not available in the form requested. But information is given on total financial liabilities and foreign currency lending from United Kingdom banks along with a breakdown of foreign currency bank lending. Dollars represent the main foreign currency for bank lending.

  Liabilities at end 1992 Q4 (£ billion)

  Total

  Lending by banks

  Industrial and commercial sector

  1,117·3

  36·9

  Other financial institutions

  1,108·5

  28·3

  Source: Financial Statistics May 1993, Tables 14.6 and 14.7

  As regards the industry breakdown, information is available only on foreign currency lending by United Kingdom banks to United Kingdom residents. This is given for March 1993.

  £ million

  Energy and Water supplies

  4,649

  Construction

  1,956

  Garages distribution, hotels and catering

  8,750

  Transport and communications

  2,948

  Manufacturing industry

  11,615

  Agriculture, forestry, fishing

  94

  Financial

  32,009

  Business and other services (excluding central and local government services)

  5,325

  Total of above

  67,346

  Source: Bank of England Press Notice 14 May 1993.

  Charities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of tax credits on share dividends becoming available to charities in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 were claimed in the same year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Tax Computations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set out the criteria on which the Board of Inland Revenue will accept tax computations rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is prepared to accept computations of business profits for tax purposes in figures rounded to the nearest £1,000 from single businesses or companies with an annual turnover of not less than £5 million, where rounding at least to that extent has been used in preparing their accounts. The turnover of members of a group will not be aggregated for applying this £5 million threshold. Where turnover fluctuates either side of 108
  the threshold, rounding can be used for a period of account if the turnover for either that year or the immediately previous year is above the limit. Turnover comprises gross receipts including investment and estate income, as well as trading receipts.

  The Inland Revenue will only accept rounding in any particular case if the basis adopted is satisfactory. Rounded computations from such businesses must be accompanied by a certificate made by the person preparing the computations which:
  states the basis on which the rounding has been done; confirms that this basis is unbiased, that it has been applied consistently and that it has been used in a manner which, in all the circumstances, produces a fair result for tax purposes; and if the rounding was done by computer, states the progam or software used.

  In subsequent years if there have been no changes in the basis or in the software, the certificate need only confirm that the rounding has been done on the same basis as before.

  The Inland Revenue is prepared to accept rounded figures only in relation to the computation of the profits of the business, including in the case of companies, non-case I items. They, cannot accept rounded figures in relation to the computation of tax payable or of any other figure of tax.

  Nor can they accept rounded figures, in relation to any other aspect of the tax computations, where rounding would impede the proper application of the relevant legislation or where it would normally be necessary to go back to the underlying records to do the computation, and thus there would be no reduction in the compliance burden in allowing the use of round sums. Rounding is not therefore acceptable in the following:

  —computations of chargeable gains (since precise dates on which expenditure is incurred are needed for indexation allowances purposes); rounding can however be accepted in relation to the incidental costs of acquisition and disposal;

  —computations of tax credit relief: while individual items of foreign income (including profits of overseas branches and, for the purpose of calculating underlying tax rates, dividends paid by overseas companies and the profits of those companies) may be rounded, computations of credit relief must continue to distinguish the individual items of income and to show the exact amounts of foreign tax for which credit is claimed so that the rules for limiting the credit can be properly applied;

  —computations required for purposes of the Accrued Income Scheme (Section 710–728, ICTA 1988);

  —aspects of capital allowances computations where precise figures are required, for example by the statute or where rounding might work unfairly because more than one taxpayer is involved and different bases could be used by each. One case where the statute requires the use of precise figures is the expensive car provisions in Sections 34–36 CAA 1990. However in any capital allowances apportionment case it would be open to the taxpayer to demonstrate to the Inspector that, taking all the circumstances into account, including those of any other party, the use of rounded figures did not lead to a result that was materially different from the statutory position. For example, in the case of the industrial buildings one-quarter rule (section 18(7) CAA 1990), the Inspector would want to be satisfied that the use of rounding alone did not reduce the non-qualifying expenditure to one-quarter or less of the total expenditure (and thereby enable the whole of the expenditure to attract allowances).

  —the application of the statutory amount in Section 748 (i) (d) ICTA 1988 in relation to a controlled foreign company.

  109
  Exceptionally other circumstances may arise where rounding would not satisfy the tests in the preceding paragraph. In those circumstances the inspector may insist that roundings are not used.

  These arrangements will continue into pay and file. Subject to the exceptions provided in the two previous paragraphs, rounded figures from the accounts may be used in the computation of trading profits and losses, each category of income, management expenses and charges. Where appropriate, these figures will of course require adjustments to the "received" or "paid" basis. Group relief or relief for losses from other periods should be on the actual sums surrendered or brought forward, or carried back. No rounding should take place in the return form itself—for example, in the allocation of profits to financial years—or in any arithmetic that precedes such entries, for example, a computation of marginal small companies relief.

  Where arrangements on the use of rounding have already been agreed, locally with inspectors these may continue to operate in the short term, but must come to an end for all periods ending after 31 May 1995.

  African Debt
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the British Government have to assist Africa in reducing its debt burden; and if he will make it his policy to secure international agreement for Africa's debt burden being written off.

  Mr. Nelson
  At the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Trinidad and Tobago in September 1990, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Chancellor, proposed a reduction in the stock of eligible debt of two thirds. In December 1991, the Paris Club of creditor countries agreed to allow creditors to provide the equivalent of 50 per cent. cancellation of eligible debts consolidated under each agreement. Seventeen countries have so far benefited from Trinidad terms, including 13 of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Under these agreements over $3 billion of sub-Saharan African debt has been rescheduled by the Paris Club, cancelling over $1 billion during the lifetime of the agreements. The Trinidad terms also include an undertaking by creditors to consider a reduction in the stock of eligible debt after a period of proven financial and economic responsibility of three to four years.

  The Government are, however, aware that for some of the poorest and most severely indebted countries Trinidad terms as currently applied will not be enough. For this reason we are pursuing with our creditor country colleagues improvements in the terms. Specifically, we would like to see the full Trinidad terms implemented and earlier action on reducing the total stock of debt for debtors who have a good track record.

  The Government have also cancelled nearly £200 million of old aid debts owed by sub-Saharan African countries which are successfully pursuing sound policies of reform. Altogether, we have relieved developing countries of the burden of about £1·1 billion of old aid loans. New aid to such countries is now provided only in the form of grants.
  110

  Audio-visual Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the retail price of audio-visual goods has fallen since January 1987; and what has been the market share of British industry in the supply of such goods in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The retail prices index for audio-visual equipment fell by 17·2 per cent. between January 1987 and March 1993, the latest date for which information is available. Information on the market share of British industry in the supply of such goods is not available in the form requested.

  Treasury Costs
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of running the Treasury in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  34·673

  1988–89

  38·040

  1989–90

  39·326

  1990–91

  44·969

  1991–92

  55·927

  11992–93

  55·675

  1 Forecast outturn.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of rises in exchange rates on output and employment in(a) manufacturing industry and (b) the rest of the economy since February.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are a large number of influences on economic activity at any one time, and it is impossible properly to assess the effect of exchange rate changes in isolation. But there are encouraging signs, in the figures for manufacturing output and GDP as well as in other indicators, that the economy is beginning to recover across a broad front.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Britain was free to determine its own monetary policy as a member of the exchange rate mechanism; and what proposals he has for changing the rules of the exchange rate mechanism to allow the pursuit of an independent monetary policy.

  Mr. Nelson
  Membership of the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) is a matter of choice, not obligation. It is not possible to pursue an independent monetary policy without regard to the exchange rate, inside or outside the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy objectives underlie the Government's purpose in raising nominal and real exchange rates; and if he will estimate by how much the public sector borrowing requirement increased as a result of the increase in nominal and real exchange rates since February.
  111
  Mr. Nelson
  The objective of the Government's monetary policy is to keep underlying inflation with a range of 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down to the lower part of that range by the end of the current Parliament. Short-term interest rates are set in order to meet this objective. The exchange rate is one of the indicators taken into account in assessing monetary conditions, but there is no target for the nominal or real exchange rate. A higher exchange rate reduces the sterling cost of public expenditure incurred in foreign currencies, but this is only one of a number of influences affecting the size of the PSBR.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of the effect on the balance of payments on tourism of changes in the real exchange rate measured in terms of export unit values; and if he will publish a table showing imports and exports of tourism in cash terms and as a percentage of gross overseas products for each year since 1970, together with the balance of payments in current account on a corresponding basis; to what extent the figures are likely to be affected by the fall in the real exchange rate since September 1992, as measured by changes in the nominal exchange rate and in the real exchange rate weighted by the percentage change in import and export unit values in trade on manufactures with non-EC countries; and what is his forecast for the increase in output in the United Kingdom tourist industry for 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  The most recent figures for the balance of payments including the analysis of the components of services trade, are shown in CSO's "UK Economic Accounts", tables B1 and B5. The FSBR forecast that the balance on services trade, which includes travel and tourism, would improve in volume terms in 1993, in part because of the improvement in competitiveness since last September. Forecasts for output and employment at the tourist industry level are not available.

  Outstanding Tax Liabilities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange a meeting between the collector of taxes at the Inland Revenue south-west offices and Dr. M. R. Cross of the Diving Disease Research Centre at Fort Bovisand to discuss payment, in instalments, of outstanding tax liabilities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrange such meetings. However, I understand that the collector of taxes will be contacting Dr. Cross to arrange a meeting.

  House Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much(a) house prices and (b) the cost of dwelling insurance and ground rent, as measured by the retail prices index, have risen since January 1987; and if he will provide separate figures for dwelling insurance and ground rent.

  Mr. Nelson
  House prices are not used directly in the compilation of the retail prices index. The United Kingdom all dwellings mix-adjusted house price index,112
  published by the Department of the Environment, rose by 48 per cent. between the first quarter of 1987 and the first quarter of 1993.

  Between January 1987 and March 1993, the latest date for which information is available, the dwelling insurance and ground rent section of the retail prices index increased by 97·9 per cent. Separate figures for dwelling insurance and for ground rent are not available.

  Foreign Holidays
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on United Kingdom employment and on the balance of payments since 1986 of the increase in the price of foreign holidays since 13 January 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  A price index for foreign holidays has only been compiled from January this year following the recommendation of the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee. The price of foreign holidays is but one factor among many which may affect the balance of payments and the level of employment.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what distinction he makes between United Kingdom monetary policy and membership of the exchange rate mechanism in the context of stage two of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Nelson
  Article 3(1) of the protocol to the Treaty on European Union (Cm 1934) setting out the statutes of the European Monetary Institute provides that monetary policy would remain the responsibility of national authorities in stage 2 of economic and monetary union. It would remain a matter for national authorities to decide whether they wished their currency to participate in the exchange rate mechanism.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government propose to take to stop insider trading; and if he will introduce legislation(a) requiring public companies to notify their shareholders of significant changes in their circumstances to reach them not later than the information is released to the stock exchange and (b) prohibiting meetings with representatives of such companies by investment analysts able to acquire information about a company which is not made available earlier or at exactly the same time to all the company's private shareholders.

  Mr. Nelson
  Insider dealing has been illegal since 1980. The Criminal Justice Bill which is currently before Parliament will replace the existing legislation and bring our law on insider dealing into line with the EC directive on the subject.

  Requirements already exist to ensure that information relating to significant changes in the circumstances of a company which is listed on the stock exchange is made available to the company's actual and potential shareholders: a company must make available to the public any information necessary to enable shareholders and the public to appraise the position of the company and

  113
  to avoid the establishment of a false market. By virtue of part IV of the Financial Services Act, this requirement has statutory effect.

  Such information is notified by companies to the stock exchange which has arrangements for disseminating it through news vendors and press agencies. Information may also be given directly by a company to news vendors, press agencies and others at the same time as it is given to the stock exchange.

  The Government believe that contact between a company and investment analysts and institutional investors can play a useful and valuable role in improving their understanding of its businesses and strategies. Information which should be the subject of a public announcement should not be disclosed at such meetings.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what period the new retail prices index for foreign holidays measures the increase in the price of such holidays; for what reason table 18.2 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" did not give figures for the period before February; if he will publish(a) the corresponding figures for January 1987 and August 1992 and (b) the items which are covered under this heading; how the information is obtained; and what weight is given to different kinds of such holidays.

  Mr. Nelson
  Foreign holidays were introduced into the retail prices index with effect from February 1993. Table 18–2 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" should have made it clear that the price index for foreign holidays is calculated on the base January 1993 =100. No earlier figures are available. The holidays included in the foreign holidays index, as indicators, are carefully chosen to be representative of those holiday destinations visited by United Kingdom citizens. The importance of individual holidays is determined by information from the international passenger survey, tour operators and travel agents. In 1993 the weight attached to foreign holidays in the retail prices index is 30 out of 1,000. This reflects expenditures reported by households in the continuous family expenditure survey.

  The report of the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee (Cm 2142) includes a description of the method used to construct the index for foreign holidays. Copies of the report are available in the House Library.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies are now being required to lodge security by guarantee or a cash deposit with Customs and Excise towards future VAT returns, in order to continue to supply goods and services under the Value Added Tax Act 1983.

  Sir. John Cope
  For the year ending 31 March 1993, Customs and Excise required 1,176 of the 1·6 million (0·07 per cent.) VAT registered businesses to provide security.

  VAT Division (Jobs)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the value added tax division, Customs and Excise to be completed in Liverpool; and how many jobs will be provided.
  114
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The VAT headquarters building at Queens dock, Liverpool is expected to be completed in August 1993.

  Three-hundred-and-fifty jobs have already been relocated from Southend to Liverpool and during the next 18 months some 300 further jobs will follow. The new building will also house the VAT headquarters staff currently located in Bootle.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 507, regarding the length of time taken to hear council tax banding appeals, if he will now make it his policy to set (a) a target by which time all appeals must be determined and (b) a target for the maximum length of time an individual appeal will take from submission to determination.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am anxious to ensure that appeals are dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible. What can be achieved will depend on how many proposals are received, but I intend to set firm targets as soon as the likely caseload can be estimated with reasonable certainty.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BST Products
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), of 22 January,Official Report, column 427, if he will set out the reason he was given by the Medicines Commission for its decision that BST products manufactured by the companies Lilly Industries Ltd. and Monsanto SA/NV meet the medicines licensing criteria.

  Mr. Gummer
  The additional data presented to the Medicines Commission by the companies in support of their applications for licences for BST products were judged as satisfying the concerns previously expressed by the Veterinary Products Committee, particularly in relation to the incidence of mastitis. On this basis the Commission advised that the Medicines Act licensing criteria of safety, quality and efficacy were met.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to commission a second report from an impartial working group on those issues covered by the Denner report.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to commission a second report on dietary supplements. The Denner report has been used as a basis for consultation and it allowed us to gather a wide range of views on the question of dietary supplements.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the purpose of the recent meeting between his officials and Mr. G. Latham and Mr. M. Hanssen of the Health Food
  115
  Manufacturers Association and at which the Denner report was discussed; what conclusions were reached at the meeting; what was agreed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Officials were asked to meet the President of the Health Food Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Hanssen, and the Chairman of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, Mr. Latham, to discuss a range of subjects of interest to these organisations. The meeting was essentially an exchange of information.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement setting out the procedure which he will adopt and the organisations which will be consulted in future on any proposal to restrict the availability of food supplements.

  Mr. Soames
  It is MAFF policy to consult widely on all food safety matters. Our consultations on dietary supplements have involved over 160 organisations. However, the Government must retain the right to act immediately if necessary to protect consumers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that the House is made aware of any consultation process which he undertakes on food supplements and that right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to submit their views and those of their constituents prior to any decisions being taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A public announcement was made on 27 March 1991 that the report on the working group on dietary supplements and health foods had been published and that the next step would be a wide public consultation. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House together with a copy of a statement summarising the recommendations and the Government's proposed follow up action. This included details of a review of certain herbal ingredients by the Committee on Toxicity and the Food Advisory Committee.

  On 2 March this year I announced to the House the action I had taken in respect of comfrey products—Official Report, column 79. The Government will continue to keep the House fully informed of developments in this area.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to seek to introduce a ban on substances mentioned in the Denner report in addition to comfrey; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to restrict the availability of (a) fennel, (b) blue flag, (c) juniper oil, (d) lobelia, (e) uvaursi, (f) zanthxylum, (g) pokeroot, (h) berberis/ hydrastis, (i) berberis, (j) black cohose, (k) blue cohose, (1) bloodroot, (m) fumaria, (n) helonias, (o) hydrastis, (p) juniper, (q) kelp, (r) mugwort and (s) pennyroyal, or products containing extracts or concentrations of these foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no such plans. A review of the substances referred to in the Denner report which includes all those listed by the hon. Member is continuing. No decision has yet been taken on their continued availability.
  116

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he expects to receive any report from the liquidators of BCCI concerning the meeting on 27 May.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My officials have asked the liquidators to report the outcome of the meeting summoned pursuant to the provisions of section 142 of the Insolvency Act, 1986 to be held on 27 May 1993.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to investigate the explosives propellants and related end products—EPREP—ammunition cartel; and what agreements have been made by his Department in relation to this agreement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am aware of no such ammunition cartel. The EPREP agreement expired in March this year.

  Trade Boycotts
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to assist British companies trading with Israel to ensure that United Kingdom companies are now placed on the same basis as United States companies in respect of the lifting of the secondary and tertiary boycotts by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

  Mr. Needham
  Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as members of the Gulf Co-operation Council, are obliged by the EC/GCC co-operation agreement, 1988, to give most-favoured nation treatment to EC member states. This means that any concessions on the Arab boycott granted to United States companies by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or other members of the GCC must be extended to exports form the United Kingdom and other EC member states.

  Member countries of the GCC also have a treaty obligation not to discriminate between EC member states.

  We take advantage of bilateral contacts with GCC countries to point out that we object to the boycott as an unwelcome trade barrier and to remind them of their obligations not to discriminate against or between EC member states.

  Company Directors (Disqualifications)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last five years for which records are available he has exercised his discretionary power in applying to the courts for a disqualification order against a company director.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has issued the following number of directions to proceed under sections 6 and 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  Number of directions to proceed

  Financial year

  Section 6

  Section 8

  1988–89

  416

  2

  1989–90

  462

  —

  1990–91

  499

  9

  1991–92

  700

  —

  1992–93

  564

  7

  117

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are employed in the British(a) aero engine and (b) airframe industries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest official employment figures from the "Report on the Census of Production"—available in the House of Commons Library—show employment of 174,000 in the aerospace industry in 1990. The figures do not differentiate between the aeroengine and airframe industries.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of financial backing given to the aerospace industry in each year since 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Financial support given to the aerospace industry by DTI for each year since 1979 in constant (1991–92) prices are as follows. The figures include launch aid', civil aircraft research and development, regional assistance, and other miscellaneous DTI schemes. Figures are calculated by using the GDP deflator whole economy in financial years published by HM Treasury (Autumn Statement).

  DTI support for Aerospace sector Constant prices for price levels in 1991–92 Real terms

  Financial year

  £ million

  1979–80

  278·2

  1980–81

  153·4

  1981–82

  256·6

  1982–83

  141·7

  1983–84

  174·7

  1984–85

  163–9

  1985–86

  176·6

  1986–87

  184·3

  1987–88

  71·3

  1988–89

  130·1

  1989–90

  143·6

  1990–91

  136·0

  1991–92

  37·1

  1992–93

  1—6·9

  1 Launch Aid is repayable by levy payments on aircraft sales. Net Launch Aid figures for each year have been used (i.e. payments to companies minus levy receipts). For 1992–93 levy receipts exceeded payments.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the amount of money earned by aerospace exports in each year since 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Aerospace exports—civil and military —in each year since 1979 in constant, 1985, prices are:

  Real exports

  Year

  £ billion

  1979

  4·0

  1980

  4·6

  1981

  3·2

  1982

  3·3

  1983

  3·3

  1984

  3·4

  1985

  3·8

  118

  Year

  £ billion

  1986

  4·6

  1987

  4·7

  1988

  5·2

  1989

  7·1

  1990

  6·4

  1991

  6·3

  1992

  5·5

  Figures are derived by calculating an implied retail price index from:

  Business Monitor MQ10 for 1992

  Business Monitor PAS 3640 for 1984–1991

  Business Monitor PQ 3640 for 1981–1983

  Business Monitor PQ 383 for 1979–1980

  Overseas Trade Fairs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing expenditure by his Department on supporting participation by United Kingdom apparel and textile companies in overseas trade fairs in each of the last three years; and what comparable information is available on expenditure by the Governments of Germany, France and Italy.

  Mr. Needham
  The requested information is as follows:

  Year

  Net expenditure £

  Percentage of total support

  1990·91

  1,145,676

  9·7

  1991–92

  1,336,051

  10·7

  1992·93

  1,595,332

  12·2

  No comparable information is available on expenditure incurred by the the Governments of Germany, France and Italy on supporting participation by apparel and textile companies at overseas trade fairs.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to complete his review of the three-times rule for export promotion; and what representations he has received from industry calling for(a) its retention and (b) its ending.

  Mr. Needham
  The three times rule, which limits the number of times a company may receive financial support under the trade fairs support scheme, will be taken into account in a planned evaluation which is expected to be completed during this financial year. Representations from industry have focused mainly on the modification, rather than retention of this rule.

  German Packaging Ordinance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what effect he raised the issue of the German packaging ordinance with his colleagues at the Industry Council on 4 May.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 13 May,Official Report, columns 533–34.
  119

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 1992,Official Report, columns 675–78, on regional financial assistance, if he will update the table, to include spending on regional financial assistance at current and 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Updated information on regional financial assistance from 1990–91 to 1992–93 at current prices and at 1978–79 prices is set out in the following tables. Information for the period 1978–79 to 1988–89 remains unchanged. The expenditure is gross of recoveries.

  Table 1

  Government Expenditure on Regional Financial Assistance to Industry at Current Prices1

  £ million

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern5

  85·0

  63·8

  48·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29·4

  18·2

  13·7

  East Midlands

  5·5

  2·6

  1·2

  South West

  9·0

  8·3

  8·2

  West Midlands23

  18·0

  8·7

  10·8

  North West

  57·5

  49·5

  36·8

  England

  204·4

  151·1

  119·0

  Wales6

  133·7

  153·9

  140·9

  Scotland6

  159·1

  128·9

  103·4

  Great Britain6

  497·2

  433·9

  363·3

  Northern Ireland6

  134·3

  140·4

  108·5

  United Kingdom6

  631·5

  574·3

  471·8

  Table 2

  Government Expenditure on Industry at Regional Financial Assistance to 1978·79 prices14

  £ million

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern5

  33·6

  23·7

  17·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11·6

  6·7

  4·9

  East Midlands

  2·2

  1·0

  0·4

  South West

  3·6

  3·0

  2·9

  West Midlands23

  7·1

  3·2

  3·9

  North West

  22·7

  18·4

  13·2

  England

  80·8

  56·0

  42·6

  Wales

  52·9

  57·1

  50·5

  Scotland

  62·9

  47·8

  37·0

  Great Britain

  196·6

  160·9

  130·1

  Northern Ireland

  53·1

  52·1

  38·8

  United Kingdom

  249·7

  213·0

  168·9

  1 All figures are gross and include payments to Nationalised Industries.

  2 Includes some minor expenditure in West Midlands in respect of Oswestry TTWA which ceased to be an Assisted Area in 1982·83.

  3 Certain TTWAs in the West Midlands were designated as Assisted Areas on 29 November 1984.

  4 Expenditure on a 1978–79 price basis for each year is calculated by applying the appropriate deflator to expenditure at current prices.

  5 Includes expenditure in Cumbria, otherwise shown within the totals for Northern Region.

  6 The figures given are provisional for 1992·93.

  The items included in the expenditure are Regional Development Grants, Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants; expenditure on Land and Factories by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, the Development Board for Rural Wales, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  Northern Ireland has a different range of financial incentives available and the items included are Industrial Development Board
  120
  grants and loans, expenditure on land and factories, Share Capital Standard Capital Grants and Local Enterprise Development Unit grants and loans.

  Table 3

  Index

  1978–79 prices

  1978–79

  100·0

  1979–80

  116·7

  1980–81

  138·1

  1981–82

  151·4

  1982–83

  162·2

  1983–84

  169·7

  1984–85

  178·2

  1985–86

  188·0

  1986–87

  194·2

  1987–88

  204–8

  1988–89

  219·6

  1989–90

  234·0

  1990–91

  252·8

  1991–92

  269·7

  1992–93

  279·1

  River Safety
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to publish an account of progress in the implementation of recommendations made after major disasters as recommended in the Hayes report on river safety.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 11 May 1993]: My Department has not been involved in the preparation of any Government response to the Hayes report.

  Group 4
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade where the head offices of Group 4 Remand Services Ltd., Group 4 Remand Services Holdings Ltd. and Group 4 Securitas NV are registered.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The registered office address for both Group 4 Remand Services Limited and Group 4 Remand Services Holdings Limited is:

  Farncombe House

  Broadway

  Worcestershire

  WR12 7LJ

  Group 4 Securitas NV is a foreign company and is not registered with Companies House.

  Ice-cream
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the terms of reference, purpose and timetable for reporting on the current Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into alleged monopolistic practices in the ice-cream industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: On 7 May the Director General of Fair Trading referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the supply in the United Kingdom of ice cream for immediate consumption. The Commission has been asked to report to the President of the Board of Trade, within 10 months, on whether a monopoly situation exists and whether practices in the market operate against the public interest.
  121
  A copy of the Director General's press release on the reference, which includes a copy of the terms of reference, is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Trade (Croatia)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of import and export trade between the United Kingdom and Croatia in the year beginning 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1993.]: Detailed information on United Kingdom trade with Croatia since January 1993 is published in "Business Monitor MM20, overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom" which is available in the Library. Information is not available for earlier periods because Croatia was not separately identified from the rest of former Yugoslavia.

  Investment (Advertisements)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will place in the Library the statistics used in the advertisement placed by Her Majesty's consulate general in Düsseldorf in the German business newspaper Handelsblatt promoting investment in Britain;

  (2) if he will outline the principles governing the promotion of investment in Britain, through advertising in foreign newspapers;

  (3) what was the cost of the advertisement recently placed in the German business newspaper Handelsblatt entitled "Niedrigere Lohnkosten in Grossbritannien";

  (4) what discussions took place with the European Commission on the advertisements relating to inward investment placed in the German newspaper by Her Majesty's consulate general in Düsseldorf;

  (5) if he will make a statement on the campaign by the Invest in Britain Bureau on inward investment including the annual costs of press and television advertising in Europe, America and Japan and the sources of information used; and which Government Department is responsible for the placing of advertising material.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau (IBB) is the principal Government organisation charged with the responsibility for attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom.

  As part of a much wider promotional and marketing effort designed to maintain our position as the preferred location in Europe for internationally mobile investment projects, the bureau has undertaken regular advertising campaigns in North America and more recently in Europe.

  During the 1992–93 financial year the IBB spent a total of £860,000 on press advertising in North America and Europe. No advertising was commissioned in Japan. No television advertising has been placed.

  The cost of each of the IBB advertisements placed in Handelsblatt was around £4,600. Copies of the survey prepared by the Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft in Cologne, from which the statistics used in the Handelsblatt advertisement were taken, have been placed in the Library.

  There have been no discussions with the European Commission about the advertising campaign.
  122

PRIME MINISTER

  Chevening House
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list and describe the items belonging to Chevening house which were auctioned on 10 May with their reserve price and the amounts which were received for each item at the auction.

  The Prime Minister
  The disposal of items of property from Chevening house is a matter for the trustees and not the Government.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is the ex-officio chairman of the Chevening trustees and will arrange for him to write to the hon. Member.

  Security Services
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to make the security services the subject of an annual debate in Parliament on the basis of an annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate such matters when legislation on the secret intelligence service and the Government communications headquarters is brought forward.

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the place, time and date when he met Salman Rushdie and (b) the length of the meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I met Mr. Rushdie at the House of Commons on 11 May for about 40 minutes. Mr. Rushdie briefed me about the problems he faced and his approach to them. I underlined the Government's full support for Mr. Rushdie's fundamental rights as a British citizen and expressed concern that the Iranian authorities had failed to repudiate the incitement to his murder in the "fatwa" and the bounty which an Iranian organisation had offered. Mr. Rushdie expressed appreciation of the Government's support for him. The United Kingdom has a deep respect for Islam. I believe that Iran's behaviour towards Mr. Rushdie has done a disservice to that great religion.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

  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.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television (Employment)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the employment in television in each of the past 10 years in(a) the BBC, (b) regional commercial broadcasters, (c) independent production companies and facilities and (d) in total.
  123
  Mr. Brooke
  The number of staff employed by the BBC in each of the past 10 years is recorded in the BBC's annual reports, which are available in the Library. Information on(b), (c) and (d) is not held centrally; but I understand some 13,800 were employed by the ITV companies in 1982 and 11,100 in 1992.

  Television Companies (Commitments)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a summary of the commitments made by successful television company bidders, including regional programming and programme origination.

  Mr. Brooke
  Each Channel 3 licence contains a summary of the commitments made. Copies are available from the Independent Television Commission.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how the Independent Television Commission may vary or accept variations in commitments by or requirements of regional television companies; and how often he receives reports from the ITC.

  Mr. Brooke
  Section 33 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 makes provision for the Independent Television Commission to vary licence conditions. The procedures were described in the invitation to apply for the relevant licences and are in the issued licence. The ITC's annual reports must include reports on the extent to which ITV licensees have failed to comply with their licence conditions. The ITC also publishes a programme complaints and interventions report quarterly, and a television advertising complaints report monthly.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will allow residential homes for the elderly to make a single application for a reduced rate television licence covering all residents.

  Mr. Brooke
  Responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system, including the concessionary licence scheme, rests with the BBC. The existing application form for concessionary licences already provides for the managers of residential homes to make a single application covering all the residents. Each unit of accommodation in eligible homes requires a concessionary licence. We have no plans to amend the regulations on this, or any other, aspect of the concessionary scheme.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each month(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Only one parliamentary question has not received a substantive answer on the ground of disproportionate cost since this Department was set up in April 1992.
  124

  Radio (Asian Language)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many licences have been granted by the Radio Authority for stations broadcasting in an Asian language.

  Mr. Brooke
  Independent local radio provides eight 24-hour services for ethnic minorities. The extent to which they broadcast in an Asian language varies according to their promises of performance.

  Radio Licences
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many applications for licences have(a) been granted by the Radio Authority, (b) been rejected by the Radio Authority and (c) what is the cost of licence application.

  Mr. Brooke
  The number of licences granted in any year by the Radio Authority are published in the annual report. On two occasions, the Radio Authority has decided not to award a local radio licence which it had advertised. The cost of a licence application fee varies according to the type of licence and the extent of the population coverage.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many licences the Radio Authority has granted; and what is the current licence fee.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Radio Authority's annual report for 1992 will be published soon and will give figures for the licences it issued during that year. By 11 January 1993, I understand that the Radio Authority had, since it was established, awarded two licences for national services, 25 local licences, 419 restricted service licences, eight licences for licensable sound programme services and 11 satellite licences. The authority also licensed 126 local radio services, which had earlier operated under contract to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Licence fees are charged according to a tariff, published by the authority, which relates to the number of potential listeners for each service.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the Radio Authority is going to make a decision about the west midlands franchise.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Radio Authority advertised the licence for the regional ILR service for the west midlands on 18 March. The closing date for applications is 6 July. The Radio Authority expects to announce who has been granted the licence by October 1993.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many franchises have been awarded by the Radio Authority.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Radio Authority does not award franchises. The annual report of the Radio Authority gives figures for the number of licences issued each year.

  Palaces (Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who is responsible for compliance with(a) fire regulations and (b) health and safety regulations in each of the historic palaces.
  125
  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for compliance with fire safety legislation and health and safety legislation in the royal palaces for which I have a financial responsibility rests with the following bodies:

  Royal Household

  Buckingham Palace

  Windsor Castle

  St. James's Palace

  Clarence House

  Kensington Palace (private apartments)

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency (an Executive Agency responsible to the Secretary of State for National Heritage)

  Hampton Court Palace

  Tower of London

  Kensington Palace (State Apartments)

  Banqueting House, Whitehall

  Kew Palace and

  Queen Charlotte's Cottage.

  In the Tower of London, the Royal Armouries and the Ministry of Defence have some responsibilities in the areas which they occupy.

  Everyman Theatre, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the future of the Everyman theatre, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received two letters about the Everyman theatre, one from the chief executive of Liverpool city council and the other from the hon. Member. I am therefore aware of the financial difficulties confronting the theatre. However, central Government funding of the arts is undertaken, at arm's length, through 126
  the Arts Council. I understand that the council and the local authorities on Merseyside are currently engaged in constructive discussions about future funding arrangements for the Everyman and Playhouse theatres. I hope there will be a positive outcome.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage by what percentage(a) rail fares, bus and coach fares, (b) non-food prices generally and (c) foreign holidays have changed since 13 January 1987; and what assessment he has made of the effect of relative price changes on employment and output in the United Kingdom tourist industry.

  Mr. Key
  The information on retail prices is published in the RPI "Business Monitor", in table 2, which is available in the Library. The Department has made no formal assessment of the effects of changes in public transport fares on tourism within the United Kingdom, but according to the United Kingdom tourism survey, the proportion of domestic tourism trips on one night or more that used train, bus or coach as their main mode of transport has been the same in each of the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, at 19 per cent. Between December 1986 and December 1992, the number of employees in employment in tourism-related industries rose by 19 per cent. The foreign holiday component of the retail prices index has only been in existence since January this year and so it is too early to assess any relationship between the price of foreign holidays and tourism employment and expenditure in the United Kingdom.
  127

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what considerations she is taking into account in his review of statutory instruments on health and safety at work; if she will consolidate them into a smaller number of comprehensive documents, each covering a range of activities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Commission has been invited to conduct a review of all existing health and safety legislation in order to: assess whether the law is still relevant and needed; assess the compliance and enforcement burdens on business of legislation which is still relevant and needed; to determine whether the potential benefits still justify these burdens; and whether repeal or simplification is possible without endangering acceptable health and safety standards. The Commission has been asked to take particular account of the needs of small firms.

  The review is being taken forward in consultation with interested parties.

  The Commission is aiming to substantially complete the review by April 1994, at which time my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, will receive a report on their findings and recommendations for the further rationalisation and modernisation of health and safety legislation.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women, distinguishing between full-time and part-time employees and excluding all in training, were in employment in(a) June 1979 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available, in each travel-to-work area that covers an enterprise zone; and what were the figures for those unemployed in each case.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Travel-to-work areas which wholly or partly cover enterprise zones are listed. Information on full-time and part-time employees and claimant unemployment for these areas can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Data on employment by ward-based travel-to-work area is available since September 1981 from the periodic censuses of employment. Monthly ward-based claimant count information is available on the unadjusted basis from June 1983 onwards.

  Travel-to-work areas in the United Kingdom wholly or partly covering enterprise zones:

  Medway and Maidstone

  Dudley and Sandwell

  Telford and Bridgenorth

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  Accrington and Rossendale

  Burnley

  Pendle

  Workington

  Hartlepool

  Sunderland

  Haverfordwest

  Shotton Flint and Rhyl

  South Pembrokeshire

  Swansea

  Dundee

  Greenock

  128

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  Lanarkshire

  Londonderry

  Benefit
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployment benefit(a) payments and (b) applications were made in each month since April 1990 in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) England.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the numbers of people in receipt of each type of benefit are available only on a quarterly basis and relate to the stock of claimants at a point in time and not the number of new claimants each month. This shows that about one in four of all unemployed claimants in each of England, Scotland and Wales is in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  Information on the flows into claimant unemployment in each month by area is available from the NOMIS database in the Library. This information relates to the total numbers of people claiming unemployment-related benefits and national insurance credits at the employment service. Figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently on YT schemes; and how many are awaiting places on YT schemes for each training and enterprise council area in England.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of young people who are currently on youth training (YT), and the number who are guaranteed a place and have been waiting for eight weeks or longer, for each training and enterprise council area in England, are provided in the following table.

  In April there were 5,300 young people who had been waiting for a YT place for more than eight weeks compared with 32,500 last September. This is a commendable achievement which I hope will continue.

  Young people on YT or wailing for a place on YT: 1993

  TEC

  Number in training January 19931

  Waiting for more than 8 weeks April 19932

  Avon

  4,525

  117

  AZTEC

  1,314

  95

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  3,988

  35

  Bedfordshire

  2,301

  5164

  Birmingham

  35,188

  131

  Bolton and Bury

  2,624

  19

  Bradford

  3,199

  18

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  3,306

  15

  CAMBSTEC

  1,158

  54

  Central England

  1,495

  19

  Central London

  1,628

  5152

  CEWTEC

  3,419

  12

  CILNTEC

  2,322

  109

  County Durham

  4,188

  71

  Coventry and Warwicks

  4,283

  586

  Cumbria

  3,755

  6

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,945

  571

  Dorset

  2,658

  15

  Dudley

  1,863

  1

  ELTEC

  4,214

  29

  Essex

  6,572

  329

  Gloucester

  3,023

  11

  Greater Nottingham

  3,670

  35

  Greater Peterborough

  1,611

  17

  129

  TEC

  Number in training January 19931

  Waiting for more than 8 weeks April 19932

  Hampshire

  6,085

  5304

  HAWTEC

  2,076

  530

  Heart of England

  2,139

  24

  Hertfordshire

  3,479

  164

  Humberside

  6,245

  36

  Isle of Wight

  576

  28

  Kent

  5,695

  183

  LAWTEC

  5,643

  28

  Leeds

  2,799

  26

  Leicestershire

  5,020

  531

  LETEC

  4,534

  380

  Lincolnshire

  3,789

  39

  Manchester

  6,504

  593

  Merseyside

  7,848

  47

  METROTEC

  2,184

  6

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  1,515

  542

  Norfolk/Waveney

  3,963

  31

  NORMIDTEC

  33,289

  9

  North Derbyshire

  1,825

  39

  North London

  1,657

  579

  North Nottinghamshire

  3,043

  55

  North West London

  879

  107

  North Yorkshire

  2,843

  559

  Northamptonshire

  2,478

  539

  Northumberland

  2,094

  58

  Oldham

  1,840

  48

  QUALITEC

  1,621

  16

  Rochdale

  1,729

  15

  Rotherham

  1,811

  9

  Sandwell

  1,951

  20

  South and East Cheshire

  2,640

  0

  Sheffield

  3,494

  147

  Shropshire

  2,491

  24

  SOLOTEC

  2,656

  194

  Somerset

  2,374

  5114

  South Derbyshire

  3,172

  529

  South Thames

  2,744

  451

  Staffordshire

  7,934

  6

  Stockport and High Peak

  2,534

  19

  Suffolk

  2,837

  13

  Surrey

  1,934

  599

  Sussex

  4,425

  86

  Teesside

  5,716

  56

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  3,327

  5198

  Tyneside

  43,289

  559

  Wakefield

  1,872

  18

  Walsall

  1,350

  12

  Wearside

  2,689

  0

  West London

  2,415

  48

  Wiltshire

  2,385

  568

  Wolverhampton

  1,858

  6

  Sources:

  1 Information from TEC Management Information return 31 January 1993 (Provisional).

  2 Information from Careers Service Management return January (Supplement) 17 April 1993.

  3 Information from TEC Management Information return 3 January1993.

  4 Information from TEC Management Information return 6 December 1992.

  5 These figures are subject to final confirmation.

  Health and Safety Regulations
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the cost to British industry of health and safety regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No estimate of the cost to British industry of health and safety regulations as a whole exists at present.
  130

  Health and Safety Executive (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions were brought by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last five years; and what percentage of(a) cases and (b) contested cases resulted in prosecutions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table gives the information requested for the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) factory, agricultural and quarry inspectorates. Figures for 1992–93 will be available later this year. Information for the other HSE inspectorates is not readily available. Prosecutions have been interpreted as informations laid.

  Number of informations laid by HSE's Factory, Agricultural and Quarry Inspectors and the percentage of informations that resulted in conviction 1987–9223

  Year

  Number of informations laid

  Percentage of informations resulting in conviction

  Percentage of not-guilty pleas resulting in conviction

  1987–88

  2,321

  88

  41

  1988–89

  2,298

  90

  61

  1989–90

  2,547

  88

  49

  1990–91

  2,278

  86

  47

  11991–92

  2,388

  88

  47

  Notes:

  1 = provisional.

  2 Years are from 1 April to 31 March.

  3 Quarries Inspectorates are only included from 1990–91.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by her Department wholly or partly on the grounds of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The figures for parliamentary questions not answered wholly on the grounds of disproportionate cost, in each of the last 18 months, are given in the following table:

  Month

  Number

  1991

  November

  0

  December

  1

  1992

  January

  0

  February

  0

  March

  1

  April

  0

  May

  1

  June

  0

  July

  3

  August

  0

  September

  0

  October

  0

  November

  8

  December

  8

  1993

  January

  0

  February

  1

  March

  3

  April

  1

  Total

  27

  131
  This represents less than 1 per cent. of all parliamentary questions asked in the same period.

  The figure for parliamentary questions where a substantive answer was not provided partly on the grounds of disproportionate cost is not recorded.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the monthly United Kingdom unemployment figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 for(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment in the construction industry in(a) the Riverside constituency,(b) the Liverpool travel-to-work area and (c) Merseyside at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Available estimates from the autumn 1992 labour force survey show that in Merseyside there were 11,000 people unemployed on the ILO definition whose last previous employment had been in the construction industry.

  Information for the other areas is not available from the labour force survey.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to reduce unemployment on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The overall policy of the Department, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, is to promote a free and flexible labour market that is designed to help encourage employment in Merseyside as in all areas. In addition the Department provides a range of employment and training programmes and local initiatives, through the employment service and training and enterprise councils, to help people increase their skills, and equip themselves for work. From April 1993 this range of measures was enhanced by an extra half million opportunities.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: In March 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 7,427 claimant unemployed people in the Liverpool Riverside constituency. This figure is on the unadjusted basis.

  Unemployed Graduates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work training schemes specifically for unemployed graduates are currently in operation; how many graduates are currently participating in such schemes; and if she will make a statement.
  132
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993.]: None of the Department's training schemes for unemployed people is aimed specifically at graduates. Training and enterprise councils may support individual programmes designed to cater for unemployed graduates but information on such programmes is not held centrally.

  Co-operatives
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment her Department has made of the employment potential of co-operatives.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The Department has made no such assessment.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of young people currently on youth training schemes and the numbers awaiting places on youth training schemes in each TEC area in England and Wales and LEC area in Scotland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 April 1993.]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I am giving to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden today.

  The information for Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Youth Unemployment
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the youth unemployment rates in actual numbers and percentages for each United Kingdom standard planning region and for each of the past five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Information on the level of claimant unemployment by age in each region is available from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Information on claimant unemployment by age, expressed as a percentage of the work force in a particular age band, are available on a quarterly basis but only at national level, and only for standard age bands. These data are published in the Employment Gazette—table 2.15.

  Labour force survey data on regional unemployment rates by age and sex, using the ILO measure of unemployment, are published regularly in table 7.15 of "Regional Trends".

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will supply figures for the youth unemployment rates, by actual numbers and by percentages, in each EC country for the five most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The extent of the readily available, comparable information is given in the following tables:
  133

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Unemployment levels amongst 14·24 year olds in EC countries (ILO Definition)

  Belgium

  130

  99

  79

  71

  68

  Denmark

  52

  51

  66

  64

  63

  Germany

  411

  365

  280

  232

  173

  Greece

  125

  135

  135

  128

  134

  Spain

  1,411

  1,334

  1,047

  956

  895

  France

  888

  784

  670

  672

  615

  Ireland

  85

  80

  66

  59

  70

  Italy

  1,388

  1,419

  1,305

  1,151

  1,180

  Luxembourg

  2

  11

  11

  11

  11

  Netherlands

  248

  196

  181

  156

  154

  Portugal

  180

  146

  116

  103

  82

  United Kingdom

  1,026

  828

  642

  618

  712

  Unemployment rates amongst 14–24 year olds in EC countries (ILO definition)

  Belgium

  25·4

  11·1

  11·5

  11·5

  11·0

  Denmark

  8·9

  8·5

  11·5

  11·5

  11·5

  Germany

  7·5

  6·8

  5·5

  4·6

  3·7

  Greece

  24·8

  25·8

  24·8

  23·2

  24·6

  Spain

  43·5

  41·1

  32·3

  31·8

  30·5

  France

  23·4

  22·1

  19·6

  19·6

  19·6

  Ireland

  26·0

  25·3

  21·9

  19·5

  23·2

  Italy

  33·9

  33·4

  31·9

  29·0

  28·2

  Luxembourg

  5·4

  14·7

  13·3

  13·6

  12·6

  Netherlands

  17·1

  14·4

  13·4

  11·4

  11·3

  Portugal

  17·4

  14·4

  11·7

  10·4

  8·7

  United Kingdom

  16·2

  13·2

  10·3

  10·4

  13·9

  1 Estimate.

  Source: EUROSTAT Labour Force Survey 1983–1991.

  Note: These statistics are compiled from each country's Labour Force Survey and relate to "14–24 year olds" at the time of the survey. The ILO definition of unemployment used in the Labour Force Survey relates to people who are; (a) without a paid job; (b) available to start work in the next fortnight; and (c) have looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Consultation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consultation process he will apply during the six-week period following receipt of recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On submission of its report the commission notifies interested parties, by way of public notice and by letter to all those who participated in the review, that there is a further six-week period during which written representations may be made to my right hon. Friend.

  Children (Speech Disorders)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by Mr. Michael Gibson of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools on educational provision for children with speech and language disorders in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The inspection of the educational provision for children with speech and language disorders in Scotland by HM inspectorate of schools is still in progress. Once it is complete and a report published I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.
  134

WALES

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate has been made of the percentage contribution small businesses in Wales have made to the Welsh gross domestic product in each year since 1983.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No such estimate has been made. But figures published in the "Business Monitor—Size analysis of United Kingdom Businesses" (PA 1003) since 1989 show that businesses with a turnover below £250,000 have consistently accounted for over 80 per cent. of the number of businesses in Wales.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on dental service provision in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has received 68 representations since 1 April 1992 about dental services in Gwynedd. The Government are committed to a full NHS dental service and the Secretary of State has given approval for the Gwynedd family health services authority to employ four salaried dentists to help meet NHS service needs within its area.

  Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his response to the request from staff side officers of the joint staff consultative council for the Welsh health service for a meeting to discuss industrial relations; and what were the reasons for giving that response.
  135
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave on the 11 May at column 440 to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a Green Paper on strategic planning in Wales as part of the reform of local government.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Local Government White Paper
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received on the resolution passed at the European Assembly of the Regions bureau meeting in Hungary on 30 April regarding his White Paper, "Local Government in Wales", Cm 2155.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have just seen a copy of the press release issued by the Assembly of Welsh Counties following the meeting in Budapest.

  Agri-environmental Agency
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish an agri-environmental agency in Wales to oversee the work undertaken by each agri-environmental scheme operational in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what matters in regard to protection and enhancement of the environment in Wales have been taken into account in the preparation of his Tourism 2000 strategy report.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In preparing the "Tourism 2000 Strategy" the Wales tourist board issued a series of consultative papers and held several seminars on key themes and principles to be covered by the strategy. Tourism and the environment was one such theme.

  As the hon. Gentleman may be aware my right hon. Friend is to launch the WTB's consultative strategy on the 26 May, which will give all those within the industry a further opportunity to comment on all aspects of the strategy. The final strategy will issue in the autumn.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were confirmed in(a) Pembrokeshire and (b) Wales in each quarter since 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for BSE are recorded on a county basis, and thus separate figures for Pembrokeshire are not produced. The numbers of confirmed cases of BSE reported in Dyfed and Wales by quarter year periods since 1989 are as follows:

  Year

  Quarter

  Dyfed

  Wales

  1990

  1

  154

  264

  1990

  2

  130

  233

  1990

  3

  128

  236

  136

  Year

  Quarter

  Dyfed

  Wales

  1990

  4

  171

  350

  1991

  1

  240

  436

  1991

  2

  261

  462

  1991

  3

  345

  576

  1991

  4

  411

  761

  1992

  1

  554

  1,000

  1992

  2

  443

  768

  1992

  3

  345

  892

  1992

  4

  518

  1,013

  1993

  1

  487

  906

  The figures for the first quarter of 1993 are necessarily incomplete as the basis of the statistics is confirmed cases by report in the appropriate period.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants receive income support in the London borough of Tower Hamlets; and what is the total number of people dependent upon income support within the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief ececutive 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 Michael Bichard to Mr. Peter Shore, dated 17 May 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benfits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking how many claimants receive Income Support in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, and what is the total number of people dependent upon Income Support within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.The complete range of information requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics relating to Income Support are not routinely collected to reflect either the number of recipients or their dependents by Borough area. Nor are statistics routinely collected reflecting the number of dependents of Income Support recipients.However, I have appended information showing the number of recipients in the Benefits Agency districts which cover the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I should emphasise that the boundaries of the offices concerned do not correspond with those of the Borough of Tower Hamlets.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  District office

  Income Support Live Load

  City East

  32,469

  Hackney and Islington

  59,782

  Total

  92,251

  137

  Benefits (Bank Accounts)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to require pensioners to have their pensions paid via bank accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 12 November 1992, our policy is to encourage pensioners and others who have a bank, building society or girobank account to receive their social security benefits directly into their accounts.

  Recipients of the following benefits already have the choice of receiving their benefit by automated credit transfer (ACT):

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Working Allowance

  Attendance Allowance

  Pensions/Widows Benefit

  Child Benefit

  One Parent Benefit

  Family Credit

  War Pensions

  In addition, the facility to pay benefit by ACT is being extended to invalidity benefit, sickness benefit and severe disablement allowance on a rolling implementation between May 1993 and January 1994; to unemployment benefit between May 1993 and October 1994; and to income support in October 1993.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to continue to allow pensions and benefits to be paid otherwise than directly into a bank or building society account; what representations he has received from those wishing to retain the payment of pensions and benefits through local post offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no intention of ceasing to use the network of post offices for payment of benefit and pensions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a variety of representations about the steps taken to increase awareness of the advantages of automated credit transfer, including a number of letters from members of the public.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will review the position of the self-employed within the social security system;

  (2) if he will bring forward legislation to extend entitlement to (a) the state earnings-related pension scheme and (b) industrial injuries scheme benefits to the self-employed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to review the position of the self-employed within the social security system, or to amend the existing provisions of the state earnings-related pension scheme in relation to self-employed people. We shall be responding shortly to a report which the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council submitted to us in November last year on bringing the self-employed in construction and agriculture into the industrial injuries scheme.
  138

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial assistance is available from his Department to parents who fall(a) within and (b) without income support entitlement to allow them to visit sick children in hospitals distant from their place of residence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The social fund can help people with reasonable travel expenses to visit someone who is ill. Payments are discretionary, but grants and budgeting loans for this purpose are often given high priority. As with previous schemes, help is focused on those least able to meet these costs.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates would be brought into the independent living (1993) fund if the £500 upper cash limit were removed; and how much this would cost in real cash terms.

  Mr. Scott
  It would not be possible to provide such estimates.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Between 11 November 1987 and 31 March 1993 the Department has responded to 15,094 requests from data subjects for access to its computer files. In this same period, 44 complaints concerning suspected breaches of data protection principles have been received from data subjects via the Office of Data Protection Registrar. The principles involved and the dates on which the complaints were made are in the table.

  Complaint type

  Number received

  Dates received

  Principle 1

  4

  21 June 1990

  30 September 1991

  8 June 1992

  21 July 1992

  Principle 3

  4

  7 March 1988

  11 July 1988

  13 February 1989

  19 March 1991

  Principle 4

  1

  12 April 1992

  Principle 5

  13

  11 November 1988

  31 July 1989

  1 March 1990

  5 March 1990

  24 July 1990

  18 March 1991

  14 May 1991

  20 July 1991

  22 July 1991

  29 July 1992

  30 September 1992

  27 October 1992

  3 March 1993

  139

  Complaint type

  Number received

  Dates received

  Principle 7

  17

  3 February 1988

  7 March 1988

  3 June 1988

  15 June 1988

  22 August 1988

  26 October 1988

  26 April 1990

  24 October 1990

  20 December 1990

  18 December 1991

  13 May 1992

  9 June 1992

  6 July 1992

  8 December 1992

  25 January 1993

  9 March 1993

  19 March 1993

  Principle 8

  5

  26 September 1990

  26 November 1991

  3 December 1991

  7 July 1992

  14 January 1993

  In all cases the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Data Protection Registrar and no changes to any of our computer systems have been made necessary in order to comply with the Data Protection Act.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from the independent nursing and residential homes about the effects of rules which reduce pensions for pensioners who are hospitalised for longer than 42 days.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

  Pension Schemes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the pension schemes approved by his Department which provide for the open enrolment of employees throughout a particular industry or service, irrespective of employer.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following pension schemes, approved by the Occupational Pensions Board for the purposes of contracting out, are regarded as industry-wide schemes.

  The Joint Industry Board Pension Scheme

  Footwear Industry Pension Scheme

  Engineering Industry Pension Scheme

  Batjic Contracted-Out Money Purchase Scheme

  Scotselect Pension Plan

  Printing Industry Pension Scheme Option 88

  Printing Industry Pension Scheme Option Two

  Design Business Association Pension Scheme

  IPA Portable Pension Plan

  The Naid Members Retirement Benefit Scheme

  National Association of Master Bakers Scheme

  H & V Pensions

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of housing benefit paid(a) to council house tenants, (b) to housing association tenants, (c) to private rented tenants and (d) in total in (i)
  140
  the Runcorn area of the Warrington, South constituency and (ii) the whole of the constituency in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on expenditure on housing benefit is collected on a local authority basis. Information is available neither for the Runcorn area of the Warrington, South constituency nor for the Warrington, South constituency as a whole.

  The available information for the borough councils of Warrington and Halton, which form part of the Warrington, South constituency, is in the table.

  Housing benefit expenditure (£ thousands)1

  Year

  Rent rebate2

  Rent allowance3

  Rate rebate4

  Total

  Local Authority

  Halton

  1986–87

  4,040

  1,043

  4,640

  9,723

  1987–88

  4,401

  1,137

  5,115

  10,653

  1988–89

  4,541

  1,232

  4,167

  9,940

  1989–90

  4,563

  3,168

  4,155

  11,886

  1990–91

  5,037

  6,920

  —

  11,957

  1991–92

  6,254

  8,285

  —

  14,539

  Warrington

  1986–87

  5,362

  1,184

  4,472

  11,018

  1987–88

  5,508

  1,264

  4,894

  11,666

  1988–89

  5,670

  1,329

  4,199

  11,198

  1989–90

  5,749

  1,597

  4,382

  11,728

  1990–91

  6,334

  2,104

  —

  8,438

  1991–92

  6,720

  2,960

  —

  9,680

  1 The expenditure figures are from information supplied by local authorities and represent the authorities' claims for benefit paid and not subsidy received.

  2 Rent rebates are awarded to tenants in the council sector.

  3 Rent allowances are paid to tenants in the private sector and include those paid to tenants of Housing Associations: separate information in respect of Housing Associations is not available.

  4 From 1986–87 to 1989–90 inclusive, Housing Benefit included rate rebates. As rate rebates were paid to qualifying council and private tenants, in addition to owner occupiers, total rate rebate expenditure has been included in the table. It is not possible to separate out that part of the rate rebate expenditure which was received by tenants.

  Income Support
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support applications in each month in 1990–91 and 1991–92, were not granted on the grounds that a partner/wife was employed for 16 or more hours per week in(a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) Scotland, (c) England, (d) Wales and (e) Northern Ireland; and if he will also publish comparable figures for 1986–87 with a cut-off point of 24 hours per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Matters relating to Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  15. Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for "Options for Change" of the situation in Bosnia.
  141
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's plans for force restructuring recognise that new peacetime commitments, including United Nations operations, could arise. We keep force structures under review and, while we will make adjustments if necessary, we have no current plans to do so.

  24. Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of United Kingdom forces in Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of British forces deployed to the former Yugoslavia in support of the United Nations operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina is to assist the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees with the passage of humanitarian aid and refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross with the exchange of detainees. Other tasks, such as the evacuation of the sick and wounded, in the spirit of United Nations Security Council resolutions 770 and 776 are also carried out as requested and as circumstances permit. So far 536 convoys escorted by British troops have delivered 36,265 tonnes of humanitarian aid. In addition 7,137 tonnes of aid have been flown into Sarajevo by the RAF.

  21. Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution Britain is making to policing the no-fly zone in Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom is taking part in the NATO operation to monitor and enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia in accordance with the provisions of United Nations Security Council resolution 816. We have provided eight Tornado F3 aircraft, with their air-to-air refuelling support to the multinational force. United Kingdom E3-Ds, as part of the NATO airborne early warning force, continue to monitor the no-fly zone.

  26. Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military contribution Britain is making to promote peace in Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend the answers I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon).

  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  16. Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the NATO rapid reaction corps.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The headquarters of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps was established on 2 October 1992 and full operational capability will be achieved by 1995.

  United Nations Operations
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that there are sufficient British contributions to future United Nations operations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our plans for current and future force levels take account of the requirement to respond to requests from the United Nations for military contributions to peacekeeping operations. We already provide over 3,500 troops for United Nations operations worldwide, making us the second largest troop contributor.
  142

  Helicopters
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the joint use of helicopters and other facilities for defence and civilian purposes including air ambulance and police work.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service helicopters and associated facilities are made available for non-military purposes under arrangements with other Government Departments and subject to operational commitments. A typical example is the provision of civilian search and rescue.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of how recent representations on defence expenditure differ from those received by his Department during the mid-1980s.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been major changes in the strategic environment since the mid-1980s. These changes have been reflected in our defence expenditure plans and, of course, in the representations received on them.

  Service Housing
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning his policy on service housing.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has received a number of representations recently from hon. Members, local authorities, and housing associations on service housing policy.

  Shipbuildings
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has provided to the shipbuilding industry concerning the timing of future orders.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department maintains regular contacts with the shipbuilding industry. One of our main aims is to keep the industry as well informed as possible about future requirements, including timing.

  Merlin Programme
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made on the Merlin programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Good progress is being made on our order for 44 of the Merlin anti-submarine warfare variant of the EH101 for the Royal Navy. The collaborative development with Italy of the basic EH101 aircraft is also progressing well, and the flight test programme is some two thirds complete.

  Somalia
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom is to provide military forces in support of Unosom II in Somalia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no plans to do so.
  143

  Development Areas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service and civilian personnel were based at his Department's establishments located in areas designated by the Department of Trade and Industry as development areas in(a) 1989 and (b)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Manpower statistics are not collected for the development areas and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Belize
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Royal Air Force undertook training in low flying in Belize in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF aircraft are stationed in Belize for operational rather than training purposes. From time to time these aircraft will fly low-level training sorties, but only to qualify the aircrew stationed in theatre for operational duties. It is not our practice to comment on operational details.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will hold urgent talks with the Government of Belize about the maintenance of order on their border with Guatemala in the event of withdrawal of British troops.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 May at column 561. The Government of Belize were consulted closely about the changes announced. These consultations included discussion on the question of the future security of the border between Belize and Guatemala.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he is undertaking with Commonwealth countries about the security of Belize in the light of "Options for Change."

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 May, at column 561, are in response to the greatly improved relations between Belize and Guatemala, and not "Options for Change". We have made clear to the Government of Belize that we are prepared to play a full part in any consultations that they may request on Belize's future security. It is for them to decide which countries they wish to involve in any such discussions.

  Low Flying
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he received from hon. Members in the last five years about low flying by the RAF in their constituencies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1988

  595

  1989

  763

  1990

  697

  144

  Year

  Number

  1991

  353

  1992

  323

  1993

  185

  TOTAL

  2,816

  1Up to 30 April 1993.

  Jungle Training
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courses in jungle training were undertaken by the British Army in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Nine in each year.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) shortest and (b) longest time served in the former Yugoslavia by members of Her Majesty's armed forces currently engaged there.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The standard length of tour for British armed forces personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia is six months. To date the longest tour, for a few key personnel, has been 6·5 months and the shortest, for specialist personnel deployed for a specific task, two days.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to date of the British presence in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is assessed that the additional cost of the United Kingdom presence in the former Yugoslavia amounts to date to some £78,000,000.

  Rosyth Minesweeper Flotilla
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to move the minesweeper flotilla stationed at Rosyth to Greenock harbour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of research and development support to Rolls-Royce plc from his Department in the last financial year; under what programmes the support was provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  In 1992–93, payments made by my Department to Rolls-Royce plc and its subsidiary companies for research and development totalled £42,869,505, through some 175 active contracts. Details of these are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The subjects of the nine contracts placed during the year were research into: cables, electrical connectors and associated items for naval use; high pressure gas cylinders for naval use; future ship propulsion systems; and aero engine future technology.
  145

  Swan Hunter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money is owed by his Department to Swan Hunter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not accept that it owes the company any money. Payments on MOD contracts are fully up to date in accordance with the terms of those contracts.

  Negotiations are in progress with the receiver over a claim against my Department by the company in respect of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel—AOR-02. The maximum amount currently justifiable has already been paid to the company.

  Negotiations on the completion of the three type 23 frigates currently under construction at the yard also continue. Progress payments are being made in accordance with the terms of the contracts. Arrangements are being made for one such payment to be made today.

HEALTH

  Clinical Grading Appeals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of registered clinical grading appeals for nurses and midwives which remains outstanding at(a) regional and (b) national levels.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of outstanding regrading appeals by nurses in the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total outstanding clinical grading appeals at 30 April was 20,440; of these there were 15,020 outstanding at regional level, and 2,006 at national level, in England.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eye examinations were carried out in England in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of national health service sight tests paid for in each financial year in England are shown in the table. The number of private sight tests carried out since the introduction of sight test charges is not available.

  Numbers of children in the care of and fostered by local authorities and numbers of adoption orders made 1979 to 1991

  Children in care, England at 31 March

  Adoption orders made1 in England and Wales

  Children in care2

  Fostered3

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1979

  56,459

  38,629

  17,609

  16,587

  5,593

  5,277

  1980

  56,144

  39,153

  18,187

  17,054

  5,428

  5,181

  1981

  54,459

  37,811

  18,659

  17,090

  4,799

  4,485

  1982

  52,083

  36,580

  19,302

  17,574

  5,305

  4,935

  1983

  48,072

  34,093

  19,203

  17,321

  4,640

  4,389

  1984

  43,513

  31,332

  19,032

  17,059

  4,437

  4,211

  1985

  39,985

  29,565

  18,421

  16,589

  3,856

  3,587

  1986

  38,139

  29,187

  18,385

  16,731

  4,042

  3,634

  1987

  36,518

  29,250

  18,137

  16,903

  3,545

  3,505

  1988

  35,259

  29,093

  18,108

  16,818

  3,675

  3,513

  146

  Year

  Millions

  1984–85

  9·89

  1985–86

  10·25

  1986–87

  10·62

  1987–88

  11·70

  1988–89

  12·49

  1989–90 Old scheme

  1·63

  New scheme1

  3–65

  1990–91

  4·15

  1991–92

  4–98

  1 From 1 April 1989 NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population. The sight tests paid for in 1989–90 include some conducted prior to 1 April 1989 (old scheme) when sight tests were universally available. The remainder paid for in 1989–90 do not represent a full year under the new system, because of the delay in payments. The figure for 1989–90 is not, therefore directly comparable with that for 1990–91.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what investigations her Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if she will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by her Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about her Department since April 1989; and how many of them have been accepted.

  Mr. Sackville
  Reports by the Health Select Committee and the Government's responses to these reports are recorded for each parliamentary Session, in the sessional information digests, compiled by the Public Information Office, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Children in Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of children of each sex(a) in local authority care, (b) fostered and (c) adopted for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is shown in the table.
  147

  Children in care, England at 31 March

  Adoption orders made1 in England and Wales

  Children in care2

  Fostered3

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1989

  33,737

  28,411

  17,556

  16,604

  3,480

  3,352

  1990

  32,506

  28,026

  17,675

  16,873

  3,362

  3,171

  1991

  31,955

  27,879

  17,859

  16,907

  3,372

  3,799

  41992

  55,000

  32,100

  —

  1 Source: OPCS publication "Marriage and Divorce Statistics, series FM2, October 19xx". Adoption order made in England and Wales.

  2 Source: "Children in care of local authorities year ending 31 March 19xx, England".

  3 The number of children in local authority care in foster placements at 31 March.

  4 Figures for 1992 refer to estimation of the total number of children looked after by local authorities. Breakdown by sex is not yet available.

  Dementia
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are currently produced by her Department for general practitioners and other community-based professionals concerning the identification of dementia and the availability and effectiveness of dementia-related services.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department has not produced guidelines.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantified estimates have been produced by her Department on the impact of the depletion of the ozone layer upon future numbers of skin cancer cases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 October 1992 at column 80.

  Medical Negligence
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) of 15 December 1992,Official Report, column 184, when the cost to the NHS of medical negligence claims in 1991–92 will be made available; and what is the reason for their earlier non-availability.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of claims settled during 1991–92 is estimated at around £58 million. This information had not been received from health authorities when my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked his question in December 1992.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to collect and collate details of NHS medical negligence claims to identify patterns and trends to enable advice to be given to health authorities, NHS trusts and general practitioners.

  Mr. Sackville
  We require health authorities and national health service trusts to provide annual returns of the costs of claims settled each financial year. A working group with representatives of the Department and the NHS is to be set up to look at the handling of medical negligence claims in the NHS, and will consider the adequacy of information collected.

  Play Groups
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated financial value of the contribution provided by her Department in England to pre-school play groups in respect of each pupil per season for a year.
  148
  Mr. Yeo
  The Department does not make grants directly to individual playgroups.

  Total grant aid from central Government to the Pre-school Playgroups Association (PPA) in 1993–94 is over £1·5 million, of which £570,000 is given by the Department towards PPA's headquarters costs and implementation of a major reorganisation. The PPA also takes part in the Department's small grants scheme, in which small capital grants are dispersed to playgroups.

  Broadgreen Hospital
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the text of the copy letter sent to her by the leaders of Liverpool and Knowsley councils, dated 28 April, concerning the future of Broadgreen hospital accident and emergency unit, a copy of her response, the final number of objections received to this proposal and an estimate of when she will publish her conclusions.

  Mr. Sackville
  Liverpool health authority, at a meeting on 12 May, accepted a series of proposals for the future development of national health services in the city, including the closure of Broadgreen hospital's accident and emergency department. The authority's decision may have to be considered by Mersey regional health authority and referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a decision if the local community health councils object. The proposals were the subject of full public consultation, during which time all views expressed were passed to Liverpool health authority to be taken into account before a final decision was reached. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod, chairman of Liverpool health authority, for details.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the budget for the Prescription Pricing Authority in each year since August 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  PPA gross expenditure

  £'000s

  Financial year

  Revenue

  Capital

  1988–89

  17,382

  1,965

  1989–90

  19,792

  1,588

  1990–91

  25,268

  12,505

  1991–92

  28,043

  1,278

  1992–93

  131,644

  16,882

  1 Provisional outturn.

  149

  Childhood Cancer
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has received from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on the recently published study into the relationship between work in the nuclear industry and the incidence of childhood cancer in west Berkshire and north Hampshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  The committee's broad conclusion was to agree, with the authors of the study that parental employment in the nuclear industry could not account for the excess incidence of childhood leukaemia observed in the area.

  The full text of the advice is as follows.

  Statement from COMARE regarding the Aldermaston and Burghfield Case-control Report

  1. The COMARE third report "On the incidence of Childhood Cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area, in which are situated the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield", concluded that:
  "there is a small but statistically significant increase in registration rates of childhood leukaemia in the age group 0–14 over the period 1972–85, in the areas within 10km of AWRE Aldermaston and ROF Burghfield, compared with both the national rates, and the regional rates of Oxford and Wessex."To investigate whether this increased childhood leukaemia incidence was related to parents' employment in the nuclear industry, COMARE recommended that a case-control study be undertaken. Government accepted the recommendation and the Department of Health provided funding for the work to be undertaken by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Epidemiology Unit. The results of this "Case control study of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among children aged 0–4 years living in West Berkshire and North Hampshire Health Districts" have now been published (British Medical Journal 1993 Vol. 306 pages 615–621) and considered by COMARE.2. The subjects were 54 children aged 0–4 years who had leukaemia or non-Hodgkins lymphoma diagnosed during 1972–89 who were horn in the study area and were resident there when the cancer was diagnosed. They were compared with six controls selected for each case. Five of the fifty four cases and fourteen out of the 324 controls had fathers or mothers or both who had been employed by the nuclear industry, a difference which was not significant. The main finding of the study was that three fathers of cases and two fathers of controls (and no mothers of either) had undertaken work which required radiation monitoring at some time (but in no instance in the 4 years immediately preceding) the conception of the child.
  3. The study concluded that:
  "These results suggest that the children of fathers who had been monitored for exposure to external penetrating ionising radiation in the nuclear industry may be at increased risk of developing leukaemia before their fifth birthday. The finding is based on small numbers and could be due to chance.If the relationship is real the mechanisms are far From clear, except that the effect is unlikely to be due to external radiation; the possibility that it could be due to internal contamination by radioactive substances or some other exposure at work should be pursued. The above average rates of leukaemia in the study area cannot be accounted for by these findings."4. COMA RE welcomed the study. It was agreed that the study design, which had been commissioned to determine whether there was an association between childhood cancer and parental employment in the nuclear establishments of the study area, adequately addressed its aims in terms of subject, disease and control selection and methods of data collection and analysis. The stated conclusions were accepted by the Committee.5. The Committee noted that whereas their third report had found 53 cases of childhood leukaemia in the age group 0–4 years in the study area when only 34 would have been
  150
  expected on the basis of national rates, the current study had identified only 5 cases that could have been at any possible risk because a parent had worked in the nuclear industry. The Committee, after taking into account the different time periods considered by COMARE's third report and the current study, therefore agreed with the authors that employment in the nuclear industry of the parents of cases could not account for the excess incidence of childhood leukaemia observed in the area.6. COMARE noted the authors statement "our results can be interpreted as supporting Gardner and colleagues' finding" that the children of men who had been exposed to external penetrating ionising radiation before their child was conceived were at an increased risk of leukaemia. The Committee did not feel that conclusions regarding pre- and post-contraception exposure could be drawn from this study in view of the very small number of families affected. Furthermore it was agreed that the study provided no new evidence to distinguish between the various hypotheses previously suggested regarding causative agents or chance effects in relation to childhood cancer incidence in the vicinity of certain nuclear installations.7. COMARE noted that further studies of the occupational histories of the parents are currently being undertaken. The Committee considered that the further work proposed in the conclusion of the study was already being conducted in two studies now in progress. The first of these is the Nuclear Industries Family Study being undertaken by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and jointly funded by the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive. The second study, involving the National Radiological Protection Board and the Department of Public Health and Epidemiology at Birmingham University, will analyse the relationship between records of the National Register of Radiation Workers and those of the Childhood Cancer Registry Group.

  "Choosing with Care"
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the Government's progress with implementation of the Warner report "Choosing with Care".

  Mr. Yeo
  I will be announcing the Government's further response to the Warner report "Choosing with Care" at the Association of Directors of Social Services seminar on 19 May. When the report was published on 7 December 1992, local authorities were asked to take urgent action to implement the recommendations aimed at improving personnel practices and procedures, and the arrangements for the supervision and appraisal of staff. Reports asked for by Easter indicated that good progress is being made.

  Tomorrow I shall be responding in more detail to the remaining recommendations of the Warner report. This will cover the following areas: training, vetting and police checks; a campaign to raise public awareness of residential child care; a code of employment practice; a code of practice on national standards and a modified proposal for a development action group.

  I will be placing a copy of that response in the Library tomorrow morning, 19 May, at 11 am.

  In addition, the Department will also be discussing with the local authority associations a phased programme of action for implementation by local authorities of the remaining recommendations addressed to employers. This is to be set in train by July this year.
  151

  Public Health Guidance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the findings of the review undertaken by Mr. Michael Abrams for the public health guidance to the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The committee chaired by Dr. Michael Abrams aims to complete its work within the next few months. Decisions on further action will be taken at that time.

  NHS Management Executive
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to turn the NHS management executive into a next steps agency; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 12 May at columns 483–84, which sets out the terms of reference of the national health service management functions and manpower review.

  The conclusions of this review will be relevant to the future organisation of the NHS management executive.

  Mineral Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given by the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment to the use of mineral hydrocarbons in food packaging, baking and related applications; what account the committee has taken of studies reported by the British Biological Research Association on the use of hydrocarbon oils and waxes; what further studies are recommended; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) advised in 1988 that mineral hydrocarbons should no longer be permitted in food because of evidence from laboratory animal experiments that they could accumulate in certain organs and cause damage to these organs.

  It is now reviewing its advice following subsequent receipt of the toxicity studies carried out by the British Industrial Biological Research Association (BIBRA) on mineral hydrocarbon oils and waxes. Their advice, and any recommendations for further research studies, will be considered by Ministers together with advice on this subject from the Food Advisory Committee.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of finished consultant episodes in acute, geriatric and maternity specialties; how many were(a) elective admissions, (b) emergency admissions, (c) maternity admissions, (d) well babies born in hospital, (e) transfers from other departments in the same hospital and (f) transfers from another hospital, in each financial year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: Figures from the hospital episode system (HES) for 1989–90 have
  152
  recently been published. More detailed analysis by method of admission showing the percentage distribution of episodes is shown in the table. Comparable data for 1988–89 and for 1990–91 and subsequent years is not yet available.

  Method of admission 1989–90

  Specialty groups

  Specialty

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric3

  Number (000's)

  6,941

  977

  449

  Method of admission:

  3Per cent.

  3Per cent.

  3Per cent.

  Elective

  46

  1—

  13

  Emergency

  37

  1—

  71

  Maternity

  3

  1—

  0

  Well babies

  8

  1—

  0

  Transfers from other district

  1

  1—

  1

  Transfers within the district2

  5

  1—

  16

  1 The distribution of admissions in the maternity sector are not shown since the deficiency of maternity records in HES makes estimates liable to large errors.

  2 Transfers within districts include transfers from departments in the same hospital.

  3 Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics 1989–90.

  Consultant Episodes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of finished consultant episodes in acute, geriatric and maternity specialties; how many finished with(a) discharge to the patient's usual place of residence, (b) discharge to another domestic address, (c) transfer to another department in the same hospital, (d) transfer to another hospital, (e) death or (f) discharge to a non-domestic address outside the NHS, for each financial year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: Figures from the hospital episode system (HES) for 1989–90 are to be published shortly. These will show total finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions plus day cases —in that year by specialty group. The table shows, for each specialty group, the percentage distribution among valid discharge destination codes. Comparable data for 1988–89 and for 1990–91 and subsequent years are not yet available.

  Admissions in 1989–90

  Specialty groups

  Specialty

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Number (000's)

  6,491

  977

  449

  Discharged to:

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Usual residence

  91

  96

  62

  Other domestic

  1

  0

  2

  Other department, same hospital

  4

  3

  12

  Other hospital

  1

  1

  1

  Death

  3

  0

  19

  Non-domestic outside NHS

  1

  0

  4

  Source: Hospital Episode System 1989–90.

  Migraine
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the relative costs of drugs used to treat migraine.
  153
  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Section 4.7.4 of the "British National Formulary" lists the costs of all preparations used in the treatment of migraine. This publication is issued free to all doctors within the national health service.

  Health Promotion Staff
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health promotion staff were employed by each English and Welsh health authority in 1992–93 and what was the figure for 1982–83.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: The latest information available will be placed in the Library.
  154
  The figures relate only to those health promotion staff falling within administrative and clerical grades—there is no information available centrally on health promotion staff from other staff groups. Health promotion work is also undertaken by most national health service personnel at a local level, for example, general practitioners, dieticians, health visitors, and by non-NHS organisations including local authorities. In addition to health promotion staff employed in health authorities, staff are also employed in NHS trusts and other provider units.

  Health promotion matters in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Sheep Dip: Precautions
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they are giving to people involved in sheep dipping as to the protective clothing they should wear, and what other precautions should be taken.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, advice on protective clothing is given on the product label and in the data sheets of individual products. General advice about the precautions to be taken is contained in the Health and Safety Executive's leaflet Sheep dipping: Protect your health which is available free from any of its local offices. In line with recent advice from the Veterinary Products Committee a leaflet and poster giving advice on the safe use of organophosphorus sheep dips have also been produced and sent to all sheep farmers in the UK.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Only today I heard from a sheep farmer that the poster in particular was wonderful. It is the first time that sheep farmers have been warned about the dangers. Last Thursday the noble Earl, in reply to a question from me, said:
"It is up to each individual farmer to undertake a COSHH assessment prior to a dipping operation so as to identify any particular hazards which may need to be addressed. In some circumstances respiratory equipment may be necessary". —[Official Report, 13/5/93; col. 1367.]
I wonder whether the noble Earl would be prepared to clarify that statement because the new leaflet contains nothing about hazards from inhalation. As far as I can make out, there is no published research on the dangers of inhalation from sheep dip. If a farmer is liable for making a risk assessment, how can he make that assessment without all the facts?
Earl Howe: My Lords, lest the noble Countess loses sight of what I have said repeatedly in the past, there is no clear evidence from information currently available that any unacceptable health risk arises from sheep dipping provided the dips are used in accordance with the guidance and labelling instructions that have been made available. However, sheep dipping operations are covered under COSHH. COSHH requires a reasoned common sense assessment to be made of the risks to health and the precautions needed to minimise exposure in the particular circumstances of the farming activity. The leaflet that we have just published and the label instructions make clear that concentrate must not be
1642
used in an enclosed area. The vapour must not be inhaled and a face shield should be used when handling the concentrate. There is no such requirement when handling the diluted dip. But if, for example, dipping is to be done in a confined area, which is contrary to recommended conditions, the COSHH assessment may indicate that in such circumstances the use of respiratory equipment is advisable as a precaution.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that he has full information on the number of cases of poisoning that occur? Is he aware of a report in this month's edition of Health & Safety at Work which draws attention to a survey by Nottingham-Trent which states that only 5 per cent. of doctors feel that they have seen all the information that is available and that around 7 per cent. feel that they have been trained insufficiently to recognise cases when they see them? That is a rather serious finding. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as at 12th May the number of suspected adverse reactions to sheep dips involving humans since 1st January 1985 reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate was 389, involving 474 individuals. A significant proportion of the reports received since 1990 are historical cases where a suspected adverse reaction has occurred more than one year previously. These figures compare with more than 1 million sheep dippings which have been carried out over the same period. I am aware of claims that many more people have been affected. Those claims are being pursued, but anyone who thinks that he may have been affected is urged to submit a report to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as quickly as possible.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, may I press the noble Earl on the dangers of inhalation? It is common among farmers to say that when they inhale it their symptoms get worse if they have already been affected. Will the noble Earl ask his right honourable friend the Minister to instigate urgently proper research on the dangers from inhalation and if necessary to obtain the services of scientists at Porton Down who have very sensitive equipment for testing OPs in the air?
Earl Howe: My Lords, one of the projects being funded by the HSE at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh is assessing the occupational hygiene standards of sheep dipping practices and processes. In addition, the HSE's field consultant group is to carry out field studies on six farms when sheep dipping is in progress during the 1993 dipping season. Both studies will include atmospheric monitoring and sampling for organophosphates, solvents, phenols and aerosols.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in his earlier reply to the noble Countess the Minister referred to publicity material on this question from the Health and Safety Executive. Is he aware that the Health and Safety Executive suggests in its Farmwise publication that farmers should use an alternative to dipping or a dip

1643
that does not contain organophosphorous compounds? Is there not an inconsistency here between that advice and the Government's present wait and see attitude?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is no conflict in the advice given by MAFF and the HSE. The HSE advice is that where a COSHH assessment justifies it there is no objection to the use of OP sheep dips. However, I understand that the HSE intends to review the wording of the Farmwise booklet, which the noble Lord mentioned, to make sure that there is no possible ambiguity in the way in which their advice is framed.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, risking immediate incineration by my noble friend the Chief Whip, perhaps I may ask your Lordships what components sheep dip has in common with nerve gases?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are quantitative and qualitative differences in the compounds which go into organophosphate sheep dips on the one hand, and, on the other, into products produced during the Second World War; for example, for the purposes of nerve gas.

West Midlands RHA: Finances
2.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to provide any financial compensation to patients of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority, in recognition of the authority's inadequate financial control.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is not the Government's intention to do so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, while expressing gratitude for that full reply, can the Minister help on some specifics? How much money has this authority lost by inadequate financial control? Have the papers gone, or are they going, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and if not, why not? Is any attempt to be made to recover the enormous sums of public money which have been wasted?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the answer to the first question is £10 million. The answer to the second question is that there are two full audit reports. The case has been before the Public Accounts Committee and police are investigating certain irregularities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is still very deep concern about this particular regional health authority and another? Restricting myself to the Question raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench, if people are deemed to have broken the law or to have possibly transgressed
1644
it, as a matter of course should not the matter be sent to the CPS in order to find out what should be done about individuals and the way they have behaved?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are very concerned about the activities which have taken place involving this particular regional health authority. They have accepted all the findings of the Audit Commission. If there are any irregularities the police will be brought in.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, should not the Government be very much more careful about the criteria that they apply when selecting people to serve on these authorities? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind the utmost necessity, in the public interest, of being completely politically impartial in the selections which are ultimately made?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that the Government agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the police are investigating certain irregularities at this time. Can she say for how long they have been conducting this investigation? Secondly, can she say what irregularities they are examining and, thirdly, can she say when their report is expected?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the police are looking into questions of fraud on the URG consultancy contract and related matters. I believe that the inquiries have been going on for a matter of months. I am afraid that I missed the last question put by the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when will the report be published?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when the police have completed their inquiries.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, can I coax the Minister to answer my last question? Is no attempt to be made to recover this vast amount of public money?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in some respects, yes. It is a very complicated issue and there are several schemes involved. In one particular scheme the regional health authority is taking active action in order to recover the sums of money involved.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the whole House will welcome the Minister's statement of the Government's intention not to have any political bias on the regional health authorities. Presumably, that will apply to other quangos as well. Can the Minister give some explanation as to how that will be achieved?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, these appointments are made by the Secretary of State. A recent district health authority chairmanship within the West Midlands region has been awarded to a person who, I believe, is not a supporter of the Conservative Party.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in the light of that answer am I to take it that that appointment is unusual?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords.

House of Lords: Treasury Spokesmen
2.49 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which Minister represents Her Majesty's Treasury in this House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, it is a well-established convention that Ministers in this House speak on behalf of the Government as a whole. A number of Ministers may therefore be called on to respond for the Government on economic and financial issues including, from time to time, myself. However, as the House will be well aware, the lead spokesmen on such issues are my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Henley and Lord St. Davids.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comprehensive Answer, is he not aware of the difficulty of a Minister replying on behalf of a department of which he is not a member, and where he has no authority, and that department is involved with really important public matters? Would it not be more in accordance with the proper treatment of this House as well as of the individual Ministers if we now had a Minister serving in the Treasury on that Bench?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the appointment of Ministers is, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister, not for me. However, perhaps I may point out to your Lordships that there have been only two departmental Treasury Ministers in the Lords in the 20th century: my noble friend Lord Cockfield from 1979 to 1982 (I had the honour of succeeding him as a Minister at the Treasury when he moved on) and my noble friend Lord Caithness who was in the Treasury from 1989 to 1990. There was no Lords Minister when my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter served at the Treasury. As I said, however, Ministers answer for the Government as a whole and I am sure that your Lordships are pleased that 23 Government Ministers are Members of the House of Lords at present, which is the highest number since the war.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understand what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has told us, no fewer than four Ministers, plus himself, are responsible in this House for explaining and justifying government economic policy. On behalf of the Opposition, may I express our sincere condolences?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, if I may say so, far more than four noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Benches try to ask awkward questions and, again if I may say so, do not succeed very often.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept that while he is clearly right about the precedents, nonetheless as there are now so many Ministers in the Government it might now be easier to have a Treasury representative
1646
in this House than it was previously? Does he agree it is of primary importance that as we only rarely have major wide-ranging Treasury debates we should have a reply to them that is given with the authority and the flexibility which can perhaps come only from membership of the Cabinet—in other words, will he reply more often himself?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion from the Leader of the Liberal Democratic Party. As he will know, I did just that on Wednesday in a debate at which, unfortunately, I did not see the noble Lord present.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, having prayed on a number of occasions in the past six months for an earthquake at the Treasury, heaven forbid that it should engulf our noble Leader or his many noble friends.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks, although I am not sure that I understood the detail absolutely.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, may I put it to my noble friend that it would help if we had a Member of this House in the Treasury? I ask that because the other day my noble friend Lord Caithness told me in a Written Answer that the highest rate of income tax was 40 per cent., whereas a week or so earlier in a footnote to an Answer to my noble friend Lord Marlesford he said that a small number of taxpayers would be subject to a marginal rate of 45 per cent. It might be helpful if we could avoid such contradictory replies.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly hope that my noble friend's second answer was the right one rather than the first. I know that my noble friend always wishes to help the Prime Minister in all matters and he will no doubt find an early opportunity of putting his own views to the Prime Minister on this if he wants to.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while appreciating the noble Lord's difficulty in obtaining recruits for the rather hazardous occupation in modern times of answering on behalf of the Treasury, will he take all possible steps in conjunction with his colleagues—in justice to those who accept that very hazardous occupation—to ensure that they are properly briefed by the departments concerned?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thought at first that the noble Lord's question was going to be a very subtle job application for himself. However, I certainly take the point that it is very important that all Ministers (whatever the department for which they are responsible when replying in this House) are properly briefed, and I do everything that I can to ensure that that is the position.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the questions that have been put to my noble friend from all quarters of the House and in view of the obvious importance of the Treasury and of financial and economic policy at the moment, although I know that my noble friend has no direct responsibility for this,

1647
will he see that the question of having a Treasury Minister in this House is considered at the time of the next reshuffle?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall certainly ensure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is aware of today's exchanges. However, I think that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will bear in mind that the House of Lords is primarily a revising chamber. Scrutiny of financial and money Bills by the House of Lords is limited by both Parliament Acts and convention. Therefore, there is little call for a Treasury Minister to pilot legislation through the House. That must be a factor that he will want to bear in mind. It is, of course, a very old and long-standing convention of this House and I am a conservative in this matter as well as in many others. The modern practice in respect of Commons financial privileges is based upon resolutions of that House of 1671 and 1678. For example, until this Session consolidated funds were last debated in this House in 1907.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, could the noble Lord make one little point clear? Noble Lords often need to write to Ministers on private matters relating to their departments that are not covered by oral or written Questions. Can he say which of the four Ministers or himself should be addressed? I recently had need to write such a letter and had to write directly to Mr. Lamont.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that a practical solution is to write direct to the Minister with responsibility for that particular subject within the Treasury. That list is published and it is possible for the noble Countess to see it if she wants to. If she has any difficulty, perhaps she will write to me and I shall ensure that the matter is passed on to the right Minister. I am sure that if she writes to any of my noble friends they, too, will see that she gets a proper answer.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if we were to have a debate on the philosophy of and the goings on at the Treasury, who would reply in this House?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend asks a question to which I am not sure that I have an adequate answer off the cuff. Presumably she would first have to frame a Motion which is in order for us to discuss. Once such a Motion has been framed I would look around among my colleagues to decide whom I thought the most suitable to reply—and I guess that I might end up answering it myself.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, with regard to his answer a couple of questions ago, is the noble Lord aware that I, too, am as conservative in this respect (if in no other) as he is?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, this takes me back to the days in, I think, 1966 when I was the noble Lord's opponent in an election in the south of London which, if I remember correctly, he won.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his last answer to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the
1648
noble Lord the Leader of the House said that the matters dealt with by the Treasury were money Bills, and what have you, and were not matters for this House. However, is he aware that the Treasury has now taken over from the Department of Trade and Industry responsibilities relating to financial services, banks and building societies in which this House has a very great interest indeed? Is he further aware that Members of this House (because they are Members of this House) have no representation in relation to taxation because they do not vote at general elections? Is it not fair, therefore, that we should have the right to question direct a representative of the Treasury who works in the Treasury and with the Chancellor?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, those are all powerful points, but other points also have to be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he is deciding where he will allocate his Ministers within the Government. The first factor is that the total number of Ministers is limited by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act, so he has only a limited number to dispose of in the various departments. As I have indicated, there is not a great deal of legislation that comes before this House that is directly the responsibility of the Treasury—I did not say that there was no such legislation, but not a great deal of it comes before this House. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has to take all those factors into account. This is primarily a matter for him, and I shall certainly see that the noble Lord's point of view is put to him.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would not the problem be solved by giving Mr. Lamont a peerage?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am a conservative. I have considerable doubts as to whether the other place would be entirely satisfied with having the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this place. Even going back to the halcyon days of 1841 and Robert Peel's Administration, when there were nine Members of the Upper House and five Members of the other place in the Cabinet, there was no Treasury Minister in this House.

ID Card System
3 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider issuing identification cards to help combat terrorism and crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are not at present persuaded that the benefits of issuing identification cards outweigh the disadvantages and costs of so doing.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that only last Wednesday a Bill providing for voluntary personal security cards had an unopposed First Reading in the other place? Is he further aware that in 1990 the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended such a

1649
course? The costs of combating crime and terrorism will only increase. If we are to have cards, surely the costs should be borne.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the costs of introducing identification cards would be considerable. It is our experience that the police do not have great difficulty in identifying the names of individuals. It is much more difficult to identify those who are responsible for crime. The issuing of voluntary identification cards would not help fight crime, because those who want to commit crime would not avail themselves of the voluntary option. If we were to make identification cards compulsory, that would be expensive and there are also other drawbacks.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last public attitudes survey showed that the majority of people were in favour of ID card system; that the Police Federation is also in favour; that the majority of letters and representations to the Home Office also show that the public are in favour; and that eight countries within the Common Market already have a voluntary or mandatory system, and no doubt it will come here? Finally, surely the Minister will agree that an ID card system would help control illegal immigration and help the police to combat crime, drug trafficking and terrorism.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, is a firm advocate of the ID card system. He has encapsulated succinctly the reasons for so being, but there are drawbacks. The cost of making the scheme compulsory would be substantial. The ID card would have to be free. We would have to give the police increased statutory powers. They could well produce difficulties for police/public relations. The civil liberties argument would be strong, because people would be required to stop at random and be asked to produce their ID card. People do not always want to carry such documents in the streets the whole time. We would have to introduce a penalty for not carrying a card. All those are strong reasons for not having ID cards. Obviously if there were a system, it would assist in some of the respects to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that when compulsory ID cards were abolished after the war there was a cry of relief from the general public? To reintroduce them would cause more objections than have hitherto been suggested in the Question and answers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. When the system was abolished in 1952, it was given up with great alacrity. I agree with him. I believe that there would be a rumpus if the scheme were reintroduced.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, has the Minister access to any figures illustrating the number of prosecutions a year in, let us say, France, for not carrying ID cards? How many of those lead to a prosecution for crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will realise that I can only do my best to answer in respect of the position in the United Kingdom. I cannot answer for that in France.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the Minister recall any terrorist offence which would not have taken place if the terrorists had been required to carry ID cards?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, offhand, no.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in the Minister's consideration of this matter, irrespective of what is done in Great Britain, will he bear in mind that in Northern Ireland there is a sizeable group of people which is pretty good at duplication? Further, will he bear in mind that one-third of the population of Northern Ireland would not co-operate; that a sizeable group of people travel on Southern Irish passports; and that during the war we could not introduce conscription in Northern Ireland? Let us not pretend that Northern Ireland is the same as Great Britain. I am against the scheme there as well. We would learn the lesson in Northern Ireland if we tried to introduce ID cards there.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, makes are correct. If we were to introduce a system of ID cards, it would have to be a secure one to prevent forgery and duplication —points to which he referred.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is playing into the hands of the "wets" in this country by saying that people keen on civil liberties would object to such a system? What about all those people who are blown up by IRA bombs and whose buildings are blown up? ID cards would need to be carried by people in the UK only and not in Northern Ireland. The cards should also have photographs on them. Then, a person sitting in a parked lorry in the middle of the City in the middle of the night, asked by a policeman, "Show me your identity card. Where is your photograph?", could be taken away if he did not have a card.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, accuses me of playing into the hands of the "wets" in this country. Of course no one likes being blown up; but my experience is that neither do they like being stopped for traffic offences. If the noble Lord was stopped twice in the course of a week and asked to show his ID card, I am sure that he, as would many other people, would find it aggravating.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, have the Government any estimates of how much it would cost in any given year to introduce an ID scheme? Are there any other schemes being considered by the Government against which an ID card scheme could be compared?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the best estimate that we can give is that an ID card would cost about the same as a passport, which is about £15 to £20 per person. That excludes the start-up costs which would involve premises and a whole regime of people to operate the scheme. For those reasons, a scheme would be difficult

1651
to introduce. We are looking at every conceivable method of trying to prevent terrorism in this country, but ID cards do not feature high on the list.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Housing and Urban Development Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill and the Insurance Companies (Cancellation) Regulations 1993 will be taken.

Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 9 [Premises with a resident landlord]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 16, at end insert ("and
( ) the freeholder or a parent or grandparent of the freeholder was the owner of the freehold of the premises at the date when any written permissions required by law for the conversion of the premises into flats were given by the relevant authorities or, if no such permissions were obtained, for a period of not less than twelve months ending on the date on which building work necessary for the conversion commenced.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, under Clause 4(3) certain premises are excluded from the right to enfranchisement. That subsection excludes premises where there is a resident landlord. It refers to the premises as not containing more than four units. Your Lordships have discussed, and will continue to discuss, the appropriate number of units to which the resident landlord provision will apply. Clause 9 gives the definition of a resident landlord. The amendment asks your Lordships to focus on the reasons why, and the extent to which, a resident landlord and the premises which he owns should not be subject to the enfranchisement provisions of the Bill.
Many noble Lords have received several heartfelt representations from people living in leasehold flats or in leasehold houses who have experience of the effect of the enfranchisement legislation as it applies to houses. I live in a leasehold flat and again I must declare an interest. I have a resident landlord but it is not for that personal reason that I bring the
1652
amendment before the House. I bring it in particular because of a letter which I have received from a couple who live in just such a flat. They write:
"Whilst we acknowledge that it is entirely proper to protect the interests of those who in good faith have divided their family homes to create leasehold flats, we feel that a sharp distinction should be drawn between people in this position and those who, in buying a conversion flat which carries with it the freehold to the entire house, happen to acquire, possibly as a very inexpensive adjunct to their purchase, the freehold to whatever leasehold flats there might be in the building, and who do so with no previous interest or investment whatever in the homes of the lessees".
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, moved an amendment to restrict the application of the resident landlord provision. He said that the purpose of that provision should be to recognise the position of someone who finds that his family home has become too large or too expensive and who converts it and sells off parts. Your Lordships may agree that that is a good underlying objective. The noble Lord referred to the point made by my correspondents; that anyone who happens to buy a freehold, because it is the only way they can acquire the possession of a particular flat, has no real claim as a freeholder to be treated any differently than an outside freeholder.
Replying to that amendment the Minister said:
"Most importantly our provisions allow successors in title to a freehold to continue to benefit from the exemption. Where a person has inherited the family home, in which perhaps he grew up, he has the same claim as the person who converted the property to retain the freehold".—[Official Report, 15/3/93; col. 1269.]
The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that position. A property which has been in a family for two or three generations should be allowed to remain in the family but the freeholder who happens to own the freehold as an adjunct to his own flat should be excluded. The purchaser who happens to own the freehold of a small block of flats attached to his own flat should be excluded. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, under certain conditions I should have no hesitation in supporting the noble Baroness's amendment, which she has explained so well. The conditions are that in turn she and her supporters agree to support my amendment. to Clause 4, which she will know of, when I reintroduce it on Third Reading. It will provide that in addition to small properties larger properties can benefit from the concessions contained in that clause.
The object of Amendment No. 25 is to ensure that where a residential landlord is excluded from the obligations imposed by the Bill—that is, to submit to a forced sale of the freehold—he or she must be genuine long-term occupants and not someone who bought the property only a month or so previously. That proposition is difficult to quarrel with.
In order to achieve a fair balance the provision must be backed up by the relaxation of the highly arbitrary, illogical, and hence unfair, size restriction contained in Clause 4. Apart from anything else, the larger a house the more difficult and costly to maintain it will be, in particular if its grounds are large. Therefore, it is more likely a family will be pushed into sub-dividing the house and selling off the leases. I look forward to a favourable response to my offer from the noble Baroness.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, I moved a similar amendment in Committee. She rehearsed the reasons which I gave for moving the amendment; that resident landlord exemption should be limited to cases in which a family home has been converted and sold on long leases. The provision in the Bill goes far wider than that.
Furthermore, I wished that the Bill provided for the case of a resident landlord who was a leaseholder. At present such a person has no right to claim the resident landlord exemption. Although he cannot be turned out on to the street if his tenants enfranchise against him, he will end up as their tenant, which is undesirable. There are infelicities in the drafting of the clause. I expressed sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, last week but I must add the gloss that my sympathy will continue if Amendment No. 25 is accepted. However, I do not see any particular reason why the two amendments should be linked together. My support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness stands on its own.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we debated one amendment on the resident landlord's exclusion when we considered Clause 4. It was that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to widen the exclusion. We now consider the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They are intended to narrow the resident landlord's exclusion.
We have heard that one of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would apply an additional qualification that would require the freeholder, or a parent or grandparent of the freeholder, to have been the owner of the premises when permission was obtained for its conversion into flats or, where no permission was obtained, to have occupied the premises for the 12 months prior to the conversion.
The second of the noble Baroness's amendments would remove from the Bill a provision that enables recent purchasers of the freehold to qualify as resident landlords where the previous freeholder was a resident landlord and the new freeholder—or an adult member of his family—has moved into the property within 28 days of acquiring it and has remained in residence continuously since then.
When we considered the proposed amendment to Clause 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I said that I could see why those on the side of the landlord would want to widen or to extend the resident landlord's exemption and as a result exclude more flats from the right to enfranchise. I also said that I could see why those on the side of the tenant would want to narrow the resident landlord's exemption. I also said that our purpose in limiting the resident landlord exclusion was to exclude smaller blocks that are or were the landlord's home. We considered restricting the resident landlord's exemption to premises where the freeholder was the owner of the premises when the conversion took place but decided against doing so.
We are prepared to allow those resident landlords living in small converted blocks to be exempt from the
1654
enfranchisement provisions in this Bill even though they may not have been the landlord at the time of conversion, especially where they have purchased their interest from another resident freeholder. Such landlords may well have purchased the premises with a view of converting them back into a house or with the intention of acquiring the other flats for use by members of their family. They may equally have been concerned to buy a home where they knew that they would have a degree of control over the building as a whole, or of the garden perhaps.
I consider the amendments to be too restrictive. I have said that much of the Bill is a delicate task of balancing the different rights and interests of different groups of people. I believe that we have that balance about right. We do not wish to alter or change the resident landlord's exemption. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for his support. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and the Minister is correct. On this side of the House we do not seek to be on the tenant's side to the exclusion of the landlord's point of view. Landlords have rights too. I should not like it to be thought that the picture is entirely black and white. However, we do not seek to widen the exclusion.
Amendment No. 26, to which the Minister referred, is in part consequential although there are the other effects which he mentioned. I take issue on part of his analysis of the situation; for example, in relation to somebody who has bought a converted house with the intention of reconverting it or allowing family members to use the other flats. After all, the person is subject to the provisions of the leases of those other flats and would have to buy out the leaseholders or come to some arrangement with them unless the leases are on the very point of expiry. Therefore, the picture which the noble Lord paints is not as simple as he makes it sound. Quite a number of agreements would have to be entered into by the various occupants of the flats.
Having control over the building and the garden is not fundamental to the issue. That is either a matter for agreement or for the application of the provisions of the leases as to how the structure of the building is to be maintained, the garden is to be cared for, and so on. I recognise that we are not making a great deal of progress on this issue and that I have not won over the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraph (b) of each of subsections (1) and (2) any reference to a flat includes a reference to a unit (other than a flat) which is used as a dwelling.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it.
The purpose behind this group of amendments is to address the rare but possible case of a house within an enfranchiseable building. I have in mind a large block of flats or a terraced building with a leasehold house located in the middle.
The Government's policy is that as many buildings as possible should qualify for collective enfranchisement. Although there is nothing in Part I to prevent the enfranchisement of a building which includes a dwelling other than a flat, nevertheless we feel that it should be made quite clear on the face of the Bill that where such a building occurs, the building as a whole will qualify.
The amendments give effect to that policy and are of a technical nature, but I shall attempt a brief summary of the effect of each. Amendment No. 27 reflects the possibility that the premises occupied by a resident landlord are in fact a house rather than a flat. Amendment No. 33 deals with the fact that the mandatory leaseback provisions will apply to houses as well as flats in a building; and Amendment No. 56 reflects the possibility that there may be such houses which are liable to mandatory leaseback but which were not mentioned in the initial notice. The amendments to Schedule 8, Amendments Nos. 76 to 92 inclusive, deal with a number of consequential concerns, and in particular, the application of the mandatory leaseback provisions to secure tenancies of premises other than a flat. Amendment No. 92 to Schedule 9 in relation to local authorities also recognises the existence of such tenancies. Lastly, Amendment No. 94 re-defines the meaning of "unit" in Clause 35 to take account of the fact that there may be separate sets of premises used for the purposes of a dwelling which are not flats.
These amendments are desirable to make the matter clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Right of qualifying tenant to obtain information about superior interests etc.]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Notice by qualifying tenants of claim to exercise right]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("two-thirds") and insert ("three-quarters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A. Amendment No. 30A is referred to in the list of groupings but is not numbered on the Marshalled List. That is a small omission which can be rectified by your Lordships writing "30A" by the side of the amendment on the Marshalled List. Amendments Nos. 41 and 41A are amendments to a schedule which are also relevant and consequential.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that in a block of flats, at least half the tenants and the occupiers of at least half the flats agree to collective enfranchisement. However, under the Bill as it stands, as a result of the combined effects of Clauses 3 and 11, collective enfranchisement can take place
1656
even though only four-ninths of the tenants want it to happen. Surely it is wrong that the minority can dominate the majority in that way.
It arises because under Clause 3, two-thirds of the tenants have to become qualifying tenants to enable Chapter I of the Bill to operate. Under Clause 11, with which we are now dealing, two-thirds of those qualifying tenants have to give notice of a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement. We all know that two-thirds of two-thirds is only four-ninths. That matter can surely be rectified.
Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 29 seeks to leave out "two-thirds" and insert "three-quarters". That means that we achieve exactly half because three-quarters multiplied by two-thirds gives us one-half.
I hope that the amendments which follow are not over-zealous and it may be that they are not all necessary. However, to be absolutely sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench has something to work on, something to help us achieve the desired object, I have tabled Amendment No. 30 which states:
"who together represent not less than half of the tenants … in the premises assuming that no flat may have more than one tenant at any time".
and Amendment No. 30A which states:
"who together occupy not less than half the number of flats on the premises".
That overcomes the possible small problem that there may be several flats with more than one qualifying tenant which could distort rather badly the arithmetic. Therefore, something along the lines of either or both Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A is desirable.
I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships very much with Amendments Nos. 41A and 42A which are amendments to Schedule 3, which also has a bearing on the matter. However, I have to confess that they were tabled last evening in rather a rush. That is why I must apologise for the fact that they have been starred. Nevertheless, I have been advised that they are a necessary consequence. If the drafting is not quite right, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde can easily have it put right at a later stage.
I hope that I have said enough to ensure that collective enfranchisement should follow the rules of democracy so that the minority cannot rule the roost, as I am afraid happens under most systems of voting. But why should we let it happen under the Bill? I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I express strong support for my noble friend as regards Amendment No. 29. He is absolutely right to press the point that two-thirds of two-thirds should be turned into 50 per cent. (one half) of the participating tenants. However, I am less happy about Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A only because they would appear to compete with Amendment No. 31 to which I have already spoken and which was coupled with Amendment No. 14. I understood that that amendment and that group, of amendments were satisfactory to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I feel that Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A conflict with Amendment No. 31, which I hope my noble

1657
friend will continue to support. I should also mention Amendment No. 41A to which my noble friend spoke. If Amendment No. 30 is accepted, it may be necessary formally to amend the former amendment which relates to Schedule 3.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I oppose the group of amendments. I believe that this is yet another way of trying to abuse the possibility of leaseholders being able to franchise. It is not a progressive step; indeed, it is definitely against the interests of leaseholders. I think that my noble friend Lord Renton has overlooked the fact that we had quite a lengthy discussion on rounding fractions up and down. It was agreed that they should be rounded down. The present proposal therefore would work very definitely against people who were exactly on or just above the half by a fraction. They would then find themselves disenfranchised as a result.
I am most concerned about the statement made by my noble friend Lord Boardman that Amendment No. 31 should be more or less considered as part of a package with Amendment No. 14. I understood that it would be, but that it would also be considered in conjunction with Amendment No. 160. However, he has now withdrawn that amendment and therefore I believe that he has put that whole package into a different position. I hope—
Lord Boardman: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will recall that Amendment No. 160 was part of a package containing Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 and has nothing to do with Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I shall continue with my remarks after that interruption. I believe that there is a very definite linkage between all the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Boardman. They are all very specifically connected in different ways. Therefore, when one of those vital amendments has been withdrawn, we must certainly review every other one of them very carefully. As I said, I oppose the group of amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I had intended to say more or less what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardener of Parkes, just said. We had a dispute about the rounding up and down of fractions. Anything which, in our view, enables more people to enfranchise is welcome. If the amendment's arithmetic—and goodness knows the noble Lord, Lord Renton, went through rather complicated arithmetic—allows more people to enfranchise, then perhaps I am mistaken about what the noble Lord seeks to do.
However, on the other hand, if what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, indicates is correct in that the arithmetic would in fact militate against enfranchisement—that is, narrow the universe of people who can enfranchise —then, naturally, as we have opposed such measures during the course of the Bill, we will oppose those presently before the House. I very much hope that the Minister will clarify your Lordships' minds as regards exactly what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would achieve.
1658
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am in some doubt about whether his amendment is meant to help or hinder enfranchisement. As I said, if it would help enfranchisement, we shall support it. But I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton basically for the reasons that he gave and, put in one phrase, because they ensure what I see as fair play between the landlord and the tenant. I understand the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but I do not accept that anything that widens the right of enfranchisement is welcome. It may be welcome so long as there is fair play between the landlord and the tenant.
I was interested to hear my noble friend the Minister refer to striking a fair balance. That is my approach. With respect to your Lordships, I support the approach put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton, or that of my noble friend Lord Boardman which more or less marries, save for the relationship with Amendment 14. With respect to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I totally agree that Amendment No. 160 to which I have referred in the past is not really relevant to that consideration. I support the broad drift of the amendments because they ensure fair play. I hope that they will commend themselves to my noble friend the Minister as having the right balance.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it would of course be of benefit to your Lordships to hear the Minister's analysis of the effect of the amendments before responding. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explained them pretty clearly. I take issue with the noble Lord's definition that the proposal would achieve democracy. It would achieve a position where enfranchisement could proceed if half the tenants wanted it to; but it is not necessarily the case that the other half would not want to enfranchise, as there may be some particular disqualification or problem on their part. It is not a situation where the tenants who do not fall within the 50 per cent. (the figure that we would end up under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton) would be disadvantaged because there would still be a landlord, whether it be the existing landlord or the new collective landlord. Therefore, there would not be the disadvantage that prompts what is, on the face of it, a very attractive suggestion of democracy.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who reminded us quite appropriately that there will be occasions when the arithmetic brings us to or near the cusp of the right number, as is the case now where we are rounding down the numbers in a way which is to the disadvantage of tenants who wish to enfranchise. For the reasons given by the noble Baroness, I do not support the group of amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton moved his amendments most eloquently. It was only during the course of the debate that followed that I became slightly confused as to his intentions. I

1659
shall refer back to what I believe my noble friend said. I understand the concern that a block should only be able to enfranchise where a significant majority of the long lease-holders are in favour. It is important that those tenants with the greatest financial stake in the property should decide whether or not to proceed with enfranchisement. That is why we have the two-thirds requirement, which represents a significant majority.
However, as I said earlier, there is a balance to be achieved here. We do not wish to make the provisions too restrictive. My noble friend's suggestion that we should increase the number of qualifying tenants required to participate from two-thirds to three-quarters would exclude many blocks from enfranchisement. That is not the intention of the Bill and therefore I cannot accept his suggestion.
I do, however, understand the concern that four-ninths of the tenants in a block can trigger enfranchisement. I accept that there is very real concern that this is less than a majority of the number of tenants of flats in the building. In practice, though, this occurrence is likely to be rare and the requirement remains that a substantial majority of those eligible to participate have to affirm positively that they wish to do so.
However, we are a Government who listen and the concern that less then a majority could enfranchise is a real one. I am therefore prepared, if it is the House's wish, to come back with my own amendment—that of my noble friend is flawed —at Third Reading to ensure that half the tenants of flats in the block must participate in giving the initial notice. That does not affect any of the other fractions. It simply raises the level from four-ninths to 50 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Boardman was quite correct in noticing that Amendment No. 30A seeks to reintroduce a residency test. However, I do not think that that was the intention. I ask my noble friend Lord Renton not to move that amendment because it is part of a group of amendments which will no doubt be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Boardman. In the light of that reassurance I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment. I remain committed to bringing back an amendment on Third Reading.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether he is willing to look again at the fractions as regards increasing or decreasing them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an entirely different matter from the amendment we are dealing with today.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for the open mindedness that he has shown on this matter and for the undertaking that he has given to move a government amendment on Third Reading. I am also grateful to those noble Lords who have been so frank as to express doubts. It is always right that doubts should be expressed so we can understand each other better. I shall not attempt to go over the ground again
1660
because it is now unnecessary for me to do so. All that I will do is to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 30A not moved.]
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert:
("and not less than one-half of the qualifying tenants by whom the notice is given must satisfy the residence condition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment. I am not sure that it is not introducing yet another different point. I should like to make quite sure that the amendment is simply connected to Amendment No. 14 and that it does not in any way widen the implications of this matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, may have spoken to this amendment but I understood that the Minister had expressed some sympathy with the group of amendments we discussed in which Amendment No. 31 was included. Therefore, for the House now to accept Amendment No. 31 as it is moved seems to me to be not consistent with what the Minister said on the first day of Report. I hope that the Minister may be able to say that he accepts the thrust of the group of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, introduced, but not necessarily their wording.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect there is some confusion here. I understand that Amendment No. 31, which was not grouped with the amendments that we have just discussed, is consequential to Amendment No. 14 which was accepted by the House last Tuesday. In the previous debate I was speaking to Amendment No. 30A in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton which I believe has a similar purpose to Amendment No. 31. However, Amendment No. 31 is the amendment which should be accepted, and of course Amendment No. 30A was withdrawn by my noble friend. I hope that I have cleared up the confusion rather than increased it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that is my understanding of the position and I was present when it was discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 13, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) contain a statement whether, during the preceding 12 months, notice has been served on the qualifying tenants under section 36(2) (c) (i) (right to acquire a new lease);").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32A I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 96 which is consequential upon Amendment No. 32A. The two amendments propose

1661
that if a leasehold tenant who gives notice of his wish to extend finds that after 12 months no Section 11 notice—that concerns a wish to enfranchise—has been issued, that tenant may exercise his right to extend. That, of course, does not preclude any subsequent efforts at enfranchisement.
We believe that these two amendments are key amendments if we wish to improve the situation of leaseholders. The Government want to enfranchise leaseholders as do we on this side of the House. The Government wish to place no hurdle in the way of enfranchisement which might bribe leaseholders to do other than enfranchise, and neither do we. However, we believe the Government are deeply inconsistent. On the one hand, leaseholders who would like the right to enfranchise but who, for example, fail the low rent test are being refused the right to enfranchise. But other leaseholders, who may have tried but failed to enfranchise because they could not attain the necessary majority, are to be punished twice over and denied not only the right to enfranchise but also the right to extend. That is profoundly unfair.
As a result of this Bill there would be three classes of leaseholders. First, there would be those who have exercised their right to enfranchisement; secondly, those who are not eligible to enfranchise but who have chosen to extend; and, thirdly, those who have failed to enfranchise, through no fault of their own very often, but who are then denied the right to extend. In other words, the Government have arbitrarily said that some qualifications stop leaseholders enfranchising but they can still extend—for example where shop space is involved—but that other qualifications which stop them enfranchising, such as the majority provision, will also stop them extending. We believe that distinction to be arbitrary, unfair and unnecessary. In Committee the Government advanced only one argument against this twin-track amendment; that is, that if leaseholders can extend as well as enfranchise, they will not enfranchise because they can extend.
If I can persuade the Minister that this is not the case, can I hope that he will support this amendment or come back with a similar amendment? If leaseholders have a free choice, has the Minister any reason to believe that they will seek to extend rather than enfranchise and thus in the Government's view undermine the purpose of the Bill? We believe that that could only be the case if extension were cheaper than enfranchisement, which it is not. Where there are long leases, it is as cheap to enfranchise as to extend and the vast majority of leases now last for more than 70 years. Only 3 per cent. of leases fall below 60 years. Therefore, the financial difference between choosing extension or enfranchisement is minimal.
Perhaps it is thought that leaseholders would gain more control over their flats if they were to take one course rather than the other. However, most complaints about leasehold property are not about the length of leases but about bad management. It is the landlord and the managing agent that leaseholders wish to remove and that can only be done easily by enfranchisement. Therefore, as regards arguments of cost and control, leaseholders will surely prefer to
1662
enfranchise rather than extend. Is that view supported by research evidence? The evidence from the Consumers' Association indicates that half of leaseholders might wish to enfranchise. Only one in 10 would pay the same money for a lease extension. The Government have advanced only one argument: that if people can extend they will not enfranchise. I hope that I have shown that that is not the case.
If the amendment is not accepted and people cannot extend what do we find? We all know that, unlike houses, in the case of flats one person's right to enfranchise depends upon his neighbour's equal willingness to do so. Exercising my right is conditional upon others exercising theirs. I speak as one who, as a Crown lessee, has no financial interest in this issue. What does my ability to exercise that right depend on? It depends on the random composition of the other leaseholders at any one moment in time. It depends not on my wishes but on the composition of the rest of the flats. If there are too many elderly people among my neighbours, too many poor first time buyers who cannot afford to buy the freehold, too many in the process of buying or selling their property, or perhaps one occupant who may have become unemployed, another recently divorced or another in ill health, then my opportunity to enfranchise has gone. All the rest of the hopes of the other leaseholders will have disappeared with it.
Is it proper that such a right should be so much of a lottery? Is it right that it should be so conditional and circumstantial, depending on the random snapshot of my neighbours? A lottery is no fair basis for social policy and certainly not a fair basis for this Bill.
If your Lordships were minded to accept the amendment, in such circumstances the leaseholder would have a fallback right—the right to extend. He would normally want to do so only where he has a stable and reliable landlord and probably transient and less reliable neighbours. The amendment would also protect the Government's position—the wish to privilege enfranchisement—by giving a 12 month delay before that right of extension can be triggered. If that right is triggered it does not in any way impede a later right to enfranchise.
The Minister may say that it is a question of either one or the other. I beg him not to take us down that path. If that is the case then those who are entitled but fail to enfranchise because they cannot overcome that last hurdle of the majority end up neither owning nor controlling their freehold. They will therefore sit on a declining asset, whose value will fall. They will be increasingly reluctant to repair and maintain the property, in turn damaging the property of their neighbours and making future enfranchisement—which the Government want, as do we—even less likely.
Therefore, I hope that if I have persuaded your Lordships I can also persuade the Government to accept these two amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for all the reasons

1663
she has given so eloquently and, particularly, because of the middle tier of tenants who stand to fall through the net.
There is another reason which the noble Baroness did not mention, and it may be appropriate for me to do so. I believe that the general right to a lease extension is as near as one can come to the consensus view within the industry itself. For that reason it has a great deal to commend it. I urge the Government to consider the matter very carefully. The smart money must be on the general right of lease extension, in particular where the right to enfranchise is difficult to the point of impossibility to achieve. I believe that the fiery hoop of enfranchisement will be a very difficult test. Therefore, I urge the Government to think carefully about this fallback position.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. She drew attention to the evidence that in the generality of cases flat owners will view lease extensions as a second best to enfranchisement. Generally, if two alternatives are available flat owners will opt for collective enfranchisement in order to secure the rights of freehold owners over their homes.
Nevertheless, central London is perhaps a special case. For the most part the great London estates provide excellent management. It may be expensive but expense is not necessarily the prime consideration of those who live in those flats. If those flat owners would prefer to remain lessees of an independent landlord and do not want to go through the considerable aggravation and expense inherent in collective enfranchisement in order to participate in the on-going problems of ownership of the freehold reversion to flats, then I for one see no reason why they should be compelled to enfranchise. Why should they be treated like children, being told what is best for them?
I have never made a secret of my hope that this Bill might provide a clear escape route both for the estates and their lessees. I reaffirm my hope by supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness. The way we own our homes should not be a matter for social engineering by the man in Whitehall.
I note in addition that the amendment will leave the lease extension route open to those flat owners who cannot come to terms with their neighbours and are excluded from an original enfranchisement or who cannot participate because they cannot raise the money. It will save them from what otherwise seems likely to be an appreciable fall in the value of their leases. It will also enable their successors to escape from a second-class leasehold tenure. That is my overwhelming reason for supporting the amendment. It has a general application.
The failure of the Bill as drafted to protect the interests of such lessees, as much as any other aspect which I and other noble Lords have criticised, ultimately casts doubt on the good sense and good intentions of those who have conjured up and fleshed out this part of the detail of the legislation. I believe that that view would be shared by some of those who oppose Part I of the Bill root and branch.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is grouped with Amendment No. 96, to which I have added my name. I apologise to your Lordships that my name was not attached to the first amendment in this grouping, as the two are very closely linked.
The reasons for supporting the amendment have been well rehearsed and I shall not go over the ground again. However, many of the representations which have been made to your Lordships have been in the form of a question as to why the Government seemed at earlier stages—although I hope that they may have changed their mind—to have set their face against choice on the part of tenants who may find themselves in this particular position. They are categorised by the Government as first or second-class citizens, depending on whether or not they can enfranchise, without the opportunity to choose between the two options.
I hope that when he replies the Minister can indicate to your Lordships the effect of the amendment relating to the residence qualifications which was accepted last week on the numbers affected and the qualifications applying to particular residents and to neighbouring residents. In other words, is there not now a greater need to allow for the choice which is encompassed by the amendments, given that there is a greater hurdle to overcome because we have accepted a residence qualification for enfranchisement?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I too support the amendment. Noble Lords who have implied during the course of the debate on the amendment that one would be able to extend one's lease for nothing and thus increase one's equity are suffering under a misapprehension. It will be costly even to extend one's lease. Leases cost money. However, I have no objection to that.
The value of the opportunity for people to extend their lease is considerable. People can become desperately worried if they cannot sell their property because no bank or building society will lend on the property since the lease is becoming too short. It would be wrong to leave people in a position where they have no hope of enfranchising and yet have no opportunity to extend their lease. The landlord would be well protected by the residential qualifications that have been accepted. Therefore, I believe that the amendment should be acceptable to the whole House. I hope that the Minister will take it seriously.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have no wish to add to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hollis. However, at an earlier stage of the Bill I had understood that this was a twin track amendment which those speaking for Smith's charities and others would support. We have not heard voices in the debate on the amendment which were prominent in Committee. Perhaps we might hear from them.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, since I am challenged to reply on the issue, perhaps I may say this. Henry Smith's Charity has a policy of offering long leases to its tenants.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has satisfied the noble Lord with that reply.
Of course, it is an opportunity once again to debate the amendment which the noble Baroness moved in Committee. We had a substantial debate at that time. At the end of that debate I said that I would consider the question again. I have done so. I stated earlier that Part I of the Bill is about a concept. We seek to reform residential leasehold tenure by delivering enfranchisement. The purpose of the Bill is to guide owners of flats down that route. We aim to allow flat owners to take collective control of their property and manage it to suit themselves, not a remote commercial landlord. I said, too, that enfranchisement is the only worthwhile goal and that there are no acceptable alternatives or fallback states. Nothing else would in fact change the landlord.
Again we have had a most interesting debate. There has been a great deal of support for the amendment. I assure the House that I have listened to the arguments carefully and have considered the matter at length. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pleaded for the Government to change their mind. I have decided that there is, after all, a case for giving all qualifying tenants the option of purchasing a new lease.
The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness is not acceptable as drafted. However, I undertake to return at Third Reading with my own amendments to give the option of a new lease under Chapter II to qualifying tenants of flats. Although the concept will be simple, with the right applying to everyone without a period of notice, I fear that the drafting will be complex because we shall need to take account of the interaction between the collective enfranchisement and lease renewal processes. In view of the support that the concept has received during today's debate I hope that that receives the support of the Whole House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted that the Minister has replied in the way that he has. I thank all noble Lords for the support that they have given.
Perhaps I may tempt the Minister to tell us a little more as to what the amendment may indicate that he proposes.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is Report stage. With the leave of the House therefore I simply say this. We have decided to widen the ability to extend a lease to all tenants. The only difference between our concept and that of the noble Baroness is that we would not have a time limited period because that simply adds another complexity which, on balance, is probably not worth having.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Under the circumstances, I am absolutely delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 46, after ("flats") insert ("or other units").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 16, at end insert (", and
(iii) if it is claimed that he satisfies the residence condition, particulars of the period or periods falling within the preceding ten years for which he has occupied the whole or part of his flat as his only or principal home;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 18, leave out ("by those tenants").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 19, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment, I should like to speak also to the other amendments that are grouped with it.
The amendments require that an address for the service of notices relating to enfranchisement or lease extension must be an address in England and Wales. This applies both to the nominee purchaser's or tenant's address for service and to the reversioner's or landlord's, and to the address for service of anyone acting for them. The Land Registry requires that all notices registered with it must have an address for service in England and Wales. The requirement will also be helpful to all parties. The fact that documents do not have to be sent abroad should speed up the process of enfranchisement or lease extension and will save unnecessary expense. The precedent in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 supports the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for moving the amendment which he has explained carefully. I have a small point on the drafting. The expression used in all the amendments is, "in England and Wales". The noble Viscount will be aware that Wales is separate from England geographically., Should not the drafting be "in England or Wales"? Clearly one cannot have an address in England and Wales if the two are geographically separate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the drafting is well precedented in other legislation and that it is correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) In a case where the tenant's lease is held by joint tenants subsection (3) (e) (iii) shall have effect as if any reference to the tenant were a reference to any joint tenant by virtue of whose occupation of the flat in question it is claimed that the residence condition is satisfied.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The initial notice: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 182, line 9, after ("where") insert ("at the relevant date").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 182, line 13, at end insert (", or
( ) (if it is claimed in the notice that he satisfies the residence condition) does not satisfy that condition,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 182, line 15, after ("fact") insert ("properly").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 182, line 16, at end insert (", and not less than one-half of the qualifying tenants by whom it was so given then satisfied the residence condition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42A not moved.]
Clause 13 [The nominee purchaser: appointment and replacement]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 18, line 29, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 18, line 38, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 19, line 6, at end insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendments have already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [The nominee purchaser: retirement or death]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 20, line 30, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 21, line 1, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Access by relevant landlords for valuation purposes.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 22, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) Once the initial notice has been given in accordance with section 11, the nominee purchaser and any person authorised to act on his behalf shall have a right of access to—

(a) any part of the specified premises, or

(b) any part of any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii),

where such access is reasonably required by the nominee purchaser in connection with any matter arising out of the notice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment in response to my agreement to consider further, after the debate in Committee, the matter of whether the purchasing tenants should have reciprocal rights of access to parts of the property for valuation purposes. I said then that it would not be right if individual tenants, or even groups acting together, were able to gain access by right to other parts of the block of flats before a nominee purchaser gave an initial notice. Such a right would be an unjustifiable imposition on the landlord and a gross intrusion on the privacy of non-qualifying tenants.
I have reflected on the merits of the argument and I am more than ever convinced that it is wrong to allow tenants a right of access before they have initiated the enfranchisement process. For example, if the right were to be exercisable only in relation to an eligible building, it would be necessary to predetermine eligibility. Secondly, the number of times the right could be exercised in a given period would have to be limited, for obvious reasons. A consequence would be that a group of tenants genuinely wishing to give an initial notice might not have a right of access because other groups, with no prospect of promoting a buy-out, have already claimed the right.
However, I see considerable advantages in allowing the nominee purchaser a right similar to that given to the reversioner and relevant landlords after the initial notice is given. Although it would not be of any benefit before the participating tenants decide to launch their bid, the nominee would be able to inspect the state of repair of any part of the premises which is to be acquired and to obtain more detailed information about the premises so that a more accurate valuation can be made. This will mean that the nominee or his agent and the reversioner will be able to negotiate on a much more equal basis, and so it will be fairer.
The new right would also be useful if there was a dispute about the 10 per cent. commercial floor space in the building. The amendment is drafted to allow the nominee or his agent access at any reasonable time to any part of the specified premises, together with any appurtenant property or common parts specified in the notice, where such access is reasonably required. in connection with any matter arising out of the initial notice. It is modelled on the existing right given in Clause 15 to the reversioner and relevant landlords, and also requires the giving of 10 days' notice to the

1669
occupier. The House will recall that an amendment was made in Committee increasing the period of notice from three days.
The amendment will put the parties to enfranchisement on a more equal footing and will improve the Bill. I urge the House to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the amendment. It responds to the arguments which we raised in Committee and which came from all sides of the Committee. I believe that the Government have gone as far as they can. Of course, they have not gone the whole way and I take issue with the Minister on the first part of his amendment. He explained that in the Government's view it was not right to allow a prospective nominee purchaser or tenant to have access to a building before the initial notice had been given. It is difficult to see how an initial notice could be given without such access, because the initial notice must be on behalf of a nominee purchaser acting on the collective behalf of a two-thirds majority of the qualifying tenants.
I do not understand—perhaps the Minister can help me—how, at the first stages of enfranchisement, a qualifying tenant can make up his or her mind whether to go into this rather complicated process without knowing the state of the premises around him or her. He or she may be in a block of 30 flats, with no right to inspect the roofs, gutters or whatever it may be. I accept that the nominee purchaser may be able to go in after the initial notice, and that initial notice may thereby be withdrawn because of the state of repair of the premises. However, I believe that the Government could have gone further in that once an initial notice was contemplated in some form—and I shall not go into the drafting—it would be appropriate for the nominee purchaser or the prospective nominee purchaser or at least the prospective tenants who would like to give such notice to view. The person authorised should have a view on the value and state of repair of the premises. That is the only point on which I take issue with the Minister.
I hope that in his reply the noble Lord will be able to convince me that I am being over-suspicious. I do not believe that I am, and if we have to accept half a loaf I shall happily do so rather than have no loaf at all. I thank the Minister for conceding something which was debated in Committee but, so far as we are concerned, going only halfway towards the right solution.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendment in principle and, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just given, I appreciate the difficulties involved.
There is one matter which worries me on which perhaps the Minister could give me reassurance. Clearly, a complicated process is involved with enfranchisement. Following inspection by the group of enfranchising leaseholders, there may be other inspections that need to be carried out, perhaps by
1670
someone looking at the structure and subsequently by someone on behalf of a finance source looking at the property from its point of view.
As I understand it, even if it is not stated in the lease expressly, there is an implied covenant for part enjoyment. Certainly, if I were a non-participating tenant, I should be worried at the prospect of various different people tramping in and out of my flat, putting me to inconvenience, particularly if I worked shifts or at nights or if it were otherwise inconvenient for me to be in during the normal working day when someone wished to inspect the property.
I invite the Minister to comment on that and to give the House reassurance that that concept has been taken on board and that the test of reasonableness will be taken to apply throughout.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lytton, I believe that built into most leases is the assumption that an appointment will be made, except in an emergency. Therefore, there should not really be a problem about disturbing people who work at night and sleep during the day. Most people buying a flat now are advised that they should have a survey of the whole block, not just of their own flat. Many surveyors say that it is no good just looking at one flat. If it is one in a block of 50, it is important to look at what may happen to the roof and other parts. Frequently, people now have a total inspection carried out, not of the interior of other people's flats but of their own and all the common parts: the heating and boiler systems and so on. Thus, I do not believe that the inspections present a difficulty, but they are important.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was right when he said, in his first few sentences, that this amendment is probably as far as the Government can go. It is, but perhaps I may explain why. Giving a Section 11 notice is an initial notice. It will be part of what could be a lengthy process of negotiation with a landlord. There will be many issues to decide on exact valuations, particularly if many flats are involved. Some will and some will not qualify; there may be commercial property; there may be cases which give rise to claims for injurious affection, and so on. So there will be plenty of time after the initial notice is given for the full and proper valuation to take place. I have accepted in the amendment that that means that access is required. That is the practical reason for the amendments being brought forward.
However, there is a much more serious aspect. Right of access to a personal property for third parties is exceptional and should be exceptional. Access is normally allowed with a warrant for very clearly defined purposes. If we were to accept a free-for-all in the Bill, it would allow any person to inspect their neighbour's flats at any time. That is something that we should not contemplate with ease.
I have been trying during the course of today to strike a balance. I believe that the amendment strikes the right balance and therefore I am encouraged by the general welcome that it has received. I understand

1671
the noble Lord, Lord Williams, saying that it does not go far enough, but I hope that he will be able to accept it as it is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 22, line 8, leave out ("That right of access") and insert ("A right of access conferred by this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Effect of initial notice as respects subsequent transactions by freeholder etc]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 23, line 6, leave out ("to acquisition on that date") and insert ("on that date to acquisition").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been debated. I should like to move Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 en bloc. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before we move on to the Question, it is my understanding from the grouping list that Amendment No. 51 has not been debated. If it has been debated, then the grouping list is wrong. So far as we are concerned, we are prepared to accept Amendment No. 50 on the basis that it has been accepted, but we shall not accept Amendment No. 51 unless it is properly moved and debated by noble Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Right of reversioner to require evidence of tenant's right to participate]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.51:
Page 24, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Where—

(a) the nominee purchaser fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) in the case of any person within the period mentioned in subsection (2), and

(b) the initial notice would not have been given in accordance with section 11(2) (b) if—

(i) that person, and

(ii) any other person in the case of whom a like failure by the nominee purchaser has occurred,

had been neither included among the persons who gave the notice nor included among the qualifying tenants of the flats referred to in that provision,

the initial notice shall be deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of that period.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am as anxious as the noble Lord opposite not to be deprived of the chance to explain this amendment to the House. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that under Clause 18 a reversioner may require the nominee purchaser to deduce the title of any participating tenant.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Coleraine raised the particular issue in relation to this provision and pointed out that it seemed to him harsh that Clause 18 (3) deems the initial notice to be withdrawn where the nominee purchaser cannot deduce the title of the property of any participating tenant, even one. That would be true under present drafting, even where there were still two-thirds of the qualifying tenants
1672
who had signed the initial notice whose title could be deduced. The noble Lord felt that the initial notice should be deemed to be withdrawn only where the failure to deduce title brought the number of participating tenants who can deduce title below the requisite two-thirds of qualifying tenants to enable enfranchisement.
Even when I listened to the debate I thought that the arguments were ones of force. We have considered them. In the light of that consideration we have concluded that it is right that if title cannot be deduced on behalf of a participating tenant the initial notice should nonetheless not be deemed to be withdrawn provided that, if that particular tenant is disregarded as a participating tenant and also as a qualifying tenant, in that situation the initial notice has nevertheless still been given by two-thirds of the qualifying tenants, and those qualifying tenants still constitute not less than two-thirds of the number of flats in the building. I hope that that is clear. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for bringing the amendment forward this afternoon. I am advised by the Law Society that it meets the points that I made on its behalf in Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I also thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward this amendment and allowing noble Lords to debate it. It is part of the job of this House, as a revising Chamber, for the Opposition from time to time to correct the Government Front Bench when it tries to slide through amendments without any proper debate. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made the case in Committee and the noble and learned Lord has accepted it. We shall certainly not oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Reversioner's counter-notice]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 56:
Page 25, line 50, leave out ("the right of access conferred by subsection (I) or') and insert ("a right of access conferred by").
Page 26, line 1, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 26, line 3, leave out ("In this section any reference") and insert ("The reference in subsection (3) (a) (ii)").
Page 26, line 7, after ("flats") insert ("or other units").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been debated. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Tenants' claim liable to be defeated where landlord intends to redevelop]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 27, line 24, leave out ("premises") and insert ("flats").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Applications where reversioner fails to give counter-notice or further counter-notice]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 30, line 15, after ("flats") and insert ("or other units").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Vesting orders under Sections 22 and 23]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60:
Page 183, line 26, leave out ("and (5)").
Page 183, line 26, at end insert:
("(2A) Where, at any time after a vesting order is made but before the interests falling to be vested in the nominee purchaser by virtue of the order have been so vested, any acquiring authority (within the meaning of section 28) serves notice to treat as mentioned in subsection (1) (a) of that section, the vesting order shall cease to have effect.
(2B) Where sub-paragraph (2A) applies to any vesting order, then on the occasion of the compulsory acquisition in question the compensation payable in respect of any interest in the specified premises (whether or not the one to which the notice to treat relates) shall be determined on the basis of the value of the interest subject to and with the benefit of the rights and obligations arising from the initial notice and affecting the interest.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Applications where relevant landlord cannot be found]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 31, line 20, at end insert (", he having died, no grant of representation has been obtained or the freehold of the premises has vested in the Crown as bona vacantia, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which I moved in Committee, again at the request of the Law Society. It deals with procedures to be followed where the landlord has died and his will has yet to be proved while no advance representations have been received on the landlord's interests as invested in the Crown. Since the Committee stage my noble friend has written to me to point out that legislation implementing a Law Commission report will shortly be introduced which will, as I understand it, obviate the need for the amendment. I say to my noble and learned friend that it might be wrong to anticipate future legislation in this way, and that my amendment should be accepted now. In due course it can either be deleted by new legislation or allowed to wither on the vine. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support the noble Lord in his amendment, at least in the argument that we cannot anticipate future legislation, particularly coming from the Law Commission. There are, as the Jellicoe Committee indicated—if I may refer to that committee for a moment—many issues on which the Law Commission has pronounced which have been sitting in a pigeon-hole somewhere waiting for legislation. Is it not therefore right not to wait for pronouncements from the Law Commission but to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, as it stands?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have indicated, this matter is part of a wider problem which has been considered by the Law Commission. I stress that point. The Law Commission has reported on this matter and the Government have accepted that report in principle. In those circumstances we are dealing with part of a wider problem which the Government intend to resolve by means of legislation. It is correct that I cannot anticipate exactly when that legislation will come forward, beyond saying to noble Lords, that it will be brought forward at the first suitable legislative opportunity.
The present system—although, as the Law Commission pointed out, it could be improved—is nonetheless a system which works. Notice can be served in the names of the personal representatives and, in the case of intestacy, on the President of the Family Division. That system, though not perfect, exists and is operated in other areas of landlord and tenant. With respect, it seems to us that it would be proper to maintain the present Bill in line with the existing legislation in other parts of land law and in due course to sweep up this matter in the reform of the whole of the law. That would be in line with the way in which it is tackled by the Law Commission. In my respectful submission, the balance of convenience lies in that way. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may say that he has not explained to the House—certainly not to me—what harm it would do to accept this amendment which would, as I see it, be pure common sense. What harm, if any, would it do?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I simply say that, for the reasons I have given, it would be appropriate to have this matter dealt with along with the other matters relating to this whole area of the law. I cannot put the matter higher than that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he say which of the 26 Law Reports which have been accepted by the Government and are due for legislation cover this particular matter? Will this matter have priority over the other 25 reports in future legislation?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, the report is the report called Property Law, Title on Death, which was Law Commission Report No. 184. It has been accepted and it is desired to give this matter priority. However, I cannot indicate more precisely exactly when this matter will be brought before Parliament. But it is a matter which has been considered. The report has been accepted. It is not a report which has not been accepted by the Government or which is under

1675
consideration by the Government. It has been accepted by the Government. It is a matter of finding a parliamentary slot for it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the reply given by my noble and learned friend has been shown to be unsatisfactory in so far as he anticipates legislation which is still promised. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reiterated the concerns of many people about the enactment of the Law Commission's reports. I am sure the intentions are that this matter should be in legislation at an early date. At the same time, the principles on which we normally act are that a Bill is considered and legislation is enacted on the basis of the law as it is at the time of consideration by Parliament.
I understand that my noble and learned friend said that in the last resort the amendments were not necessary and that the point could be overcome in some other way. I note that he does not dissent from that assessment of his view of the situation and on that basis I feel it best, with some reluctance, to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Supplementary provisions relating to vesting orders under section 24(1)]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 33, line 23, leave out ("the court thinks fit") and insert ("may be determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal to be appropriate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to clarify the role of the leasehold valuation tribunal and also provisions which deal with costs before the tribunal. The amendments are largely of a technical nature. I do not wish to take up noble Lords' valuable time discussing them in detail unless some particular explanation is required. In broad terms, Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 and 104 to 107 clarify the situation, making clear that when the acquisition is to be effected by vesting order in relation to a missing landlord's interest, the terms of the acquisition are to be determined by the tribunal, that being the body best suited to dealing with these kinds of technical amendments.
Amendments Nos. 74, 118, 165, 167 and 169 deal with matters relating to costs that arise by virtue of a dispute before' the tribunal. Amendments Nos. 74, 118, 167 and 169 again clarify the position that costs which are incurred in proceedings before the tribunal may not be recovered by an order of court. Finally, Amendment No. 165 clarifies the jurisdiction of the tribunals in connection with the liability for costs. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment Nos. 63 to 65:
Page 33, line 29, leave out ("the court thinks fit, a vesting order under section 24(1) may") and insert ("a leasehold valuation tribunal so determines in the case of a vesting order under section 24(1), the order shall").
Page 33, line 31, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
Page 33, line 44, leave out from ("(4)") to ("it") in line 48 and insert ("In connection with the determination by a leasehold valuation tribunal of any question as to the interests to be conveyed by any such conveyance, or as to the rights with or subject to which they are to be conveyed,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:
Page 34, line 7, leave out from ("which") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("would be payable in respect of that interest in accordance with Schedule 5 if the interest were being acquired in pursuance of such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (1) (b);").
Page 34, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Where any interest is so vested in any person or persons, section 29(5) shall apply in relation to his or their acquisition of that interest as it applies in relation to the acquisition of any interest by a nominee purchaser.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 have already been spoken to and were grouped with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Purchase price payable by nominee purchaser]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment no. 68:
Page 184, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) on the assumption that neither the vendor nor a successor in title to the vendor nor any tenant under a lease whose interest is superior to that of a participating tenant will at any time in the future buy or seek to buy the interest of the nominee purchaser or of a participating tenant, or of any successor in title to the nominee purchaser or to a participating tenant, in the specified premises;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 5 to the Bill contains the all important valuation provisions fixing the price that will be paid on collective enfranchisement. I shall move three amendments dealing with those provisions and speak now to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 in my name. The amendments are grouped with my Amendment No. 161 which amends Section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. In the interests of saving time, I shall not move that amendment. I speak to it now only to the extent of pointing out that similar considerations to those which I shall address in the case of collective enfranchisement apply in the case of acquisition orders under Part I of the 1987 Act.
The first part of the price to be paid by the nominee purchaser is the freeholder's value of the reversion, calculated as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 5. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde made it clear in Committee that, in the case of commercial premises and non-participating tenants, that price will be the open market price and will include any speculative or hope value that the market will pay for the reversion. He explained that, in the case of the reversion to leases of the participating tenants, however, the nominee purchaser will not pay the hope value element of the market price. The hope value will form part of marriage value, the second element of the price, at the next stage of the valuation process. My noble friend made that clear. I need say no more now about the reversion of the non-participating tenant. There is no problem there. These amendments are solely concerned with the leases of the participating tenants.
Until now the Government have been less than clear in explaining how the Bill excludes hope value in the calculation of the first stage of the assessment of the price to be paid for their reversions. The words in brackets in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 5:
"(with neither the nominee purchaser nor any participating tenant buying or seeking to buy)",
do not, by their normal and ordinary meaning, exclude hope value. They exclude the tenants as present purchasers, but they do not in terms exclude the possibility that there will be a speculator prepared to pay over the odds in the hope of doing deals with tenants at a later date which will enable him to make his turn by sharing windfall marriage value with the tenants.
That is what we know happens in auctions and reversions to leases to blocks of flats. It is often the territory of anti-social speculation. The speculator fixes his price in the knowledge that tenants wishing to sell or mortgage would have to buy lease extensions in order to effect marriage by purchase or they will sell their leases to him and effect marriage by sale. A hypothetical speculator will see the prospect of harvesting marriage value in both ways and therefore will be prepared to make a hope value payment of part of the marriage value in advance in order to secure the opportunity.
I moved the probing amendment which we discussed in Committee. My noble friend gave me his assurance that my fears were groundless and said that what I feared was not the case. On 22nd March he said:
"Marriage value, but not hope value, will be payable for the flats of participating tenants and hope value will be payable for the flats of non-participating tenants".—[Official Report, 22/3/93; col. 42.]
That made the Government's intentions clear and at that stage I thanked my noble friend and withdrew my amendment. Unfortunately he did not explain why the words had the effect that he claimed for them. I have since corresponded with my noble friend and yesterday I met him, my honourable friend Sir George Young and officials. I have been informed that my amendments are considered to be unnecessary and that the words in brackets exclude the speculator's bid in the short term but might allow it in the very long term. I stress the word "very" because I should have thought that in assumptions of this kind the point at which the short term became the long term was the moment of the completion of the hypothetical sale to the speculator.
I am assured that the possibility of the speculator starting at that point to conduct deals with the lessees, which he would normally expect to do over the following five or 10 years, given the short length of time that people live, in their flats, is also excluded by the words in brackets. I am told that it is only in regard to the very long term that the words in brackets may be ineffective. In those circumstances, hope value might be a consideration but it would be minimal. I gain some reassurance and comfort from those words but I confess that I do not understand the argument. I hope that my noble friend will be
1678
able to expand upon it and justify it, and clarify the Government's intention by using the words in brackets in paragraph 3.
My submission is that until the case is argued through on first principles, or otherwise justified, the bracketed words can only be understood in their apparent sense of not excluding the speculator's bid.
It may be of assistance if I refer briefly to dicta in the judgment of Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal in the case of Official Custodian for Trustees & Others v. Goldrich reported in 26th Property and Compensation Reports 1973, page 191. Lord Denning spoke of the special incentive which was used by freeholders in enfranchisement cases at that time to counteract a valuation technique known as the adverse differential. The so-called special incentive had been argued and accepted in some cases by that time. Especially for large estates of houses, an investor purchaser's bid would be uplifted by the thought that, if he bought the freehold reversion to a house that was subject to a lease, he would probably be able to buy in the leasehold interest at a later date and thus reap the inherent marriage value.
Lord Denning disapproved of the adverse differential and the special incentive. He described the special incentive as a very speculative and uncertain element. However, he stated that he did not rule out the possibility that there might in some cases be evidence which would justify its use. That is the position today. I understand that since that case the special incentive argument has seldom been advanced on behalf of freeholders when low-rated houses are enfranchised. For those houses it may be a speculative and uncertain element, but my understanding is that blocks of flats often present a special incentive to the speculator to pay something extra with the hope of achieving marriage by sales or marriage by purchases. The amendments are necessary if the effect which the Government confess to desire is to be achieved.
Although the same principle applies in the case of single units, houses and flats, whether enfranchisement of house cases or lease extensions for flats, it becomes a significant factor in valuation only in relation to blocks of flats. Therefore, I have limited my enfranchisement amendments in this group to the case of a block of flats. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, in the context of valuation, which is a field in which I am involved in my capacity as a chartered surveyor, one aspect that frequently emerges is that the more one knows about it, the more one realises that one does not know. That situation is true in many areas of detailed expertise.
The subject of speculators is always a vexed one. They are an éminence grise that appears from behind other obstructions in almost every field of endeavour. They appear in both counts: they are landlords and tenants and external forces, and they cannot be totally eliminated from the marketplace. There is an element of speculation when people feel that they can achieve some element of gain over and above the purchase price. There would not be an incentive for anyone to

1679
purchase anything were that not the case. Therefore, we are dealing with a matter of quantum that cannot be wholly sifted from the valuation exercise.
I am not clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, intended that the amendments should create a predisposition towards eliminating certain elements of value. If that is the case, I take issue with the noble Lord. Such a predisposition would be wrong because the Government have clearly stated that they will compensate landlords fairly and that tenants will pay a fair price. Much play has been made of that matter and I agree with that principle.
Secondly, the amendment sets in place the authority and jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunals, with which I agree. That is the expert forum in which vexed matters of valuation, including what is included in a valuation and the resultant figure, will ultimately be determined. It is very important that we should not create a predisposition or a fetter to the way in which the leasehold valuation tribunal carries out its work. Therefore, in so far as that is the intention of the amendments, I shall not support them.
Can the Minister clarify, in the context of the amendment, the position of qualifying tenants who do not participate? Non-participants are excluded from the marriage value when it is calculated in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 5. I should like to know whether it is anticipated that the valuation tribunals will take account of hope value and that that can be valued in accordance with paragraph 3, which looks at the freehold interest as it stands. I should be most grateful for clarification of that point.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the issue that is raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine is a complex one, of some detail, in our valuation provisions. I hope that noble Lords will be relieved if I keep my response as simple as possible.
Our valuation provisions are designed to reproduce the open market as closely as possible in order to give a fair price. The price is composed of three elements: the open market price of the landlord's interest, at least half the marriage value, and compensation for any severance loss. In the first element, which is the price a third party would pay for the landlord's interest, we have excluded the bid which would be made by the participating tenants and the nominee purchaser from the market as that would have artificially inflated the price. Their special interest is reflected in the marriage value, which is calculated separately.
When valuing the landlord's present interests, any hope value element in the open market value of non-participating tenants' flats is included, as it is only nominee and participating tenants who are assumed not to be in the market.
However, we cannot exclude the tenants and the nominee purchaser from the market for all time. Perhaps I should mention to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that non-participating tenants are outside the marriage value, but they do come into hope value. The noble Lord was correct in the way in which he described the situation.
1680
It is possible that a third party might, in an open market transaction, pay more on the assumption that tenants may wish to extend their leases in the future. Because the open market might provide that the tenants pay a slightly increased price to reflect a speculator's bid, it is right that the Bill's provisions should allow this too. The noble Lord has argued that assumptions made for flats should be different from those for houses because a speculator is unlikely to bid more for a house. I agree that the two cases might be different, just as I agree that the open market price for every block of flats will need to be assessed separately to take account of each one's unique situation.
That is the way the open market works and that is what we have provided for in the Bill. We cannot prescribe that a speculator's bid will or will not influence price. That is a matter for the professionals in each case. We have simply allowed that possible hope value should be taken into account as it is in the open market. This will only have a marginal influence on price. What is important is that there is no element of double counting. The price of a landlord's interest might rise because of hope value, but by doing so it would automatically reduce the marriage value payable.
If the market would include a speculator's bid, then it would be unfair to the landlord to exclude this element in our provisions. Tenants will not have to pay for the same interest twice. The price therefore remains fair. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, perhaps I may answer, first, the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He suggested that the amendment tries to eliminate certain elements of value. In fact, the amendment is trying to refine the valuation formulae in the Bill so that it is clear where certain elements of value fall; in particular, whether they fall on the side of marriage value or whether they form part of the freeholder's value of the reversion. The noble Earl and I will be agreed that the valuation provisions in the Bill are artificial. It would be very much better if much more discretion was left to the valuer and general valuation assumptions were put into the Bill which the valuers have the task of bringing sense to. I do not think that anything in my amendment creates artificiality. In my amendment I am simply trying to clarify definitions.
My noble friend the Minister said in replying that he would try to keep his exposition as simple as possible. We might have expected that. It is a tendency when dealing with valuation matters, especially when Ministers may be replying to an amateur, such as I, in these matters, to keep things simple. I would rather not say more about his reply at this stage because it was my impression that the assurance which he gave me in Committee, and on the strength of which I withdrew what was a probing amendment, is not being honoured, as it were. I should like to read very carefully what he has said and consult with those who have raised these concerns with me. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 70, I should point out to the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 71.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 185, line 37, leave out from ("seller,") to end of line 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 71, which stands in the name of the noble. Lord, Lord Monson. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 113 to Schedule 12. I moved this amendment in Committee and I have brought it back today because of the reply which I received from the Minister at that time. My noble friend may have himself been in difficulty because of the nature of his briefing or how he read his brief. The fact is that, although the amendment was not grouped with earlier amendments, my noble friend had spoken to it with an earlier grouping.
I put to him a number of points which I hoped he would be able to answer. He began, instead, by saying:
"I had hoped that at this stage of the Committee proceedings we might all feel that we had discussed valuations to such an extent that we could have skipped the amendment".—[Official Report, 22/3/93; col. 54.]
I may have been wrong in not sharing that perception. I had given some care and thought, as I thought, to explaining why the sharing of marriage value was not something to be subjected to a quick once-over by a Minister. Marriage value has barely been touched on by Ministers in either House in other than the most simplistic terms. My noble friend went on:
"However, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine put the matter. I understand that I have to do some more explaining". —[Official Report, 22/3/93; col. 54.]
I shall try to explain the position briefly but it is clear to me from the debate in Committee that brevity may not be easy nor in the interests of good legislation. I hope that the House will bear with me if I seem to embark on a long journey. But as I said when introducing the amendment in Committee, from the point of view of flat owners this is one of the most important amendments that is likely to be made to the Bill.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 provides that the nominee purchaser will pay to the reversioner the share of marriage value which would have been agreed between the parties on the sale in the open market by a willing seller. So far, so good. But the paragraph goes on to provide that the reversioner's share of marriage value should never be less than half. This provision negates the open market assumptions which are meant to provide the operating framework of the valuation provisions of the Bill—the free market and the assumption that negotiations are carried out between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
My noble friend tried, to justify the 50 per cent. floor in several ways. In the earlier of the debates in Committee he said:
"We have provided that the landlord should receive at least half the mari,jage value, as an equal division of marriage value is very common".
I can say with reverse logic that the nominee purchaser should receive at least half the marriage value too. He continued:
1682
"By specifying 50 per cent., we hope to reduce the scope for argument thereby making enfranchisement quicker and cheaper".—[Official Report, 22/3/93; col. 26.]
There is no merit in a provision that gives flat owners a right and then in this way largely destroys their ability to assert it. It is like saying to a man, "If you fight with your hands tied behind your back, it is less likely that you will get hurt and certainly your opponent will be saved a lot of trouble". The point which my noble friend made really cannot be accepted.
It was on the strength of a few comments in the earlier debate that my noble friend told the Committee in reply to my amendment that he thought that he had already said the last word on the subject. He said:
"Until now the Committee has agreed that our valuation provisions are fair".
When, may I ask, has the principle "heads I win, tails we draw" been considered fair? Has the Committee expressed any opinion? I think not. My noble friend Lord Carnock, for one, must have been surprised to hear his speech dismissed as expressing agreement that the valuation principles are fair. His had been a most cogently argued close analysis of the foundations of sand on which the valuation provisions of the Bill are based. My noble friend the Minister then said:
"The 50 per cent. floor is a recognition of how the market works in practice".
That statement, as a statement of how the market works, from a Minister in a Conservative Government, cannot be accepted as a statement of fact.
In central London, because of a monopoly situation and the fact that the big landlords are genuine investors and not speculators, the great estates may be able to exact as much as 85 per cent. and more of marriage value. But that is not true of 95 per cent. of blocks of flats where deals are struck daily which depart from any 50/50 sharing of marriage value—sometimes one way, sometimes the other. In case my noble friend is tempted to suggest that his provision strikes a balance, as he on occasion does—a compromise he might say—let me say at once that one cannot compromise between asparagus and a rotten turnip. All the provision does is thwart the legitimate expectations of the great majority of flat owners all over the country to enfranchise in the interests of a few handfuls of well to do landlords.
From here my noble friend moved to his conclusion in that debate. He said:
"It is in the interests of all parties that there should be a base for normal valuations so that enfranchisement can be as simple as possible. I find it surprising that my noble friend Lord Coleraine should seek to take away that aspect of valuation since it allows the Government to argue that valuation is determined on a fair basis".—[Official Report, 22/3/93; col. 54.]
It allows the Government to argue nothing of the sort. My noble friend did not answer the questions that I put to him so I tabled a Question for Written Answer, and his Answer was given on 14th April. That Answer was misleading; it was incorrect. In it he repeated the statement which he had made previously in debate:
"The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors agrees that the [Government's valuation] proposals follow market practice". [Official Report, 22/3/93; col. 26.]

1683
That claim by the Government is so crucial, given the Government's insistence that the nominee purchaser will pay the market price for the reversion, that I propose to read in full the relevant two paragraphs of a letter from Michael Chambers, the director of public affairs in the RICS. Mr. Chambers wrote to me on 28th April as follows:
"Turning to the question of marriage value the Minister is not quite right in what he says about our views. The marriage value formula in the Bill—that the landlord should have at least 50%—is clearly a political rather than a valuation judgment. There may be cases where landlords accept less than 50% of the marriage value. In view of the compulsion on landlords implicit in the Bill a case might be made for giving the landlord a minimum of 50% of marriage value but that, as I have said, is a political judgment. There are, of course, very many more cases in which the landlord receives more than 50% of marriage value.
"As you say, our view is that a rigid formula for valuation cannot be built into legislation and that the task is best left to the LVTs. The legislation gives a landlord the opportunity to convince an LVT that market practice would ordinarily leave him with more than 50% of marriage value".
To that I add that the LVT should equally have the opportunity to award a tenant more than 50 per cent. of marriage value.
Then there is the Minister's Written Answer to my Question whether in the open property market, on the sale of the reversion to a block of flats, marriage value would be shared equally. The Minister replied:
"the practice in the marketplace is reflected by decisions of the Lands Tribunal in respect of"
house enfranchisements. That is patently incorrect. What may be true of houses cannot said ipso facto to be true of blocks of flats. Considering that there is an unfettered free market in reversions to flat leases, and no general rule that marriage value is shared equally, I feel constrained to say that it takes a monumental chutzpah to disregard what actually happens in the market and make a rule instead out of the lands tribunal's decision on the particular facts of two house enfranchisement cases.
With flats, as with houses, there are cases where marriage value is shared equally and others where one or the other side in a negotiating situation will achieve a higher share depending on the relative strengths of the bargaining positions. But I consider it more likely that unequal sharing will take place with blocks of flats than with houses.
The sharing of marriage values should be left to valuers and tribunals to decide and they should not be directed to value with the fetter of the 50 per cent. floor. My mailbag may be flooded tomorrow, but to date I have yet to hear of a valuer who treats the artificiality of Schedule 5 with anything but the utmost professional contempt. I beg to move.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I support this amendment. There are only two reported cases of a lands tribunal dealing with valuations on the enfranchisement of houses under the 1967 Act. In each case the marriage value was divided equally between the landlord end the tenant. In making the decision, the tribunal would have taken all the circumstances into account, including the way in which the market works. The market works differently from time to time
1684
and from place to place. There appears to be no need to introduce into the Bill a provision of this kind relating to marriage value.
There may well be occasions when valuers, in the exercise of their professional judgment, might think it right that the landlord should get less than 50 per cent. and in others more than 50 per cent. In my opinion, the introduction of this provision introduces into the Bill an element of inflexibility which is not desirable. There appears to be no logic in providing that in all cases landlords are to get not less than 50 per cent.
I should also point out that under paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 5, where there are intermediate leasehold interests, the freeholder is obliged to account to them for a proportionate part of his marriage value in accordance with the value of their interests. That is the equitable method of division. I do not understand why a different method is to be used for determining the share of marriage value to be awarded to the tenant and that the judgments of the valuers themselves in that respect are to be overridden.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment for me to speak to Amendment No. 71 which is grouped with Amendment No. 70. Perhaps I may, first, speak very briefly to Amendment No. 70 in reply to the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Carnock. This part of the Bill is essentially about compulsory purchase. Whatever may have been the case in 1967, nowadays it is generally accepted that, where compulsory purchase is deemed to be necessary, whether for the purposes of leasehold enfranchisement or building a Channel tunnel, the state has a duty to ensure that the compensation payable for the property which has been taken away from the unwilling owner should be as generous as possible.
I now turn to Amendment No. 71. To allay suspicion, perhaps I may emphasise that this amendment does not in any way constitute an attempt to restrict the proportion of tenants who can enfranchise. On the contrary, its object is purely to ensure "fair play", to borrow a phrase so aptly employed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when speaking earlier this afternoon to Amendment No. 29.
Many of your Lordships will have seen the startling figures used by Savills derived not only from their own analyses, but also from estimates supplied by other well known and reputable estate agents, which show that profits of up to £276,000 will be obtained on enfranchisement of the larger Belgravia properties under the terms of the Bill as it stands, where the lease has between 30 years and 35 years to run. That is a profit of over 22.5 per cent: my own estimates at Committee stage were too modest and conservative. This will come about because of the quirks of marriage value where short or medium length leases are concerned. With leases with 80 or more years to run, the profits under formulae currently contained in the Bill are not wholly unreasonable: they will work out at a little over 5 per cent. which I believe is acceptable. But profits of well over 20 per cent. and over £250,000

1685
in cash terms, are not acceptable, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, in particular those noble Lords on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches.
We should also bear in mind that, despite the partial success of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, a week ago as regards Amendment No. 14, most of those making profits in the £250,000 range will come from overseas. In many cases the properties will not be their principal private residences, as that phrase is commonly understood. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to suggest that valuers would be able to take the nationality and the residence qualification of the leaseholders into account when determining fair prices but, of course, there is no way in which that would be allowed.
My amendment would go some way towards reducing those excessive unearned profits. In Committee I suggested a figure of 75 per cent., which attracted a lot of support. Many of your Lordships felt that I should have pressed the amendment. I did not do so at the time because there were other equally important—if not more important—amendments on which to concentrate. I have reduced the figure from 75 per cent. to 66⅔ per cent. to make it more acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Government and the House as a whole will accept it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 70, moved by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and to oppose Amendment No. 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I do not intend to go in detail into the reasons why I support Amendment No. 70 because we have given the matter careful consideration in the past. However, it is because I believe that the leasehold valuation tribunal will have an important role in itself and therefore it should not be necessary to give a guaranteed minimum of the marriage value to the freeholder.
Various leaseholders have written to me asking me to table an amendment. It was, however, too late in our consideration of the Bill for me to do so. They said that in all the many years in which they had lived in their properties—perhaps for 50 years or more—they had had full repair obligations, which they had undertaken willingly, and that although they would get the benefits of the improvements that they have made, all their years of loving care and attention had not been taken into account in setting that minimum 50 per cent. They felt that some weight should be attached to that, and I feel that the leasehold valuation tribunal would be able to do this.
I am interested that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has reduced the figure from the 75 per cent., which he suggested earlier, to 66⅔ per cent. It seems as if we are bargaining in this Chamber about the percentage. The noble Lord always has 'original ideas and therefore it does not surprise me that he has tabled this amendment as another attempt. However, if I am opposed to 50 per cent., I am even more strongly opposed to 66⅔ per cent. I believe that the matter should be determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal and, for that reason, I support Amendment No. 70, and oppose Amendment No. 71.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I oppose the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. I rise only because he summed up in a few words what I believe is a misconception which affects many of those who take his line on this part of the Bill. He used the words—I wrote them down—that my noble friend on the Front Bench had ignored the "legitimate expectations" of thousands of leaseholders up and down the country.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine has proceeded on the basis that everyone who bought and signed a lease was entitled to assume that at some time in the future a kindly, considerate government would say, "Look, you haven't made a very good deal. We will help you out and give you a chance to buy the freehold". I find it remarkable that that approach is taken by noble Lords in all parts of the House. People have entered into contracts to take a lease for a certain time at a certain rate. The Government reckon that changes are to be made as a matter of, perhaps, social justice and they have made proposals which can only be extremely generous to those who are not legally entitled to them and who, to use my noble friend's words, had no "legitimate expectation" that any change would be made in their favour. I oppose the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords,I have some difficulty with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and probably, on balance, would oppose it, but not for reasons which would be self-evident. I should like to pick up on a point that he made on a previous amendment regarding the difficulties of valuation. I agree that they are acute. We are endeavouring to value an element, which occurs with the combination of an interest in a property not normally separately identified. Therefore, we have created straightaway in the context of the Bill something which is artificial and which is not normally valued in this way. In practice, things such as the marriage value are simply lumped together as "part of the deal"—if I can use that rather inelegant term— and, after some negotiation, a figure is struck.
The circumstances relating to dwelling houses are a little different because there is a ready-made market in freehold dwelling houses. At the moment, however, there is not a ready-made market in freehold, self-contained flats. That will come in the future. So we are contemplating a new market phenomenon. I dislike the formula contained in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 and have made no secret of my anxieties about it. I feel that it can be read in more than one way, one of which would, in my view, be unsatisfactory in terms of standards of fairness when reaching the element which is called "marriage value" —never mind how one sets about dividing that up between the landlord and the long leaseholder thereafter. But there it is. It has been put to me that if anybody has any better ideas about how the schedule should be formulated, they are most welcome to make suggestions. I have not been able to come up with a better one and have to admit defeat on that.

1687
There is a further element to consider—and that is the compulsory element. When I first started my seven-year stint as a public servant, one of the things with which I had to deal was compulsory purchase, relating mainly to road schemes. I was always told that in the context of compulsory purchase, as a valuer one had, to some extent, to be a custodian of the public purse, but one had always to give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the claimant. With that still ringing in my ears after all this time has passed—I have long since ceased to be a public servant in that organisation—I feel that the benefit of what I see as considerable doubts in this area (for the reasons that I have explained) should probably, on balance, be given to the freeholder from whom the interest is being acquired. I think that the Government have got it about as nearly right as we shall ever get it. I am sure that the Minister will tell me if I am speaking for him, but I think that the reason why the 50 per cent. test has been used as a benchmark is because of the manifest uncertainties which attend this Bill and its operation in practice. On balance, I do not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and oppose the later amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. We might have had an interesting debate if, instead of "whichever is the greater", the words in paragraph 4 had been "whichever is the lesser". I am not sure, however, that we did not have that debate on the last occasion we debated the Bill. Had paragraph 4 provided for either the result after a formula had been applied in the way in which sub-paragraph (a) does or for 50 per cent. of X pounds—whichever was the greater or the lesser—I could have seen some merit in it because a fairly reasonable degree of certainty might have been provided. As it is, the greater amount is to be either the result of the application of the formula or 50 per cent. of the result of that formula.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, the leasehold valuation tribunal will have to be involved. Since that is so and since many of your Lordships have said that we should be aiming at an appropriate balance, I believe that it would be better for the tribunal, dealing with the detail of a particular case, to arrive at that balance than for this House at a distance (in geography, time and in every other sense) to attempt to provide that balance and to impose it.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boardman. What gets at me is that it is a compulsory purchase provision. I have great sympathy on this issue with my noble friend the Minister. It seems to me that he is sitting as Solomon, but 'the rules seem to provide that he must cut the baby in half regardless of the argument. If it were a question of the mother making the most wise, as a freeholder I should expect to obtain something over 100 per cent. of the marriage value. I do not suppose that that will greatly help my noble friend. I am inclined to come down on the side of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and say that my noble
1688
friend's only option is probably to cut the baby in half, or I might support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as being the best of my alternatives.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, there is no doubt that paragraph 4 of the schedule is rather confused. There is in paragraph 4(1) (a) a procedure for determination by a leasehold valuation tribunal. Perhaps I may quote the Bill as drafted. It provides:
"which in its opinion would have been determined by an agreement made at the valuation date between the parties on a sale on the open market by a willing seller".
If the sentence were to stop there, the provision would be comprehensible. That is what bodies of all descriptions do when there is no clear open market. As drafted, the Bill goes on to qualify that sentence. It states:
"or 50 per cent. of that amount".
I shall not bandy percentages with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because I do not believe that is profitable, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has an important point. Either the leasehold valuation tribunal is the arbiter of these things or it is not. It cannot be the arbiter of these things subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, to an overriding decision by the House qualifying what might have been achieved under the views of the leasehold valuation tribunal on the open market. The Government must have a look at this provision. It is for that reason that I have a tendency to support the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yet again we come to an issue we debated extensively in Committee. I explained then why we have the current valuation provisions and how they are calculated. Our provisions are based on the open market price for the landlord's asset. That is fair to both parties. I do not believe that there is anything confusing within the schedule.
The issue which raised most debate then was that of marriage value, which is how the market puts a monetary value on the tenants' special interest in acquiring the property. Marriage value is the difference between the aggregate value of the freehold and leasehold interests before and after enfranchisement.
Amendments Nos. 70 and 113 tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine would delete the marriage value floor. As I explained in Committee when discussing these very amendments, these amendments are not necessary. We have provided that the landlord should receive at least half the marriage value as an equal division of marriage value is very common. That recognises that the parties have to reach an agreement or the marriage value is lost.
I had difficulty following my noble friend's argument. I could not work out whether he was agreeing or disagreeing with me that the practice was common. He prayed in aid a letter that he had received from Mr. Chambers of the RICS. It struck me that that letter, which he quoted, supports my view rather than his, because I believe I am right in saying that the letter says that there may be cases where landlords accept less than 50 per cent. It goes on to say that there

1689
are of course many more cases in which the landlord receives more than 50 per cent. of the marriage value. There could be cases where the landlord received less than 50 per cent. of marriage value, but that is only likely where the landlord is keen to sell and the tenants are not that keen. That is not similar to the situation with enfranchisement under this statute.
Again we discussed the issue behind Amendment No. 71 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Committee. In Committee he suggested that the marriage value floor be raised to 75 per cent. Here he has asked that it be raised to 66⅔ per cent. The amendment is also unfair. Tenants should not have to pay more to enfranchise than they would in the open market. If a landlord were to sell to any other purchaser then the extra value would not be released. Enfranchisement maximises a landlord's potential gain from his asset. A landlord will receive all of his potential marriage value at enfranchisement. If there were no enfranchisement any marriage value would occur only as and when tenants wished to extend their leases.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell made the most valid points; that is, that we are seeking to achieve some sort of balance here. There are two amendments before the House: one which seeks to make the valuation more attractive to tenants and the other which seeks to make the valuation more attractive to landlords. Neither is appropriate; neither will be accepted by the Government. If pressed to a vote, the House should follow the Government's view that 50 per cent. is fair.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The legitimate aspirations of flat owners are not for them to be given something for nothing. They have to be considered in the context that the Government are legislating a Bill providing for the enfranchisement of some flats and long lease extensions for other flats. In that context, the legitimate expectations are that the proposals should be market-based, as the Government have said would be the case, and that the normal compulsory purchase assumption will apply—because it is a compulsory purchase—and the landlord and the flat owner are deemed to be willing purchasers.
Once one makes that assumption, the only way in which one can have a valuation formula which meets the legitimate expectations is to have the formula in the Bill before the marriage floor is reached, and for the formula to be put to a valuation tribunal to be considered.
My noble friend the Minister has read carefully the letter I received from the RICS. He said that there may be cases where the landlord will receive less, but we all know the circumstances in which the RICS, and surveyors generally, have to operate in London. The statement that the RICS made that the provisions do not reflect market value or how the market works was circumspect and rather courageous. Because what surveyor wants to breakfast with Grosvenor and to be seen to be lunching with Coleraine?
What it comes down to in the end is that the Government's decision is exactly as the RICS put it to
1690
me: it is a political decision. In the circumstances, it is right that I should seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 70) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 172.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Knutsford, V.

Aldenham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Lytton, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Palmer, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Galpern, L.

Renton, L.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Somerset, D.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Hertford, M.

Sudeley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Swinton, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walpole, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kindersley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.[Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Barber, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bauer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bolton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brookeborough,V.

Norfolk, D.

Bruntisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Orkney, E.

Cadman, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnock, L.

Prentice, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rees, L.

Dormer, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shuttleworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Granard, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stodart of Leas ton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Torphichen, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Torrington, V.

1722

Trumpington, B.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Ullswater, V.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 185, line 38, leave out ("50") and insert ("66⅔"):
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments which I made less than half an hour ago. However, I must express astonishment that the Government Front Bench, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party have expressed no shock or indignation at the revelation
1692
that certain individual leaseholders stand to make unearned profits of more than £250,000 if the Bill is left unamended. I suppose that as a result the general public will draw the conclusion that none of the three main political parties disapproves of such large unearned gains, and that indeed they endorse them.
I am in rather a quandary. I sense that many noble Lords support the amendment. On the other hand, only one noble Lord has risen to speak in favour of it and that was very much a qualified endorsement. Unless there is any verbal indication that any noble Lord would prefer me to proceed with the amendment, I shall beg leave to withdraw it while reserving the right to return to the matter on Third Reading.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it was my understanding that we had discussed the amendment not only in Committee but also when discussing other amendments grouped with this one, on which we have just voted. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has felt fit to raise the matter again. If the noble Lord were to put the matter to a Division we should oppose him.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Williams of Elvel: No, my Lords.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is, That the amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 185, line 40, after ("is") insert ("that part of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 144. Amendment No. 144 deals with the same point in relation to lease extensions. The point is the same in both cases but the issues are slightly different.
This is a more straight forward group of amendments and the point at which it is directed has not previously been touched upon in our debates. In the context of the Bill marriage value should be seen as the value released or created on the merger of the freehold and leasehold interest. That is a windfall profit—and I feel perfectly at ease with that phrase. It is a profit to be shared between the parties.
In many cases the marriage value can be found by deducting the sum of the values of the existing freehold and leasehold interest from the value of the merged interest which will be created on enfranchisement. However it would be unsound and illogical to turn that formula into a definition of marriage value, which is what the Bill appears to do. That definition produces a gross windfall gain or marriage value but it fails to reflect that the windfall profit, which is relevant in the economic and political terms of the Bill, should be a net marriage value.
For the first time in this Bill, payments must be made on enfranchisement for injurious affection or severance loss. If, for example, the payments of

1693
compensation exceed the gross marriage value, there will be no windfall profit and the sum to be shared as marriage value in accordance with paragraph 4 (2) should be nil. However, whatever happens, the compensation payable for injurious affection or severance loss will fall to be paid in full. Where no windfall profit exists, to avoid double counting, no additional payments should have to be made by a nominee purchase of the marriage value. Amendments No. 72 and 73 are designed to achieve that. The valuers would decide in a quasi-merger situation what is the windfall profit to be shared as a marriage value. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have debated the division of marriage value, but these amendments attempt to redefine marriage value.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 seek to change our definition of marriage value to an actual merging of interests. I have to say that this is a nonsense in valuation terms. For houses there is a merging of interests because the former tenant will become the freeholder. For flats there is no such merging, the freehold and leasehold interests will remain separate. However, although marriage value for flats is notional there is a real increase in value as interests are brought under the same control. Because the interests are not merged it was necessary that we define the term. That is why we have attributed marriage value for flats to the ability of participating tenants after enfranchisement to grant themselves new leases for little or no premium.
Equally I find my noble friend's Amendment No. 114, which affects the marriage value calculation where a new lease is claimed, unhelpful. I note that the amendment affects only lease renewal but the issues raised relate to our wider valuation provisions. I understand that my noble friend considers severance compensation to be a cost of enfranchisement or lease renewal to be shared in the same way as the profit in the form of marriage value is shared. My noble friend has argued also that severance is only unlocked because marriage value is paid and, therefore, it is equitable that the tenant should pay the marriage value net of severance. I consider that that is a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage value and of severance compensation. First, I consider it right that a tenant should pay the landlord's costs for enfranchisement or lease renewal including severance. The tenant is the party who wishes to buy and it is right that he should bear the costs of the purchase on the open market. Where a landlord has no original desire to sell, the tenants might well pay costs.
Severance compensation is a legitimate cost of the landlord like any other. It represents the loss in value of other property which the landlord holds attributable to the loss of the property which is purchased. It does not depend on the fact that the property is acquired by the tenants but that it is lost to the landlord. It would arise in a third party transaction. Our aim in addressing the landlord's other property is to ensure that he is in the same financial position as regards that property as he would have been without the purchase. Therefore, severance compensation is quite separate from marriage value
1694
and would arise on the sale of a premises whether or not marriage value were released. It represents a real loss to the landlord unlike marriage value, which is a gain to both parties. I consider that that cost should properly be borne by the tenant like any other of the landlord's costs. Therefore, I consider that the amendments are unhelpful and unnecessary and I ask my noble friend to withdraw them.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the only problem with what my noble friend has read out to the House is that it does not bear on the amendment as on the Marshalled List or as spoken to. It was never my suggestion that the tenant should not pay the injurious affection costs or the landlord's costs or that those items should be shared, as the Minister seems to suggest. I hope that the Minister will read the debate. In view of the way in which he has replied, it seems to me that I can do no other than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is, That the amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 30 [costs of enfranchisement]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 39, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) The nominee purchaser shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before a leasehold valuation tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) This section applies where—
Tenant's right to lease back

(a) under paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 the freeholder is entitled to require the grant to himself of a lease of a flat;

(b) the freeholder is immediately before the appropriate time the landlord (or a landlord) of the flat for the purposes of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (tenants' right of first refusal); and

(c) for the purposes of Part I of that Act there is then a qualifying tenant of the flat (within the meaning of the expression "qualifying tenant" for those purposes in that Act but called in this Act in relation to the flat "the first-refusal tenant").

(2) Where this section applies and the freeholder does not require the nominee purchaser to grant him a lease of the flat in accordance with section 33 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 8, the nominee purchaser shall, if the first-refusal tenant by notice requires the nominee purchaser to do so, grant to the first-refusal tenant a lease of the flat in accordance with section 33 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 but replacing references in those provisions to the freeholder by references to the first-refusal tenant.
(3) For the grant of a lease of the flat under this section the first-refusal tenant shall pay an amount equal to the decrease in the price payable by the nominee purchaser for the freehold

1695
that would have occurred under Schedule 5 if the freeholder had required a lease of the flat to be granted to himself in accordance with section 33 and Schedule 8.
(4) Any value that is to be determined by what an interest might be expected to realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller with neither the nominee purchaser nor any participating tenant buying or seeking to buy shall be determined assuming also that the first-refusal tenant is not buying or seeking to buy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 deals with some tenants' rights to a lease back. The amendment was not drafted by me. I should not be capable of such drafting nor should I enjoy drafting it. However, I must tell your Lordships that it was drafted by a very experienced Chancery Queen's Counsel. I find the matter unbelievably complicated and it would be an understatement were I to tell your Lordships that I have difficulty in understanding it.
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that if he does not understand it, there will be none of us who do.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is very kind of my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare to say that. I am assured that the purpose of the amendment is fairly simple and is very laudable. I shall do my best to explain the matter.
It is to be read with Clause 33 and part of Schedule 8. Under the Bill as it stands we are taking away without compensation the rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 of statutory and other regulated tenants to join in acquiring the freehold or the right to obtain a long lease. I believe that it is called the tenant's right of first refusal. Amendment No. 75 is intended to correct that. I understand that it would not cost the original freeholder anything and that it would enable long leaseholders to buy the freehold more easily and in a less costly manner.
It is an injustice that the tenants under the 1987 Act, to whom I referred, should have their rights under that Act taken away without any compensation. Whatever method is used—and this is merely an attempt to put before the Government a method of achieving the purpose—surely we should do something about it. Therefore, even though the terms of the amendment may not be found to be comprehensible or acceptable, nevertheless, I beg to move it hopefully.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I, too, share the difficulty of the, noble Lord, Lord Renton. In his final sentence, he said that even if the amendment was not comprehensible or acceptable he still wished to move it. Having listened to the noble Lord, I am bound to say that I am no clearer as to what the amendment seeks to achieve. I can understand that there was considerable problem with the drafting. Indeed, the rubric of the proposed new clause refers to the,
"tenant's right to lease back".
I believe that that was discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. However, I should be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord—who is, perhaps, the Minister who will reply, given his judicial understanding—what exactly the amendment really would achieve and whether it would achieve anything that we have not already debated in Committee.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is with some apprehension that I rise to speak to the amendment. However, I approach it with the assurance of my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare that I will not be able to understand it any more than the rest of your Lordships. Nonetheless, it seems to be my lot to speak in reply. As I understand it, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton—and I call it that, despite what he said—is an attempt to recompense the non-qualifying tenants in a block which is to be enfranchised for the fact (and this is a point upon which he laid stress) that the right of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 will not operate on a disposal under the Bill's provisions.
It is right to stress that under the 1987 Act the tenants with such a right are a wide class which includes many renting tenants in the private sector. I should like, first, to point out that the right of first refusal under the 1987 Act does not apply where the disposal of the freehold is not voluntary. For example, if noble Lords look at Section 4 of the 1987 legislation, they will see that the right of first refusal cannot be exercised either if the sale is in pursuance of a court order, such as a compulsory purchase order or an order for property adjustment in matrimonial proceedings. Those are two examples. Therefore, there are no grounds for breaching that principle when dealing with disposals in this case which are unwilling disposals resulting from collective enfranchisement. That is my first point.
However difficult it may be to follow exactly the detail of my noble friend's amendment, I think it is plain that the amendment would not give the tenants rights which are equivalent to those under the right of first refusal legislation. Under those rights, tenants have the collective right to buy the landlord's interest and then to take over the management of the block. As I understand it, the proposed amendment would not give the non-qualifying tenants those rights; rather, it would simply grant them an individual long lease but with no control over the management of the block. I believe that it effectively gives a right to a 999-year lease renewal to a tenant who does not qualify for collective enfranchisement but who would qualify for the right of first refusal. As I have explained, that is a different right.
Therefore, it is plain that the amendment would not give non-qualifying tenants rights equivalent to those that it is supposed they have lost; nor, I think, would it be appropriate in connection with enfranchisement which is a non-voluntary disposal. My noble friend Lord Renton laid stress on the fact that the effect of the Bill as it stands is to take away a right under the 1987 Act. I believe that my noble friend is not quite right to say that: it is, indeed, the case that tenants' rights of first refusal are not necessarily irretrievably lost under the legislation. For example, if a lessee with a superior interest—that is, an interest above that of a non-qualifying tenant—was subsequently disposed to sell and dispose of his interest then, in that situation, the tenant's right of first refusal would subsist and could be exercised.

1697
Equally, let us think of an example where there is no intermediate lease and where the nominee purchaser—or one could call him the landlord who had taken over after enfranchisement—wished to dispose of the interest once the enfranchisement was completed. In that case, the right of first refusal would, if appropriate, still subsist and could still be exercised under the 1987 Act. To that extent, I believe that my noble friend's amendment proceeds on a misunderstanding of the position.
Looking at it in more down-to-earth and practical terms, the amendment would cause considerable uncertainty for the qualifying tenants. My understanding is—and it is not quite clear—that the new leases would be negotiated after the process of collective enfranchisement had been completed; in other words, having completed the acquisition, the nominee purchaser would then have to start negotiations with the first refusal tenants. That would inevitably have the effect of making the enfranchisement process much more lengthy and complex.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be convinced that the amendment is inappropriate and unworkable. The amendment goes further than giving a right of first refusal: it gives renting tenants in the private sector the right to buy, because they could trade in their tenancy for a long lease. That goes much further than the policy behind the Bill. In all the circumstances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am full of admiration and gratitude. I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for the patient study that he must have undertaken in order to demolish the effect of the amendment, as well as to try to understand it which he did so much better than I could have done. I shall, naturally, wish to consult the very learned Queen's Counsel who put me up to this.
A noble Lord: Shame!
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope not to trouble your Lordships any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Schedule 8 [Grant of leases back to former freeholder]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 200, line 40, leave out ("held by") and insert ("or other unit let to").
Page 200, line 41, after ("flat") insert ("or other unit").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 201, line 10, at end insert ("; or
(c) the immediate landlord under the secure tenancy is a public sector landlord.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 78, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82. I am afraid I must also inform your Lordships that this is a somewhat technical and decidedly modest amendment. However, the Government may find it useful and might be minded to accept it. As I have said, we believe that this is a modest amendment which would close a loophole which we think the Government did not intend.
The amendments refer to those mixed blocks of former council or housing association flats where many tenants have exercised the right to buy, but other tenants remain secure tenants of the local authority or assured tenants of a housing association. At the moment when a former council or housing association tenant exercises the right to buy, he buys a lease and the local authority or the housing association remains the freeholder. This protects the right of the remaining renting tenants to remain with their social landlord. Rightly, Schedule 8 provides for immediate and mandatory leaseback to local authorities or housing associations of those flats held by renting tenants when those exercising the right to buy seek to enfranchise. So far so good. However—this is why I think this is a technical amendment—the actual wording of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part II of Schedule 8 restricts the mandatory leaseback arrangements to those instances where the local authority or housing association owns the freehold of the flats.
While it is accepted that in the vast majority of instances the local authority or housing association will own the freehold, this is not always or invariably the case. There are a minority of developments where the council or association holds only a leasehold interest but nonetheless that is of sufficient length to enable secure tenants to exercise the right to buy. In those few cases, qualifying leaseholders exercising enfranchisement under this part of the Bill would acquire the freehold and all leasehold interests superior to their own, including that held by the council or housing association. In other words, they would displace the local authority or the housing association as regards the remaining renting tenants.
Because the council or housing association was not the freeholder, it would not therefore, as this schedule would otherwise allow, have a mandatory leaseback of flats let on short tenancies. Renting tenants therefore would lose their social landlord without even being consulted. In the case of secure tenants, they would lose their secure tenancy. This is obviously not the Government's intention. We are entirely at one with them in their intention that local authority or housing association tenants should be protected if they continue to rent and that their landlord will not change if other right to buy tenants exercise their right to enfranchise.
However, as presently drafted, the Bill will exclude a small number of council or housing association tenants from that protection. Over their heads their landlord would become the nominee purchaser. We do not believe that that was the intention of the Government. The amendments would rectify that

1699
position by extending the provisions and protection given by Schedule 8 to all local authority and housing association tenants regardless of whether the council or housing association was the freeholder. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, these amendments require public sector intermediate landlords of secure tenants and housing associations who are intermediate landlords of other non-qualifying tenants, to take a mandatory leaseback of the flats in question. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness to preserve the existing rights of such tenants and not to foist on them a change of landlord. In this respect the amendments are, however, unnecessary.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2 provides that the interests to be acquired by the tenants shall include the interest of any intermediate leaseholder
"which is superior to the lease held by a qualifying tenant".
As secure tenants and other renting tenants are not qualifying tenants, it follows that where their public sector or housing association landlord is not the freeholder but an intermediate leaseholder, the landlord's interest will not be among those acquired under the enfranchisement provisions of Part I.
The amendment takes no account of the possibility that there may be a chain of intermediate leaseholders and possibly even another public sector landlord superior to the immediate landlord who has the so-called leaseback right. At the top of the chain just below the freeholder there may be a private sector landlord. It is difficult to see what the effect of the amendment would be in that situation.
In any event the effect of the amendment would be singularly dramatic because it would mean that if, for example, one had a public sector landlord or a housing association which had only a 30-year lease, by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 the public sector landlord or the housing association would suddenly obtain a 999 year lease which would be a far greater interest than the lease they currently hold.
The provision, as drafted at present, is designed to deal with the situation where the bodies concerned are freeholders. They would be gaining a far greater interest in the property than they currently hold—a 999 year lease, no less—while the whole purpose of the leaseback provisions is to give a former freeholder an interest in the flats which, although diminished, is as close to a freehold interest as possible.
In that light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness may be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his detailed reply. As I understand it, the first part of his argument is that the amendments are unnecessary and the second part of his argument is that they are undesirable. Clearly I am less concerned about the fact that they are undesirable than that they are unnecessary. In the light of the reply, I shall consult the National Federation of Housing Associations to see whether it is content with the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 201, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) In this paragraph any reference to a flat includes a reference to a unit (other than a flat) which is used as a dwelling.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 201, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) In this paragraph any reference to a flat includes a reference to a unit (other than a flat) which is used as a dwelling.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 201, line 47, leave out ("appropriate time") and insert ("relevant date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 84, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 which together seek to amend the Bill in order to provide that freeholders bring up the question of leasebacks at an appropriate stage in the enfranchisement timetable and do not leave the matter until the very last minute, which could only cause confusion to all concerned.
My noble friend may, after hearing what I have to say, assure me that this matter is already covered by Clause 19 but at the present time I have my doubts about that. I raised this matter in Committee on 22nd March but my noble friend seemed to have understood that my concern was to prevent a freeholder asking for a leaseback in respect of a flat only where there had been a change of circumstances after service of the reversioner's counter-notice, and as a consequence of that change the flat had become one to which leaseback provisions might apply. That was not my point. My concern is wider than that.
Clause 33 of the Bill provides the right of the freeholder to ask for leasebacks and the clause provides that such leases shall be granted, as are required to be granted by Part III of Schedule 8. I dealt with the detail of that point in Committee, but Schedule 8 provides that those facts may be requested at any time until the actual sale of the property to the nominee purchaser, which would be after the price and other details had been agreed. It seems to me that that would delay matters too much.
It is true—and this may be why my noble friend did not take up my point in Committee—that Clause 19(3) requires the reversioner in his counter notice to specify his leaseback proposals. However, I do not see any fetter in this clause, or elsewhere in the Bill, on the right of the freeholder to ask for further leasebacks at a later stage. It is my opinion that the subsection, which must be read with Clause 33 and Schedule 8, does not bind the reversioner. I should have said the

1701
freeholder, because although the reversioner gives the notice, it is the freeholder alone who is entitled to leasebacks, even when the substantial reversionary owner is in fact a long leaseholder. I note that that point has been picked up with some anxiety by the Law Society in its most recent briefing on the Bill.
I believe that the subsection does not restrict the freeholder to those leasebacks which he has specified in his counter notice, that the later clauses of the Bill prevail and that the reversioner or freeholder can freely ask for further leasebacks later. I do not believe that that is what my noble friend intends. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as my noble friend said, this matter concerns the timing in relation to leaseback. At present paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 8 indicates that the reversioner may require a leaseback of any flats and units which are not let to qualifying tenants immediately before the appropriate time. Therefore, as my noble friend said, there is scope for a reversioner to change his mind shortly before completion, creating additional costs for the tenants and potential delay in completion. At issue, therefore, is whether the reversioner should be able to require a leaseback right up to the appropriate time, or whether that right should be restricted to some point at an earlier stage in the enfranchisement process.
Amendment No. 84 would restrict the optional leaseback rights to those flats and units which are not let to qualifying tenants at the time when the participating tenants give their initial notice—the relevant date, to use the terminology of the Bill, rather than at the appropriate date. Amendment No. 85 restricts the leaseback by the reversioner to those flats and units specified by him in his counter notice under Clause 19. We do not believe that that would be fair and reasonable.
We anticipate that in practice the problem of last minute changes is most likely to occur where there has been a change in the tenancy of a flat. For example, a qualifying tenant who did not participate may have forfeited his tenancy and the flat may be either vacant or newly let on a renting tenancy. In those changed circumstances should the reversioner be able to require a leaseback of that flat? We think that he should.
The scenario also works in reverse. For example, a secure tenant of a public sector landlord may exercise his right to buy the lease on his flat, thus becoming a qualifying tenant after the initial notice has been given. As has been explained many times, the policy is that all interests superior to a qualifying tenancy should be purchased, and the reversioner cannot require a leaseback of a qualifying tenant's flat. As presently drafted, the provision ensures that there are no obstacles if the new qualifying tenant elects to participate in enfranchisement at a subsequent date (after the initial notice) or, indeed, to post-enfranchisement negotiations between the qualifying tenant and the new landlord.
On the other hand, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted and the leaseback provisions were applied on the relevant date only—at the time when the notice was given —instead of at the later stage (the
1702
appropriate time), then no account could be taken of the category of tenant who becomes a qualifying tenant after the initial notice has been given. Just as we see disadvantages in the other situation, we see disadvantages in the effect the amendment would produce in that situation.
I accept that last minute changes may involve extra cost, inconvenience and delay, but that is inherent in a procedure which evolves over a period of time. If one ' accepts that freeholders should have the right to a leaseback of non-qualifying flats and units, it seems right in principle that that should be assessed at the last available moment. Similarly, flats previously specified in the counter notice as those which the freeholder wished to lease back may be let subsequently to somebody who is a qualifying tenant. Again, it would be wrong if the freeholder and that tenant were bound by the freeholder's counter notice, given perhaps months previously, simply to avoid mere inconvenience to the participating tenants. I believe that the inconvenience would be bought off at too high a price, and the proposal would be contrary to the thinking which underlies the Bill.
For those reasons I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his detailed and technical reply. I shall want to read it, but it seems to me that he has seen the point that there will be occasions when freeholders may seek to use their right of leaseback in order to embarrass intending flat enfranchisers. I hope that in due course, if that turns out to be the case, speedy measures would be taken to bring such abuse to an end.
I understand the points which my noble and learned friend made about freeholders having the right to leasebacks where there have been changes of circumstance such as he described. I am happy to leave the matter there, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 92:
Page 202, line 4, after ("flat") insert ("or other unit").
Page 202, line 9, at end insert ("or other unit").
Page 202, line 12, leave out ("("the relevant flat")") and insert ("or other unit ("the relevant unit")").
Page 202, line 15, leave out ("flat") and insert ("unit").
Page 202, line 17, leave out ("flat") and insert ("unit").
Page 206, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) In this paragraph—

(a) any reference to a secure tenancy of a flat is a reference to a secure tenancy of a flat whether with or without any yard, garden, garage, outhouses or appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoyed with it; and

(b) any reference to a flat includes a reference to a unit (other than a flat) which is used as a dwelling.").

The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 87 to 95 inclusive have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87 to 92 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 95:
Page 41, line 37, at end insert ("(unless the context otherwise requires)").
Page 42, line 14, leave out ("either a flat or") and insert:

("(a) a flat;

(b) any other separate set of premises which is constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling; or (c)").

Page 42, line 25, leave out ("as to the terms of acquisition or any other matter") and insert ("in relation to all or any of the terms of acquisition").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Right of qualifying tenant of flat to acquire new lease]:
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 43, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this Chapter a person can be (or be among those constituting) the qualifying tenant of each of two or more flats at the same time, whether he is tenant of those flats under one lease or under two or more separate leases.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with improvements and tidying up of the test of residence which during the Committee stage your Lordships agreed to add to the lease renewal provisions of Chapter II. I said when I moved those amendments that I would like to return with further amendments if it seemed appropriate to do so.
I wish to add to the details which must be given with the notice of claim under Clause 38 information about the periods of occupation of the tenant—and joint tenants where applicable—which enable him to satisfy the new residence test. We had originally assumed that the landlord could challenge through his counter notice. On reflection we decided that such challenges about occupation would be more likely in the absence of information to the contrary, and could result in delay and extra litigation. Therefore we felt that it would make sense and be entirely reasonable to require the tenant to give the information in the first instance.
Finally, I believe that it is advisable to clarify the situation where a tenant can in fact satisfy the residence test in respect of more than one flat. For example he might have lived in one flat in a block for three years and then moved to another for at least three years. If he is still a qualifying tenant in respect of flats in which he has resided, perhaps because he has retained his long lease and sublet on a short-term basis, we believe that he should be entitled to renew his lease on such flats as well as on his present home. Amendment No. 97 makes it clear that he can do so.
I commend the amendments as being helpful to the effective operation of residency qualification for lease renewal. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for moving Amendment No. 97 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 101. However, I wish to be certain that I understand
1704
exactly what Amendment No. 97 provides. Am I correct in thinking that a person, male or female, can be a tenant, a leaseholder, under several leases in one block of flats—whether he or she sublets is neither here nor there—and therefore will be a qualifying tenant in respect of all those leases? Is it therefore right —I do not argue one way or the other; I seek to understand what the Government put forward—that someone can be a leaseholder of, say, 10 flats out of 12 and may sublet nine out of the 10 flats and still be a qualifying tenant for the purposes of enfranchisement? I ask the question not because I oppose what the Government are doing, but simply for clarification. I wish to ensure that I have understood the thrust of Amendment No. 97.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is perfectly fair for the noble Lord to ask the question. He asked it in terms of leasehold enfranchisement. These provisions relate to leasehold extension, not to leasehold enfranchisement. Therefore, perhaps I may pose the question in terms of leasehold extension. What the noble Lord says is right. Amendment No. 97 seeks to clarify the position of a tenant who satisfies the residency test in respect of more than one flat. Whether he satisfies that test is, of course, a question of fact. Therefore, he can be a qualifying tenant in respect of each. That allows him to qualify for leasehold extension.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Does the provision cover the large family who need to occupy more than one flat?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it could do. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, residency is a matter of fact. In these amendments we seek to clarify not so much what we mean by residency but what classes of tenants will have to meet the residency test. They either occupy more than one flat or have a lease on more than one flat. They could well include the kind of people to whom my noble friend refers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 45, line 31, leave out ("and").
Page 45, line 35, at end insert ("; and
(iv) particulars of the period or periods falling within the preceding ten years for which the tenant has occupied the whole or part of the flat as his only or principal home;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 45, line 44, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 45, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) If the tenant's lease is held by joint tenants, the reference to the tenant in subsection (3) (b) (iv) shall be read as a reference to any joint tenant with respect to whom it is claimed that the condition in section 36(2) (b) is satisfied.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 40 [General provisions as respects effect of tenant's notice]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 47, line 9, after ("landlord") insert ("in subsections (1) and (2) above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Landlord's counter-notice]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 47, line 45, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Supplementary provisions relating to vesting orders under section 47(1)]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 108:
Page 53, line 22, leave out ("the court thinks fit") and insert ("may be determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal to be appropriate").
Page 53, line 27, leave out ("the court thinks fit, a vesting order under section 47(1) may") and insert ("a leasehold valuation tribunal so determines in the case of a vesting order under section 47(1), the order shall").
Page 53, line 29, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
Page 53, line 42, leave out from ("with") to ("it") in line 44 and insert ("the determination by a leasehold valuation tribunal of any question as to the property to be demised by any such lease, or as to the rights with or subject to which it is to be demised,").
Page 54, line 24, at end insert ("; and subsections (6) and (7) of that section shall apply in relation to a lease granted in accordance with this section as they apply in relation to a lease granted under that section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51 [Effect on tenant's notice of giving of initial notice under Chapter I]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments No. 109 to 111:
Page 55, line 37, leave out from ("23(6) (a) or (b)") to end of line 39 and insert ("and the interests which by virtue of the order fall to be vested in the nominee purchaser for the purposes of Chapter I have yet to be so vested.").
Page 55, line 44, after ("(a)") insert ("if").
Page 55, line 46, after ("applies,") insert ("the determination becomes final,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Obligation to grant new lease]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 57, line 36, at end insert:
("(6) It is hereby declared that nothing in any of the provisions specified in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 9 (which impose requirements as to consent or consultation or other restrictions in relation to disposals falling within those provisions) applies to the granting of any lease under this section.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 9 has effect as if tile reference to section 79(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (which is not relevant in the context of subsection (6)) were omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Premium and other amounts payable by tenant on grant of new lease]:
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 217, line 6, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("the tenant's lease for the time being and to any leases intermediate between the interest in question and that lease.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Terms on which new lease is to be granted]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 59, line 8, after first ("the") insert ("person who is for the time being the tenant's immediate").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Grant of new lease where interest of landlord or tenant is subject to a mortgage]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 60, line 29, leave out ("its execution") and insert ("the date on which the lease is received from Her Majesty's Land Registry following its registration.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to an obscure corner of the Bill. It has been recommended to me by the Law Society.
The point concerns the need to deliver a new lease —it is a lease, and not a counterpart lease—within one month of its execution. The circumstances are that the lease will have to go to the Land Registry and it may be some time before the lease is finally reissued as part of the title deeds with the Land Registry. In the circumstances, I consider that the time should be one month from the date on which the lease is received from the Land Registry following its registration. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, technical though the amendment may be, and tucked away though it may be in an obscure part of the Bill, it is a most helpful amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for moving it. It makes a practical suggestion and puts into the Bill the practical fact that it will be possible for someone to pass over the lease within a month of its return from the Land Registry instead of, as presently drafted, within a month. It is understood that it may take longer than a month for the lease to come back from the Land Registry.
In those circumstances it is a practical amendment. I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by tenant]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 62, line 35, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) A tenant shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before a leasehold valuation tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 and Amendments Nos. 119 to 128 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Landlord's right to terminate new lease on grounds of redevelopment]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 63, line 28, leave out ("In this section any reference") and insert ("Except in subsection (1) (a) or (b), any reference in this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Provisions supplementary to section 58]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 125:
Page 218, line 37, after ("and") insert ("(except in the case of the reference in paragraph 5(1) (b) to the flat as a dwelling)").
Page 219, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
("(2) Where the application for possession was made by virtue of section 58(2) (a), then—

(a) (unless paragraph (b) below applies) an order of the court under this paragraph shall not fix a date earlier than the term date of the lease in relation to which the right to acquire a new lease was exercised;

(b) in a case where section 58(2) (a) applies in accordance with section 58(3), an order of the court under this paragraph shall not fix a date earlier than the term date of the lease in relation to which that right was first exercised.").

Page 219, line 3, after ("date") insert ("referred to in sub-paragraph (1)").
Page 219, line 39, leave out ("the flat in question") and insert ("any property").
Page 220, line 13, after ("that") insert ("(subject to paragraphs (a) and (b))").
Page 220, line 33, after ("or") insert (", if already made,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation of Chapter II]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 126 to 128:
Page 64, line 1, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to subsection (3),").
Page 64, line 6, at end insert:
("(3) Subsection (2) does not apply—

(a) to any reference to a flat in section 44 or 52(1); or

(b) to any reference to a flat (not falling within paragraph (a) above) which occurs in the context of a reference to any premises containing the flat.").

Page 64, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) In the application of section 7 for the purposes of this Chapter (in accordance with section 36(3)) references to a flat shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) above, instead of in accordance with subsection (7) of section 7.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62 [Additional "low rent" test]:
Lord Carnock Lord Carnock moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 65, leave out lines 20 to 26 and insert:
("(b) where—

(i) the tenancy was entered into either on or after 1st April 1963 but before 1st April 1990, or on or after 1st April 1990 in pursuance of a contract made before that date, and

(ii) the property had a rateable value at the date of the commencement of the tenancy or else at any time before 1st April 1990,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord stated that he had already spoken to the amendment. He moved it, I believe, in the expectation that the House accepts it. Is that the view of the noble Lord? Has he spoken to it before and has it been accepted by the House?
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendment. It was accepted by the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Price payable by tenant on enfranchisement by virtue of section 60 or 61]:
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 66, line 8, at end insert ("in any such case—
( ) if in determining the price so payable there falls to be taken into account any marriage value arising by virtue of the coalescence of the freehold and leasehold interests, the share of the marriage value to which the tenant is to be regarded as being entitled shall not exceed one-half of it; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 131, 134 and 135. The amendment refers to evaluation of houses which become capable of enfranchisement. The purpose of the amendment is to put the evaluation of those houses on the same basis as will apply to the evaluation of flats.
As the Bill is at present drafted there is no share of the marriage value which statutorily goes to the freeholder on the enfranchisement of a freehold house. My amendments propose that that should be done. The provisions in the 1967 Act do not specifically give marriage value—it is not referred to there at all. My amendment does not propose a change in the provisions, but that they should apply only to those houses that become capable of enfranchisement under the Bill. The proposal is that they should be in exactly the same position as will apply to flats in the Bill. The amendments are simple and I hope that my noble friend will see the fairness and justice of the same provisions as are being invoked for flats to make them enfranchiseable being applied to houses. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Boardman. He has a logical point, we cannot deal with houses in a different way from flats as regards marriage value. We have had this debate many times during the passage of the Bill; consequently, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for any length of time. I merely wish to say that I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment which I believe is extremely fair.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. It would be wrong to change the basis of the 1967 Act as the amendment would do. Under that Act, people have been able to enfranchise, and some have been discriminated against because of possibly a small difference in rateable value. Those who will now be able to enfranchise their houses should be covered in the same way as those who were covered under the 1967 Act, which has worked well. There are excellent precedents for it and people have had no difficulty in establishing the values. It has been going on since the 1967 Act carne into force.
I also believe that the argument applies which I made earlier that people taking full responsibility for all repairs, even though that was an obligation under the lease, have sometimes found them onerous burdens on tenants of the properties. That is another

1709
reason why the minimum marriage value should not be added, and I hope the Government will reject the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Gardner in asking the Minister to reject the amendment. The provisions for the valuation of houses have existed in their present form since the 1967 and 1974 Acts. It is true that the House has just rejected an amendment which would have brought flats under the same provisions as those which have affected houses. However, it seems to me that the mere fact that flats will be valued much more harshly against the flat owners than are houses is no reason why I should be dog-in-the-manger to the extent of saying that houses should be subjected to the same change in the long-established valuation provisions.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendments ensure that the landlord will receive at least 50 per cent. of any marriage value for the higher value houses newly enfranchised under the Bill. This is in line with the provision in the Bill for the valuation of flats.
The freehold of medium value houses is valued on the assumption that the tenant is in the market, which has been accepted for 20 years as a fair valuation basis. However, unlike our provisions for flats, the separate elements which make up the open market price for houses are not specified in the 1967 Act. My noble friend wishes to make clear, in the valuation of high value houses newly enfranchised under this Bill, that the landlord should receive at least 50 per cent. of the marriage value. Perhaps that point is what worries my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lord Coleraine. It only affects the valuation of high value houses newly enfranchised under the Bill.
As I explained earlier, a 50 per cent marriage value split is the usual one, which is why we have provided the floor for flats, making the valuation process simpler and cheaper. Of course, it is still open to the landlord to argue for a greater share where that is what the market would provide. My noble friend's amendments would therefore have little practical impact on the actual price payable for the enfranchisement of higher value houses.
However, we hope that the amendments would make the valuation of high value houses quicker and cheaper. That is consistent with the aims of the Bill, therefore, I am happy to accept the amendments.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 66, line 9, leave out ("in any such case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell Lord Hamilton of Dalzell moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 66, line 21, leave out ("by virtue of any one or more of the provisions of sections 1A and 1B above,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is coupled with Amendment No. 133A in my name. I am most encouraged by what my noble friend said about
1710
the previous amendments because the basis of the ones that I now propose is much the same. They bring the compensation payable for freeholders subject to enfranchisement under the 1967 and the 1974 Acts into line with those brought into enfranchisement by this Bill, by allowing them compensation for injurious affection.
In case any noble Lords have doubt about what "injurious affection" is, I quote the verdict of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State:
"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".
The Government have accepted the principle of injurious affection for those who come under the present legislation, for higher priced houses. Having admitted, by doing so, that this is a sum due in equity to the land owner, it is hard to see the justice of refusing to grant the same principle to those houses enfranchiseable under the previous legislation. There is nothing retrospective about the amendments. That perhaps gives them rather unusual characteristics in relation to the rest of the Bill.
It may come as some surprise to your Lordships that there are still houses being enfranchised which have been eligible for 25 years, but I have evidence. A neighbour of mine in the country had a property enfranchised last year, so it is a live issue. I very much hope that the kind thoughts applied by my noble friend to the previous amendments will be applied to this one. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining his amendments. We debated the issue of severance compensation for houses in Committee. Noble Lords then accepted amendments which provide severance for high value houses. These amendments seek to go much further than the Committee's decision then and allow landlords to claim severance for all houses enfranchised under the 1967 Act.
Parliament in 1967 did not provide severance compensation for the low value houses then enfranchised. When we came to look at the enfranchisement of flats, we considered that they were a different case from houses and we concluded that severance compensation ought to be paid if justified. For example, the loss of a single block of flats from an estate could affect the value of the remaining blocks and development potential of adjacent land. We have now also provided severance for higher value houses, because we were convinced, as in the case of flats, that there was a real possibility that the loss of a high value house from an estate could impact on the value of a landlord's other property. Such a case could be where a dower house on a country estate is enfranchised and creates an island in different ownership and control. There could be a demonstrable loss of value to the estate in these circumstances, therefore, the case for compensation is entirely justified.
However, many eligible houses will already have been enfranchised; and in the case of 1967 houses the landlord's estate will have been broken up, so there

1711
will be no possibility of future damage to other property. For low-value houses I am concerned about the potential impact of applying severance. That could considerably increase the relative price of enfranchisement of such property or could be used by landlords to deter enfranchisement.
The House has accepted that severance should apply to high-value houses but that it is neither necessary nor desirable to apply it to all houses. I am afraid to say to my noble friend that I cannot accept his amendment. He has not made the case. I hope that in the light of the success that he has had in other parts of the Bill, he may withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I am naturally extremely dissatisfied with that response. The 1967 Act has rankled with land-owners in the country for a long time. Many land-owners feel that they are being kicked in the teeth, having done a tremendous job in providing cheap accommodation for people in the countryside for which they have had no thanks whatever from any government at all. Now we have people inviting us to provide cheap land so that people can be accommodated in the countryside. It is a diabolical liberty to expect us to do those sorts of things when the Government treat us like this. Nevertheless, I can see that I shall not make much progress. I am grateful that the Minister accepted the amendments of my noble friend Lord Boardman, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 133:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of right to enfranchise in case of houses let by charitable housing trusts
(" .—(1) Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) (excepted cases) there shall be added at the end—
"or, in the case of any right to which subsection (3A) below applies, at any time when the tenant's immediate landlord is a charitable housing trust and the house forms part of the housing accommodation provided by the trust in the pursuit of its charitable purposes."
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) above this subsection applies as follows—

(a) where the tenancy was created after the commencement of Chapter III of Part I of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, this subsection applies to any right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises; but

(b) where the tenancy was created before that commencement, this subsection applies only to any such right exercisable by virtue of any one or more of the provisions of sections 1 A and 1 B below;

and in that subsection "charitable housing trust" means a housing trust within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985 which is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1993."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Middleton moved an amendment which in effect would have excluded tenants of charitable housing trusts from the leasehold enfranchisement and the lease extension provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The House may
1712
remember that my noble friend rightly pointed out that under the provisions of the Bill charitable housing trusts are exempt where the accommodation is provided by the trust in pursuit of its charitable purposes. My noble friend wanted leasehold houses which are managed for charitable purposes to be treated in the same way as leasehold flats, so that an owner could transfer land for local needs housing to a charity knowing that its ownership will remain with that charity. When moving his amendment in Committee, my noble friend said that the amendment was not intended to protect charities holding houses as an investment. The House will no doubt understand that I do not wish to open yet again a debate on a general exemption for charities.
In Committee I expressed some sympathy with my noble friend's amendment and said that I was conscious that it would appear to be an anomaly to exempt charitable housing trusts from the provisions of the Bill and not from the provisions of the 1967 Act. Nevertheless, I was, and I am still, concerned that any amendment does not take away existing rights of enfranchisement from leaseholders who are already entitled to them under the 1967 Act. We are, under this Bill, in the business of giving away rights to tenants.
I promised to look at my noble friend's amendment and to return with an amendment that would extend the charitable housing trust exemption to leaseholders of houses, but only those brought within the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act for the first time by this Bill and to leases of any house entered into after this Bill's provisions come into force. That is precisely what Amendment No. 133 does. It will not affect existing leaseholders of houses who already have the right to enfranchise under the 1967 Act. Amendment No. 237 is a consequential amendment to the Long Title of the Bill required by Amendment No. 133 because we are altering the rights under the 1967 Act. I hope that meets with the approval of the House, and I beg to move Amendment No. 133.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I have one question—not that I wish to challenge the amendment. How will it operate in practice? There are certain houses which may qualify under the Leasehold Reform Act at the moment, before the Bill finishes its passage through Parliament, receives Royal Assent and is commenced under a commencement order, as it will be. They will operate under one system until such time as the Act has its commencement order. But the same group of houses, as I understand it, will operate under a different system once the Act is, if I may use the ungainly expression, commenced. Is that interpretation right or wrong? Perhaps the noble Lord Can help me on that point.
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. There will be no changeover of status as a result of this Bill reaching the statute book, as I understand it. The amendment will, after enactment, affect new leases brought into place

1713
by people who wish to give long leases on a charitable basis. As the Bill was originally drawn up, that was not possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended]:
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 224, line 10, at end insert ("in any such case—
( ) if in determining the price so payable there falls to be taken into account any marriage value arising by virtue of the coalescence of the freehold and leasehold interests, the share of the marriage value to which the tenant is to be regarded as being entitled shall not exceed one-half of it; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peyton, I beg to move this amendment, which we have debated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 224, line 11, leave out ("in any such case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Estate management schemes]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 67, line 16, leave out ("section 66") and insert ("sections 66 and (Applications by certain public bodies)").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the various amendments that I promised in Committee I would bring forward on estate management schemes. In moving Amendment No. 136, which is a drafting amendment, I should like to speak to the other amendments with which it is grouped, and in particular Amendment No. 147, which inserts a new clause into the Bill.
In Committee, I indicated in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Peyton that we were considering whether the provisions on estate management schemes could be further improved. I had already had meetings with my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who in Committee expressed various anxieties, particularly with regard to heritage properties and default powers for local authorities. I invited my noble friend Lord Peyton and others to meet with me to discuss estate management schemes. I have had meetings with my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Cavendish and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and a further meeting with my noble friend Lord Lindsay. As the House will understand, there has been a great deal of consultation on the matter.
I should like to point out that our starting point on estate management schemes was to reintroduce the provisions already contained in Section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. We have tried to improve upon those provisions by simplifying the procedure and transferring responsibility for the approval of schemes from the High Court to local leasehold valuation tribunals. In general, it will no longer be necessary to apply to the Secretary of State for certificates before seeking approval of a scheme.
At the same time we do not want to change the existing nature of estate management schemes, which are essentially a means to enable landlords to continue to enforce positive covenants against the owners of
1714
enfranchised properties. But we do not want to make new estate management schemes more onerous for tenants than schemes already approved under the 1967 Act, thereby undermining the object of enfranchisement and perpetuating the landlord and tenant relationship. Nor do we want estate management schemes to be used to frustrate enfranchisement.
I am anxious to ensure that proper consideration should be given to heritage matters by leasehold valuation tribunals in considering applications for estate management schemes. In Committee I welcomed an amendment requiring that tribunals "shall" have regard to the past development and present character of an area and to architectural or historical considerations when considering whether or not to approve a scheme.
I promised in Committee that I would bring forward amendments at Report stage to give English Heritage and local planning authorities the right to promote estate management schemes in conservation areas where the landlord or a representative body has not done so. That is what the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 147, and the associated drafting amendments, do.
The Bill already requires that schemes must include provision for terminating or varying them if circumstances change and that schemes may also include provision for the transfer of powers to a local authority or other body authorised for that purpose. We are prepared to accept the amendment, which my noble friend Lord Peyton did not move in Committee but which he has tabled again at Report (now Amendment No. 141) to make this a requirement. Since he is not in the Chamber I may move it formally on his behalf.
I am aware that there is cross-party support for giving English Heritage and local planning authorities some additional rights in conservation areas. I have noted that one amendment (Amendment No. 141B) tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friends Lord Cavendish of Furness and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, would in effect enable leasehold valuation tribunals to transfer rights and powers to representative bodies, including English Heritage and local planning authorities, on application from such a body, where the tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has failed to exercise his rights and powers. I also note that another amendment (Amendment No. 142A) would enable English Heritage and local planning authorities to be consulted as "persons interested" in schemes within conservation areas.
I have some reservations over the detail of these amendments. I also have some sympathy with what they attempt to do. Although I do not wish to debate those amendments in detail at this stage, I can say that I am sympathetic to the underlying principle.
Turning to this particular group, we propose by these government amendments to give English Heritage and local planning authorities the power to apply for estate management schemes in respect of estates within conservation areas where no scheme has

1715
been approved. They will have six months, beyond the initial two year time limit, within which to apply for approval of a scheme.
English Heritage and local planning authorities will need to satisfy the local leasehold valuation tribunal that a scheme could have been approved for the area under Clause 65, had a suitable application been made by the landlord or tenants, and that the area will benefit from an estate management scheme.
The leasehold valuation tribunal will be required to apply the same criteria in deciding whether to approve a scheme as it would have done if the application had been made by a landlord or a representative body.
Our amendments also provide that estate management schemes promoted by English Heritage or a local planning authority should not affect the price payable on enfranchisement. Most estate management schemes will enhance their area and may increase the value of properties subject to the scheme. But we cannot see why landlords should benefit from this increase where they have not themselves promoted the scheme. We consider that only fair and reasonable.
I commend these amendments to the House and formally move Amendment No. 136.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on this side of the House we are very happy to support these amendments. We should like to speak more fully to the issues of conservation areas, EMAs and the like, when we come to the amendments tabled in our name.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions in regard to these amendments. I am a great supporter of management schemes. I believe that they are very desirable. Will they cover the situation which now exists in many properties in central London whereby, under the present terms of their lease, people are obliged not to use a flat roof because it overlooks next door, or a condition of the lease is not to have any washing on display? Will such things be included in management schemes? If so, would the position which has just been mentioned where the lease would be revocable or able to be cancelled at six months' notice still apply? Many such conditions have been attached to leases in order to protect residents and enhance the surroundings in view of the fact that people live in such close proximity to each other.
I know that town planning has a certain effect. When I applied to build my house, which is freehold, a woman in the house behind objected on the grounds that she wanted to be able to run up and down stairs without anything on. The town planning committee said that it was a most unusual ground for objection. Very shortly after I moved into the house, she moved out. I do not know whether or not the two moves were connected. I wonder what consideration has been given to the point about conditions attached to leases which are beneficial both to the residents of the house or flat and adjoining areas. I wonder where that would fit in in management terms.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend makes a fair point. Originally we wanted these
1716
schemes to have as light a touch as possible. We accept that in certain important parts—conservation areas and such—it is necessary to have estate management schemes. In terms of the specific questions raised by my noble friend, it depends on the type of scheme that is promoted by the existing landlord to the valuation tribunal and its decision as to what is reasonable. It may well include some of the conditions that my noble friend mentioned but that will be decided at the time on the basis of the proposal put forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 67, line 26, leave out ("through a nominee purchaser under") and insert ("in accordance with").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 68, line 9, after ("incurred") insert ("or to be incurred").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment would enable an estate management scheme to include provisions for an accumulation fund if approved by a leasehold valuation tribunal. The purpose of such a fund would be to meet a long-term cost of a large but anticipated nature. It would comprise a reserve fund designated to that end in which members' annual contributions would accumulate.
A good example of a large periodic but anticipated cost is the resurfacing of roadways, parking areas, courtyards, pedestrian areas and so forth. Cobbled, tiled and paved surfaces can be hugely expensive to relay. Even less costly services can still involve considerable expense. I live in a mews where the 17 mews house owners are responsible for the asphalted roadway. To resurface the roadway at today's prices would by itself cost each owner the equivalent of four times this year's annual service charge. Thus, if we were meeting that cost this year without a reserve fund the annual charges would have jumped 500 per cent. on the norm. A five-fold increase for something like asphalt is dramatic enough. But the renewal of cobbles, ironwork, balustrading, stucco facades and so forth would involve periodic increases of a much greater nature.
Many estate management schemes, especially those in conservation and heritage areas, will have to repair or replace exactly those kinds of feature. It is important to stress that the main beneficiaries of an accumulation fund are the members of the scheme. It is the members who are spared sudden five-fold or ten-fold increases in service charges—increases which would, for instance, see a £400 charge soar up to £2,000 or £4,000 in a single year.
Not only does such a fund prevent extraordinary long-term costs falling as a single blow on just those whose membership of a scheme happens to coincide with the repairs. It also allows everybody in a scheme to contribute to long-term, accumulating wear and tear on a totally fair and proportionate basis, even if

1717
they only stay for a short time or even if, after many years, they sell up and leave just before the bill for repairs or renewal has to be met.
The second significant beneficiary, after the members, is the fabric or feature for which such a fund is designated. No one wishes to face sudden and exceptional charges. That reluctance can become especially entrenched among those members of a scheme who are non-occupiers. In those circumstances, either the need for repair or renewal is resisted for as long as possible or a cry goes up for the cheapest possible fix to be found, whatever the aesthetic consequences. That is to be regretted wherever it happens; but it is of serious concern in conservation and heritage areas and in any area that is endowed with some degree of merit or co-ordination of concept.
I feel strongly about this matter because I know from my own first-hand experience how a long-term cost which has to be met in one sudden lump can prompt both genuine financial difficulties and intractable arguments; I know the determination with which too many will then lobby for a cheap but questionable compromise; and I know the deterioration that can thus be inflicted on the architectural fabric, the heritage and therefore the ambience of an area.
On a positive note, and in support of the amendment, I also know the ease with which accumulation funds can be set up, run and safeguarded. I know the extent to which they are accepted as fair and preferable by participating members. I know the success with which they can be geared to meet otherwise onerous obligations, and I know the benefits that accrue to everyone from being able to commission at the right time that for which the fund is designated, be it the correct cobbles, the appropriate ironwork, the right stucco, the proper craftsmen, or whatever.
In case my noble friend the Minister is worried about procedure and safeguards, there is, in addition to the practical experience of myself and others, the accumulated experience of professional bodies whose codes of practice cover the setting up and administration of the accumulation funds. The imminent Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' code covers that matter in detail and will provide an up-to-date and authoritative guide on procedure.
I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 79 of the Bill which allows the Secretary of State to approve any code of practice which could promote desirable practices in relation to the management of residential property. Such codes will guide and protect those establishing, administering and contributing to accumulation funds as well as the leasehold valuation tribunals which would assess them.
It is in everyone's interest that estate management schemes work as efficiently and as fairly as possible and that recognised flaws are dealt with at that stage. The amendment proposes a successful and prudent solution to a problem that can be foreseen with ease and a problem that is already evident in comparable situations. The beneficiaries of the amendment will be the members of the schemes and the architectural heritage that they contain. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Earl has hit on an important point. Until he drew the attention of noble Lords to that matter, I had not appreciated that it might be possible to provide a fund for costs to be incurred in the future. It is an immensely important point and I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment strives to protect the architectural heritage of this country. I too had missed that point and I hope that the Minister will be able to look sympathetically on the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is splendid. I should like to know whether it would be obligatory to set up such a system or whether it would be enabling.
Lord Kindersley: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, as being eminently practical and very important to the Leasehold Reform Act.
As far as Smith's charity is concerned, on whose behalf I have spoken in the past, it will be an absolutely vital element. As noble Lords will understand, one of the features of the long leasehold system is that there is a continuous stream of income from which provision can be made for large capital non-recurring expenditures. With freeholders perhaps forming a large part of an estate in future, that will be a risk that one will take in getting the money from freeholders. Management agreements do not necessarily stand up when money of a substantial nature is required. From a charity's point of view, it would be impossible for the trustees to run an estate where they were not allowed to form funds in advance for major items of capital expenditure. I have previously mentioned the major items of capital expenditure made by Smith's charity on behalf of their tenants in the estate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we also support Amendment No. 138. It would extend what is currently best practice; that is, to amortise major capital costs over all the members over a number of years. It is sensible and we entirely support it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have every sympathy with what my noble friend is trying to do. I appreciate that in certain circumstances it may be desirable for landlords of estate management schemes to be able to charge costs prospectively, or set up sinking funds.
However, I regret that I have strong reservations about the proposal. I am reluctant to agree to anything that would perpetuate the landlord and tenant relationship in respect of service charges. One of the objectives of enfranchisement is to release tenants from that regime.
If such a relationship were perpetuated in respect of estate management schemes, I would be very concerned about protecting the funds that were paid in advance and about the fact that those making such payments might not be able to challenge the reasonableness of the payments that they would be

1719
asked to make. To give the landlords of estate management schemes the power to collect payments in advance or to set up sinking funds is not enough.
I am sure that noble Lords are aware—and if they are not, then I shall tell them—of the large number of complaints that have been made not only to the Department of the Environment but also to the Department of Trade and Industry, about company landlords not carrying out works, using funds from one source to cover a shortfall elsewhere and even absconding with funds overseas to South America or Northern Cyprus. I do not for one moment include my noble friend and the Smith's charity in that description. However, sinking funds create very substantial problems. In the past they have been notoriously abused and the Government have gone to some length to protect leaseholders by strengthening the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and by introducing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. I should want to ensure that any payments made in advance are held in trust for the benefit of those making such payments in the same way as payments made by leaseholders under the terms of their leases are protected by Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
At the moment, payments made in respect of estate management schemes would not be protected in that way. I would also wish to ensure that those making advance payments have the right to challenge the reasonableness of such payments in the same way as leaseholders can under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. My noble friend's amendment would give landlords carte blanche to raise what funds they considered necessary, without giving those who are required to make payments any form of protection.
Despite the fact that there has been considerable support for the amendment, I hope that my noble friend can understand the very great impracticalities of taking the matter any further. What my noble friend stated about sinking funds is quite correct and there is no bar to tenants voluntarily getting together and making sinking funds work.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, would the Government be open to an amendment at the next stage which used such words as "reasonably to be incurred" and with a provision for either the money to be held in a trust fund or by some arrangement with joint names? It is obviously dangerous to draft an amendment on the spot, but his objections to the amendment should be capable of being dealt with.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my reservations of drafting are clear but they are not the substantial ones. I am advised that it is difficult to devise a regime to include in the Bill all the possible protections that one could think of.
There is a more substantial reservation and that concerns the desire for individual tenants, when they have bought the freehold, to make decisions for themselves or collectively with their neighbours in the way that many people do, and the desire not to perpetuate the landlord and tenant relationship in
1720
respect of service charges. I believe that those matters are all-important which is why I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that patient reply and for the various meetings that have been held outside the House to discuss some of the issues of estate management schemes. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment.
I should like to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, that the accumulation funds would not be obligatory. They would only apply within an estate management area where the fabric was deemed to be of such a nature that the expense of its repair or renewal would be considerable and sudden. Therefore, rather than that huge cost landing in one year on all the members in the scheme but not on the members who have just left the scheme the year before, having being there for many years, an application would be made to the leasehold valuation tribunal for an accumulation fund for that scheme.
The leasehold valuation tribunal will assess applications for such accumulation funds. The application would designate that part of the fabric that the fund is destined for. Rather than being a general fund for miscellaneous future expenses, it would be specifically for a cobbled breakway, for railings or a large stucco facade.
My noble friend the Minister was worried that it might perpetuate the landlord-tenant relationship. In fact, many of the expenses that these accumulation funds are designed to meet are expenses that landlords in the past have met out of their own pockets. Therefore, these expenses are slowly being transferred to the enfranchising tenants of estate management schemes. They are taking on extra responsibilities and are therefore having to fund repairs and renewals that normally would not have come to them quite so directly. I stress that I have direct experience of the volume of the bill that can suddenly arrive. It can be five, 10 or 15 times greater than the normal service charge.
On protecting the funds, which my noble friend was very worried about, I would make two points. First, from my own practical experience, protecting the funds is simple and straightforward. If one tries to imagine the worst possible horror, one can probably work oneself into quite a lather about it, as one could about almost any financial transaction. But in fact it is quite easy to put the funds into an account which is safe, as it were, from direct access by the person who is running the estate management scheme, and which can be activated only by a certain number of members of the scheme. If the members of the scheme want to challenge the purpose or the validity of an accumulation fund bid, they will have that opportunity in front of the leasehold valuation tribunal. The LVT will have to approve both 'the purpose of the fund and, as it were, the safety of the fund. There is protection at that stage. The LVT need not give permission for any fund to start if it believes either that the purpose is weak or that the protection is weak.
I listened to what my noble friend said. However, on this issue I should like to seek the opinion of the

1721
House as I believe that what I propose would be of great value both to the tenants of the scheme and to the architectural fabric of the scheme. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.138) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; NotContents,71.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 68, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) An estate management scheme shall include provision for terminating the scheme upon the expiry of six months' notice in writing by the landlord to the occupiers of the house and premises within the scheme").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Bill currently provides for management schemes to contain provisions enabling them to be varied or terminated, but only where a change of circumstances makes it appropriate or with the approval of the leasehold valuation tribunal.
It is quite possible that a landlord who establishes an estate management scheme may find his property interests in the area diminishing as a consequence of enfranchisement, but may be prevented from ending his obligation to continue to run the scheme—possibly at significant cost to himself —if the situation is not deemed to be an appropriate change of circumstances, which is what the Bill provides.
Given the potentially open-ended burden a landlord faces, it is not unreasonable for landlords to be given a clear right to terminate schemes by notice such as this amendment will provide. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend had already spoken to this amendment because it is grouped with a previous one. It may be that he was not quite satisfied by my answer so perhaps I can give him some more.
I have no objection to estate management schemes containing provisions that enable their termination by a notice from the landlord for the time being on the occupiers of premises within the scheme. Where I differ from my noble friend is that I do not believe that that needs to be a requirement for inclusion in all schemes. Clause 64(2) requires that all schemes shall make provision for terminating or varying all or any of the provisions of the scheme if a change in circumstances makes it appropriate. It also provides that that may be done by or with the approval of a leasehold valuation tribunal.
There would be nothing to stop the promoters of a scheme to include a termination provision along the lines of that proposed by my noble friend, but I cannot see why that should be a requirement of all schemes. I prefer to leave it to the promoters of the scheme and the leasehold valuation tribunal, in approving the terms of schemes, to decide what sort of termination or variation clause is suitable for a particular scheme. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It does satisfy me. I was not seeking that this should be a requirement of all applications for schemes; but where a landlord feels it appropriate, he should be able to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 68, line 26, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall also").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton who is not in his place. In his absence, I move it on his behalf because it is an amendment which we believe is worth accepting. It is also rather better than Amendment No. 141A which is in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Hollis and others and which is exactly the same amendment as that tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton.
When moving the Government's amendments on estate management schemes earlier, I said that we were sympathetic to Amendment No. 141 tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton. Clause 64(2) already provides that estate management schemes shall include provision for terminating or varying schemes if a change in circumstances makes it appropriate. Clause 64(4) (a) provides that schemes shall include provision for identifying the person who, for the purpose of the scheme, is to be treated as the landlord. However, subsection 4(b) only provides that schemes may include provision for transferring all or any of the powers conferred on the landlord to a local authority or other body.
We agree that all schemes should include provision for the transfer of powers to another body where there is a change in circumstances. Whether such a transfer needs to be a local authority or other body, including a representative body or a body specially constituted for that purpose, will depend on the nature of those powers and the provisions of the scheme. We therefore agree that this should be a requirement, and I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 141.
Amendment No. 141A has exactly the same effect, but I prefer the wording in Amendment No. 141. In moving the Government's earlier amendments, I also mentioned that we had considered giving English Heritage and local planning authorities much wider default powers that might enable them to take over existing estate management schemes where the landlord, for the purpose of the scheme, has failed to exercise his powers.
I admitted that that caused us some difficulty. As a general principle, it would be for the ex-tenants that have enfranchised—those subject to the estate management scheme in the event of the landlord failing in his duties—to apply for transfer of the scheme to a representative body. The obligations and rights under a scheme are essentially of a contractual nature. I feel that a representative body consisting of the ex-tenants should perhaps have priority over English Heritage or a local planning authority in taking over a scheme where the landlord has failed to exercise his duties. The ex-tenants might object to the transfer to a third party and might want to take over the scheme themselves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Is the noble Lord speaking to Amendments Nos. 141, 141A, 141B, 142A and 144A, as in the grouping?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I have spoken just to Amendment No. 141. Perhaps I should just leave it at that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 141B:
Page 68, line 30, at end insert:
("; and
(c) may include, where the scheme is for an area wholly or partly within a conservation area, provision for the leasehold valuation tribunal at their discretion to transfer to a representative body the rights and powers conferred by the scheme where, upon the application of such a representative body, the tribunal is satisfied that the landlord for the time being has failed, to the material detriment of the amenity of the area of the scheme, to exercise the rights and powers conferred by the scheme;
and for the purposes of this subsection a representative body may include any local planning authority for the whole or any part of the area of a scheme and, in relation to a scheme wholly in England, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 142A and 144A standing in the names of myself and the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish of Furness, Lord Palmer and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. First, we are grateful and pleased that the Government have accepted Amendment No. 141. I am delighted not to be pressing Amendment No. 141A as an alternative.
I am also very pleased that the Government have already indicated that they have sympathy with the principles that we are arguing for in Amendment No. 141B. I am entirely happy, if the Government are minded to come back with an alternative appropriate amendment at Third Reading, to withdraw it at the end.
It is perhaps worth placing on record and seeking your Lordships' support for the issues which are at stake here. We all accept that owner occupation is not unqualified simply because my enjoyment of my property is intimately affected by my neighbour's use of his. It is a role for planning authorities as regards the blocking of light and the incidents mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. How much more is owner occupation qualified when the house itself is an important part of the streetscape and in a conservation area; where an early Victorian crescent may be deformed by PVC push-open windows to replace painted wooden sash windows; or when York facing is added to pink-rose brickwork; or when flat-roofed porches break the harmony of window and doorlines.
English Heritage, in its latest fifth draft circular on conservation area practice and the local authority historic towns forum, are extremely worried. I believe that the Minister will know that as he has been involved in some of the meetings. They are extremely worried about the incremental deterioration of conservation areas of historic quality. How much

1725
more are we to be worried when such properties include a significant number of flats which may have come from conversions of what were originally and architecturally houses in conservation areas and which have been customised by Austrian blinds and cassata painting, which may seriously damage the amenity and character of an historic area. That is why both in Committee and on Report so many of us all around the House have been worried about some aspects of the enfranchisement of flats in historic, conservation and heritage areas.
The Government have rightly proposed—and we have given it enthusiastic support—the concept of estate management agreements (or EMAs) to ensure mutual guardianship. Where the former landlord and the former leaseholders are willing, they may establish, so to speak, interlocking covenants (or an EMA) to protect both themselves and us—their street frontage and the historic character, coherence and quality of the former leasehold estate.
But what happens if they will not do that? I pay tribute to the Government now because of their amendment to which we shall be speaking later. It permits local authorities and English Heritage to set up EMAs. That recognises that in the few—the, I hope, very few—cases where there are neglectful owners, the local authority may, on application to the leasehold valuation tribunal, protect and guard the public interest in that heritage property. The Minister has also accepted the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which we support also, which requires the local valuation tribunal to consider architectural and historical interest in determining EMAs. We are delighted about that. Equally, the Government have permitted such EMAs to have a clause allowing landlords or former leaseholders to transfer the management and monitoring of an EMA to the local authority at their request.
All of that is splendid, and we welcome it. Almost all of the pieces of the jigsaw are now in place to protect heritage and conservation areas. But one black hole still remains. We are seeking tonight to get the Government's agreement, in principle, to fill it. What happens if an estate management agreement, constructed by landlord and leaseholders, exists and, although it is not being respected, the landlord and the former leaseholders do not wish to transfer its management to the local authority? What arrangements are in place to protect the public interest when the landlord and the former leaseholders default on the EMA, especially when the landlord's longer term financial interest slowly declines as the years pass?
The obvious remedy is that the local planning authority (and, if necessary, English Heritage) should have the power to seek the transfer—that is, the monitoring and enforcement—of an estate management agreement to the 'local authority, alongside the optional power of a landlord or the former leaseholders to do so. Of course, in all cases, the leasehold valuation tribunal should be the umpire of that propriety.
It cannot be sensible to give local authorities the power to set up an EMA in a conservation area where one does not exist but to refuse to give the local
1726
authority the powers to make one stick where it does exist but is being ignored. In other words, it is absurd to give local authorities the greater power but to deny them the lesser power. Indeed, we fear that there could be the nightmare scenario of former landlords and leaseholders setting up an EMA which they have no intention of respecting simply to extract—to ringfence —this area from that in which the local authority or English Heritage has the power to intervene. I do not think that that is likely to happen, but if it does, it will blot and cause to deteriorate for all time that in which we all have property—our historic heritage.
If the local authority or English Heritage has reserve or default powers—even though, given their current financial situation, they will use them only when they regard the position as extreme—it is that much more likely that the original covenanters (that is, the landlord and the former leaseholders) will respect the EMA. They will know that if they do not do so, the local authority may seek to police it by appealing to the leasehold valuation tribunal. It is therefore that much more likely that the spirit of the EMA will be observed by its original partners, which is what we all want. Otherwise we would have the EMA without a sanction for those neglecting or failing to observe it, and that cannot be sensible. We put this to the Minister at Committee stage when he said that the Government were minded to consider default powers. He has made encouraging noises tonight which we very much hope will be followed by appropriate support. It may be that these are not precisely the right amendments, although they have been drafted by English Heritage, to attract the support not only of Members of this House but, we hope, of the Government also. In the hope that we shall get the Government's support, as well as the support of the House, for the amendments, I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my name is attached to this group of amendments and I rise to support them. I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for moving Amendment No. 141 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton. It will be extremely welcome news to English Heritage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, dealt exhaustively and ably with the amendments and there is very little to add. As I have said before, I believe that the whole Bill neglects and perhaps even runs contrary to heritage interests. Hence my previous amendments on heritage areas which, unfortunately, did not find echoes with the Government. This group of amendments goes substantially towards meeting our objections, even if they do not go as far as I would like. It is not clear to me what difficulty my noble friend the Minister has with the wording. It seems to me that we have spoken a little to these amendments on two previous occasions this very afternoon but I, too, shall wait patiently until Third Reading if my noble friend has some difficulty now. Meanwhile, I would welcome assurances on the principle of the amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are sympathetic to these amendments and agree with them in principle. By saying so, I hope that I can cut short

1727
the debate. As a general principle it would be for the ex-tenants who have enfranchised, those subject to the estate management scheme, in the event of the landlord failing in his duties, to apply for transfer of the scheme to a representative body.
The obligations and rights under a scheme are essentially of a contractual nature and I feel that a representative body consisting of the ex-tenants should perhaps have priority over English Heritage or a local planning authority in taking over a scheme where the landlord has failed to exercise his duties. The ex-tenants might object to the transfer to a third party and might want to take over the scheme themselves. However, I am prepared to consider whether this should be left to the discretion of the leasehold valuation tribunal. My concerns here relate to the difficulty a leasehold valuation tribunal might have in determining whether there has been a failure on the part of the landlord for the time being to exercise the rights and powers conferred on him by the scheme and whether this has been to the detriment of the amenity of the area.
I do not want to sound discouraging because I should like to consider Amendment No. 141B with a view to improving it and to tabling something at Third Reading. I hope that that will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Cavendish and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We may want to make it clear that leasehold valuation tribunals would only agree to a particular applicant or representative body taking over existing schemes if, in their opinion, there was some benefit to the heritage of the area or to the ex-tenants who are subject to the scheme.
The noble Baroness spoke also to Amendment No. 142A which would enable English Heritage and local planning authorities to be considered as "persons interested" for consultation purposes where a proposed scheme is in a conservation area. I have no objection to those bodies being consulted and I am prepared to consider this amendment and come up with something at Third Reading.
As I have said, the Government are therefore sympathetic to these amendments and agree with them in principle. I shall bring forward amendments on Third Reading.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I hope that, on reflection, he will not find some of the obstacles that he has mentioned to be insuperable. After all, there is no problem about bodies, courts and tribunals determining when a material failure to observe something has occurred. It happens in relation to building repairs notices and with listed properties all the time. It is done week in, week out, by local authorities, planning authorities and English Heritage. I am sure that that will not pose a problem for the Minister.
We have no objection to the principle that he has enunciated of producing what perhaps I may call a "hierarchy of observation" of an EMA so that if the landlord fails, the tenants or former leaseholders "may" take over the scheme. It is only if they do not do so that one may bring into play the local authorities and English Heritage. That does not present a
1728
problem. All that we are trying to ensure is that we do not end up without anybody ensuring that an EMA is observed. In the spirit of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 [Approval by leasehold valuation tribunal of estate management scheme]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 68, line 45, after ("must") insert (", subject to section (Applications after expiry of two-year period),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in considering the representations made to me about estate management schemes —I am sure your Lordships will acknowledge that we have had an open mind about the various improvements that have been suggested—we have tried to come up with a package of measures that are workable and acceptable to both landlords and their enfranchising leaseholders.
One area where we have been minded to make an amendment is to allow landlords to apply for the approval of estate management schemes after the two-year time limit has expired. The two-year time limit has been imposed to ensure that applications for estate management schemes are made as soon as possible after the coming into force of the enfranchisement provisions so that enfranchisement is not delayed unduly.
However, I am aware that there may be many reasons why a landlord or a representative body may not be able to apply for approval of a scheme within the two-year time limit. There may be a leasehold development that is not yet complete or a redevelopment or refurbishment of existing buildings that contribute to or form part of an estate containing flats that have yet to be let or re-let on a leasehold basis. There may also be a need for developers to apply for estate management schemes in respect of new developments where there is likely to be a benefit to the area. We have therefore agreed to allow landlords to apply in certain circumstances for approval of a scheme after the two-year time limit.
I hope that your Lordships will find this proposal a sensible relaxation of the two-year time limit. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144:
Page 70, line 26, after ("appropriate") insert ("(if at all)").
Page 70, line 31, at end insert ("(if at all)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 144A not moved.]
Clause 66 [Applications by two or more landlords, or by representative body]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 145 to 147:
Page 71, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) Where any such scheme confers any rights or powers on the representative body in accordance with subsection (4) above, section 65(10) and (11) (a) shall have effect with such modifications (if any) as are provided for in the scheme.").
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
Applications after expiry of two-year period
("—(1) An application for the approval of a scheme for an area under section 65 (including an application in accordance with section 66(1) or (3)) may be made after the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (1) of that section if the Secretary of State has, not more than six months previously, consented to the making of such an application for that area or for an area within which that area falls.
(2) The Secretary of State may give consent under subsection (1) to the making of an application ("the proposed application") only where he is satisfied—

(a) that either or both of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) apply; and

(b) that adequate notice has been given to persons interested informing them of the request for consent and the purpose of the request.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) (a) are—

(a) that the proposed application could not have been made before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 65(1); and

(b) that—

(i) any application for the approval under section 65 of a scheme for the area, or part of the area, to which the proposed application relates would probably have been dismissed under section 65(9) (a) had it been made before the expiry of that period; but

(ii) because of a change in any of the circumstances required to be considered under section 65(3) the proposed application would, if made following the giving of consent by the Secretary of State, probably be granted.

(4) A request for consent under subsection (1) must be in writing and must comply with such requirements (if any) as to the form of, or the particulars to be contained in, any such request as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(5) The procedure for considering a request for consent under subsection (1) shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
Applications by certain public bodies
(" .—(1) Where it appears to a leasehold valuation tribunal after the expiry of the period mentioned in section 65(1) that a scheme could, on the application of any landlord or landlords within that period, have been approved under section 65 as an estate management scheme for any area or areas within a conservation area, an application for the approval of the scheme under that section may, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, be made to the tribunal by one or more bodies constituting the relevant authority for the purposes of this section.
(2) An application under subsection (1) may only be made if—

(a) no scheme has been approved under section 65 for the whole or any part of the area or areas to which the application relates ("the scheme area"); and

(b) any application which has been made in accordance with section 65(1), 66(1) or 66(3) for the approval of a scheme for the whole or any part of the scheme area has been withdrawn or dismissed; and

(c) no request for consent under section (Applications after expiry of two-year period)(1) which relates to the whole or any part of the scheme area is pending or has been granted within the last six months.

(3) An application under subsection (1) above must be made within the period of six months beginning—

(a) with the date on which the period mentioned in section 65(1) expires, or

(b) if any application has been made as mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above, with the date (or, as the case may be, the latest date) on which any such application is withdrawn or dismissed,

1730
whichever is the later; but if at any time during that period of six months a request of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) (c) above is pending or granted, an application under subsection (1) above may, subject to subsection (2) above, be made within the period of—

(i) six months beginning with the date on which the request is withdrawn or refused, or

(ii) twelve months beginning with the date on which the request is granted,

as the case may be.
(4) A scheme approved on an application under subsection (1) may confer on the applicant or applicants any such rights or powers under the scheme as might have been conferred on the landlord or landlords for the time being.
(5) For the purposes of this section the relevant authority for the scheme area is—

(a) where that area falls wholly within the area of a local planning authority—

(i) that authority; or

(ii) subject to subsection (6), that authority acting jointly with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England ("the Commission"); or

(iii) subject to subsection (6), the Commission; or

(b) in any other case—

(i) all of the local planning authorities within each of whose areas any part of the scheme area falls, acting jointly; or

(ii) subject to subsection (6), one or more of those authorities acting jointly with the Commission; or

(iii) subject to subsection (6), the Commission.

(6) The Commission may make, or join in the making of, an application under subsection (1) only if—

(a) the whole of the scheme area is in England; and

(b) they have consulted any local planning authority within whose area the whole or any part of the scheme area falls.

(7) Where a scheme is approved on an application under subsection (1) by two or more bodies acting jointly, the scheme shall, if the tribunal considers it appropriate, be made subject to conditions (enforceable in such manner as may be provided by the scheme) for securing that those bodies co-operate in the administration of the scheme.
(8) Where a scheme is approved on an application under subsection (1)—

(a) section 65(10) and (11) (a) shall (subject to subsection (9) below) have effect as if any reference to the landlord, or the landlord for the time being, for the area for which an estate management scheme has been approved were a reference to the applicant or applicants; and

(b) section 65(11) (b) and (c) shall each have effect with the omission of so much of that provision as relates to the adjustment of any such price as is there mentioned.

(9) A scheme so approved shall not be enforceable by a local planning authority in relation to any property falling outside the authority's area; and in the case of a scheme approved on a joint application made by one or more local planning authorities and the Commission, the scheme may provide for any of its provisions to be enforceable in relation to property falling within the area of a local planning authority either by the authority alone, or by the Commission alone, or by the authority and the Commission acting jointly, as the scheme may provide.
(10) For the purposes of—

(a) section 9(1A) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (purchase price on enfranchisement) as it applies in relation to any acquisition such as is mentioned in section 64(1) (a) above, and

(b) paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to this Act as it applies in relation to any acquisition such as is mentioned in section 64(1) (b) above (including that paragraph as it applies by virtue of paragraph 7 or 11 of that Schedule),

it shall be assumed that any scheme approved under subsection (1) and relating to the property in question had not

1731
been so approved, and accordingly any application for such a scheme to be approved, and the possibility of such an application being made, shall be disregarded.
(11) In this section, "conservation area" and "local planning authority" have the same meaning as in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; and for this purpose paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 4 to that Act (further provisions as to exercise of functions by different authorities) shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to section 69 of that Act were a reference to subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) any reference to a determination or designation under that section were a reference to an application under subsection (1) of this section.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Clause 67 [Effect of application for approval on claim to acquire freehold]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 155:
Page 71, line 33, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (5) and (5A)").
Page 71, line 36, after ("area") insert ("or a request ("the request for consent") is made for consent under section (Applications after expiry of two-year period)(l) in relation to any area").
Page 71, line 37, after ("application") insert ("or request").
Page 72, line 2, after ("application") insert ("or the request for consent").
Page 72, line 8, after ("application") insert ("or the request for consent").
Page 72, line 43, at end insert:
("(5A) Where the request for consent is withdrawn or dismissed, subsection (1) does not apply at any time falling after the date on which the request is withdrawn or refused, as the case may be; and where the request is granted, subsection (1) does not apply at any time falling more than six months after the date on which it is granted (unless that subsection applies by virtue of an application made in reliance on the consent).").
Page 72, line 44, after ("(5)") insert ("or (5A)").
Page 73, line 25, after ("66") insert ("or (Applications by certain public bodies)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Clause 68 [Variation of existing schemes]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 73, line 26, at beginning insert-
(".—( ) Where a scheme under section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under that Act) includes, in pursuance of subsection (6) of that section, provision for enabling the termination or variation of the scheme, or the exclusion of part of the area of the scheme, by or with the approval of the High Court, that provision shall have effect—

(a) as if any reference to the High Court were a reference to a leasehold valuption tribunal, and

(b) with such modifications (if any) as are necessary in consequence of paragraph (a).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Government's previous amendments on estate management schemes, I mentioned that we have tried to improve upon the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and to simplify the procedure for seeking approval of such schemes by
1732
transferring the responsibility for approval of schemes from the High Court to leasehold valuation tribunals. That is what Amendment No. 156 does.
The remaining amendments in this group are all consequential drafting amendments. I urge the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 157 to 159:
Page 73, line 26, leave out from ("under") to ("may") in line 28 and insert ("that section").
Page 73, line 28, leave out ("the High Court") and insert ("a leasehold valuation tribunal").
Page 73, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) Any application made under or by virtue of this section to a leasehold valuation tribunal shall comply with such requirements (if any) as to the form of, or the particulars to be contained in, any such application as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
( ) In this section any reference to a leasehold valuation tribunal is a reference to such a rent assessment committee as is mentioned in section 142(2) of the Housing Act 1980 (leasehold valuation tribunals).").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 72 [Rights exercisable in connection with management audits]:
[Amendments Nos. 159A and 159B not moved.]
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill
7.45 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
It was clear on Second Reading that noble Lords who spoke from the Benches opposite and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who spoke on behalf of the Government, all approved of the Bill's purpose to raise the maximum fine for cruelty to tame and captive animals in Scotland. The Bill brings the maximum fine to Level 5 which is currently set at £5,000. The Bill has continued on its way through your Lordships' House without controversy, and it is unamended.
I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael and to my noble neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their interest in and support for the Bill. I should like to reiterate the appreciation expressed by my honourable friend Mr. Bill Walker in another place for the work put into the Bill by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Finally, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister and his officials in the Scottish Office for their

1733
helpful advice and support. I believe that the Bill will be welcomed in Scotland. I hope that your Lordships will pass the Bill this evening. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought forward the Bill. As she said, the people of Scotland will be glad that she has done so. The fact that there has been no opposition to the Bill shows how appropriate it was to raise it at this time. I can assure her that this side of the House wishes the Bill God's speed with the hope that it will soon become part of the statute book. I thank the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to agree with her proposals.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for steering the Bill through your Lordships' House. I congratulate her on the efficient and conscientious manner in which she has done so. At the same time, I acknowledge with thanks the contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, in their support of the Bill and in allowing it, as it appears to be doing now, to move smoothly towards the statute book.
As my noble friend said, it is also right to acknowledge the role played by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in advocating this measure. Once enacted, the provisions of the Bill will enable the courts to impose rather more appropriate sentences. I believe that the Bill will send a signal to the courts of the serious view taken by Parliament of such offences. Like my noble friend, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may speak again, and say that this is the first opportunity we have had to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his recently announced appointment to be the Scottish representative in Europe. We wish him well in that role, but I hope that it will not deprive us of his abilities and judgment. We wish him the felicitations of the House and hope that he will be able to devote his time in future in even measure to both sides of the English Channel. I congratulate him. There could be no better choice for the job than the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I respond briefly: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he had to say. My responsibilities will be essentially those of the co-ordination of matters relating to Europe as they affect Scotland. However, I say with some relief that once a certain Bill arrives at the House, I do not expect that my contribution to it will be in any way extended.
On Question, Bill passed.

Insurance Companies (Cancellation) Regulations 1993
7.50 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when the House considered and approved regulations to implement the bulk of the Second Life Assurance Directive (90/619/EEC) on 28th January I said that the Government would be laying separate regulations to implement the directive's provisions on cancellation rights given to policyholders. These are the regulations before the House tonight. They amend the insurance companies legislation in respect of "non-investment" life assurance. Life assurance which is defined as investment business by the Financial Services Act is covered by the rules of the Securities and Investments Board. The SIB will be making separate amendments to its rules to implement these provisions and will issue a consultation document shortly.
Your Lordships will recall that the Second Life Directive gives EC insurers limited freedom to provide life assurance services in other member states without having to set up branches in those states. It is an interim measure on the road towards completion of the single EC market for life assurance, which is achieved by the Third Life Directive (92/96/EEC) due to be implemented by 1st July 1994.
The regulations under consideration today implement Article 15 of the Second Life Directive, as amended by Article 30 of the Third Life Directive. Article 15 of the second directive gives individual policyholders concluding a life assurance contract on a cross-border services basis a right to cancel the contract and lays down a period of between 14 and 30 days during which the policyholder may exercise this right. Article 30 of the Third Life Directive extends this right to all life assurance contracts sold within the Community by EC insurers but also allows member states to exempt certain contracts where, in the words of the directive,
"the status of the policyholder or the circumstances in which the contract is concluded"
are such that the policyholder does not need this special protection.
The implementing regulations are divided into two instruments. The first is the Insurance Companies (Cancellation) Regulations, which amend the Insurance Companies Act 1982 under powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972. These regulations require the approval of this House. The second is the Insurance Companies (Cancellation No. 2) Regulations. These amend the Insurance Companies Regulations 1981 under powers contained within the 1982 Act. They were made on 19th April and laid the following day under the negative resolution procedure. The regulations are closely related, which is why I suggest that it is convenient to consider them together.
I have placed in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office detailed notes on these regulations. They

1735
explain the purpose and effect of the regulations and how the current legislation would be amended. I shall give a brief outline of the cancellation regulations which are for this House to approve tonight. They make a number of amendments to the 1982 Act.
In the first place, it introduces a definition of an EC contract and a non-EC contract. As I explained to the House on 28th January, the new provisions in the Act will apply only to EC contracts. For non-EC contracts the existing arrangements will continue to apply. The other amendment then introduces the new provisions for EC contracts. It extends the existing cancellation provisions to cover EC insurers providing life assurance services into the UK from another member state, and also to cover industrial assurance business which the 1982 Act has exempted until now. It also extends the cooling-off period for EC contracts from 10 to 14 days, the period starting from the time when the policyholder is informed that the contract has been concluded. It allows the statutory notice, which informs the policyholder of his cancellation rights, to be given to him rather than always being sent. The amendment is made because industrial assurance business and contracts concluded through Lloyd's brokers will no longer be exempt from the right to cancel and it is normal for these contracts to be concluded with both parties being present at the time.
Finally, it disapplies these provisions from residents of other member states, since they should be covered by rules which the states in which they are resident should have in place in compliance with the directives' requirements.
I should now like to turn to the Cancellation No. 2 Regulations, which have been laid under the negative resolution procedure. These will apply to all contracts covered by the Insurance Companies Act. They amend the form of the statutory notice and the categories of contract which will be exempted from the right of cancellation.
Several categories of contract which are currently exempted will be removed. Those currently allowed in the Insurance Companies Regulations 1981 were drawn up before the enactment of the Financial Services Act 1986 and some are now redundant. Others can no longer be justified under the terms of the directives. Contracts which will now attract cancellation rights are single-premium contracts, contracts for permanent health insurance over five years and contracts taken out by a policyholder on the life of a third person.
A few contracts will still be exempt. These are contracts which are not taken out by individual persons; contracts of term assurance of six months' duration or less; contracts of reinsurance; and contracts which insure a policyholder's obligations to make payments under a. personal credit or consumer hire agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
1736
where the terms of the agreement have been entered into on the understanding that the life assurance contract will remain in force.
The current statutory notice also pre-dates the Financial Services Act. We have taken this opportunity to revise it to make it more directly relevant to non-investment insurance contracts and also to make the wording as consistent as possible with the notice which the SIB requires to be issued for contracts which fall within the scope of the FSA. This notice is set out at Schedule 1. We have also removed some of the more detailed printing requirements as part of the Government's deregulation of unnecessary legislation. These amendments should make the notice clearer for policyholders and easier for insurers to produce.
A small number of investment contracts provided on a services basis into the UK by EC insurers fall outside the FSA because of the way they are sold. A separate notice for these contracts is included at Schedule 2.
These regulations should all come into force this coming Thursday, 20th May, the same day as the other regulations implementing the Second Life Directive which the House approved in January. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will wish me to thank the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for bringing the regulations before the House and for explaining them so clearly. It is one more step on the road to the single market, in particular with respect to life insurance.
I have only one question. As formulated the directive allows a range of days—between 14 and 30 —from which one can choose the cooling-off period. The Government have chosen 14 days. Will the noble Viscount elaborate on that?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we have chosen the 14-day period because it will bring life assurance contracts, to which the regulations pertain, into line with those regulated by the SIB. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for the welcome that he has given to the regulations. The Government attach considerable importance to the completion of the single market for insurance. I know that the insurance directives have the support of the insurance industry and consumer organisations. Later this year regulations will be laid to implement the third life and non-life directives. In the meantime, I commend to the House the regulations which implement the cooling-off provisions of the second and third life directives.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  TANKER ROUTING
  TANKER ROUTING
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: EC DIRECTIVE
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: EC DIRECTIVE
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: ALTERNATIVES
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: ALTERNATIVES
  PENALTY SET-ASIDE
  PENALTY SET-ASIDE
  IACS: PROCEDURE
  IACS: PROCEDURE
  GATT: PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOODSTUFFS
  GATT: PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOODSTUFFS
  BOSNIA
  BOSNIA
  LAW OF THE SEA: CONVENTION
  LAW OF THE SEA: CONVENTION
  EAST TIMOR
  EAST TIMOR
  IRAQ: KUWAITI PRISONERS
  IRAQ: KUWAITI PRISONERS
  TERRITORIAL SEAS
  TERRITORIAL SEAS
  WEST BANK AND GAZA: RELIEF AID
  WEST BANK AND GAZA: RELIEF AID
  EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES
  EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES
  NHS ABORTION SERVICES
  NHS ABORTION SERVICES
  BYWAYS OPEN TO ALL TRAFFIC: VEHICULAR RIGHTS
  BYWAYS OPEN TO ALL TRAFFIC: VEHICULAR RIGHTS
  6–7 OLD PALACE YARD: PROPOSED WORKS
  6–7 OLD PALACE YARD: PROPOSED WORKS