Sitting of 25 April 1990

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

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he is considering to amend the community charge regulations.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): The operation of the community charge is of course being monitored. I have no proposals, at present, for changes to the regulations.
    Mr. Fields: In the light of that reply, does the Minister accept that his policies on the poll tax and uniform business rate will increase dramatically the already record levels of bankruptcy among small business people, and have resulted in 200 shops and small businesses in the Minister's own constituency closing down? The policies were dramatically exposed in The Guardian by Mr. Francis Ching, who said that the poll tax was robbing the poor left, right and centre. It is an absolute scandal, and for the Minister to come to the House with such a reply is a disgrace.
    Mr. Patten: With respect, the hon. Gentleman might await my reply. He had the courtesy to refer to my constituency, where two issues come together—first, the uniform business rate and secondly, revaluation. It is common to all parties that we support revaluation. That was made clear in January by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). We proposed a transitional scheme, about which I hope to have the opportunity to say more later. In my constituency, small businesses are considerably helped by the uniform business rate, which protects them from the higher rate increases that result from Avon's spending decisions. If the Opposition are now in favour of the uniform business rate, as well as revaluation, they will have a story to tell in my constituency and other places in the south.
    Mr. Hill: My right hon. Friend may or may not propose to amend the regulations, but in the meantime the administration of the exemptions at local government level is what worries many of my colleagues. People are waiting weeks and weeks to receive the decision from their local authorities. In my case, Southampton city council is Labour controlled and has the poorest administration. People are waiting weeks in fear and trembling that they will not receive the exemptions.
    Mr. Patten: I am concerned about what my hon. Friend says. To be fair to local authorities as a whole, in most the arrangements have gone pretty well and, as I was proposing to say later, most bills have gone out net of both transitional relief and benefit, which is commendable for the local authority staff involved. Where local authorities have done less well, there is cause for concern. That should be recognised by local authorities and we should compare what some have done with what the majority have managed to achieve.
    Mr. McCrindle: May we take it from what my right hon. Friend said in his original answer that, in addition to reviewing any operational defects of the community charge, he will look at how the uniform business rate is operating in all parts of the country? Does he agree that although we concede that revaluation was long overdue, there is evidence that, in conjunction with rising rents in some areas, the difficulties being experienced by small businesses are considerable? Surely, it can be no part of the introduction of the uniform rate for small businesses to go the wall.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the interaction of rent levels and revaluation. In my constituency, even with revaluation, rates will represent only about 20 per cent. of the rental levels faced by small businesses. We must consider the transitional arrangements that the House has agreed for small businesses. I have made it clear time and again that if it proves necessary to extend the transitional period to ensure that small businesses avoid steep rises in their rates towards the end of that period, we shall be prepared to do so.
    Mr. Pike: In a written answer to me last week, the Under-Secretary of State said that there was no intention of changing the basic principle underlying the community charge, which is that almost all adults should pay a contribution towards providing local services. As he emphasised that there was no change in that basic principle, what changes do the Government intend to make to remove the unfairness of the present system?
    Mr. Patten: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said. I shall be saying one or two things about the operation of the community charge later this afternoon and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stays to hear the speeches.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While my right hon. Friend is conducting his review of the community charge, will he seriously consider disaggregating married couples, which has already been done for national taxation? Figures researched by the Library suggest that that would cost between £1 billion and £1·5 billion, but instead of angling the extra money to profligate councils, such as Lancashire county council, that would give the money directly to those, such as married and retired couples and young mothers, who actually need the help.
    Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend has said. She and other hon. Members have mentioned that issue in the past. It produces a quite different set of anomalies, but we shall certainly consider it in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Gould: Are not the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends engaged in a desperate search for a way out of the mess that they have created? Will he confirm, for example, that a meeting was recently arranged between

    315
    senior officials of Strathclyde regional council and someone described mysteriously as an influential Conservative Member of Parliament? Will he further confirm—in case he does not know the answer, I shall tell him it—that that influential Conservative Member of Parliament was none other than his right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who, just a few months ago, was the Prime Minister's campaign manager in the leadership election contest?
    Mr. Patten: I am afraid that although my responsibilities run all too wide, they do not cover either the diary of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) or the activities of Strathclyde regional council. But as I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us more information about this spectacular cross-border conspiracy later this afternoon, I look forward to hearing about it. We are also all agog to hear more about the Labour party's proposals.

    Homelessness
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to use empty Government-owned property for homeless people.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): It is Government policy to sell such empty houses that are no longer needed. Where disposal is not practicable, Departments let property to local authorities or housing associations to relieve local housing pressures.
    Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware that there are about 35,000 Government-owned properties and that in the south-east alone there are more than 1,000 properties owned by the Ministry of Defence—some of them shown in pictures such as I have here? Does not he think it a scandal that about 18 per cent. of Government-owned properties are lying empty while only 2 per cent. of local authorities' properties are empty? How can he tell local authorities how to manage their housing when the Government obviously cannot manage their own?
    Mr. Spicer: Our policy is to sell Government houses that are not required or, when appropriate, to rent them on a short-term basis. To answer the hon. Lady directly, what is a national scandal is that housing authorities that are directly responsible for managing the housing stock are sitting on more than 100,000 empty council houses in England alone. The worst offenders are overwhelmingly Labour authorities. Labour is presiding over housing waste on a massive scale while at the same time bleating about homelessness.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that one of the great problems for the homeless in Lambeth is the cynical disregard of their plight by a local authority that has 2,000 empty homes, 1,900 people in expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation and rent and rate arrears of £66 million? Would not the best news for the homeless in Lambeth be a return of a Conservative local authority on 3 May?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a perfect point, which exactly illustrates what I have just been saying.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister is misleading the House: it is not the Government's policy to sell these houses. Many of them have been standing empty for more than 10 years.
    316
    There are literally dozens in my area belonging to the prison department that have been empty for 10 years, three years and so on. Why does not the Minister arrange for them to be let, through housing associations and local authorities? Does not he remember opening the Institute of Housing exhibition in this very House only a few weeks ago, in which the displays demonstrated that the Government's record is worse than that of any other housing body—local authority, housing association or private? In percentage terms, the Government have three times as many empty properties as local authorities. The Minister cannot blame local authorities when he is incapable of providing for homeless people the housing that he has right now.
    Mr. Spicer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman spoke about percentage terms, because we have a much smaller housing stock than local authorities, which are, of course, responsible for housing. Of course the percentage could be lower. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government, and especially Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, have to keep surplus housing for contingency purposes. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly be able to guess for himself what those purposes are. When properties cannot be sold we are beginning to let them to housing authorities. There have been 570 lets in recent months, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that the property is not being shifted.
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the distribution of the £250 million package to combat homelessness in London and the south-east.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Allocations of £112 million have been made this year to local authorities. In addition, the Housing Corporation has announced £45 million worth of housing association schemes to help the homeless over the next two years. Bids for the remaining £93 million will be invited later in the year.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. How much of that money will be used to bring empty properties into use? What is being done to speed up the work of housing associations and others so that they can bring more affordable rented property on to the market in the south-east as an alternative to local authority accommodation?
    Mr. Spicer: The objective of that money is largely to bring into use housing that is not being used properly, thus releasing people from bed-and-breakfast places. That will help directly the single homeless. In that context I am placing in the Library today a list of 26 voluntary organisations that will be offered a total of about £1 million of funding this year for projects that will relieve or prevent single homelessness.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the record number of homeless people means that there is a record number of disfranchised people in London and the south-east and in the rest of the country? Is not the truth of the Government's tragic and scandalous record of failing to provide housing, that people without houses do not support the Government and people who do not support the Government do not get a vote?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman talks about the scandalous record of the Government in not providing

    317
    housing. An extra 1·7 million houses have been provided over the past 10 years whereas the population has risen by less than 1 million. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a problem of homelessness. It could be relieved overnight if Labour-controlled local authorities put on the market their void housing. Nevertheless, one needs to look at why there is a homelessness problem. It is overwhelmingly a matter of families splitting because of problems at home. That creates a demand for two houses when before there was a demand for one.
    Mr. Squire: While accepting the congratulations, at least from Conservative Members, on the Government's latest package, my hon. Friend will of course accept that there is concern about homelessness on both sides of the House. Does not he find it astonishing that the Opposition's only solution, amid their carping about the Government's proposals, is to spend more money on local authorities, which too often have high rent arrears and long relet periods, and which exhibit a general incompetence which, among other things, was commented upon at length by the Audit Commission?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. We are often accused of not providing enough resources. Rent arrears are overwhelmingly found in Labour-controlled local authorities. Some £319 million is not being raised because of rent arrears, and responsibility for the overwhelming part of that lies with Labour-controlled authorities. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that scandalous situation.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what factors he ascribes the standard spending assessment for Barnsley metropolitan district council being the lowest of the metropolitan district authorities.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Barnsley's SSA of £112 million, or £669 per adult, has been calculated in accordance with the distribution report approved by the House on 18 January, using the factors applicable to all metropolitan district councils. Those factors reflect the demographic, physical and social characteristics of each authority area.
    Mr. Illsley: The Minister is probably aware that, even under the grant-related expenditure assessment, Barnsley's grant was always at the bottom of the list. At this late stage, will he look at Barnsley's SSA, as the low assessment has led to Barnsley being capped? That is unfair when Manchester has an assessment of £1,170 per adult to provide the same level of services.
    Mr. Hunt: I regret that Barnsley should have chosen to budget to spend excessively, and the figures are clear. In Barnsley's case, the budget of £142 million for 1990–91 is almost 27 per cent. above its SSA, which is equivalent to £178 per adult above the SSA. Using the measure used by the hon. Gentleman, the budget is also some 19 per cent. above the rescaled 1989–90 grant-related expenditure, so, on any reasonable measure, the budget is excessive.

    Waste
    Mr. Donald Thompson: T: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new controls he is introducing to tighten the regulation of the disposal of waste.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The Environmental Protection Bill will extend and strengthen local authorities' powers to control licensed waste disposal and, through the duty of care, will place new responsibilities on the producers and carriers of waste.
    Mr. Thompson: In my constituency, many 'waste disposal activities have been carried out sensitively. Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am about the future plans for Todmorden moor, which lies between our constituencies, where it is intended to take out coal and put in waste?
    Mr. Trippier: I am aware of the problems associated with Todmorden moor and of the keen interest and concern that characterises my hon. Friend's assiduous work in his constituency. As he knows, it will be for Calderdale metropolitan council to consider the matter and the specific points that he outlined.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the controls that the Minister mentioned have any effect on the problems in my constituency, about which I know that he is concerned, or does he think that those problems can be resolved only by the legal action that is under way?
    Mr. Trippier: The problem in Wath upon Dearne, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, may be settled through the courts, although whether it is to be within the jurisdiction of the American or of the British courts has still to be decided. We both know that it is a unique and difficult example. The Environmental Protection Bill strengthens controls and enshrines tougher measures covering the importation of hazardous waste.
    Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that 181 operations in London are licensed to discharge radioactivity, but do not have to reveal either what sort of radioactivity it is, or the level? Should not that be on a public register?
    Mr. Trippier: The Environmental Protection Bill will enshrine legislation to cover that point. Part of it deals with radioactivity, and many other parts cover increased public access to environmental information.
    Ms. Walley: In a short time, we have seen how terribly important is the control of all aspects of toxic waste. While we welcome the tighter controls that will be implemented by the Bill, will not there be a special problem with chemical special waste treatment plants and toxic waste incinerators? Despite all the Minister's assurances during the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill, will he assure us again that he is in touch with what is happening on the ground? What extra staff will be needed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution so that it can take on board its extra responsibilities arising from integrated pollution control when those responsibilities are transferred to it from the waste disposal authorities?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady may recall that, under the Bill, the regulatory role is placed in the hands of local authorities. An environment audit on the various plans has to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

    319
    State, and that is true of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Relatively few staff will be involved. Responsibility for regulation will remain with the local authorities, and it will be for them to provide the necessary staff to fulfil that task. It is important that I should say that the authorities can now charge for the licensing of the sites. We believe that those charges will cover the costs of the additional staff who will be required.

    Housing
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to make private housing properties which are unfit for human habitation or lacking basic amenities adequate for letting to help reduce waiting lists of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): There is a statutory duty upon local authorities to take action against unfit properties, including those lacking basic amenities. Where such action is taken, financial assistance may be available under the new system of renovation grants starting on 1 July, to help owners carry out the necessary repairs.
    Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for his reply. I thank him also for visiting my constituency to see the problems on the former coal board site at Crackley. As a result of his visit, the council has written to the owners of the empty properties, none of whom has had the courtesy to reply. When will the Government give additional powers and moneys to local authorities to help them to solve that serious problem?
    Mr. Chope: I enjoyed my visit to Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I was grateful to the hon. Lady for her presence. Newcastle-under-Lyme has done well as a result of the Government's housing policies. This year, its housing investment allocation was £4·159 million compared with only £1·69 million last year. That was an increase of about two-and-a-half times. I hope that that gives some satisfaction to the hon. Lady on the resources front. I have said that the local authorities have the appropriate statutory powers. The problem is that some authorities are not exercising those powers.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of returning such properties to active use would be to go further in liberalising the rented sector? Shorthold tenancies are a step in the right direction, but there is a need to go much further.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. The liberalisation that we have already implemented has brought many more properties into use in the private rented sector. In the light of that success, the Government may be looking for further progress.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister read the report of the Association of District Councils, published six months ago, which states that one in seven houses in England and Wales is in need of repair and that the total bill would be a massive £36 billion? The ADC, which is Tory controlled, has urged the Government to provide additional moneys to the public and private sectors so that a start can be made on repairing badly needed houses. Is the Minister aware that the greatest concentration of poor private sector
    320
    housing is in the north of England? When will he do something about that? Or does he intend, like his predecessors, to sit back and let further decay take place?
    Mr. Chope: All Conservatives are concerned about the quality of the housing stock. The Government's record on improving housing is exemplary. I remind the House that during the last year in which the Labour Government were in office only £90 million was spent on home improvement grants. That massive sum has been exceeded fourfold in many years since then. There are regularly more than 100,000 improvement grants a year now, whereas under the Labour Government we were lucky if there were more than 50,000. That is an example of the Government's fine record on private sector housing.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever we say about the private sector, the most effective way of reducing local authority waiting lists is to start on our own doorsteps, as it were, and to fill the empty homes that are available for occupation? There are about 2,000 such homes in Wolverhampton. If we were to collect the rent arrears of £7 million and invest that sum for the homeless, we would begin to get somewhere. There is much rhetoric about the homeless, but I am sure that as a result of the community charge the local authorities will begin to get their house in order.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best thing that the people of Wolverhampton can do for themselves is to vote for a Conservative council on 3 May.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the provision of capital investment in housing following the autumn statement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend receives such representations from time to time, including some drawing attention to the large increases in public expenditure provision for subsidised rented housing that we have announced.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Minister accept that the Government's current housing investment policy is disastrous? The bottom has fallen out of the private sector and there is a major problem with pre-1919 houses. Are not hundreds of thousands of people waiting for proper accommodation, including the elderly and the handicapped who need specialised accommodation and who will die before it is provided under this Government's policies? As for Wolverhampton—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask only one question.
    Mr. Spicer: Public expenditure on housing is massive—£3 billion in housing revenue subsidy;£3 billion in housing credit; and a doubling of Housing Corporation expenditure up to almost £2 billion. The Government are spending astronomical sums. We inherited very bad housing stock from previous Governments, especially Labour ones. The real problem is bad Labour councils not managing their stock properly.
    Mr. Channon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the large amount of housing investment made available to the voluntary housing movement is most welcome? Can he forecast the number of dwellings likely to be forthcoming as a result of that money?
    Mr. Spicer: The current average build from that money is about 17,000, rising to 20,000. In two years' time, the figure will rise to 34,000 a year.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Minister at the Department of the Environment stop making cheapjack political points—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his own judgment about those matters.
    Mr. Banks: Ministers are making cheapjack political points out of the homeless. It is all very well for fat Conservative Members to laugh about homelessness. More than 70 per cent. of my constituency casework relates to housing. If all these wonderful things are being done by the Government, why has homelessness in London doubled during the past 10 years?
    Mr. Spicer: I have not been making cheap political points; I have been making rather expensive ones during the past 10 minutes. One reason why the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency with such bad housing is that the housing authorities there and in surrounding constituencies are run by Labour councils. They have mismanaged their housing stock—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Those are cheapjack points.
    Mr. Spicer: I am giving the facts. I am not necessarily making political points, but simply pointing out the facts to the hon. Gentleman.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the level of community charge in Barnet.
    Mr. David Hunt: I continue to receive representations on many aspects of the community charge.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the community charge in the London borough of Barnet, whose schools had the best results of any local authority in England and Wales and which educates 2,000 refugees from Brent each day, compares very favourably with that of other local authorities? Will he confirm that its community charge of £338 compares well with the £498 imposed by Brent, £534 imposed by Camden, and £573 imposed by the London borough of Haringey? Does not that contain a message for the community charge payers of Barnet next week?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. Community charge payers in Barnet pay a £70 contribution to the safety net, without which the charge would be £268. Last week, I had the opportunity of visiting Barnet with my hon. Friend. The most common fear expressed to me by shoppers in the high street was of boundary changes. They asked me to make absolutely certain that none will be made, so that they will not suffer the consequence of becoming charge payers in Brent, Haringey or Camden.
    Mr. Blunkett: Barnsley and Calderdale would benefit from the same poll tax levels as in Barnet, as that would help them to sustain some of their services. Over the past two years, the Minister and his predecessors have been happy to present the nation with estimates of gainers and
    322
    losers showing that, according to the Government, 60 per cent. of the population would gain from poll tax. When the true figures were known, the Minister and his Department refused to produce them, despite pressure from myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and many other right hon. and hon. Members. Will the Minister confirm that figures from the House of Commons Library's statistical section reveal that, in reality, 28 million people will be losers under poll tax—79 per cent. of the population—and that the figures that he and his Department use are wholly mythical?
    Mr. Hunt: That is absolute nonsense. We have published all the figures. The statistics that have been published on many occasions, at frequent intervals, show clearly that as a consequence of the changes to the system, 60 per cent. of households will benefit. Those that do not benefit—such as in Barnsley—would do so if Conservatives were in charge of their councils. The message clearly coming through is that with a Conservative council, one pays a lower community charge. Conservative councils cost less.

    Waste
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's target for the percentage of household waste that could be recycled using (a) source separation and (b) mechanised separation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Our aim is to recycle 50 per cent. of the useful content of household waste by the end of the century. Achieving that will depend on the right mix of collection and sorting facilities in each area for each waste stream and, above all, on encouraging the market for recycled materials and identifying the environmental benefits of recycling and the real costs of alternatives, such as disposal to landfill.
    Mr. Colvin: Has my hon. Friend heard the news that Birmingham city council, in co-operation with the private sector, is managing to recycle 92 per cent. of domestic waste without the need for separation? I thank my hon. Friend for visiting my constituency to see for himself the work done in that respect by Test Valley borough council. What measures does the Department have in mind to encourage local authorities, either with cash or in kind, to recycle more domestic waste?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know of the scheme that my hon. Friend mentioned, and it sounds very interesting. Test Valley borough council has an excellent record of recycling. I can offer an additional incentive, in that I shall be introducing a new provision into the Environmental Protection Bill allowing waste disposal authorities to pass on to waste collection authorities such as Test Valley the financial credit for avoiding landfill costs by recycling waste instead.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that Greater Manchester waste disposal authority has done extremely well with its experiments in the mechanical separation of waste? However, the move from an experimental to a permanent basis will depend on the price

    323
    that it can obtain for reclaimed materials. What steps are the Government taking to ensure a guaranteed price for reclaimed paper and plastics?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have heard of that scheme. I have no theoretical preference for separation at source or the later mechanical separation that he mentioned. We are undertaking a number of experiments to see which is the best system. Most recycling makes economic and environmental sense. The Environmental Protection Bill will have the longer-term effect of raising the cost of landfill, which gives added economic incentives to recycling.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that in creating a market for recycled products—in particular waste paper—it is important to set an example? Will he have a word with colleagues in other Departments to encourage them to use recycled paper, as the Department of the Environment does?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, Sir. That is under active consideration in all Government Departments. I confirm that my Department uses recycled paper for all correspondence, and I hope that hon. Members will consider using recycled paper for their correspondence from the House.

    Rents
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils have so far set rent increases above Government guidelines in England and Wales.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: About 75 per cent. of the English authorities which have announced their rents for 1990–91 have set rents above the guideline. On present information, the average rent increase per week is 76p above the guideline.
    Mr. Michie: Is not that another sign that the Government have made a pig's ear of the assessment of rent levels to local authorities, as they did with the standard spending assessments and the poll tax? Is not it time that the Government admitted that, and had the courage to apologise to local authorities for the incompetence of the Department of the Environment? There is no doubt that it is having a disastrous effect on the economy of local authorities. Before the Minister answers by saying that Sheffield is Labour controlled, I should tell him that obviously it has had to put up rents because the guidelines are low. In Tory-controlled Redbridge, rents have gone up by£15 a week.
    Mr. Spicer: The variations are not excessive. I said 76p and that is not an excessive variation on the Government's estimate. When making their estimates, the Government took into account all the rent rebates that had to be paid and the cost of borrowing. One variant is the maintenance budget, which councils set for themselves. Another variant is rent arrears, and one problem is that in many areas large rent arrears go into the accounts and affect other people's rents. Throughout the country, rents in the public sector are well below market values. That is representative of the subsidies that we are giving towards rents.
    Mr. Ron Brown: But surely, morally and politically, those councils have no right to implement Tory policy on
    324
    the poll tax or on rents. The Minister should say that those councils can resist and fight back. If democracy means anything, the fight back of the common people means a tremendous amount. People power does not happen only in eastern Europe. It can happen here. Does the Minister agree that those elected representatives can resist and fight back, and should not it be encouraged?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that, if I follow him correctly, I agree with him. The Government have done precisely that. They have given local authorities a great deal of discretion over the way in which they raise rents. That is precisely the discretion that they are exercising, so I think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    Housing
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities with the highest number of empty properties.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Local authorities with the highest number of empty council dwellings in April 1989 were Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Liverpool—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Sheffield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Salford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Birmingham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Sandwell—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Hackney—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Southwark—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Wolverhampton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Newcastle upon Tyne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."].
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it makes an absolute mockery of the Labour party's alleged concern for homelessness when its elected councillors cannot give proper care to the homeless within their areas?
    Mr. Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The only other figures that I could have read out would have concerned rent arrears, which is almost the same list.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Liverpool's homelessness record is one of the best in the country? Might not that be due to the fact that, since 1983, when Liverpool city council came under Labour control, it has regularly been building houses for the people who live in the area? Is not it true that many of the so-called empty houses are blocks of flats that were built when the Tories were in power and that they are being demolished because they are a blot on the area? Is the Minister aware that the Government practically destroyed industry on Merseyside and that many rent arrears are due to the great poverty in the area?
    Mr. Spicer: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I respond to him by asking him a question: who gave Liverpool the resources to build those houses?
    Mr. Dickens: Does the Minister agree that the picture is very much blacker than the list he gave in reply to the question? Is not it a fact that throughout the United Kingdom about 100,000 homes are standing empty in Labour-controlled council areas which, at a stroke, could take 400,000 people off the homeless list? Is not that

    325
    diabolical? Instead of carping and shedding tears about it in this place, should not the Opposition get on to their friends in Labour councils about the homeless?
    Mr. Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The figure of 100,000 has to be compared with only 40,000 people currently in temporary accommodation and 11,000 in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Mr. Madden: When the Tory flagship in Bradford is sunk without trace, will the Minister give a firm assurance that there is no prospect of his Department blocking grants for the building of new homes for rent and for the modernisation of older homes on the Lower Grange estate in Bradford, where many of my constituents have been living in the most deplorable conditions for many years?
    Mr. Spicer: It is this Government who have made the method of allocating credits across the country as transparent and objective as possible. We shall continue to use that objective assessment method in the future as we have done in the recent past.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the final levels at which relevant local authorities have been community charge-capped.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The date for announcing final caps will depend in part on how authorities react to the caps that I proposed earlier this month, but I expect the capping process to be finalised in time for all capped authorities to set their new budgets by June or July.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend find it deplorable that Bristol and Avon are about to waste more community charge payers' money going to court to get the right to spend more community charge payers' money? Is not this a case of heads, charge payers do not win, and tails, they lose?
    Mr. PattenI note what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that many of his constituents will raise an eyebrow about what has happened. I cannot comment on any case before the court, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there have been at least five judicial reviews on rate capping and that the local authorities failed to win any of them.
    Mr. Benn: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to a letter that is being sent out by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to people who write to him about the poll tax, in which he boasts that, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he persuaded the Cabinet not to proceed with the poll tax, that he believes that there will have be changes to a system based on the ability to pay and that he intends to take a close interest in the matter? Would not it be a good idea for the Secretary of State to consult his predecessor, who takes the view, shared by many people across the whole political spectrum, that the poll tax is a disaster and cannot continue to operate?
    Mr. Patten: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) intends to take a continuing close interest in the evolution of the community charge. However, I am bound to say that my right hon.
    326
    Friend's description of what he did when he was in the Cabinet, which I am sure is accurate, is slightly less illuminating than some of the descriptions of how the right hon. Gentleman justified his time in Cabinet.

    Rents
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a definition of affordable rents.
    Mr. Chope: Housing benefit is available for those tenants who would otherwise have difficulty affording their rents. In addition, subsidies to local authorities and housing associations enable rents to be kept within the reach of people in low-paid employment.
    Ms. Primarolo: Yes, we know that, but the Minister was asked for a definition of affordable rents, given that rents vary for different reasons. Council house rents have been forced up by the Government, housing association rents have been forced up by the new financial arrangements and the pressure of interest rates, and housing benefit levels set a maximum rent of £55. The combination of all those factors, in addition to the reduction in the number of people claiming benefit, is to trap people on low pay in their poverty. That housing policy is against the declared aims of the Government and forces people into a poverty trap. What do the Government propose to do about it?
    Mr. Chope: Average council rents at about £24 a week are far from unaffordable. The hon. Lady will accept that what is an affordable rent in any given case must be a subjective matter.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable difference between many council rents and the rents charged by the all-too-small private rented sector? Does he agree that those who are fortunate enough to have council homes should pay realistic rents for good accommodation and that the revenue from such rents should be used to accommodate people who are in housing difficulty?
    Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is the Government's policy that people who occupy council housing and can afford to pay reasonable rents should do so and that those who occupy council housing and cannot afford the rents should be entitled to housing benefit.

    Coastal Pollution
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to reduce the risk of excess nutrients building up around the coast.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Details of measures which will reduce inputs of nutrients to our coastal waters are listed in the United Kingdom North sea action plan. The decisions to ban dumping of sewage sludge at sea and to treat all substantial sewage discharges to sea will further reduce nutrient inputs by between 10 and 20 per cent.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for that reply. What does he propose to do to prevent Welsh Water from redirecting sewage discharge from Cardiff bay to the Bristol channel should the bay development go ahead, as

    327
    that will add greatly to the risk of eutrophication in the Bristol channel? The matter concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: So far, eutrophication has not been found to be a significant problem in United Kingdom coastal waters and has not increased significantly in recent years. However, the development plans to which the hon. Gentleman alludes will be carefully considered by my Department with that in mind.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there has been a welcome across the broad spectrum for banning sewage effluent outfalls, it will be many years before we can provide alternatives because some of them are only just coming on stream, particularly in south coast areas?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. It takes time to design such schemes and to obtain the necessary planning permission, but we have made an enormous commitment, and the water companies have a substantial investment undertaking, to put in place the necessary schemes. One reason why we are having to spend so much to catch up is that some of the companies languished for too long in the public sector.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from tenants' organisations in favour of capital value rates.
    Mr. Chope: I am not aware of having received any representations in favour of capital value rates from tenants' organisations or anyone else.
    Mr. Wardle: Would not a system of capital value rates be as unfair to those on low incomes as a local income tax would be unwieldy? Is not by far the fairest and most accountable system of local government finance—subject of course to proper implementation—the community charge?
    Mr. Chope: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The more people understand about capital value rates, the more they despise the proposition.
    Mr. McAllion: If three out of four voters in England rejected a local government tax in the general election, and if a body elected—in the main—outside England subsequently ignored that vote and imposed that local government tax only on England, would the Minister describe those of his fellow countrymen who resisted that undemocratic imposition by every peaceful means open to them as shirkers and anarchists? Does he recognise that the danger of anarchy arises when Governments ignore the principle of democratic consent to law, as the Government have done with the poll tax in Scotland?
    Mr. Chope: I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am not well read in the principles of anarchy, but my clear recollection is that the question whether there should be a community charge was put fairly and squarely to the electorate at the last general election.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the uniform business rate on bed-and-breakfast businesses.
    Mr. Chope: The impact of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation on bed-and-breakfast establishments which are subject to rating will vary among properties and areas of the country in the same way as for other properties. I am pleased to see that businesses as a whole in my hon. Friend's constituency will benefit from an average rate reduction of 45 per cent. in cash terms, without transition, as a result of the new business rate arrangements.
    Mrs. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety about the suggestion of the 100-day rule? Will he examine more closely the problems that it could create? If introduced, it could discourage smaller bed-and-breakfast businesses from operating. That would have a profound effect, and would work against our policy to encourage more tourists to use tourist facilities off-peak.
    Mr. Chope: I have met several hon. Friends to discuss the treatment of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are considering the arguments that they and others have put to us.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment? Perhaps they could trot down to Bath together. I have been told that there has been a revolt by the business men and women of that constituency. The result of that and other developments is that we could be recycling the whole Government, not just the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend dealt more than adequately with that issue earlier.
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 county councils with the highest percentage overspend over standard spending assessment.
    Mr. David Hunt: The list is as follows: Derbyshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Avon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Northumberland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Cumbria—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Oxfordshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Cheshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Isle of Wight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Liberal."]; Humberside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Nottinghamshire—[HON. MEMBERS "Labour."]; and Lancashire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]
    Mr. Boswell: Does not that send the clearest possible message to the local government electors that Conservative councils cost them less, and that Labour and other Opposition-controlled councils cost them much more?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more: everywhere that we look, Labour councils cost the community charge payer more money.
    Ms. Gordon: Is the Minister aware that people in the London borough of Barnet who want to go swimming go to the Swiss Cottage baths in the borough of Camden, and that people who want to take their children to one o'clock

    329
    clubs go to Parliament Hill fields, also in the borough of Camden? It is all very well for Conservative-controlled authorities to keep spending down, but their residents must use the facilities in neighbouring Labour-run boroughs because they are not provided in their own boroughs.
    Mr. Hunt: With a Conservative council, one gets not only a lower community charge but better value for money and better services.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that, had we not changed the domestic rating system, the spending by the authorities that he mentioned would have given rise to such a huge burden on ratepayers that any Government who failed to get rid of rates would have been rightly and severely criticised?
    Mr. Hunt: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Government were the first with the guts to get rid a the iniquitous domestic rating system. We still await the Labour party's statistics for what it proposes in place of the community charge.

Broadcasting Bill
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) submitted on 14 March that the Broadcasting Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, is hybrid. The Bill has now been reported by the Committee and I am grateful for the opportunity which I have had to study the hon. Member's points.
The first point put forward was to the effect that clause 164 and schedule 14, as amended, require providers of broadcasting services to make available for general publication information relating to programmes, to the disadvantage specifically of the owners and publishers of TV Times and Radio Times.
As the hon. Member for Paisley, South said in my predecessor's words, a hybrid Bill
"is a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."—[Official Report, 14 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 487.]
I have studied clause 164 and schedule 14 with the greatest care. I am satisfied that it creates a class of "providers of programme services" and treats them all precisely the same way in the matter of the copyright of information about their programmes. Since there is no question of different treatment for different providers of services, the clause and schedule cannot make the Bill hybrid.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South also drew attention to the distinction between the provision for domestic satellite services and non-domestic satellite services. He will be aware that the Bill is drafted with separate definitions in clause 38 of these two classes of provider.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South referred specifically to Sky Television, but I am satisfied that it is not the case that Sky Television will necessarily, or in fact, be the only provider of a non-domestic satellite service. Here again, clause 38, as drafted, creates legitimate classes and I cannot therefore rule the Bill to be hybrid in this regard either.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the careful attention that you have paid to this matter. I completely accept your definition, analysis and statement. However, it creates a major problem because, regardless of the creation of a group, it still leaves the Rupert Murdoch News International holding in Sky as an isolated exception to the restrictions on holdings imposed by the Bill. For example, he owns 35 per cent. of the daily press and, for any other reason, would have been brought under the conditions to prevent monopoly control of a television station.
This was a genuine and serious issue and we shall have to pursue it in other forms. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that a monopoly of exception has been created and that steps will be taken on Report to rectify this difficult and dangerous issue of cross-media ownership, which was expressly said in the White Paper to be excluded.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Peter Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A motion on the community charge appears on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition for debate today. In line 4, the House is invited to deplore the allegedly "partisan way in which" community capping has been applied. As the authorities that have been capped have been granted leave for judicial review by the courts, may I invite you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the long-established conventions about the sub judice rule in the House, to deliberate and, if necessary, to rule on whether it is appropriate for the House to debate the partisan way in which it has been drafted and whether the motion is in order?
Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised with me yesterday just after questions. The case has not yet been set down and the matter is not yet sub judice.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have received any request from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any of the finance Ministers to make a statement today about the disastrous trade deficit figure of £2·2 billion, which is more than 50 per cent. higher than the amount expected by the Government and City sources? You will recall that, on a number of occasions when the figures have been announced, the Chancellor or one of his deputies has come to the House and been questioned. Someone must stop the run on the pound—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received no such request.
Mr. Skinner: You should have.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should have, but I have not.
Mr. Barry Field: I should like to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. We have learnt that the Liberal county council on the Isle of Wight is one of the top 10 overspending councils in the country, that the Liberal local income tax would be more than £900 per taxpayer, and that the Labour party has admitted that it would not replace the community charge for at least two years, so it is clear that the community charge is here to stay.
The local Labour party is advertising a petition that is to be presented to me. I believe that, as community charge officers can use any source of information, hon. Members would be obliged if you would rule, Sir, on whether such a petition would be subject to parliamentary privilege.
Many Members of Parliament come to the Isle of Wight, even retired Members, from the other parties. Some of them have pledged that they will not pay the community charge. I would not want to be put in the invidious position where a community charge officer could demand that he see the petition and discover that Labour Members of Parliament on the Isle of Wight had signed it and refused to pay the community charge. In that circumstance, my constituents might feel that I had been less than even-handed in my treatment of the petition.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice of his point of order. I judge the matter to be hypothetical at the moment. I do not know what sort of petition it will be, but

333
if it is a petition to the House, once it has been presented it is in the possession of the House and will not be available for inspection by non-Members.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), Mr. Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling. However, the Broadcasting Bill will give a privileged position to Rupert Murdoch and Sky Television. As I understand it, your argument is that the Bill's provisions would apply to all people in the same position. However, the cost of setting up satellite television is so high that, in effect, Rupert Murdoch is in a privileged position. Given that fact and the representations that have been made, and accepting your non-hybridity ruling, I ask you seriously to consider the amendments that are tabled on this issue and to give them preference in the selection process.
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly give careful consideration to that point. However, I must first see the amendments on this subject after they have been tabled.
Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you well know, I rarely raise points of order, but I have been driven to do so, mainly because of planted Question 14, which allowed the rag, tag and bobtails on the Conservative Back Benches to do their pantomime act of saying, "Labour, Labour, Labour." My local authority was named and we do not have the opportunity to challenge the Minister's figures or claims. People should bear in mind that some houses are empty because of Government grants for refurbishment, and so on. Why cannot we have the right to reply?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has the right. If he seeks to take part in today's debate, he will be able to do just that. We have a busy day ahead of us, but I will take Mr. Gow.
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reconsider the ruling that you gave a moment ago in response to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost)? The House is aware that yesterday an application was made to the High Court by certain county councils which have been capped
334
and that yesterday the High Court gave permission for a judicial review to proceed. In those circumstances, and as the proceedings have been begun and upheld in the preliminary stage, is not the matter sub judice, whether or not that affects what will happen?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is a distinguished lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but I have looked into the matter with particular and special care to make certain that I have got it right. I am satisfied that the case has not yet been set down and that, therefore, is not sub judice.
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read carefully the motion for debate this afternoon presented by Her Majesty's Opposition. Of course, we are all aware that it is an important debate. Having read the motion, I wonder whether the whole motion appears on the Order Paper. I refer you to line 8, which says:
"and bring forward a fairer system of local government finance so that … "
I believe that there may be a line or two missing after that because the motion makes no reference to what type of fairer local government taxation the Opposition propose. It makes no reference to a roof tax or local income tax. One would have thought that an Opposition motion would have mentioned that. Will you confirm that the full motion appears on the Order Paper; or has an error been made by the printers?
Mr. Speaker: No error has been made. We had better get on with the debate because we may hear about that very matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION (PUBLIC RECORD COPY)
  Mr. Attorney-General, supported by Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Waddington and Mr. Solicitor-General, presented a Bill to exclude one of the record copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1990 from the public records to which the Public Records Act 1958 applies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

Interdicts and Injunctions (Amendment)
3.41 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to allow the courts further powers of interdict and injunction to prevent purchasers of assets of firms which are the subject of a potential enquiry by the Office of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission from pre-empting possible decisions of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry arising from recommendations of the Commission.
In moving this ten-minute Bill on the seemingly dry subject of interdicts and injunctions in the name of my parliamentary colleagues who are members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union group, may I say that, although the matter seems as dry as dust, it concerns the industrial base of our country and jobs.
The Atlas steel foundry in Armadale in west Lothian supplied the high integrity steel from which many of the Dreadnoughts were made. I am grateful for the presence not only of my senior colleagues and my party leader but of that of the Leader of the House. In Westminster Abbey today he may have been thinking about the ships at Gallipoli. The heavy steel for those ships was probably forged, if they were Clyde-built, in the Atlas steel works in Armadale. The steel foundry is unique in that it has extremely heavy cranes and kilns/furnaces which are not found anywhere else in Britain. If certain work—not all of it—were not done in Armadale, it would have to be done at Schaffhausen in Switzerland, Linz in Austria, by Thyssen at Gelsenkirchen in Germany or, arguably, in Turin. We are dealing with a unique facility.
William Cook plc of Penistone acquired that foundry. I hasten to add that in this Bill I seek to criticise no one, least of all William Cook. It acquired the foundry and, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), Andrew Cook is a go-ahead and progressive force in industry. However, it bought the foundry in order to close it and take away certain key assets. I referred the matter to the Office of Fair Trading, which has taken the case seriously and, for three weeks, has been working hard on it, with the possibility of referring it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
However, the nub of the issue, which forms the genesis of my Bill, was that when it became clear that the Office of Fair Trading was looking seriously at the case, it seemed as if William Cook plc was taking away some of the key components of the electric furnace. That would present the Office of Fair Trading and, if a referral were to be made, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission with a fait accompli. Therefore, the Amalgamated Engineering Union decided to try to get an interdict or an injunction in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
I am in no way criticising the court or the judge because he gave us a perfectly good hearing, but we could not prove our case because there was a geological flaw. We could not show, albeit that there were other bidders, that William Cook plc had done anything wrong in law. I do not think that I misrepresent the judge by saying of Lord Marnoch that when it came to the judgment his line was that he wished he could have helped, but he could not in law.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The law should be changed.
Mr. Dalyell: For that reason, as my hon. Friend says, I believe that we should consider introducing new laws or changing the law. This Bill is about giving the courts flexibility and discretion that they do not have at present so that they can say that people should wait and see, and prevent a fait accompli from being presented to other bidders in industry until the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have had time to look at the matter. Such a problem could come to all of us.
I said that my ten-minute Bill would be succinct, and so it will be. I know from last Friday that such Bills often have a difficult passage in the House. Sometimes people speak for 90 minutes in order that a Bill should not be heard. On this occasion, I hope that if my ten-minute Bill, in that form, does not see the light of parliamentary day, at least my senior colleagues, the deputy Prime Minister, and those Conservative Members who have done me the courtesy of being present and of giving me a good hearing, will reflect that what happened to the steel foundry in Armadale could happen to them.
There is an understandable reason for giving the courts the discretion not to alter events in finality—that is a matter for different laws—but to say that the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should not be presented with a fait accompli.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, the parliamentary group of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. William McKelvey and Mr. Bill Michie.

INTERDICTS AND INJUNCTIONS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Tam Dalyell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to allow the courts further powers of interdict and injunction to prevent purchasers of assets of firms which are the subject of a potential enquiry by the Office of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission from pre-empting possible decisions of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry arising from recommendations of the Commission: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
3.49 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the presentation of the Bill by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is it in order for a group such as the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary Labour group to be a sponsor of a Bill in the House, because it must surely include Members of the other place as well? Would not the Bill's list of sponsors have to have that group removed, or should not the names of the individuals in it be submitted?
Mr. Speaker: Only the names of the hon. Members that were given will go down on the Bill.
Mr. Holt: How do we know who they are?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned them.

Opposition Day
  11TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm and I would ask those who speak before and after that time broadly to bear that limit in mind.
    3.50 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the unfair and excessive burden which the poll tax has imposed on many millions of people, regrets the further burdens placed on some local authorities and the communities they serve as a consequence of charge-capping and deplores the partisan way in which it has been applied; expresses concern at the heavy burden imposed on many enterprises, and particularly on small businesses, by the uniform business rate; and calls upon the Government as a matter of urgency to review the operation of the poll tax and the uniform business rate and bring forward a fairer system of local government finance so that individuals and their families, businesses and local authorities can all be relieved from the burdens they impose.
    In common, I imagine, with most hon. Members, I have received thousands of letters about various aspects of the poll tax. Many of their writers have objected to the principle of the poll tax, some of them perhaps unconsciously echoing the criticism rather surprisingly made by Adam Smith, who is sometimes put forward as guru of the right. Many other letters have complained about the tax's unfair impact and others have asked about—indeed, complained about—the unworkability and the difficulty of administering the poll tax and the expense that has been involved in setting up the systems—in employing new staff, buying new software programmes and so on.
    Other letters have expressed concern about the impact of the poll tax on the exercise of civil rights, because many people have noticed the increasing body of academic and other research that shows the worrying trend towards a substantial falling off in the numbers of those on the electoral register, and they are very worried that that is the consequence of the poll tax having inhibited people who fear that by exercising their right to vote they will somehow be caught for the purposes of paying the tax.
    Still other writers—all these points are familiar, I am sure, to hon. Members on both sides of the House—have expressed concern about the pressure that the poll tax has put on family life: about their obligation to maintain an adult child or an elderly relative for whom there is suddenly a new responsibility.
    Moreover—I believe that my experience is unlikely to be unique in this respect—the overriding question that has increasingly been asked by the great majority of those who have written is about why the poll tax bill is so high—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Roger King rose—
    Mr. Gould: I shall give way in a moment.
    Conservative Members who were making a fuss a moment ago will know, if they are honest with themselves and the House, that such inquiries have come with just as
    338
    great bewilderment—and, I dare say, greater outrage and anger—from people living in Conservative-controlled authorities as from those living in Labour or otherwise politically controlled authorities. They want to know why the bills that they were promised by the Daily Express in 1986 would be only £50 a head, which they were promised by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) about a year ago would be about £178 a head, and which they were promised by the present Secretary of State would be only about £278 a head, have averaged £90 more than that most recent forecast and now average about £360.
    The answer that they understand and accept, because it is the true answer, is that the bills are so much higher than forecast right across the country because the Government got their sums wrong. It is not just the Labour party which makes that point. It is made by independent bodies of all types such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and others. It is made by Tory-controlled local associations such as the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils. They say that the Government made a series of mistakes. First, they chose to assume that local government expenditure for the financial year just completed was £1·6 billion less than it actually was. They did that primarily by choosing to overlook the fact that many local authorities had to dip into their reserves to maintain their spending even at that level.
    The bodies that I have mentioned noticed that the Government made no allowance in their calculations for the additional costs of collecting the poll tax or community charge. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary estimated those costs at £400 million, but most people believe that that is a substantial underestimate. The Government also chose to overlook the fact that local authorities have had to accept a range of new obligations and duties, many of them imposed by the Government. No allowance was made for those new obligations.
    The Government made the ludicrous assumption that every authority would collect 100 per cent. of the poll tax that was due to it. I do not think that one borough or district treasurer in the country has budgeted on that basis, because everybody understands that the incidence of collection for the poll tax will be lower than it was for the rates. Therefore, the best or perhaps the most optimistic estimate for the collection rate is about 95 per cent. It might even be more prudent to budget for a 90 per cent. collection rate.
    The most remarkable mistake was that the Government solemnly assured local authorities that the rate of inflation on the basis of which those authorities should prepare their budgets for the coming financial year, now the current financial year, was initially to be ·8 per cent. It has now been slightly revised upwards, but it is still nowhere near the true rate of inflation, which, as we all understand and deplore, is running at twice the Government's initial estimate.
    The cumulative effect of that catalogue of mistakes has led the Secretary of State himself unconsciously to admit that a gap has arisen between the real level of local government spending and the level that the Government assumed in a fit of super-optimism would be the case. He complains about that gap and has assumed that it is about £3 billion.
    Mr. John Maples rose—
    Mr. Gould: I am advancing a continuous argument and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished it.
    The Secretary of State has said that he has put a figure of over £3 billion on that gap. The bad news for poll tax payers is that, because of the way in which local government finance is now structured, every pound of that gap, every penny of the deficit, now falls on the hapless poll tax payer. Every £1 by which the Government's estimate has fallen short of what is required by local government, means that an extra £4 will have to be found from the poll tax.
    There is a charitable explanation for that sad catalogue of errors. It is that the Government are simply incompetent. On the day when a £2·2 billion trade deficit has been announced, that explanation has a certain persuasiveness. However, I do not think that this was simply a catalogue of errors. I think that the Government deliberately set about creating this shortfall for reasons which I shall shortly elaborate.
    Mr. Maples: If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the Government got all this arithmetic so disastrously wrong, how did the Labour-controlled authority of Barking and Dagenham, which includes his constituency, manage to set its charge at just £2 over the Government's suggested figure? Is he saying that the Government were too generous with their grant for his council or is it uniquely efficient?
    Mr. Gould: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is making the case that the Government's errors were not uniform and comprehensive, but they nearly were. The experience of my borough gives the lie to the oft-repeated claim that the poll tax in Labour councils is always higher than in Tory councils.
    Let me return to the thread of my argument. I had carried the House with me to the point where we had explored this catalogue of errors and I had suggested that simple incompetence was hardly an adequate explanation. I believe that the Government deliberately set out to create that shortfall because they wanted to build into the poll tax the unfairness, the high bills and the oppressive burdens that are now manifest. Why should they want to do that? [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not want to listen, but they should hear the argument because it may help them to understand why they and their constituents are in such difficulties.
    The real explanation is to be found in a close textual analysis of the claims that have so often been made for the poll tax. Let us reflect on the theory that underlies it and has so often been advanced as the major case for bringing it about. It was that local government was irresponsible, spent far too much and did so because it was not accountable to those who received the services. It was argued that, because everybody would pay it, the poll tax would improve the accountablility of local government.
    It was only a small step from that to conclude that one way to make that accountability really bite and have an impact was to ensure that when people found that they had to pay the bills, those bills were substantial and hurt. The theory was that outraged poll tax payers would turn in anger and point the finger of accusation at their local authority and demand that the bills be reduced and services cut. The theory went further, because it was
    340
    assumed, against the evidence that we now have, that that charge, that action and that demand would be made most intensively against Labour local authorities.
    That was the theory, and the game was given away by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who argued, when criticised about the unfairness of the poll tax, that it was criticised only by those who had been taught to believe that the rich should pay for the services provided to others. There we have the nub of the argument.
    The problem with all that is that the accountability that was meant to do the Government's dirty work for them, which would enable them to walk away from local authority finances, saying that it was nothing to do with them, and which was meant to allow them to sit back while irate poll tax payers undermined and weakened local authorities, has backfired in the Government's face. The reason for that is that Conservative Members have been joined by Conservative councillors and activists all refusing to play the part written for them by Conservative central office. They refuse to accept that the fault lies with local authorities.
    Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman's analysis is to be believed, how does he explain that in Scotland, in the second year of the community charge, 20 councils have kept their spending at last year's levels or below and the remainder are within the rate of inflation? Can he also explain why, today in Scotland, the Labour party has announced its proposals for its alternative to the community charge, which the hon. Gentleman has not yet endorsed? That does not surprise me, because it was not able to specify the different categories of homes and how they would be affected.
    Mr. Gould: I shall gladly deal with Scotland later in my speech, when I shall invite the House to contemplate the rather mysterious meeting that was arranged between Strathclyde regional council and the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), whose specific purpose it was to consider amendments to the community charge. That was something of which the Secretary of State seemed to be unaware, and it shows how widespread is the anxiety within the Tory party about the poll tax as it has worked out.
    The theory of accountability went wrong because many millions of people throughout the country were able to watch on their television screens Conservative councillors in West Oxfordshire resigning the Tory whip. They saw Conservative social clubs in Morecambe disaffiliating from the Tory party. They saw Conservative voters, Members and activists marching and protesting about the poll tax. So they knew that the Government's efforts to use accountability as a weapon against local authorities in general, and Labour local authorities in particular, would not hold water.
    It is because of that growing realisation that we have had a succession of measures introduced almost day by day—for example, safety nets, transitional reliefs, changes to rebate schemes and new exemptions. These measures have been introduced by a Government who finally understand—I pay tribute to many Conservative Members for helping the Government to come to this realisation—that accountability has backfired in their face. The poll tax payer now holds the Government responsible for accountability.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gould: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) because I feel that I have an inkling of what he wants to ask.
    Mr. Roger King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is as generous as ever. I listened with keen attention to his remarks about the community seeking accountability from local authorities. According to him, that will not work. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an article that appeared on the front page of the Birmingham Evening Mail last Friday. It was headed "Pasting for City Council". The council has been conducting MORI opinion polls over the last few years to ascertain the views of the local community on how well it has been performing. It seems that
    "some 73 per cent. of Brummies blame the Council for wasting too much money on non-essentials, foreign trips and parties. And 57 per cent. believe the council is remote, out of touch and impersonal."
    That is a Labour council. What advice will the hon. Gentleman give electors in Birmingham on 3 May? They would be presented with a lower community charge by both the Conservative and the Liberal parties and they are faced with a £406 charge from the Labour party.
    Mr. Gould: On 3 May, accountability will have its day. That is the accountability which the Secretary of State was unwilling to trust when he chose to charge cap 21 authorities with less than a month to pass before the voters had the opportunity to express their judgment.
    If we are to exchange press comment on the performance of local authorities and local communities, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Northfield read the report in yesterday's Evening Standard under the headline "Poll Tax Disowned by Tories". The article refers to the campaigning of the Tory group in Bromley, a borough with a considerable history in the annals of Tory politicking. In its leaflets and electioneering material the Tory group states:
    "The community charge was introduced by central Government, not by Bromley councillors. Whatever your views on the current performance of central government, the forthcoming elections are about local government."
    Mr. Roger King rose—
    Mr. Gould: No, I shall not give way. I have another press clipping about the state of public opinion.
    I refer to the poll which was published in The Independent today. I mention that only in passing, but it shows the 26-point lead that the Labour party has over the Conservative party. The most significant feature of the poll is that 55 per cent. of that large and growing band of people who are described as Tory defectors gave the poll tax as their reason for ceasing to support the Tories. When asked what they thought of the various options, only one in seven of the dwindling band of Tory supporters said that the poll tax was their preferred method of financing local government.
    I intend to pursue the theme of accountability because so much was made of it putting the case for the poll tax. Yet as I have just mentioned, when all else had failed, when all the subterfuges and diversions and little escape routes had been tried and had failed to assuage concern, at last the Secretary of State felt obliged to concede that accountability had gone out of the window; that it was no longer the name of the game. On 3 April, just a month
    342
    from the opportunity that millions of voters would have to express their views in the ballot box on the size of their poll tax bills, the Government had to intervene to sweep away accountability and to introduce charge capping—
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
    Mr. Gould: I shall not give way, as I want to make the point that the Secretary of State had to introduce charge capping for local authorities.
    Heaven knows how much midnight oil was burnt and how many hours of effort were put in by civil servants to produce the mathematical miracle of 20, rising to 21, local authorities that excluded every Tory authority. The amazing aspect is that the Secretary of State managed to produce a list that included local authorities whose poll tax bills were actually below the Government's assumed charge for those authorities. He managed to produce a list that included authorities that were contributors under the safety net. However, the list excluded some authorities that would appear on any list based on those with the highest poll tax bills. The right hon. Gentleman managed to produce a list that excluded Tory authorities that would have been included on any list of authorities that had most sharply increased their spending over last year. He even managed to produce a list that excluded Kensington and Chelsea.
    I shall let the House into a secret. We did quite a bit of work chopping and changing the various criteria that the right hon. Gentleman might use—yet we found it virtually impossible to come up with a combination that would exclude Kensington and Chelsea. However, the Secretary of State has found a way to do that. The conclusion reached by the hundreds of people in Tory authorities who have written to us is that that list was a political fix. It was a political exercise—a concession to the fact that accountability could no longer be relied upon. All that was left to the Government was to try to shift the blame for the fiasco on their hands.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in order to cap Kensington and Chelsea I would have had to cap 58 local authorities? Is it the Labour party's position that I should have capped 58 local authorities?
    Mr. Gould: I do the Secretary of State the honour of assuming that he knows his way around his own criteria a little better than he has just suggested. The fact is that under almost all combinations of criteria, Kensington and Chelsea figures high on the list. Indeed, on the combination of criteria that most people assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would use, Kensington and Chelsea came 21st. That is why many people assumed that he would produce a list of just 20, which he did.
    Even the Secretary of State understood that, had he produced a list based on criteria that produced 20 local authorities excluding every Conservative authority, hut with that same set of criteria producing a Tory 21st local authority, it would be extremely embarrassing to draw the line just before that Tory authority appeared on the list.
    Charge capping is a political exercise which is unlikely to succeed. I set aside the question of judicial review. I am delighted that a High Court judge has agreed that t here is a case to answer, and I shall be interested to see how that legal argument pans out. Even as a political exercise,

    343
    capping is unlikely to succeed because it necessarily destroys the only case that was ever really made for poll tax—that it would increase accountability.
    I suspect that many Conservative Members are uncomfortably aware that capping has immeasurably increased the anger of poll tax payers in Tory local authorities. They are the people who write in to complain, "How dare the Secretary of State draw up a list that excludes my Tory-controlled borough, which has imposed a whacking great poll tax bill on me?"
    Contrary to the Secretary of State's efforts and expectations, charge capping has made the Government even more directly responsible for poll tax bills. Every aspect of local government finance—central Government grant, uniform business rate, and now the poll tax itself—comes under central Government control. In effect, charge-capped bills are those which have been issued by the Government under their own authority, and the remainder are, by implication, bills which the Government say can go ahead. Every poll tax bill that has arrived and is about to arrive bears only one set of fingerprints—the fingerprints of a guilty Government.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: As the hon. Member for Dangenham (Mr. Gould) worries about the poor and needy, who have great difficulty paying the community charge, what advice does he offer the Labour-controlled local authority serving Weymouth and Portland? Putting aside the cost of the community charge, that authority has, according to the old system, imposed an increase in money collected from all sources of 50 per cent. How would Labour deal with that situation? That authority is not being capped because its budget has risen only from £4 million to £6·5 million, but clearly that increase is costing my constituents a lot of money.
    Mr. Gould: The invented figure of a 35 per cent. rates increase that the Secretary of State has used sometimes is just as much vitiated as the poll tax calculation by the mistakes that I enumerated earlier, in terms of providing central Government grant. That is the major explanation. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) ought to advise his constituents to pursue the matter with the Government, because they are responsible for the gap and for the supposed rates increase.
    So much for accountability as a feature of the poll tax. Turning to the uniform business rate, we immediately encounter a paradox. The uniform business rate is in many respects the stablemate of the poll tax, yet whereas we were told that the poll tax had the major virtue of increasing accountability, somehow and mysteriously there is no mention of accountability in relation to the uniform business rate. Not only does it entirely overlook accountability but it totally denies it. It provides instead for a centrally-fixed national rate which breaks the link between local authorities and their local business communities.
    The reason why the Secretary of State's business community is so worried about the uniform rate is that it offers no opportunity to respond to revaluation—which we welcome—by giving local authorities the power to fix their business rate according to local conditions. Conservative Members know as well as anyone how
    344
    poorly the uniform rate is regarded. I would take a bet that every one of them has received representations from local business men to that effect.
    The ability to meet the needs of local business communities has been taken from local government and is now entirely in the hands of central Government. That is why, when the Secretary of State encounters opposition from his business community through the organisation called Business Against Rate and Rent Increases in Bath—the most high profile of the growing number of protests up and down the country—and when he promises to see them but is reported as saying that he will do so only as a constituency Member of Parliament, he was profoundly wrong. The business community was right to ask to see him as the Secretary of State for the Environment, because he and the Government have introduced the uniform business rate, and have imposed it on business men up and down the country. There is no point in speaking to the local constituency Member of Parliament, because the uniform business rate is central Government policy.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the UBR in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would, on former values, have involved a lower rate bill than the rates exacted by Somerset and Avon county councils? Does he agree that the rise in the business rates bill in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend was caused by the revaluation, which was delayed for 17 years? What is the Labour party's position on revaluation? Would it cancel it, or would it postpone it, or would it go for an entirely different system of business taxation for which there is no consensus among industrial and business organisations?
    Mr. Gould: As some of the more attentive hon. Members may recall—I am sure that the Secretary of State does, because he referred to it this afternoon—I have had no hesitation in supporting and endorsing the revaluation. Where the Labour party parts company with the Government is that they have built on and exacerbated the revaluation with a national rate which takes no account of local conditions. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) is wrong. If the business rate could be set by local authorities, it could be made to offset the impact of revaluation.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. In my constituency and in many others the uniform business rate is 10 per cent. lower than the local non-domestic rate, so how does that square with his argument?
    Mr. Gould: I shall leave it to the Secretary of State to make his case to his recalcitrant business communities. That is his problem.
    May I also bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the real problems that local business men face. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, a large proportion of businesses will face an increase in their business rates. That increase will be particularly felt in the south-east, among small businesses, in retailing and in small high-tech businesses. Those businesses are offered—
    Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, let me continue for the moment. Those businesses are offered, as protection against the increases, a transitional scheme which, true to form and typically of the whole poll tax fiasco, is less generous than it seems.
    The principle is that most ordinary and large businesses will be no more than 20 per cent. worse off in each of the next five years. The truth is that that 20 per cent. increase per year—said to be the upper limit for any increase—is a cumulative increase which takes no account of inflation. In reality, even with a 6 per cent. inflation rate, that transitional relief will be exhausted after three years.
    Any business that changes its premises, moves to new premises, leaves premises empty, refurbishes, makes additions or makes any alteration to premises will lose the transitional relief immediately. That is why one will find a range of shop fronts boarded up in high streets in so many of our towns and cities; they will be unlettable. Anyone who took on those premises would immediately cop the full increase in uniform business rate, and that is what is proving so damaging to so many business communities.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what explanation he gives his own business community on the subject and that he will bring us up to date on the Government's proposals for mitigating the worst effects of the poll tax. Decisions are needed soon. We cannot afford delay for much longer if local authorities are to be able to gear up for whatever changes the Government have in store. We need to know which of the options that have been floated in recent months the Government intend to settle on.
    Are we to have—I shall give way to the Secretary of State on this point, although I suspect that he wishes to deal with it in his speech—the removal from local government expenditure of major items of expenditure, such as education or teachers' salaries? I think not, because the Prime Minister has made it clear that she is opposed to it. Are we, then, to have the restoration of central Government grant to make good—
    Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I do not intend to give way for the moment. I should be grateful if, for a change, the hon. Gentleman would listen.
    Are we to have the restoration of that £3 billion deficit in central Government grant? I think not—although it must be an attractive option—because it would put the Government in desperate straits in terms of their finances. How would they find that £3 billion—and probably more—to make good the gap without disappointing their followers' expectations that they might be able to offer yet more mysterious and insubstantial tax cuts in the run-up to the general election? How would the Secretary of State guarantee that an increase in grant would result in lower poll tax bills? Is not it likely that local authorities, which have been bled dry and have had to cut their services in the most painful and damaging fashion, would use any additional grant to restore their services, thus leaving poll tax bills unchanged? Are we, therefore, to have, as I think has also been floated, a universal form of charge capping? Is that what is in store? That would be the final admission that accountability is off the agenda.
    Perhaps there is to be the banding of incomes—sometimes called the Mates option. The Secretary of State knows well, because he voted it down, that that is full of
    346
    practical problems and that it would create all sorts of poverty trap implications. Furthermore, it denies the original purpose of the poll tax.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I do not intend to give way again. I am about to end my speech.
    Always, of course, lurking in the wings is the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Earlier this afternoon we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the right hon. Member for Henley had carefully distanced himself from any responsibility for introducing this iniquitous tax. The point is that we do not yet know from the Government, although local authorities desperately need to know, what is their solution to the problem. They are aware of the problems. There is an excellent amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). If the rules of order permitted it, Mr. Speaker, I would say immediately that we accept it and that we invite the right hon. Gentleman to join us in the Lobby. We also know, as hon. Members heard from my quotation of the case of—
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) say that he did not intend to give way again.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dagenham has given way generously. Interventions take up a lot of time. Many hon. Members, possibly including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), wish to participate in the debate.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on the motion that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It refers to a fairer system of local government finance. We have heard nothing about that during his speech. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to speak to his own motion?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know, but what I do know is that if he is interrupted again we may never get there.
    Mr. Gould: In order to show how generous I am, and out of my regard for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), I shall give way to him as a last gesture.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was said on purpose. In this House one can have friends across party lines. I agree with the Opposition that the policy put forward by my own right hon. and hon. Friends is somewhat less than satisfactory. That is at its kindest. I believe that the way in which the community charge will fall is unsatisfactory and unjust and that the way in which the uniform business rate will affect small businesses in particular is neither fair nor just.
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that we are talking about vast billions of pounds that have to be found for local government expenditure? Although I think that my right hon. Friends are wrong, because the community charge does not take into account ability to pay, that

    347
    money will have to be found, whatever the Opposition say. How are they going to find such sums? What sort of policy will they put forward, because, in the end, the money will have to come from somewhere?
    Mr. Gould: I am glad to carry the hon. Gentleman with me to some degree at least, in that he joins us in the criticisms which the vast majority of people make of the Government's proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am coming to the answer which hon. Members will find extremely useful.
    The Government well understand—at least, they have no excuse for not understanding—that the time has come for them to recognise the fiasco that they have created. I have referred to the efforts that Tory local authorities and councillors are making to distance themselves from central Government. I have also referred to the poll in The Independent,which shows how much the poll tax is damaging Tory prospects in the local government elections. I have referred to the amendment tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North and some of his hon. Friends as just the tip of an iceberg which demonstrates how much concern and anxiety exists on Conservative Benches. I have also drawn attention to the meeting—we look forward to hearing an explanation of that meeting—which mysteriously has been organised between senior officials of Strathclyde regional council and the right hon. Member for Ayr. All those factors demonstrate how much difficulty the Government are in.
    For the sake of all those who want to live in a fairy-tale land where people do not understand what our Labour replacement for the poll tax will be, let me read from the report in The Independent. When people were asked what alternatives to the poll tax they favoured, Labour's system of taking income and property values into account was the most popular—[Interruption.]Unlike those Conservative Members who are or pretend to be ignorant, 43 per cent.—[ Interruption.] I repeat for those who did not catch that figure that 43 per cent. not only understood and were familiar with Labour's alternative, but actually found it preferable to any other proposition. The next most popular alternative was a return to the rates, which was favoured by 17 per cent. A local income tax, which is favoured by the Liberal Democrats, was preferred by only 16 per cent. and surprisingly, only one in seven of that dwindling band of Tory voters—those who intend to vote Tory in the local elections—favoured the poll tax
    Let me quote from The Independent. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Robert Key: Ssh.
    Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key): I think that he will enjoy this. The article states:
    "Even among the fairly small sample of intending Conservative voters, Labour's approach is preferred to any other".
    We have now reached a point at which even the Government must understand—
    Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I will not.
    348
    Even the Government must understand that the game is up. Even they must now understand that the time for political posturing is over; that what is now required is a recognition that the Government—
    Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just been told that 43 per cent. of people understand the new Labour tax proposals. If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman please explain them to the House?
    Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman had had enough wit and attention to listen to what I said, he would have clearly understood the Labour alternative.
    Mr. John Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may not be aware that we have been trying to hear the debate for some time. So that we can understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, could a copy of the Labour party's policy document be placed in the Library?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen to the debate, perhaps he and his colleagues should restrain themselves. I, too, am anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has to say.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No.
    I wish to help the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). First, I shall send him a text of the major speech that I delivered in Cardiff in February; secondly, I shall send him a copy of the statement on which we based a press conference in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election on our alternative proposal; thirdly, I shall send him a copy of the briefing that we have sent to hundreds of thousands of people, which no doubt goes some way to explain why 43 per cent. of people prefer our alternative.
    Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it customary for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on matters of some importance to tell the House their policy, rather than hiding behind—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the debate will not be interrupted by a series of bogus points of order. Equally, I hope that the hon. Member for Dagenham will be given the opportunity to express himself to the House.
    Mr. Gould: I am in a generous mood. I made an offer to the hon. Member for Poole, who intervened on an earlier bogus point of order. I shall also make a bargain with the Secretary of State: I shall send him copies of the same documents as soon as he sends us a copy of his statement on the Tory alternatives to the poll tax. That is the question to which people faced with horrific bills desperately need an answer. That is not in the interests of the Tory party, although we well understand why the Tories are running scared; people who are terrified out of their wits need to know the answers. We need to hear those answers from the Secretary of State now.
    Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not this a United Kingdom debate on local government finance, on a motion on the Order Paper tabled in the names of Opposition Members? Earlier today, a statement was made in Scotland to which I referred in an intervention in the speech of the hon.

    349
    Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—you were not here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a local government debate of such magnitude, especially as it affects Scotland—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will judge whether contributions to the debate are in order at the time that they are made and in the light of the wording of the motion. I hope that we can now get on.
    4.39 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `believes that almost every adult should make some contribution towards the cost of local services from which they benefit, with relief for the less well off; welcomes the embodiment of those principles in the community charge; notes that the scale and pattern of payments is related to ability to pay with 10 million people receiving rebates at a cost of £2·5 billion; welcomes the willingness of the Government to listen to constructive suggestions for improving the new system with a view to prompt implementation of any necessary changes; further notes that living under Labour costs people more; and deplores the fact that the Labour Party have not had the courage or honesty to come forward with their own proposals before the local elections on 3rd May.'
    Mr. Sillars: The Secretary of State will know that I am extremely grateful to him for giving way. The Government amendment accuses the Labour party of not producing the goods in respect of the roof tax. Is he aware that the reason why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was afraid to give way to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes. It is usual for an hon. Member to give way across the Chamber, not just to hon. Members on his side. He was afraid to give way to me because the Labour party in Scotland today produced figures for the roof tax. The average figure that it gave per household is £420, whereas two years ago under the rating system the average per household was £498. Will the Secretary of State, on my behalf, ask the hon. Member for Dagenham how it is possible to reach a figure of £420 per household, unless the Labour party is prepared to cut services massively in Scotland?
    Mr. Patten: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question straight away. I am sorry that, doubtless because of an oversight, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was unable to do so.
    The only question people were not asked in the hon. Gentleman's moving peroration was whether they believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Had they been, doubtless the fairies could have produced the statistical information to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) drew attention.
    I am sure that hon. Members have looked forward to this debate. It is no secret that, on balance, the Opposition have opposed the community charge. However, they have been a little reluctant to give their alternative. They have had 12 Opposition days this year but have not chosen to use one to discuss the community charge. We assumed when the Labour party tabled the motion—the Leader of the Opposition graced us with his presence for a few moments, although he had some difficulty staying awake—that the Mandelson veto had been lifted and that we would hear its alternative to domestic rates and the
    350
    community charge. Given hon. Members' high expectations, the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham was a disappointment. My hon. Friends were only too eager to hear what he had to say and they will read his speech with interest to discover what the 43 per cent. believe in.
    Once again, the hon. Member for Dagenham came to the Dispatch Box empty-handed. I should like to deal later with some of the points he made, but may I start with the position today? We have introduced the community charge on the basis of the revenue support grant settlement announced last July which allowed for an 8·5 per cent. increase in aggregate external finance for local government. We distributed that grant under the new formula, the standard spending assessment. Since last autumn, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—I pay tribute to his work over the past few months—and I have introduced the transitional relief scheme and have announced that contributions to the safety net will end after the first year instead of continuing for four years. In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the doubling of the ceiling on capital disregards.
    Whatever our political disagreements, and although there are exceptions to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred earlier, by and large, the administrative arrangements for this extremely complicated new way of raising—[Interruption.] The administrative arrangements in local government have worked pretty well. I congratulate the majority of local authorities on issuing bills in early April, net of transitional relief and benefit, despite the late introduction of the transitional relief scheme. All the local authority officials who worked so hard to secure that outcome are to be congratulated.
    This is one of the biggest changes that has been made to our social and economic life for decades. I can say, with perhaps more personal authority and witness than any other hon. Member that it has not been an entirely hazard-free enterprise, but nor would have been a revaluation of domestic rates or the introduction of whatever the Labour party would put in place of domestic rates and the community charge. If it were easy, straightforward and popular, it is conceivable that the Labour party would have announced its proposals.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in year two of the poll tax, the parliamentary banter seems out of place? May I say, with all sincerity, that for constituency Members of Parliament year two is sheer misery? If it has worked out so well, why is Lothian authority being asked to provide self-defence courses—I banter not and I do not exaggerate—for employees who must administer the tax? It is far from a laughing, yah-boo matter.
    Mr. Patten: I wish that I had waited a moment or two before giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because there is something to which I wish to refer now and a little later. It is not surprising that, as we have introduced this substantial change, we have encountered several problems, anomalies and difficulties, such as the treatment of holiday caravans, which was referred to in a parliamentary statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, as well as the larger difficulties to which I referred delicately a moment or two ago.

    351
    We have made it clear that we intend to look at fresh evidence on the standard spending assessments, whether it be from local authority associations or individual authorities before the grant distribution next year. Several other issues have been brought to my attention by my hon. Friends. A range of constructive criticisms has been made by them and by others. It perhaps will not surprise the most distinguished of my right hon. and hon. Friends that not all the criticisms and proposals that we have received have been mutually compatible, but I dare say that that is in the nature of the argument.
    We shall review all those issues in the next few weeks. Of course, it is important that, by the time we make the rate support grant settlement statement for next year, in a few months' time, we should have resolved all those matters and be able to say whether we need to make any modifications and, if so, what they should be. The basic principle remains the same: almost everyone should make some contribution to the cost of the services from which all people benefit.
    Mr. Gould: I assure the Secretary of State that Labour Members are listening carefully to his comments, because the nature of the language that he uses shows that he offers substantial change. The right hon. Gentleman concedes fairly, as he has done before, that the standard spending assessments are somewhat less than perfect. Can we therefore conclude that he may be disposed not to contest the application for judicial review by those charge-capped authorities?
    Mr. Patten: That was an ingenious way of asking a question—suggesting that I had made a statement that I had not made. Distinguished lawyer though the hon. Gentleman is, he would have been surprised had I given him such an answer, which he would have been able to send to his and others' learned Friends elsewhere. I said that we were prepared to consider fresh evidence on the SSAs, whether from individual authorities or from local authority associations. I have already made that clear in the House and I make it clear again. I do not think that it can be said that we are groaning under the weight of fresh evidence from local authority associations or local authorities, but we are prepared to listen to what people say.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would have been highly desirable for those south Yorkshire authorities such as Rotherham which have real difficulties and relatively low spending assessments to have their position examined before he made his poll tax-capping announcement? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is unreasonable and unacceptable—I made this clear in an early-day motion tabled this week—that an authority such as Rotherham should receive as a standard spending grant a sum 459 per cent. lower than that for the city of Westminster, which is much more affluent?
    Mr. Patten: No. I believe that the grant distribution formula that we used was right. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks about the SSA formula, the proposed Rotherham budget was 15·4 per cent. above the resealed grant-related expenditure assessment—the previous distribution formula. It would not be fair to argue that
    352
    somehow everything had gone wrong because of a new SSA rather than the GRE. I repeat that we believe that the formula was right, but we are prepared to consider fresh evidence on it.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that next week the electors in London and elsewhere should know on what basis they should compare local authorities. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they should compare on the basis of community charge payments? My right hon. Friend will recall that, at the launch of the Labour party's local government campaign, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that it would be at least two years after a Labour Government being returned—an unlikely prospect—before they would come forward with an alternative to the community charge. Does not that mean that people going to the polls next week will know that the community charge will be in place for at least four years and that they must judge that Conservative councils cost less?
    Mr. Patten: Conservative councils certainly cost less. My hon. Friend did not refer to the figures, but the standard spending assessments in London, for example, show that Labour authorities are spending £216 and Conservative boroughs £3 a head above their SSAs—a difference of £213. That is a substantial reason for everyone in London voting Conservative next Thursday.
    Mr. Martin Redmond rose—
    Mr. Kevin Barron rose—
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way and then make progress.
    Mr. Redmond: The right hon. Gentleman said that the SSAs would be reviewed. Is he prepared to move the 30 April deadline for the authorities that are poll-capped and select a new date? He will be aware of the difficulty that people have had in trying to arrange a meeting with him to discuss this subject.
    Mr. Patten: I cannot move that deadline, but I am prepared—as I must be in relation to my statutory obligations and requirements—to consider carefully an alternative budget, should one be put forward by a local authority. If I reject that budget, I must explain to the House of Commons why I have done so and get its support.
    Mr. David Blunkett rose—
    Mr. Patten: Perhaps I could give way first to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] All right—I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will forgive me. In 1985, the Secretary of State for the Environment was faced with the same dilemma, in terms of local authorities having to present their cases quickly for redetermination and asking for additional time to be granted. It was felt at that time that the Secretary of State had the discretion to allow that. I ask the present Secretary of State to reconsider his answer with a view to allowing those authorities some limited additional time to consider their position.
    Mr. Patten: I am not prepared to reconsider the position. As I said, if local authorities contest the caps or budgets that I have proposed, they have a statutory right to propose alternatives, and I then have to consider those alternatives and explain to the House why I either reject them or accept them. That is the right way to proceed and the way in which I intend to proceed.
    Mr. Barron rose—
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Patten: One last point and then perhaps I can make a little progress. The hon. Member for Rother Valley has been trying to intervene.
    Mr. Barron: My constituency is in Rotherham metropolitan borough. For the first time under this Government it has been capped, and all its public expenditure will come in future from central Government. How will the accountability test apply next Thursday in the Rother Valley constituency, which has to suffer a share of the £7·9 million in cuts, yet four of the seven wards are not fielding Tory candidates?
    Mr. Patten: I do not mean to make my point in a polemical or rhetorical way, but I have great difficulty understanding the hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Mr. Barron: The Secretary of State echoed the words used in 1986 by the Conservative spokesman, now the Conservative party chairman, who said that people who believed that the poll tax was set too high had the right to go to the ballot box and to get rid of the councillors who set it. There are no Conservative candidates in 11 Rotherham seats. The Conservatives are denying their people a chance to vote and going against the accountability which was laid down in the legislation on Second Reading and which was supported by many Conservative Members.
    Mr. Patten: It is true that the best way of capping overspending and excessive charges in the long term is by voting Conservative. I very much hope that people throughout the country will take advantage of that where they can.
    Mr. Marlow: For even greater clarity, will my right hon. Friend expand on a point that he made a couple of minutes ago? I think that he said that in London the average Labour authority was spending £216 above SSA and the average Conservative borough a mere £3 above SSA. Does that mean that if the average Londoner votes Labour it will cost him or her £4 a week? If so, the House should know.
    Mr. Patten: Yes, if they are lucky it will cost them that much extra a week. It will be perhaps £8 extra a week for a married couple. In several boroughs, some of which I have visited in the past few weeks, people would have considered themselves lucky if it had cost them only £4 a week extra.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way, but then I wish to make progress.
    Mr. McKay: I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question on his statement about the spending assessments, which was fair enough. He is probably aware that my authority has been capped to the tune of £10 million.
    Mr. James Hill: Good.
    Mr. McKay: I heard the word "good". Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the decimation of the education system is good? I will tell him why he wishes the authority to be capped. It is because he knows nothing about it. When he says "good", he should realise what he is saving. What I am saying is serious.
    Does the Secretary of State realise that in the short space of time that the £10 million of savings will have to be found the sum will become £13 million? Will he take that into consideration? We are now into the next financial year and by the time that savings or cuts can be made, we shall be part way through the year. The £10 million will become £13 million. Will he take that into consideration and the fact that we must put right the effects of Government policy?
    Mr. Patten: We have taken that fact into consideration in setting our cap. We also notice that the cap still leaves a budget for Barnsley which is 17·7 per cent. or £118 per adult over the SSA.
    Mr. Favell: The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) tried to put the fear of God up his constituents about the possibility of savings in the education department of his local authority. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has just come to my knowledge that in Stockport it costs £400,000 a year to provide the wage packets?
    Mr. Patten: Facts such as those and ways in which we could secure far greater value for money will emerge increasingly frequently as the discussion about the community charge and the best ways of funding local government finance becomes more intense.
    Before giving way on several occasions, I said that we were prepared to consider in the next few months what changes and modifications may be required next year. We must also be clear about the background to the current arguments and to any changes. Last year, local authorities increased their spending by 9 per cent. over the previous year. That represented an increase in expenditure of £2·7 billion. This year, local authorities intend to increase their spending by 15 per cent. That represents an increase in cash terms of £4·6 billion. There is no easy, cost-free way in which the consequences of spending at such levels can be dealt with. We must recognise that it simply is not the case that town halls and county halls live outside the normal economic rules of the world.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Patten: No, not for the moment.
    In the rest of my speech I wish to deal with four issues. First, who pays the community charge? Secondly, how much do people have to pay? Thirdly, I wish to make a few remarks about the uniform business rate and revaluation. Fourthly, I shall come back to the issue with which the hon. Member for Dagenham flirted in his speech—how we should raise revenue for local government.
    Who pays the community charge? I said earlier that our community charge is based on a simple principle—that

    355
    almost everyone should make some contribution to the cost of local government services. The key words are "some contribution". The reliefs and benefits available make sure that not everyone pays the same.
    I was interested in the campaign of the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities, which placed several advertisements in the newspapers about benefits and reliefs and generally about the community charge, although it did not call it that. I draw the attention of the House to two points. First, the advertisement said that a small percentage of people in London
    "may well be entitled to transitional relief … A few might find themselves entitled to a rebate of up to 80 per cent."
    The advertisement referred to "a small percentage" and a "few". The House should know the latest figures that we have on benefit entitlement and relief. Over 10 million people in Great Britain are entitled to community charge benefit and reliefs. The cost in the coming year of those benefits will be £2·9 billion. About half those who are entitled to benefit will receive the maximum. I do not know whether that is regarded as "a small percentage" or as "a few".
    The cost of the benefits and reliefs is 20 per cent. more in real terms this year than the cost of rate rebates and community charge benefit in Scotland last year.
    Mr. Gould: That is because the bills went up.
    Mr. Patten: I am coming to that. The improvements in the taper have ensured that another 650,000 people are entitled to benefit at a cost of £125 million. In England alone, we reckon that about 7·5 million people will benefit from transitional relief. The cost for the whole of England, Wales and Scotland will be £387 million. The total cost of benefits and reliefs in the coming year will be £3·3 billion. That is what the Labour Association of London Local Authorities called "a small percentage" and "a few".
    The advertisement said that a small percentage
    "may well be entitled to transitional relief'
    in London. I have looked at the figures for Barking and Dagenham, a borough with which the hon. Member for Dagenham is familiar. More than one in four charge payers will receive transitional relief there. I make a serious point to the House. It is disreputable, when the Labour party is allegedly keen on maximising take-up, to give people the impression that benefits and reliefs are less generous than they are and thus encourage them not to apply for benefit. That is intolerable and it is the only way in which one can read that advertisement.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I assure the Secretary of State that some of us have tried hard to tell our constituents what they are entitled to. So far the Secretary of State has been unable to answer by way of parliamentary question why residents of sheltered housing schemes appear to be entitled to neither transitional relief nor special transitional relief. My attempts to obtain an answer on that point have been met with holding answers from Ministers who themselves do not seem to know why those pensioners, many of whom deserve relief, receive neither type of relief.
    Mr. Patten: They are entitled to benefit and rebates, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the cases to which I believe the hon. Gentleman refers, they were not previously paying domestic rates. Issues such as that and multiple
    356
    occupation of large houses will have to be considered in the review in the next few weeks and months. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that they are entitled to benefit.
    As the hon. Member for Dagenham perceptively mentioned a few moments ago, the cost of benefits and reliefs is largely a reflection of the level of the charge, and the level of the charge is a reflection of the level of local authority expenditure, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the beginning of his speech.
    Even if we accept every argument put by local authorities and accept, passingly, that local authorities are pluperfect, nothing conceivably justifies a 15 per cent. increase in expenditure this year. We know perfectly well that local authority after local authority has jacked up its expenditure and blamed the consequences on the introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: As my right hon. Friend knows, I asked the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) what Labour would do about keeping down high budgets. Budgets have nothing to do with the way in which the money is collected. In Weymouth and Portland borough council, the chairman of the policy resources committee happily told me that there was nothing that the Secretary of State could do about community charge overspending because the authority's budget was so low. Is there anything that can be done, even at this late stage, to ensure that we can do something to bring relief to the constituents in authorities whose budgets have gone up nearly 50 per cent. and are spending one and a half times what they spent last year? Transitional relief does not benefit my constituents because the local authority has overspent.
    Mr. Patten: Under existing legislation, I cannot cap authorities with budgets of less than £15 million, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point because I know how much concern it causes.
    My hon. Friend raised the matter of Labour spending. I cannot understand why the Opposition are so reluctant to accept that it is Labour that has blazed the trail in overspending this year. I thought that the Labour party prided itself on being the big spender. I thought that that vestigial remnant of Croslandite social democracy was one of the foundation stones of the political beliefs of the hon. Member for Dagenham.
    If we consider the history, or this year's record of Labour local authorities, the facts speak for themselves. If we consider the relationship to grant-related expenditure assessments during the past five or six years, we see that Conservative authorities across the country, on average, spend within their GREA and Labour authorities spend, on average, 12 per cent. above. Exactly the same pattern emerges this year from the standing spending assessments.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Why?
    Mr. Patten: I have considered why and I shall come to that later.
    In every class of authority—shire, shire district, metropolitan district and London borough—Labour authorities are spending a great deal more than Conservative authorities. Labour authorities consistently spend more than Conservative ones and it is not surprising that Labour authorities have been capped. During the past six or seven years, we have capped 70 authorities, only one of which was Conservative. This year we have capped 21

    357
    authorities, all of which are Labour or Labour-hung controlled; none of them is Conservative. The reason for that is the pattern of overspending by Labour authorities.
    The Labour party is not, as I understand it, against capping in principle. The hon. Member for Dagenham now says that it is, but on the "Today" programme the hon. Gentleman said—if he said it there, it must be true:
    "In extremis there must always be that reserve power to cap."
    It seems that he agrees with capping in extremis, but not in Derbyshire, where the authority has spent 25 per cent.—or £157 a head—over SSA. He agrees with it in extremis, but not in Basildon, where the authority has spent 194 per cent.—or £154 a head—over SSA. We should all like to know what the hon. Gentleman means by "in extremis".
    It is perfectly obvious that Labour, whether in town halls or central Government, is unfamiliar with extremis. Some of us, as we trudge wearily through middle age, are old enough to remember the days when we had a Labour Government, and they were capped by the international bankers. Therefore, it is not surprising that 21 of the 21 authorities capped this year are Labour or hung Labour.
    I turn now to the uniform business rate and revaluation, on which the hon. Member for Dagenham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way to him."] I shall do so soon, I promise. I want to turn to the uniform business rate and revaluation.
    Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend please give way instantly to the shadow Secretary of State so that he can define to the House the meaning of the phrase "in extremis"?
    Mr. Patten: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Dagenham if he would like to make that definition—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman has taken an early bath.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the uniform business rate and revaluation, which is important—I do not say that just because it is important in Bath. He knows that, while there have been arguments about some of its details during the past months and years, the principle of the uniform business rate has been largely accepted, indeed endorsed, by chambers of commerce and other organisations representing business. That was largely because they saw it as a way of sheltering business from the consequences of excessive spending by local authorities in the wake of the decision to end business votes in 1969. Undoubtedly, in the medium and long term, business and industry, and therefore job creation and investment, are likely to be the main beneficiaries of the changes that we have made in local government finance.
    There are problems, not only in the south and constituencies like mine, but elsewhere in the country. Yesterday, I was in York, where people face difficulties. But those difficulties have nothing to do with the uniform business rate; they are the result of revaluation.
    I am afraid that the hon. Member for Dagenham does not understand. In my constituency, Bath—the same will be true elsewhere—the uniform business rate is 10 per cent. below the non-domestic rate previously set. If small businesses in my constituency were still paying rates on the old basis, they would be paying more this year because of Avon's overspending than they are paying with the revaluation. They will pay 15 per cent. plus inflation. Therefore, the uniform business rate—
    Mr. Gould rose—
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants. If he cannot explain "in extremis" at least he can ask me a question.
    Mr. Gould: I assume that "in extremis" is a phrase known to the right hon. Gentleman, even though it may not be known to his hon. Friends.
    The uniform business rate, like any other rating system, depends, first, on the property's valuation and, secondly, on poundage. If the valuation goes up, provided that the local authority has the power to fix the poundage, it can reduce the poundage.
    Mr. Patten: Would the hon. Gentleman like to list those Labour authorities that have recently reduced the poundage? It will not take him long.
    Mr. Gould: The Secretary of State's memory may not go back very far, but I have at least taken the trouble to check the figures. If the Secretary of State would care to look at the figures for the last time there was a revaluation he would find that in most local authorities up and down the country, when valuations went up substantialty—roughly doubled—in most cases, the poundage was roughly halved.
    Mr. Patten: There are many examples, of which my constituency is one, where the uniform business rate is lower than the non-domestic poundage. So businesses in my constituency are being protected from excessive spending by Avon; and since the business rate has been increasing year after year by 1·3 per cent. more than the rate of inflation, pegging the business rate to—at most—the rate of inflation each year will give a substantial bonus to businesses. I am perfectly happy to give way continually to the hon. Member for Dagenham if he will tell me which Labour local authorities have reduced their business rate poundage. The truth of the matter—
    Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend is approaching the uniform business rate in a constructive way, but will he bear in mind the fact that, on Third Reading, his predecessor promised that links between local enterprise and local government, which are important to some of us in my part of the world, would be preserved and strengthened—not broken—despite the nationalisation of the business rate? How does he see the Government redeeming that promise?
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend will be aware that, when a new business is acquired under the new conditions, the acquirer does not get any of the benefits of the graduation or transition to the uniform business rate. Is he applying his mind to that problem, because it is a serious deterrent to the acquisition, growth and trading of new businesses?
    Mr. Patten: On the first point, the consultations that have taken place in the past will continue. I believe that they are extremely important, as is the relationship between local councils and local business communities.
    Secondly, because it is a tax on property, the relief applies, as my right hon. Friend will know, to the property rather than to the business, whether the business is new or not. Following my right hon. Friend's logic, we should, I suppose, have to apply the transitional relief to new buildings and new property. I undertake to look at this

    359
    issue again, but I foresee that it would be very difficult to get round the principles that I have mentioned—I think that they are principles of some substance.
    Mr. David Nicholson: The Secretary of State's comment on the second point advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is welcome, as this is most important to Conservative Members. Will he confirm that business and industry are paying no more in real terms in the coming year to local government than they paid last year? Will he also confirm that their contribution will be capped, in terms of inflation, from now on?
    Mr. Patten: That is exactly what I hoped I had said earlier, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend has afforded me the opportunity to make myself clearer than I evidently was a few moments ago. I think that the principles that we have applied to transitional relief are sound and substantial. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford would be difficult to accommodate within those principles; nevertheless, I am prepared to consider it, but I cannot promise to do so with a mind as open as he might like it to be on this occasion.
    One point about transitional relief is of considerable importance to local businesses, particularly small businesses. A number of them have argued that at the end of the transitional period of five years they are likely to face a steep increase in their bills. We are prepared to extend the transitional period if, after the next revaluation, small businesses face a steep increase on top of the 15 per cent. tranches of increase that will have occurred in the intervening period.
    Miss Kate Hoey: As the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with anomalies associated with the UBR, what does he feel about the fact that about 150,000 voluntary sports clubs are being valued in the same way as businesses? Many of them—small cricket, rugby and sailing clubs—have been facing enormous rises that will force them to close. Does he accept that the way forward is to provide mandatory rate relief for all voluntary sports clubs facing the uniform business rate?
    Mr. Patten: I do not believe that most sports clubs are facing the problems to which the hon. Lady referred.
    I have spoken about the UBR, but not yet about the revaluation, on which I have an important point to make. It is significant that we have established once again, on the record, that the Opposition wholly support revaluation. I am delighted to hear that, and I think that it is also supported by the Liberal Democrats. So there is support throughout the House for revaluation. I hope that the Labour party will express that support when campaigning in the south of England, and that the Liberals will do likewise when campaigning in seats such as mine. I am sure that they express their enthusiasm for revaluation when campaigning in, say, the north and the west midlands. I was in the west midlands last week—in Derby, Walsall and Wolverhampton—where, at the end of the transitional period, they will have gained a 40 per cent. reduction in local business rates. That result of the revaluation shows a proper regard for the changes that have taken place in our regional economies and in the national economy over the past two decades.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: We have taken a locally predicated supply and demand economy and translated it into a national tax, and we now have unevenness on that basis. The sum of £610 million—on the unabated figures—is to be transferred from London to other areas. The Secretary of State may think that wholly reasonable; I do not know the circumstances of Bath, but my right hon. Friend is asking local traders and suppliers to find £610 million over the abated period. That has consequences for their profits and losses. The company that I know personally faces a valuation rise from £10,500 to £356,000, giving rise to a tax payable of £110,000 after we have ended abatement.
    This is destructive of business and small business. What proposals does my right hon. Friend have to ameliorate or reform the system?
    Mr. Patten: If my hon. Friend is as honest a man as I am sure he is, I assume that he makes exactly the same remarks in his constituency, because it is benefiting from the revaluation. We are talking about a rebalancing of resources and tax over five years, and it is conceivable that, if the period is extended, these sums will not have to be found over the five-year period—it is important to remember that.
    With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I have found it instructive to look at business rates as a proportion of the rents being paid by local businesses, and to look at rates as a proportion of turnover. Typically, they constitute 1.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. of turnover in most of the cases that have been drawn to my attention.
    Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in effect, an important regional and industrial policy is involved in these changes? In essence, places such as Amersham and Henley are surrendering resources that are going to places such as Stockton. The money is going from the softish industries such as financial services and retailing to manufacturing industries. Since these changes will also reduce the north-south divide, they will have the overwhelming support of one or two of my right hon. Friends who represent some of the seats that will lose the resources to others in the north.
    Mr. Patten: I cannot comment on the particular examples that my right hon. Friend drew entirely at random, but it is one of the great anomalies of life that, just as those who are most enthusiastic for investment in infrastructure—in principle—are most resistant to it in practice, so very often those who are theoretically enthusiastic about shifting resources to the regions and the north and manufacturing raise one or two doubts when such a shift actually starts to happen.
    I look forward to the hon. Member for Dagenham intervening several times in the next part of my speech. At the end of my speech I want to deal with the ways in which we should fund local government spending. Until this year we have funded it on the basis of a tax on property. That is notionally determined and long out of date, and everybody recognises the grave difficulties that would have arisen in revaluation. We saw some of those difficulties in Scotland.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham does not agree, but every political party agrees that we could not have continued with the rates. The question arises about what we put in their place. We have put forward the blindingly

    361
    obvious and are implementing our proposals. To its credit, the Liberal party has put forward proposals for a local income tax. I do not agree with those proposals because at a stroke they would wipe out the income tax cuts that we have made over the past 11 years. According to the author of those proposals, every couple with a joint income of £12,000 or more would pay more under the Liberal proposals than under the community charge. Of course, they would mean that we would have to face the prospect of a man such as Mr. Bookbinder being Chancellor. At least the Liberals have had the honesty to put forward their proposals.
    Mr. Tim Janman: My right hon. Friend is correct about the honesty of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned a MORI opinion poll. Does my right hon. Friend know whether any of the people questioned in that poll live in the constituency of Dagenham'? If they do, were they aware when giving their opinions on the various alternatives to the old rating system that Labour's roof tax will be £872 on a property worth £80,000? Such properties are certainly not uncommon in Dagenham. According to the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham there would be a local income tax on top of that.
    Mr. Patten: I am a man of almost inordinate charity and I know how the opinion poll was taken. It was a telephone poll and, by accident—it is a contingent factor of history—all those who were telephoned had been sent in advance a copy of the statement that the hon. Gentleman promised to us. I am sure that they were all well informed about Labour policy. Labour's approach to this issue has been a humiliating story. Its behaviour has lacked principle and has been governed throughout by the cheapest expediency. It is a long story and I will not trouble the House or frighten the horses by going through it.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was the previous Opposition spokesman on local government, is not in his place. Speaking two and a half years ago on 24 September 1987 to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities he said:
    "I am saying to NEC policy makers 'Hang on a minute. What is our policy on local government?' Putting it at its boldest we have not got a policy. That is the actual truth."
    Unlike his hon. Friends, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman cared for the Trappist approach to policy-making. We have been hanging on, not for a minute, but for two and a half years and, putting it at its boldest, that is still the actual truth.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham went through an encyclopaedia of excuses about why Labour does not have a policy and overturns policy after policy. In November last year, nearly six months ago, he explained the position. He said:
    "Labour is looking at a range of options, some of which will be single taxes and some of which will not."
    Last night we had pendulum voting which some of us found rather confusing. The hon. Gentleman obviously has a pendulum approach to policy-making. He said:
    "Nothing is set in concrete."
    Concrete has nothing to do with it. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech in today's debate and from that it seems that nothing is set in raspberry jelly.
    What does the Labour party favour? Is it a roof tax, a floor tax or perhaps a window tax? The party cannot say
    362
    and it will not say. If it is to be a tax on property values, how will it be calculated? How will areas such as the south be affected or streets where values have changed? How will council tenants and people who have taken advantage of the right to buy be affected? Again Labour will not say and cannot say.
    Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, for the last time.
    Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend does the Labour party less than justice. In the House we cannot get one squeak from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on local government and its financing. However, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) sneaked to the north-east of England and let the cat out of the bag. He said that Labour would reorganise local government and bring in regional government and give it the unfettered right to raise taxes.
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that if we ask the hon. Member for Dagenham about that he will send us a copy of the press release. Labour cannot and will not say whether the tax is to be imposed on individuals or on households. Apparently not everyone will pay. Fewer people will pay, so I guess that those who pay will pay more. Apparently most will pay less, but there is still a certain amount of explaining to do.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) has entered the Chamber. What does she have to say?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that we will have a contribution later in the debate.
    It is difficult for us to do better than Labour in describing Labour's position. In February, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), when he was half-launching half the Labour party's plan for Scotland, said that it would have been cynical to withhold the plans until after the regional elections in May. It would have been cynical in Scotland, but apparently it is not cynical in England. More to the point, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke two years ago at the outset of the Labour party's local government election campaign. The nominal deputy leader of the Labour party said:
    "If we are to have a Labour Government we must start straight away to begin … to tell the people not simply what we oppose but what we would put in the place of Tory legislation. I take as my example the poll tax. Our local government campaign must not be and will not be a series of attacks on the Government. Simply to oppose is the sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise. We must and we will offer our alternative."
    We know that Labour believes that local authorities should spend more, except in extremis—whatever that may mean. We know that the Labour party thinks that that spending should not be met by ratepayers, because it does not believe in rates. We know that it does not believe that it should be paid by charge payers because it does not believe in the community charge. We know that, whatever the level of spending, those who will have to meet it will, in almost all cases, be better off. One of two questions have to be answered. The hon. Member for Garscadden called it cynical and the right hon. Member for, Sparkbrook called it vacuous and despicable.

    363
    I cannot improve on those judgments, and I do not for one moment believe that the House will take a different view when it votes tonight.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We are all aware of the hardship that the poll tax will create and is creating. Across the country, local papers have been deluged with letters from people, some young and many old, who fear that they will not be able to cope with the added burden of the poll tax bill. The anguish that comes across from these letters is hard to ignore. In one such letter, an elderly gentleman claimed that, after 50 years of being a responsible, law-abiding citizen, and after fighting a war to defend his freedom and that of his fellow countrymen, he would, for the first time in his life, break the law, A pensioner in Canterbury—a council tenant hit by the double jeopardy of a 55 per cent. rent rise and the poll tax bill—found that she was not entitled to the same rebate as she had had for her rates, and is now left with £15 a week to cope with food, clothes and other necessities. Such is the effect of this most unfair poll tax.
    I do not condone the breaking of the law, and all our candidates are saying that, but I understand the depths of despair that people feel. The tax not only makes people break the law but disfranchises many people. I mean not just those people who deliberately leave their names off the electoral role—estimated at 15,000 in Strathclyde alone—but those who are so disillusioned that they will not cast their vote in the coming local elections, or any other elections.
    I met a gentleman on his doorstep last week. He told me that he was 82 years old and had voted in nearly every election since before the war, and always voted Conservative, but would never do so again because he would never vote again. I found this very sad. I stayed talking to him for 10 minutes, and I found that the poll tax was the final blow in a long round of hard knocks. I managed to convince him that there is a fair alternative—a local income tax—and that there is a party that puts people first and whose ideology is not centred on politics. He agreed to give it one more go, and I arranged a lift to the polling station for him. I do not know for whom he will vote, but at least he will vote, and that was the aim of my argument.
    The point of the story is that it is similar to the experience of many other hon. Members. I am doing it not to plug local income tax—I shall do that later—but to highlight the disillusionment that the poll tax has brought, and the effect that that will have on the elections. There is already a worrying trend of low turnouts in elections, particularly local government elections. That has worrying implications for democracy and gives the lie to the Government's claim that the poll tax will lead to more accountability. Perhaps Professor Peter Townsend's words express it better than mine. He said:
    "The poll tax is as much a blow to democracy as it is an unforgivable charge on the poor. It will encourage people to pick up their belongings and fly by night."
    On top of that, non-registration for the poll tax will lead to distortion in local finance and will add to the burden of the law-abiding resident.
    The law-abiding resident is already being penalised in some areas, and has no chance of holding local
    364
    government responsible. I am referring to the safety net, as a result of which a resident of one area pays for a proportion of the services in another. I am not disputing that some form of safety net is required, but it should be a special grant from central Government, paid for out of general taxation rather than out of the pockets of those least able to pay.
    There is something illogical and disgraceful about a system that insists that somebody living in rented accommodation in, say, Camden and just making ends meet, should pay £75 towards making the poll tax burden of somebody living comfortably in, say, Wandsworth, a lot lighter. There is something even more illogical and ridiculous about a system that can catch Greenwich, which, if it had to spend in line with its standard spending assessment, would have its community charge set at minus £7 a head. The Government's extraordinary judgment about the needs of local people is a major cause of some of these anomalies.
    I am never too sure whether the devastating effects of the Government's programmes on our citizens are the result of complete incompetence and ignorance of what happens in the real world, or are merely a case of a bull in a china shop, intent only on reaching its objective, regardless of cost.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the joint and severe liability? A family with a 20-year-old daughter on a low income will qualify for the 80 per cent. rebate, but a housewife with no income does not qualify. Will the hon. Gentleman dwell on that anomaly, which has been brought about by the actions of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Fearn: I shall dwell on that for a moment, but the dwelling will be from the point of view of what happens on the doorstep. More often than not, the housewife comes in answer to one's knock and she usually says that she is penalised. Not many of the men say that, because they believe that they should be paying for something. The Prime Minister has always said that she sticks up for the housewife, but she is not doing so in this case.
    It is well documented what nonsense the standard spending assessments are. No account has been taken of economic deprivation in the service block headed "all other services", which covers items of expenditure from recreation to school crossing patrols. According to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, quoted in a Local Government Information Unit document published in April 1990:
    "The incorporation of an economic deprivation indicator would increase the standard spending assessments for 33 of the 36 metropolitan districts by as much as £64 per poll tax payer in Knowsley and £55 in Newcastle."
    In Oxfordshire, the education SSA would allow expenditure below the amount necessary to maintain the current year's spend, which would involve a cut equivalent to getting rid of 128 primary teachers and 162 further education teachers. No account is taken of the additional amounts required to implement the Government's education reforms.
    Police authorities, including the Merseyside police authority, are finding that the assessed level of capital expenditure, net of grant, falls far short of the supplementary credit approvals. The new system of

    365
    finance, combined with the recent announcement of the credit approvals for 1990–91, is causing great concern because of the implications for policing.
    As a former spokesman on health for my party, I am concerned about the implications for community care. I only hope that the recommendations on cost by the various working groups on this matter will be fully supported and funded by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this. Whether the funds should be earmarked to prevent moneys from being used for other services and to keep the level of tax low will have to be decided before the scheme takes effect.
    I am worried, too, about the new finance system and that it may prove to be an excuse for the non-existence or the poor quality of a particular service. A recent response by an officer of Epping Forest district council to an inquiry by a local resident illustrates why I am concerned. The resident inquired why his road was never cleaned and he was informed that to provide such a service would mean adding £7 to his poll tax bill. He was somewhat surprised as he thought that he was paying for road cleaning. He was not too pleased with the officer's response because he knew that the council had added £20 to his poll tax bill to cover the interest charges on the cost of new council offices, which had soared from £4 million to £15 million. It is a monstrosity of a building. I might add that it does not even have a letter box.
    Will community care services be safe in the hands of councils such as Epping Forest? For the first time, Essex county council has introduced charges for home helps, which provide a vital lifeline for care in the community.
    Standard spending assessments do not have any link with the type, level or quality of services that are provided. The new finance system is flawed with dramatic consequences. Areas of deprivation are seeing vital resources transferred to more affluent areas. The true effect of the transfer is hard to see as the safety net serves to hide the effects as well as to soften them. Even with the safety net in operation—this is according to figures published by the Local Government Information Unit—the north-west is set to lose £86 million in 1990–91. Once the safety net has been pulled away, that loss will increase to £113 million. The losses will result in a higher poll tax or a reduced level of service. Either way, local communities and local people will suffer.
    Many of the anomalies are the result of changes to the business rating system. The uniform business rate is as much of a disaster as the poll tax. Some areas are losing vast amounts of income as central Government distribute funds according to the population of poll tax payers and not according to the businesses in the area. The UBR removes yet another source of local determination from local government to central Government. Local business will have no links with the local community and, as a result, it will feel less responsible towards it and local residents.
    Parish councils, which have benefited from a business precept in the past, often as a recompense for noise, smells and general mayhem, will be the losers this time round. Many parish councils will no longer be able to run community and recreation services. Their parent councils will wield more power.
    Rate bills spell ruin for many small businesses. On top of high interest and mortgage rates, their rate bills will be devastating. It is a sad reflection on the Government that their policies will kill the very enterprises that they claim
    366
    they wish to see prosper. It is not only in Bath that shopkeepers and the managers of other businesses are up in arms. That is the position in many other areas, including Canterbury, where some shopkeepers and others are facing increases of 200 to 300 per cent. The future is bleak for them. As their margins become tighter, they will find it increasingly difficult to wind up and sell their businesses. Mortgage rates, interest rates and the UBR without transitional relief, which a new owner would not be entitled to, make the prospect of selling a business extremely poor.
    There are spin-offs from the UBR that will fall on the consumer. London Transport is already saying in press statements that the extra £34 million that it will have to find in the next financial year will have to be funded through even higher fares.
    Liberal Democrats have a five-point plan to ease the burden of the UBR as well as an alternative policy which we would introduce along with our alternative local income tax system. One of the five points is that transitional relief should be applied to all businesses that existed in April 1990, regardless of whether they move premises subsequently. We should like to see the Government introduce a land value tax with some possible exemptions for agricultural land, for example. A land value tax which was set locally would preserve the essential link between business and the community and would enhance local accountability.
    Local income tax enhances local autonomy. The rate is determined locally and is collected by the Inland Revenue. Employers would deduct a standard rate of local tax with an end-of-year adjustment by way of a refund or bill through the Inland Revenue. In practice, 70 to 80 per cent. of local income tax payers would receive rebates through the Inland Revenue. The system is fair because, unlike the poll tax, or the Labour party's roof tax, it is based on the ability to pay. It is easy to administer and cheaper to collect than the poll tax.
    The Labour party's roof tax is unfair, as a tax on property bears no relation to an individual's ability to pay. The elderly widow would pay the same as the family of four or five. The Labour party would tax home improvements. The roof tax is also a tax on energy conservation measures. The two-tax system that appears to be on the books for England and Wales is likely to be a nightmare. In Sefton, for example, the official figures of the Department of the Environment show that for a property valued at £50,000 the bill would be £523. That would rise to £744 for a property valued at £80,000.
    The Labour party should have courage and should announce in principle what form its tax will take before we embark on the local elections. If local government is to be accountable, the electorate should at least have the right to know for what it is voting. With the Liberal Democrat system of local income tax, local autonomy will be increased by allowing the local authority to raise more funds through local taxes, with a corresponding drop in central funds and a cut in national income tax. That would be in stark contrast to the steady drop in Government funding and increases in central Government control.
    Despite all the talk about the poll tax making local government accountable to local people, it still represents only about 25 to 30 per cent. of local government income. The rest is controlled by central Government. Even the poll tax is subject to central control, as the recent capping fiasco has shown.

    367
    If the Minister wishes, I shall send him a copy of the Liberal Democrats alternative policy together with our charter for small businesses and a copy of our publication entitled "Local Income Tax—The Best Way". I shall probably send him an invoice at the same time. The catch phrase that appears in many Conservative leaflets—I have seen them locally in my ward, my town and in surrounding districts—is "in touch". The result of the local elections will prove that the local Conservative parties and their friends in central Government are very much out of touch. Perhaps the poll tax will prove to be the Government's Waterloo.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that at 6 o'clock we shall commence 10-minute speeches.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The last time that I heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) speak in the Chamber was on Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill. During the consideration of that Bill in Committee it was said that it was the weakest performance of any Front-Bench spokesman from either side of the House for many years. At any rate, that was the position until today, when the hon. Gentleman capped his own performance. It was an extraordinary admission that the Labour party is not prepared to come clean on its proposals for local government.
    When Mr. Speaker welcomes guests to this place he stresses that Parliament is about the clash of opinions, about resolving issues by debate. It is not possible to resolve by debate if only one side is putting forward its point of view and no constructive alternative is being presented by the party that seeks to be the alternative Government. That is disgraceful behaviour towards the House and an abdication of democratic responsibility and of everything for which we stand.
    No one can pretend that the introduction of the community charge is easy or could ever have been conceived to be easy. It is the greatest upheaval in local government finance for a century. However, it is intended to achieve two important objectives—fairness and accountability. On fairness, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) drew a parallel between a widow and a family of four living next door and earning a living. That point was best put by one of my constituents, Mr. Richard Clark, who said in a letter that if he went into a pub and ordered a pint of beer, he would expect to pay £1·20. If a family of four ordered a round, what should they pay? The answer is obvious.
    The system is not aimed only at trying to correct that sort of unfairness; it is intended also to correct the unfairnesses of the rateable value system. In my local the other day, we were talking about the rates that people used to pay. Obviously, people now compare what they paid in rates with what they are paying in community charge. One of my friends, who is also my dustman, lives in a one-bedroom council flat. He was paying £500 in rates. Another of my friends is a self-employed roofer, and he and his wife live in a three-bedroomed semi-detached in the same town. They paid £400 in rates. Another of my
    368
    friends is a wealthy socialist who lives in a four-bedroom period house in the old part of Tring. He paid £300 in rates.
    Of course, if there had been a revaluation many of those problems would have been sorted out—but over the 10 or 15 years until the next revaluation, until the next time that a Government had the courage to pick up that baton, those unfairnesses would have crept back into the system—especially in areas where properties are being improved, thereby making these areas better and better. Unfairness was inherent in the way that rateable values were calculated.
    Another fact that we all forget is that the old grant distribution formula was inherently unfair because it took the rateable value of an area as its proxy for the wealth of that area. In the county of Hertfordshire, part of which I represent, average rateable values were 25 per cent. above the national average, yet incomes were only 10 per cent. above the national average. The net effect was that, even if local authorities had spent at the targets laid down by central Government, the amount of grant received would have been minuscule compared with many other local authorities. In its last year of the rating system, Hertfordshire county council received no grant from central Government.
    Dacorum borough council, my district authority, received £1 million. Under the new system, it gets £16 million. That is extremely welcome. Were it not for the safety net, it would have received even more than that. Any system that is designed to recognise the needs of areas and also their resources to raise funds for their own purposes must be complicated. The trouble with the old system was that it relied entirely on rateable values on the resources side, and addressing that problem has caused many of the difficulties in moving to the community charge.
    The second important point is accountability. It was wrong that, under the old system, as little as one quarter of the number of eligible electors paid rates. There could not possibly be proper accountability. However, there are other barriers to accountability, some of which need addressing. How can there be proper accountability when charges are levied by three different tiers of local government—by county councils, borough councils and parish or town councils?
    I accept that it is difficult to reform the local government structure at the same time as reforming finance, but not all tiers have elections this year. In the shire areas, the county councils are not holding elections. They have used the opportunity to increase their precepts while the poor mugs who have to face election are struggling to keep their precepts under control. There cannot be proper accountability while there is a multi-tier system. We must move towards a single-tier system. Redcliffe-Maud was absolutely right, and we should have grasped that fact way back in the early-1970s.
    If there are elections only every four years, accountability cannot be made to bite when everyone is paying the community charge. If there are elections for the whole of councils, as there are in London, there is a better case for accountability—at least one year in four. This year there will not be proper accountability for the principal councils in the shire areas.
    Another problem is that people simply do not know what they are paying for. How many times have we heard people say, "What is the local authority doing about

    369
    the hospital?" People aften think that the only service they receive for their community charge is having their bins emptied—or not emptied, depending on where they live. They do not realise that 70 per cent. of the money goes on education—teachers' salaries and overheads.
    We have a difficult task in trying to educate people. Despite all the good measures taken by past Secretaries of State through the leaflets that accompanied rates' bills, and which now accompany community charge bills, it is an unfortunate fact that people do not read them. They throw them away and so are unaware of the facts. Therefore, those who claim that the simple answer to the problem of the community charge is presentation should remember what happened to previous pious intentions.
    Another point about accountability is the safety net. I know that some authorities have had more than their fair share of grant in the past, just as my authority has had less than its fair share. It is difficult to move that money at one time. That has made it all too easy for people to suggest that the community charge is above the levels suggested by the Government because of the safety net, not because of overspending by local authorities.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham said that many of the letters that he had received objected to the principle of the community charge. That is certainly not my experience in Hertfordshire, West. Like other hon. Members, I have received a great deal of mail, but the vast majority of letters have begun, "I accept the community charge in principle, but I object to the amount that I am being asked to pay."
    Of course, the amount of community charge depends entirely on the policies of local authorities. It is not true simply to say that that is a product of what is happening this year; it is also a product of what has happened in past years. Hertfordshire had a Liberal-Labour majority between 1985 and 1989. During that time, the council increased its spending by £40 million more than the rate of inflation. It increased the number of staff from 33,000 to 38,000. Of course, those people cannot be sacked overnight. The problem cannot be brought under control instantly.
    That is compounded by another factor: what happened to the reserves? In the run-up to the 1989 county council elections, the Labour party raided the balances to levy an artificially low rate. That artificially low rate is now being compared with what is an artificially high community charge, which is having to bear the burden not only of normal balances but of restoring the balances. When saying, "Labour councils bad; Conservative councils good," it is easy to forget that the reason that many of the Conservative councils that have not done as well when setting their community charges this year find themselves in that position is because there were opposition majorities on those county councils in the four years between 1985–89.
    We are now up against the 10-minute rule. I wish to deal with two or three matters about which we must do something. No introduction of a new tax is without its problems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been open in saying that he will consider suggestions and advice during the next few months. I welcome that. One matter—it is not a high-cost problem, but it has caused a great feeling of injustice for a few people—is the discretion given to local authorities in what they can levy on empty homes. I mean not only second homes, but homes that are empty for one reason or another.
    370
    A distinction should be drawn between ordinary cases and the person, perhaps of limited means, who has inherited a house and cannot obtain a rebate on his second property—not all local authorities are very considerate about such cases—or the individual who has to live in another part of the country by virtue of his employment. A Territorial Army caretaker took the Government's advice and come south to my constituency for a job, so he has to pay the community charge in Hertfordshire and in Yorkshire. That cannot be right. Owning a second house is not necessarily a measure of one's personal wealth or affluence. It can be a matter of necessity or an accident of history.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a much more difficult task when it comes to the standard spending assessment. Many years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested simplifying SSAs—or grant-related expenditure assessments, as they were then—but found that local authorities wanted to complicate matters still further by adding more and more factors to be taken into account. Local authorities have themselves to blame to some extent for the SSA system.
    I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to go for wholesale changes. Any problem he may solve that way will throw up other problems elsewhere.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to write to the Secretary of State instead. I call Mr. Eric Illsley.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any chance of you waiving the sub judice rule to allow the Government to make a statement, if they apply to do so, on the charge against Dr. Christopher Cowley in relation to the alleged Iraqi weapon? It is a matter of urgency, and possibly the Government ought to make a statement tonight.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has me at a total disadvantage. I shall look into that matter. Mr. Illsley.
    6.11 pm
    Mr. Eric Illsley: In view of the limited time available to me, I shall confine my remarks to the problems confronting Barnsley local authority, which is one of the 21 that have unfortunately been charge-capped. The Secretary of State has given as a reason the fact that the standard spending assessment levied by the Government has been exceeded by 17 per cent. That is hardly surprising, given the very low level of SSA applied to Barnsley under the Government's formula.
    In the past, the grant-related expenditure assessment had precisely the same effect. A former Minister, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), on a visit to members of Barnsley's local authority, said that Barnsley and Greenwich would always come at the bottom of the list because of peculiar factors affecting them, Tonight I want to inform the Government of the reasons for Barnsley's low SSA.
    In the past, under GREA the resource element always came to the aid of the authority, enabling it to meet expenditure levels. The maximum amount of demand on the collection fund that will now be made by Barnsley, according to the figure levied by the Government, will be £132 million, compared with the previous level of £142 million—yet the Government have given no indication of

    371
    how they arrived at a figure £10 million lower. We are still no wiser as to why £10 million has been lopped off the local authority's spending ability.
    Barnsley metropolitan borough council will have to accept that degree of capping, request a redetermination of its budget, or look to the Government to take more into consideration the special factors that I shall outline and revalue Barnsley's SSA. After all, as I said during Question Time today, the SSA is the basis of charge capping.
    Earlier, the Secretary of State said that if Barnsley chooses to be a high-spending authority, it will have to suffer the consequences. The truth is that, in common with a cluster of authorities identified by the Audit Commission, Barnsley has a very low standard spending assessment, ranking 35 out of the 36 metropolitan districts. It even came low on the list of grant-related expenditure assessments. Manchester has an SSA of £1,170 per adult, Liverpool £1,068, and Birmingham £1,060. Why are their figures much higher than Barnsley's SSA of £669 per adult for providing the same level of service?
    The timing of the capping announcement places an extra burden on authorities in trying to identify savings, having already started the financial year. If savings can be made—I am not saying that they can—there is little time to implement them. If an authority has to consider redundancies, it will need to give 90 days' notice, and then the financial year will be nearly half gone. Barnsley will have to identify savings of £10 million six months into its budget.
    Another problem is that Barnsley has already sent out its community charge bills. Charge payers will have to be re-billed, and I am told that no indication can be given then of any sum that the individual might have paid already. A community charge payer who settled his bill in full the day that he received it will be re-billed for the new amount, but the second bill will give no indication of the sum that he has already paid. Previously, local authorities were allowed time before the implementation of capping to identify possible savings and to put their affairs in order.
    Barnsley has always fared badly, even though its spending under all headings is below the national average. Its spending per head of the population for 1989–90 as identified by the Audit Commission was £525 per head, compared with the average metropolitan district figure of £509. However, its spending on education was £286 per head, compared with the metropolitan average of £320, and on social services £66 per head compared with £85. As to staffing per 1,000 population, Barnsley has 9·7 teachers compared with 11·42 for the average metropolitan district, and 21·53 staff of all kinds compared with the average of 24·54 per 1,000 population. How can the Secretary of State accuse Barnsley of being a high-spending authority when the Audit Commission's own figures show that its expenditure is below average in almost every category?
    This year, Barnsley's expenditure would have increased from £115·5 million to £134·6 million. Inflation accounts for £11 million, including £3·5 million resulting from the Government's teacher pay awards. Barnsley's share of the joint authorities' funding following abolition of South Yorkshire county council will increase from 14 per cent. to 17 per cent.—another £4 million. There is a further £8·2 million additional spending. I shall not list all the categories, but some have been imposed by the
    372
    Government. They include accelerated debt repayments, capital grants that can no longer be credited to revenue, and the cost of implementing the poll tax itself.
    Over the next 12 months, Barnsley will also have other special needs. Spending on education accounts for about 70 per cent. of Barnsley's total budget, so the likelihood is that any savings that must be made as a result of capping will come from education. That is at a time when the authority is desperately trying to improve its educational attainment. A new tertiary college due to come on stream in September could lose £1 million of funding, which will set it back from the outset and place students at a disadvantage. The savings that would have to be identified, were the charge capping implemented across the board, are some £4·95 million.
    I refer the Minister to an article in The Guardian on 17 April which identified some of the problems in Barnsley. We were a little annoyed by the article because the picture shows a school which was earmarked for closure in 1986. The authority is trying to identify the real problems but The Guardian identified a school that was due to close as a result of rationalisation and not as a result of poll-tax capping.
    The article goes into some detail about Barnsley's education spending problems. Local management of schools will be coming up this year, as will the extra cost of implementing the national curriculum. Each secondary pupil in Barnsley costs £1,470 as compared with the figure in Barnet of £1,600. Barnsley has the highest primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios out of the 10 cluster authorities identified by the Audit Commission. We spend £42·80 on books and equipment for secondary pupils. Only three metropolitan districts spend less than that, and the average is £55. The average ratio of computers to pupils is 1:50, but Barnsley has 1:70. We have no modern language assistants employed by the authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) will confirm that that district employs 26. Educational achievement for post-16-year-olds is the lowest in the country, yet we are cutting money from Barnsley's budget.
    I shall quickly run through the other problems. Barnsley still has 14 per cent. unemployment; we have tried to identify an industrial partnership with a major industrialist, but that has now been shelved because capping has meant that we do not have the money—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has had his time.
    6.21 pm
    Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will forgive me if I do not take up his points about Barnsley because it was a detailed speech on his constituency about which I obviously know nothing.
    It is quite clear to me why the Labour party has chosen this subject today. It is a crude attempt to convert the unpopularity of the poll tax into votes on 3 May without giving any details of its own schemes. It is this week's Hong Kong. I have spent much time recently on the doorsteps of Ealing, and my constituents are not so naive as to fall for that. They realise that if they all went out on 3 May to vote Labour, the poll tax would still be there on 4 May and, what is far worse, they would have lumbered themselves with an administration which, however funded, would spend more than a Conservative administration and

    373
    over four years it would cost each of them at least £150 more, and the money would be spent on projects with which they disagreed. I am optimistic that in my constituency the Conservative party is poised to do well on 3 May.
    The debate provides an opportunity for Conservative Members to analyse the difficulties posed by the poll tax·to ask why the matrons of Maidenhead have been marching·and to try to identify a way through.
    There are three reasons why the poll tax is unpopular. First, it was introduced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has just pointed out, at a far higher level than its authors envisaged or people were led to expect. Secondly, any structural change, well meant or not so well meant, brings turbulence and a reaction against it. Thirdly, the tax is seen to be unfair because it is unrelated to the ability to pay. The impact of the first two problems will probably erode with time. The third reason is timeless and potentially lethal.
    The Government are in a state of terminal schizophrenia about the question of ability to pay. On the one hand, they say that the community charge is linked to the ability to pay, and, on the other hand, they have set their face against linking the charge more directly to incomes, which are the best measurement of ability to pay.
    At present, the community charge is no more linked to the ability to pay than local authority rents. I have never heard a Minister say that local authority rents are linked to the ability to pay. Indeed, they have claimed the opposite—that we are moving towards a system of market rents. Housing benefit takes the strain for those who cannot afford them. The existence of housing benefit for a minority does not mean that rents are linked to ability to pay; it means exactly the opposite. The same is true of the community charge. It is a flat-rate, local tax on being over 18. It is wholly unrelated to the ability to pay.
    Community charge rebate is related to ability to pay, but to argue that, because rebates are available to those in one part of the income spectrum, the tax as a whole is related to ability to pay is nonsense.
    Nor do I buy the argument that, because central Government pay half the cost of local government through the revenue support grant, and because that is funded through progressive taxation, it is legitimate to raise the rest through a flat-rate tax. On the contrary, because central Government fund their services through progressive taxation, it is even more illogical to ask local government to fund its services from a regressive flat-rate tax. It makes no sense to abolish the rates because the widow is paying the same as the four wage earners next door, and then to justify the new system by saying that those wage earners pay more for local services than the widow because they pay more in tax than she does.
    The shift in the burden of taxation away from the better-off and on to the shoulders of the less-well-off is the fundamental objection to the poll tax. No arguments about rebates or revenue support grant meet that criticism head on. Until we meet it head on, we shall always be on the defensive.
    Another reason why the charge is unpopular is its high incidence in relation to the forecast made when the legislation was going through. One solution advocated by some of my hon. Friends is to spray the problem with money. The sum which gets us to the starting block is £3 billion. That seems to me to be an un-Conservative and somewhat defeatist solution.
    374
    I put to one side the question whether the country can afford an extra £3 billion at the moment. Even if we could, it would be £3 billion of dead money, and we would have nothing to show for it—no new schools, hospitals or railway lines, no better benefits for the disabled and no more homes for the homeless and all the other projects that every hon. Member could find to spend money on. It would simply be a £3 billion funeral bill for the poll tax, not only next year but every year because we will never be able to get the money back without jacking up the tax to a level deemed to be unacceptable.
    Such a solution does not solve the underlying problem, because we are still left with a system of funding local government in which we have manifested our total lack of confidence because it is unable to bear the burden of funding local services. A similar solution to transfer education or the police to the central taxpayer is an intellectually more honest argument, but it suffers from all the same drawbacks as the £3 billion I have mentioned and from further disadvantages.
    I happen to believe in a plural, decentralised society, with decisions taken locally where possible and with local accountability. Local democracy is an integral part of our total democracy, subservient to Parliament but complementary to it. The more we centralise decisions, the more we move to a bureaucratic monochrome, unresponsive society—
    Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir George Young: No, I am sorry; I have not time.
    That move seems to have nothing to do with Conservative philosophy.
    Instead of saying that, because we have such a deeply unattractive means of funding local government, we must do more centrally, we should ask how we can fund local government so that we do not have to centralise any more so that we can continue to decentralise and push responsibility downwards.
    What are we to do to put the funding of local government on a sound footing? Any solution must solve the political imperative that faces our party. The poll tax casts a shadow over our prospects at the next election. We have devised a system about which the gainers feel guilty and the losers feel livid.
    The gloomy prospects are alleviated by two factors. The first is the turbulence factor caused by introducing a new tax. Much of the unpopularity of the tax is simply due to the change. Any new Government would have to deal with that turbulence in exactly the same way that we have to deal with it. In two years' time, the Labour party threatens to throw another large stone into that pond. It will find it has to answer many of the questions that we are having to answer now about gainers, losers and costs. The second factor is that the solution adopted at present by Opposition Members seems to me even nuttier than the poll tax.
    I come to my own solution, which is totally unoriginal. I put it forward in an article in The Guardian in 1987 and the House voted on a derivative of it more than two years ago, when it was defeated by 25 votes. Many of my colleagues who voted against it then now wish that they had not. It starts from the present position, builds on the only strength of the poll tax over the rates—the

    375
    broadening of the base of local finance—and addresses its fatal weakness by moving away from a flat rate to a banded rate linked to ability to pay.
    It does so without using PAYE, which would weaken the visibility of the tax, and without the town halls knowing all the details of our incomes, which would be obtrusive and expensive. It would do away with the bureaucracy of the community charge register, and it would not hound the poorest in society for a tax that they could not afford. It would involve town halls precepting individuals not on the rateable value of their properties but on their taxable incomes the previous year, allocated to one of a number of bands notified to the town hall by the Inland Revenue. That system is made infinitely more attractive by this year's move to the independent taxation of women.
    Parliament can set all the parameters: the number of bands, whether there should be a maximum level, and so on. The details are for discussion. Other countries have exactly such a system. None of them has a poll tax. Such a solution would neutralise at a stroke the political disadvantage of the poll tax. The Opposition would find it difficult to denounce such a scheme and virtually impossible to threaten to repeal it.
    With such eloquence as I can command, I urge the Government, in their forthcoming review, to examine the merits of such a scheme, which has a number of advantages.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I do not intend to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), although he has criticised the unfair way in which the Government have introduced the poll tax. I want to refer to the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment. During the final 15 minutes of his speech he attacked the Opposition for not being prepared at this stage to declare exactly what is their alternative to the poll tax. I wish that we were able to do that. However, we must ensure that we provide a workable alternative to the poll tax that is cheap to collect and that is fair. We do not have civil servants to help us, so it is right that we should take time to produce a workable alternative.
    After the Government had been in office for eight years, they decided to introduce the poll tax. They believed that it provided the solution to local government finance. However, they are now faced with all the problems that surround it. The Opposition have made it clear that they will ensure that the poorest people, who have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, will receive a 100 per cent. rebate. That is a fundamental principle that will be enshrined in our proposals.
    The Secretary of State referred to the higher-spending local authorities. That issue has been debated on many occasions. In the main, Labour-controlled local authorities are in areas of deprivation where the need to spend money is greatest. If we believe in democracy, we must allow democratically elected local authorities to determine what services ought to be provided. That is what local government is about. I shall always fight for that principle, but the Opposition are 100 per cent. committed to obtaining value for money when it comes to the provision of local authority services.
    376
    People have written to me saying that it is hypocritical of the Government to talk about accountability in connection with the poll tax when they are extending the right to vote to people who may have left the country up to 20 years ago. They make no contribution to this country in terms of taxes paid and in most cases have absolutely no intention of returning to live here.
    In answer to a question I put earlier, the Secretary of State told me that the Government intend to make no change to the present system—that nearly all people must make a contribution to the provision of local services. According to a written answer that I obtained last week from the Secretary of State, the Government are not prepared to say what action they are prepared to take to deal with the problem of the poll tax failing to take account of ability to pay. If the Government had taken note of what the Opposition said in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House when the Local Government Finance Bill was debated two years ago, that problem would not have arisen.
    Thousands of people in my constituency and millions of people throughout the country cannot afford to pay the poll tax. I refer to those who are in receipt of too much benefit or whose earnings are at a level which means that they do not qualify for a rebate. The treasurer of Burnley borough council put it to me that, even if he wanted to waive collection from certain people on the ground of poverty, he would not be allowed to do so without going to the courts. He asked me why that power has not been granted to borough treasurers. He believes that they ought to be able to decide to waive the collection of poll tax where it would be foolish to try to collect it.
    The Government have increased the savings limit to £16,000 before people are disqualified from receiving a rebate. I said at the time that the Government announced the change that they would have done far more for many more people if they had raised the lower limit of savings from £3,000 to £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000. As for special help for people who will be paying £156 more in poll tax than they paid last year in rates, the Government say that in Burnley the poll tax should be £166. A single person living alone, therefore, would have had to pay only £10 in rates last year to qualify for special help. Burnley was a low-rated area, but that is totally unrealistic.
    I have met representatives of the chamber of trade in my constituency. They are concerned about many aspects of the uniform business rate. I intend to refer to one of those aspects: small shopkeepers who live over their shops. There has been a considerable increase in their rateable value. Despite the transitional protection, they will have to find more to cover that increase. In addition, they have to pay the poll tax. The average family in Burnley is £6 a week worse off under the poll tax, so people have less to spend in the corner shops. The elderly and the poorer members of the community depend on the corner shop. The Government pretend that they are the friend of the small shopkeeper and the small business, but in many instances small shopkeepers are not one-time or two-time losers; they are three-time losers on account of the way in which the uniform business rate operates.
    The chamber of commerce has voiced its concern about many aspects of the uniform business rate and the poll tax. One point that has been made forcefully to me by chamber of commerce representatives is that, if employers are forced to deduct money from the wages of their employees because they have not paid the poll tax, it will cause an

    377
    industrial relations problem that employers do not want to have to deal with; they do not want to have to enforce, on behalf of the Government, this unfair legislation.
    Finally, I want to look at Lancashire in a little more detail. On more than one occasion Lancashire county council informed the Secretary of State that it will receive £138 million less in Government grant this financial year than the amount it received in the last financial year.
    Lancashire county council wrote to the Department of the Environment on 6 February stating:
    "the Government has adopted a new spending formula which expects Lancashire to spend less in real terms in 1990–91 than it would have done under the existing GREA formula".
    On 22 November 1989, Burnley borough council wrote to me, stating:
    "a Standard Spending Assessment based on two factors cannot reflect the true spending needs of this or any other District Council."
    It stresses that the standard spending assessment fails to take into account grants or contributions from county councils.
    The Government have a long way to go to solve the problems of the poll tax. They have failed to show that they are prepared to make any positive response. The electorate will show their view next Thursday and will repeat it whenever the next general election is called.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Tony Favell: In common with my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members, let me make two suggestions to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, whom, I am glad to see in his place. First, he should not listen to the admonishments from the Opposition about the uniform business rate, which is a thoroughly decent measure. For far too long businesses have been driven out of such places as Liverpool, Manchester, Stockton and some parts of south London which are run by loony left councils and the people living there have suffered. It is thoroughly decent for the Government to ensure that businesses have the confidence to invest in those areas.
    Secondly, if the standard spending assessments are to be refined—there is some force behind that argument—will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of legislating to the effect that, if a council wishes to exceed its standard spending assessment, it should first have a local referendum so that people are consulted about whether they wish their council to spend on all the services which are continually suggested by Opposition parties?
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Favell: No. I have only 10 minutes.
    One would think from listening to Opposition Members, and one or two of my hon. Friends, that the community charge has no friends. It has a friend here. I am not alone in that.
    Mr. Janman: I am a friend of the community charge.
    Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend agrees with me.
    I have a marginal constituency, and I realise that appealing to one or two people who have to pay a bit more puts my seat in jeopardy. I am prepared to do that because I believe that the community charge is good for the country and for my constituency.
    The community charge has other friends. First, there are widows—everyone has forgotten about widows—who
    378
    have been driven out of their homes because in next-door houses three or four big wage earners are paying the same rates as they pay. My mother was driven out of her two-bedroomed bungalow in Sheffield, which she had received from my father's estate, because she simply could not afford to pay the rates. That is disgraceful. Deserted wives and those separated from their husbands are in exactly the same position. They might not be parading in Trafalgar square, but they are friends of the measure. There are also those who feel that everyone should contribute to local services. Local services involve giving as well as taking.
    The Opposition have spotted a rich vein in young people aged 19 or 20 who are making no contribution to local services which they enjoy as much as anyone else. Students get local authority grants. Why should they not pay 20 per cent. towards their community charge? I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
    In recent years, young people have had a wonderful run. One has only to look at the pubs, the discotheques and the shops. The gear on sale is all for young people. It is not too early for them to learn that local services involve give as well as take.
    Many people are friends of the community charge because they feel that everyone should contribute to local services. Many people, including many Conservative Members, feel that at long last local councils should be accountable to the people whom they serve. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he did not think it was possible and attacked us for trying to make local authorities accountable. One thing that his long speech made clear is that, if ever the Labour party got into power, it would not make local authorities accountable to the people whom they are meant to serve.
    Local authorities do not serve the poor, the rich or any one section of the community; they are meant to serve everyone. In my surgery, the complaints about local authority services come not from the rich but from council house tenants who cannot get repairs done. They cannot get local authority staff to answer the telephone civilly, answer a letter or come round when they have problems. They come from council house tenants who wish to buy their homes and cannot even get a reply to their letters. They come from council house tenants who are living on estates where the council does not even bother to repair the pavements or collect the litter. They are not friends of the council. They want the council to be accountable. They are not in favour of the loony left councils in Liverpool and Manchester who buy votes from minority oddball groups.
    The man in the street wants value for money from the council. He does not want the extra 1,000 employees whom Stockport council has taken on in the past three years. He does not want it to cost £400,000 merely to provide the wages of employees in the education department. He wants value for money. He wants services to be contracted out to people who can provide decent services. In Stockport recently, refuse collection was contracted out, saving £1·3 million a year. Why was that not done years ago if the local authority was worried about what it costs to maintain all the people who are meant to be working for the council?
    During the 1980s, local authorities were exempt from what was going on elsewhere in the economy. Every shop, office, factory, hotel or business has had to provide more with fewer people, but at the town halls the party has gone on.

    379
    Anthony Crosland spoke in Manchester in May 1975. He appealed to the patriotism of local authorities. He said, "The party's over." The party was not over then, it has not been over since, and it never will be until the town halls are made accountable. I appeal to the few faint hearts among Conservative Members to recognise that town halls must be accountable. That is what the people want. I am completely behind the community charge and, come the next election, we will see that the majority of people in Britain are, too.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. George Galloway: The speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) was breathtaking in its simplicity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down the byways that he travelled.
    While you were here, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps even more after you left, there was an extraordinary amount of laughter from Conservative Members. At first I thought that they had lunched rather well, but then I saw friends of mine on the Conservative Benches who scarcely lunch at all so I realised that it could not be that. For a group of sailors sitting atop a flagship which is simultaneously burning and holed below the water line, I found it an extraordinary performance. Given the current opinion polls, I thought that it was demob happiness, but then I concluded that it was nervous laughter as the Conservative party faces the prospect of judgment by the electorate next Thursday.
    Amid all the public school hilarity, there was no sense of the tremendous forces at work in response to the poll tax. The only Conservative Member to speak with any sense so far—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—talked about the forces that have moved the matrons of Maidenhead on to the streets. Others mentioned the forces that have moved the burghers of Bath to call a general strike of tradespeople and shopkeepers in protest at what Conservative Members found so funny this afternoon.
    Perhaps it was sense of dread as they watched the Labour by-election victories in such places as Cornwall and Devon, where Labour has not won seats for several generations that made Conservative Members laugh; perhaps it was the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) which was concentrating their minds and making them so nervous; perhaps it was the resonance that the scarcely covert campaign of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is finding in Tory ranks around the country that made them nervous. If they are not nervous, and the laughter was genuinely careless, Conservative Members are behaving like turkeys voting for an early Christmas.
    The essence of the first two hours of this debate was summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in a sentence. He said that there was a sense of complacency, and that Parliament was addressing a subject which apparently dealt only with England. There was no appreciation of the fact that this is year two of the poll tax for the people of Scotland; there was no sense of Conservative Members' having grasped the popular revolt and uprising that is occurring in Scotland—statistics that
    380
    I shall give in a minute—in opposition to the poll tax; nor did the House seem to understand the deep sense of offence felt in Scotland at the unseemly scramble by Conservative Members to patch up this or that amendment to try to make the scheme more palatable.
    For the 12 months in which the poll tax was being rammed down the throats of the people of Scotland, Conservative Members did not want to know: that includes the right hon. Member for Henley, who voted for the poll tax to be imposed in Scotland but has latterly found some sense of opposition to it. There was no sense of the pain felt by hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland.
    I do not think that Conservative Members are aware that, in Glasgow alone, 107,000 people have been issued with summary warrants because they are so far in arrears with their poll tax. Some people—like me—are refusing to pay out of a sense of solidarity with the far greater number who cannot pay their poll tax bills—107,000 in the city of Glasgow.
    Mr. Janman: Labour charges.
    Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman says "Labour charges." Even he would not regard Glasgow district council or Strathclyde regional council as loony left.
    Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Galloway: I do not have time.
    Some 400,000 people in Strathclyde region—nearly a quarter of the population—have been issued with summary warrants because they are so far in arrears with their poll tax payments; some 200,000 people in the Lothians—many in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh—have been issued with summary warrants. Strathclyde regional council has a financial shortfall of £100 million.
    The worst is yet to come. The benefit arrestments have begun to arrive at the Department of Social Security offices in Scotland. Any day now, clerks in those offices will be asked to axe the poll tax out of the social security benefits of people whom the Government regard as on the brink of absolute poverty—at subsistence level. They will have part of their benefit seized to pay the poll tax. Is that what Conservative Members find so funny? Some 15,000 people in Strathclyde region have left the electoral register in the past 12 months because they cannot pay the poll tax; children are leaving the parental home because their mums and dads cannot pay the poll tax. Conservative Members find it all so funny.
    In an interview with the Scottish Daily Express—what else?—the Prime Minister said that people such as me who are refusing to pay the poll tax for reasons of solidarity are anarchists and shirkers. That is rich coming from a woman who is seeking to abolish the state more completely than any anarchist could. If she has ever done a real job, it was a long time ago.
    Mr. Holt: What have you done?
    Mr. Galloway: I have worked hard all my life with my hands, and not as a bookie's runner. I am not an anarchist or a shirker. I am not even especially left wing. I am not in the Campaign group or the Tribune group. However, I am standing alongside the hundreds of thousands in Scotland who cannot pay the poll tax that Conservative Members find so funny.

    381
    I started my speech with a watery metaphor, and I shall finish with one: the Tory flagship is beginning to take on one hell of a resemblance to the Titanic, and Ministers are doing little more than rearranging the deckchairs.
    6.57 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not a fact that people on social security receive rebates of up to 80 per cent., and that social security was upped to take account of the national average of the 20 per cent. level? I attended this debate because I wanted to know Labour's policy, but its position remains gloriously unclear. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) does not yet have a policy—a consistent record; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has a policy, already known as the roof tax, the details of which are still confidential; and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has the figures, which he believes should be shown to the local voters of Scotland before their regional elections on Thursday week.
    Perhaps wisely, those hon. Members did not want to let the Scottish people into the details of the secret before their votes were in the ballot box. I say "wisely" because this morning they announced some figures that did not add up. Apparently, however, they intend to use Scotland as a test-bed for the roof tax before extending it to England and Wales.
    I was curious to know what impact the roof tax would have on my constituents in Gravesham. Given the current precepts from Gravesham borough council and Kent county council, the roof tax would be as follows: on a house valued at £30,000—there are few, if any, in Gravesham—it would be £234; on one valued at £80,000 it would be £625, which is more than double the current community charge; and on one valued at £120,000—there are many in my south-eastern constituency—the tax would be no less than £936, and so upwards.
    Both the Labour and Liberal parties have enthused about a local income tax. On the same basis as precepts, Gravesham people would pay a local income tax of 5·1 in the pound from the first £1 of their income. That is based on the spending of careful Conservative authorities. If Gravesham council were Labour-controlled, the bills would he far higher; for example, local people are paying a community charge of £293, whereas people in Labour-controlled Thurrock, just across the Thames, are suffering a charge of no less than £414.
    Opposition Members claim that there is no significant difference in the precept between Labour and Conservative authorities. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) told us that in the debate on community charge capping on 3 April. He went further in a Labour party press release on 18 April, when he said:
    "The average poll tax in Conservative and Labour councils hardly differs."
    Really? There is a marked difference in the community charges of Conservative and Labour areas.
    Statistics compiled by the Library show that the average community charge of districts that have Conservative unitary authorities—London or metropolitan boroughs—or are under Conservative shire county and district councils, of which there are 95, is £333. In Labour-controlled areas, of which, sadly, there are 73, local people suffer an average community charge of £384. Although £51 may not be a lot for the hon. Member for Dagenham, it certainly is for most people, particularly
    382
    when the services of Labour councils are usually no better and are frequently worse than those from Conservative councils.
    In the three similar Liberal-controlled districts, the average community charge is £360, an effective surcharge of £27 for the rarity value of Liberal control.
    Those figures mask the reality. We forget too easily the impact of the safety net, whereby, perhaps because of the misguided generosity of the Government, by and large, residents of prudent Conservative authorities are obliged to subsidise the residents of wasteful Labour authorities. If those surcharges and handouts are stripped out. the arithmetological inexactitude of the hon. Member for Dagenham almost becomes a case for reference to the Advertising Standards Authority.
    Totally Conservative areas are charging an average of £305, compared with the rip-off in totally Labour areas of £412—a differential of no less than £107 per head for the privilege of voting Labour. Totally Liberal areas are charging £392—a Liberal addition of £87 compared with Conservative areas. Those raw figures show the result of the "party that can". They certainly can. They can take local people's money in grand style.
    I have some further examples of rip-offs. Were it not for the generosity of the Government's safety net, people in the London borough of Greenwich would be paying £620. The rest of us are subsidising Greenwich residents by no less than £212 per head, just because they have a traditionally wasteful Labour council. Lambeth's real rip-off is £575, not the £548 that it tried to levy on local people. Southwark would have had to charge £550 were it not for our subsidy of £160, and Hammersmith and Fulham would have had to charge £535 but for our subsidy of £111. One could go on and on. The only consistent link between those councils is their tradition of Labour dominance.
    Opposition Members like to claim that Conservative authorities have high charges. Many of those charges are levied after the addition of hefty contributions to the safety net. A full £75 is paid by every man and woman in districts such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Wokingham, South Buckinghamshire and Chiltern. In Gravesham district, people are being levied £15. The consistent thread between those contributing authorities is that they are Conservative-controlled, but scant thanks for that money is forthcoming from the Labour party.
    We are debating the largest ever reform of local government finance and taxation. There are bound to be teething troubles and inequities when introducing such a vast reform, as there are in this case. I welcome the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider those anomalies, and refer him to some that should be considered. They include the fairness of a full levy on non-working wives and mothers. Should we be imposing a equal levy on such people, who are not earning but who are contributing to the future of the nation by bringing up our children?
    Should there be unequal treatment of the old and infirm in retirement homes and of those who remain in their own homes, frequently cared for by relatives with the support of community care?
    Are there not injustices in vacant homes incurring standard community charge, occasioned by death and probate or by working away from home, and in the

    383
    transition between lets of accommodation rented out by landlords, frequently widows, with only one additional property?
    We must address such anomalies, and we have this year to get them right. We should not be panicked by the scaremongering of the Labour party, which is exploiting people's natural fears and understandable dislike of tax. Local government is inevitably expensive and we should not hide that from our constituents, but nor should we hide the record of the parties on value for the money taken.
    The Labour party may be enjoying itself at the moment, but the British people are not fools and they will look at the facts. When they see the facts of the Labour party's proposals, when it has the courage to divulge them, the grins will be wiped from Labour Members' faces.
    7.5 pm
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Labour party made it abundantly clear when the poll tax legislation was being considered by the House that it did not want the poll tax at any price and that it did not want to gain political advantage from it. That point was made repeatedly, is on the record and still stands today.
    I apologise to the Front-Bench spokesmen for missing most of their speeches, but that was because of my attendance at the Public Accounts Committee.
    There is not a single problem raised about the implementation of the poll tax by hon. Members and people outside the House about which a warning has not been given. Warnings were given when the House was considering the legislation in 1987 and 1988. The Government published warnings in their 1981 Green Paper, "Alternatives To Domestic Rates". Everything that could go wrong with the poll tax is listed in chapter 7 of that Command Paper, yet the Government still proceeded with it. They cannot say that they were not warned, and because of that we make no apology for reaping the political reward of opposing this unfair, immoral and undemocratic tax.
    The tax cannot be administered—that was made clear by the Government in the Green Paper and in the White Paper that followed in 1983—as a person tax. Last Friday morning, I visited Birmingham's poll tax office. People with queries were queuing outside it, but inside were professional local government officers doing their best to administer the law, and a pile of envelopes in cardboard boxes at least the size of the Table of the House. That was the returned mail for the Wednesday after Easter of poll tax bills not received by citizens of Birmingham. There must have been tens of thousands of envelopes. It will not be possible to keep track of people on a daily basis, but every one of those envelopes must be chased up. It will be almost impossible to administer the tax in that way, as we said at the time.
    It is disappointing that I cannot find Tories in Birmingham to defend the tax. I have four meetings planned in my constituency between tomorrow and Monday night, not all of which will be party-political platforms. Tories have been invited to send representatives to each of those meetings, but no one can be found to defend the poll tax. That has happened consistently this year.
    384
    The poll tax will cause massive dislocation of family incomes, as I have said repeatedly on the House, as those on less than average earnings pay more so that those on above average earnings can pay less. My constituency is the largest in Birmingham; three quarters of it is outer suburbs and a quarter inner city, but all areas are losers. They will pay £10 million more in poll tax than they would have paid in rates, even if the rates had increased by 12 per cent.
    The people of Perry Barr do not have a spare £10 million. They will go without food and fuel to pay their poll tax bills, and as a result their mental and physical health will deteriorate. I have seen the haunted look in people's eyes when it has suddenly dawned on them how much they will have to pay now that the bills have dropped through their letter boxes. Panic is setting in among ordinary people on ordinary incomes, living in ordinary streets in ordinary dwellings, who cannot afford to pay these extra amounts which are way above the rate demands.
    This is a legal tax, but the legislation was passed undemocratically in the House by the use of guillotine. I checked out the Tory Members who rammed this tax through the House. The people who backed the Tory Members who forced through the final vote on the amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on 18 April 1988 when the Government's majority was the lowest, at 25, comprised 21 per cent. of the electorate and 29 per cent. of those who voted in a general election. There is no doubt about it: it is an undemocratic tax.
    There must be criteria for fair taxation. No Labour Member would argue that we should not have taxes—I would disown someone who did. Taxes are part of the community kitty. We cannot all have our own private facilities, but the criteria must be clear. Taxes must be practical—the poll tax is not. Taxes must be fair and must make those who take local expenditure decisions properly accountable—the poll tax has nothing to do with local accountability. The costs of administration and collection must be kept within acceptable limits—the poll tax is running at three times, not twice, the level of the rates. That is not acceptable.
    Taxes must encourage proper financial control. I accept that a tax must be suitable for all tiers of local government. It must stand the test of time. Any tax that cannot stand the test of time will be unworkable and unworked, because those who have the duty to work it know that it will not last, inevitably leaving problems in its wake. Those are the Tory Government's criteria, which were laid down in their 1981 Green Paper. The poll tax does not meet one of them.
    I do not want my party to compete with the Government, saying, "Our system will have more people on rebates than yours." I should like a system in which no one is on rebates. No one gets rebates on income tax, because a person does not pay it unless his or her income justifies the payment. The more income one has, the more tax one pays.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will be telling. I suspect that the Government will move somehow to adopt a banded system. That is their only escape route. They will not go back to a property tax and they will not want a fully local income tax. Our view is that property should carry taxation—the occupation of property should carry taxation—and whether that money is used for local government or

    385
    national Government expenditure does not matter. I do not believe that, without the tax, property prices would be forced up, but that is not a good thing anyway.
    I shall defend one, two or three taxes for local government, provided they meet the criterion of fairness. No one likes paying taxes, but people will object less to paying fair taxes than to paying unfair taxes. It does not matter whether the taxes are a mixture of property tax and income tax or whether we go the whole way and have a banded system or a fully fledged income tax. Property should carry a tax, and probably not on its value—a tax on the size of the floor area that it occupies, or even on site value. That is my public position, and I make it clear to my colleagues.
    Such a system can be achieved in several ways. There is nothing unique about it, because virtually every means that one can imagine operates administratively perfectly in most other countries that use these systems. We have become hung up on this issue. We should discuss how to finance local government and, from my party's point of view, how to replace the poll tax, which must go.
    I freely admit that I would prefer a mixture of taxes based on property and on income. Both can be seen to be fair and practical. Neither need cost a fortune to collect. Above all, they would not produce a massive impost and dislocation of family incomes. They would not drive people further into poverty and ill-health, as the poll tax will do, and that is why I vehemently oppose it.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: Not for the first time, I find myself very much in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said. As he probably knows, I have never supported this tax. I did not vote for it when it was introduced in Scotland. I have never voted for it and have voted against it on crucial occasions.
    The problem with this tax is that, to quote a recent metaphor, it fails the cricket test. This tax is fundamentally unfair and people in this country like fair play. It is not cricket. The system must be significantly amended if it is to become acceptable to people: to the elderly couple who come to my surgery and ask, "Mr. Cormack, do I give up my holiday or my car?"; to the young husband who says, "We had planned for my wife to stay at home and bring up the child, giving up her job, but now she does not think that she can afford to do so"; to the teacher who is moving into my constituency and who, because the property market is sluggish, is paying poll tax on two properties, one of which is empty; and to the vicar with a small cottage in the country which happens to be in a Labour-controlled local authority area—Labour Members may not like this point—who will have to pay a double charge, as the standard charge on a property which he will seldom occupy and which is the only property that he owns. That is unfair.
    It is unfair also that a shopkeeper who is trying to provide a service in a rural community faces the problem of mixed hereditament and has to pay poll tax and the business rate. Encapsulating the unfairness of the tax is the most unfair example of all—two people in my constituency living within about 500 yd of each other, one in a mobile home and the other in a house worth £500,000, each having to pay the same. That is not fair and never could be. It is regressive taxation of the worst kind.
    386
    That is why I have consistently opposed the poll tax. I have done so not because I believe that the adult wage-earner should not make a contribution—he or she should. On three occasions I introduced a rating reform Bill which would have made every adult wage-earner pay a contribution. I had the great distinction of having among my supporters at least twice my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who is in the Chamber, and on one occasion my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If we had moved along those lines, I do not think that anyone with a sense of fair play could conceivably have objected. But we have done something that flies in the face of our party's principles and beliefs, which have evolved over centuries. We must do something about it.
    I am a realist. I fully accept that we shall not be able to abolish the charge or repeal the legislation and that we must make the system work. There are two ways in which we can do that. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to address himself to them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a magnificent speech, but he did not address himself sufficiently to the seriousness of the situation. I am not flannelling when I say that I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are Ministers who can listen. It is imperative for them and for this country's future that they do.
    It is important that we look at the admirable solution suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has been a consistent and doughty opponent of the charge, and who talked about banding. If that were brought in, there would be a reflection of the ability to pay, and the fundamental "it's not cricket" response of so many of our constituents would be dealt with.
    The other solution is one that I have advocated on many occasions with the eloquent support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North. It is to transfer the burden of education, or at least of teachers' salaries, to the Exchequer. I am aware that that is not a simple solution and that the money must be found from somewhere, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many more opportunities of raising money than the one tax that we are discussing.
    If the community charge is to remain a flat rate tax, like the car tax or the televison licence—I do not suggest that they are analagous and no one should think I do—it must be at a low level which is not a burdensome and cruel imposition on people. If education, were taken out, or just teachers' salaries, leaving administration to local authorities and thus a degree of local authority control, the tax could be reduced significantly. It is impossible to do proper calculations, but I have received figures from the Library today showing that a reduction of about £150 would probably be fairly common. That is based on the Government's own basic figure of £370. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has all the resources at his command and could probably tell us just what a significant reduction there would be.
    One of the solutions that I have mentioned must be adopted. It is no good tinkering at the edges or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said, throwing money at the problem. If the Government throw in another £3 billion next year, it will be £3 billion the year after and £3 billion the year after that. That will not tackle the root problem.

    387
    It will merely mask accountability which, after all, was one of the fundamental reasons why the Government introduced it in the first place.
    We should also bear it in mind that education is increasingly a national service. We have a national curriculum and more schools are beginning to consider opting out of local authority control. Also, teachers' salaries are set at national level. Local authorities cannot decide that they will not pay a certain salary. And with declining school rolls in the immediate future, education is the one major service from which fewer people will directly benefit in any given local authority area.
    For all the reasons that I have given, this solution should be carefully considered. I know that it is not a simple or perfect solution. Like the Irishman, I should not have started from here. I should not have brought in this wretched tax in the first place. However, we are landed with it and we must make it workable and fair. If we do not—I direct my remarks particularly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—all the fine achievements of the Government over the past 11 years, and there have been many, will be in jeopardy. The tax will join ship money, the stamp duty and all the other taxes which so incensed people that they turned on those who brought them in. I do not wish to see the Government, whom I support and am proud to support, brought down by a fiscal nonsensical introduction which, if it is not significantly amended, will always be associated with this Government and will tarnish their reputation in history.
    7.23 pm
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: First, I record my disapproval of the time spent by the Front-Bench teams today. They took one hour 50 minutes for their opening speeches, which deprived Back Benchers of debating time. I speak from authority as someone with eight years' experience as a senior Whip defending the interests of Back Benchers against Privy Councillors, prima donnas and alleged Front-Bench seniority. It is distasteful that the Front Benchers became so involved that they practically doubled the time usually taken for the opening speeches.
    Time and again during the past three years, before setting any rate, my local authority of Wigan has presented to Government officials a team of Members of Parliament and local government officers. We have done so religiously for three consecutive years. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) was present on those occasions. We clearly and methodically presented our financial slate to the Minister and his civil servants. We proved that Wigan borough council was a wise and prudent spender of its people's moneys.
    We were then described as a wreckless, irrational spender trying to prove a distorted political point. I ask the House to consider that I have a majority of 17,000 and the other three Members of Parliament within that area have majorities of 21,000, 16,500 and roughly 17,000. Can anyone seriously believe that we would want to make a political point in dealing with ordinary people's money and accountability to them? That is sheer nonsense. I reiterate that that label cannot be justified and I hope to show the House why.
    388
    All the figures had been submitted to the Department, first in writing and then orally. This year, the team that came to see the Minister included the leader of the Conservative group on Wigan council, and the Liberal leader. The group was a cross-section of the political parties on the council. We all agree unanimously on the submissions that we made. What happened to us? We were charge-capped to the extent of £10 million, and 1,000 local government jobs were put at risk. That was the prize for playing by the Queensberry rules and submitting the figures in advance.
    Councils are penalised for being open, frank and democratic and putting their facts before the Government. I hope to show why I claim that there has been discrimination and victimisation against a Labour-controlled authority which attempted to come clean and play by the Queensberry rules.
    With the exception of education, Wigan spends 5 per cent. less on all its services than any other council in the Greater Manchester area or any metropolitan district. The borough had the 29th lowest of 36 standard spending assessments for metropolitan districts. The Greater Manchester region, of which we are part, had an average 6·1 per cent. increase in its SSA, compared to the GRE figure for 1989–90. The average metropolitan district increase is 7·3 per cent. What is Wigan's? It is 0·06 per cent. We are penalised and put at the bottom of the relegation zone as we have been for some years, no matter which formula we worked under. Our SSA is £113 per head, again below the Greater Manchester average, and £118 below the average for all metropolitan districts.
    What do we have to do to prove to the Minister that we are good housekeepers? Accountability has always been built into the system. Let us compare Wigan with Wandsworth, Westminster or Windsor which had a budget overshoot of £159 without being charge-capped. Wigan is permitted to spend £806 per head against Westminster's £1,486 per head. There is no comparison. Whether or not people like the north-south argument, we shall consistently perpetuate that imbalance and it will be a sore between all parties, which will be angry at the imbalances and unequal treatment meted out in the north and this part of the south. I make that comment, not as a political point, but to show that there must be concern and anxiety that such imbalances exist.
    I said that, in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, we came to the Minister. An independent view can be seen in The Economist, which claimed that Wigan was Britain's most efficient council. It states:
    "Almost 5 per cent. of the London boroughs' council dwellings were empty in April 1986, three times the Wigan figure".
    It also said that housing management costs in London worked out at £250 per dwelling, against £70 for Wigan, and tenants in London paid less than 22 per cent. of total housing costs, against Wigan's 36 per cent. It continued:
    "The share of costs met from rates more than doubled to 12 per cent., three times the Wigan level."
    Those were the figures for the London boroughs. I shall come to a famous borough later. I see that the hon. Member for Itchen is smiling. That famous borough was subsidised by about 17 per cent., and Wigan got nothing. The Economist's independent survey showed that. Wigan is not the only example. The Londoners relied on central Government grants for 80 per cent. of their spending.

    389
    Wigan is quite a proficient council with professional standards, but we got only 50 per cent., compared with the 80 per cent. received by the borough that I mentioned.
    We talk in compassionate terms about children's homes, which are a serious issue. In Wigan, children's homes cost less than £10,000 per child in care, whereas in London boroughs they cost £13,000. On minor roads, £8,500 per kilometre is spent in London, and in Wigan only £3,750.
    Which was the rogue borough? It was Tory Wandsworth. The Economist said:
    "And which, you may wonder, is this wastrel borough? Or, if your politics are different, this truly socialist one? In fact, the borough concerned is neither. It is the radical-Tory Wandsworth, the model of an efficient, market-orientated"
    classic example of pure local government administration and accountability. If that is the case, I have a super Wigan, as against that sort of authority. The Under-Secretary won his spurs as leader of Wandsworth council.
    Last week, most hon. Members received a booklet about the community charge issued by the Department of the Environment which deals with the community charge and rents. It is well-designed and clear and distinctive. This weekend, when I went back to my constituency, I was met with a delegation of tenants of rented property. They said, "Could we put it to you that we expect our rents to be dropped accordingly? The rate was £7 per week.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I regret that I shall have to call the hon. Gentleman to order. His 10 minutes are up.
    Mr. Cunliffe: I have had to rush my speech, when I had the common courtesy earlier not to intervene in the speeches of other right hon. and hon. Members.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be strict and impose the Standing Order.
    7.33 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: I shall not follow the example of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and I shall not challenge any ruling that you give me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I intend to speak about Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) was not suggesting that Conservative Members knew nothing about work. I am sure that he will agree that that is not so.
    There is a good reason why we should consider Scotland. In the first year of operation of the community charge in Scotland, the added increase in local authority expenditure was more than double the inflation rate. That followed substantial increases in local government grant settlements. I expect that sounds vaguely familiar to hon. Members from England. The community charge is in its second year in Scotland, and this year is the year of regional elections in Scotland, and 20 councils have spending plans which are the same, or below, those of last year, and the remainder have estimates at about, or just below, the inflation rate. That shows that at least the local accountability element is working. Therefore, a major aspect of the community charge in Scotland can be said to be working.
    On Monday 19 March, the Scottish Grand Committee met in Edinburgh. The matter for debate that day was local government finance—the community charge, or poll tax as it has come to be known. That was the first day that the Scottish Grand Committee was televised, and not one
    390
    individual came to demonstrate about a matter that, according to some of the interventions that we have heard, has been inciting people to lawlessness. Even more interesting, that was the first and only occasion on which there had not been a demonstration when the Grand Committee was meeting in the old high school building in Edinburgh. At every previous sitting of the Committee in Edinburgh there had been demonstrations outside, but there were no demonstrations against the poll tax.
    That is concrete evidence that the people of Scotland have substantially accepted, as much as people ever accept the payment of tax, that the community charge is the best means of paying for the top-up figure of local government expenditure. The bulk of such expenditure is paid by central taxation and non-domestic ratepayers. We are talking about a top-up figure, not total expenditure.
    It seems that, certainly in Tayside, the regional assessors—those responsible in Scotland for the non-domestic rates—have produced valuations in my constituency that lack consistency and fail to make sense. There is nothing new about that; we had the problem before, which led us to the community charge. That problem, combined with the rates and the rate valuation, made it impossible for the Government of the day to continue with that.
    In an answer given to me today, I note that in Angus the combined rate poundage of district and region in 1989–90 is 72·2p, and in 1990–91 it should be—note the reduction—53·6p. In Perthshire, the respective figures are 72·7p and 54p. Therefore, provided the valuations are sensible, the cash paid for non-domestic rates in 1990–91 should not be penal. I shall wait and see because I know from experience that the valuations are, once again, likely to have gone bananas.
    What of the alternatives? Today the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) failed to answer the question that I put to him, deliberately avoiding it and saying that he would discuss Scotland later. He did that because Labour's proposals for Scotland—the roof tax—have been clearly outlined. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) keeps telling us that we will get the details long before 3 May, but we got part of the details today. Not only did the hon. Member for Dagenham not tell us about Labour's proposals for England and Wales; he failed to endorse the statement made by Labour in Scotland today, which is not surprising. He had probably been advised about the shambles in Scotland, where the only figure given was for a typical couple in an average house—it would have been £487 last year. Any inspection of this figure will show that, allowing for inflation, let alone anything else, it is complete nonsense relative to last year's rates. So much was made clear at the meeting.
    As reported on the tapes, when questioned about other properties, the Labour party in Scotland could give no answers because it has not thought through or worked through the proposals. So the Leader of the Opposition tells the world that there is little support for a tax based on property values, while the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment fails to explain or endorse the statements made in Scotland. All this means that Labour is determined to use Scotland as a guinea pig. Add to that Labour's plans for the rural economy in Scotland and its hidden agenda, which includes rates on farmland, on woodland and on farm buildings, and the compulsory purchase of estates and holiday homes, and it becomes

    391
    clear how exciting the prospects for Scotland are. Property values will plunge and firms will be run at a loss to avoid payment of non-domestic rates. And there is more to come.
    I turn now to local income tax, which is the SNP's and Liberal Democrats' recipe for the top-up figure. I note that not a single representative of those parties is present in the Chamber. I have an admission to make: for two years I tried to make a local income tax work and I could not make it work in Scotland at that time because I did not live and work in the same place. For example, I live in Blairgowrie, I work in London and my tax office is in Cardiff. Not all tax offices are computerised so that they can swap information.
    This was only one of the problems. Sparsity of population in Scotland was another. The latest figures published in column 1023 of the Official Report on 19 April clearly show what that means. A single person on Scottish average earnings would be required to pay in local income tax £812 in Angus and £828 in Perthshire. He would be required to pay £900 in Dundee. If such a tax were ever introduced, it would clear the highlands of Scotland in a way never achieved during the clearances.
    I know that there are flaws and weaknesses in the Government's proposals, but I have spent most of my life in Parliament dealing with anomalies in the rates. It would be astonishing if we brought in a local government tax that did not contain anomalies. One of our jobs is to ensure that they are removed, and I have every confidence that Treasury Ministers will do just that.
    7.44 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I was a little disturbed when the debate began with the noisy and hysterical reaction from Conservative Members, which seemed to strike a panicky note. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made an excellent speech in the face of all that unruly panic. He rightly referred to the undemocratic nature of the poll tax and to the considerable falling off in the numbers of those on the register—15,000 in Strathclyde alone.
    The poll tax is not only unfair, it is anti-democratic and it lacks any democratic legitimacy. It is nonsense to say that the British people voted for it. The Tory manifesto for the last election, the most detailed in post-war history at about 25,000 words, contained 82 on the poll tax. The Government smuggled it past the electorate and then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, they rammed it through the House.
    My local authority, Calderdale, was 34th from the bottom of the league, with a very low poll tax of £297—yet it is to be poll tax-capped. Over the past 10 years, Calderdale has struggled to maintain and improve essential services while the Government have taken away more and more of its grant. Now we are told that we are profligate and not fit to set a budget. That is highly insulting to the hard-working, decent councillors who give up many hours of unpaid time because they are dedicated to the people of Halifax and Calderdale.
    Why was our standard spending assessment set at 5 per cent. above inflation when the average for metropolitan authorities was 11 per cent.? It is sheer irresponsibility to poll tax-cap an authority such as ours and the Minister
    392
    must know that his actions will force Calderdale to make millions of pounds' worth of cuts in services, which will hurt our area. We cannot make such cuts without seriously damaging services. We cannot get away with fringe cuts—there is no fat to cut. We are a small, moderate district authority, built up from a very low rate base, and our spending goes on real services. I defy the Minister to come and show me where there is waste.
    The voluntary sector in Calderdale is worried. The citizens advice bureaux and many bodies like them which receive grants are extremely anxious. Of course, their grants have increased over the years because they have had to expand their services, given the great problems that the Government have created. The massive growth in poverty over which the Government have presided, the housing crisis, the huge build-up of personal debt and he cuts in benefit and in the NHS have inevitably led to a growth in the budget of a caring local authority. One voluntary sector body that comes to mind about which I feel strongly is the Crossroads scheme, an excellent scheme in Calderdale. Many letters in the local press have supported it, yet it is worried about cuts in its grant that might result from capping. Crossroads is a cheap but valuable service that relieves carers who look after frail people in the community. Both it and the home help service are worried, as are people who work in old people's homes.
    The Secretary of State visited Halifax yesterday. As I said when raising an earlier point of order, he crept in like a thief in the night without telling anybody that he was going there. The first I knew of his visit was when I saw a letter on the notice board saying that he was to visit Halifax yesterday. That was discourteous, which was why I challenged him about it.
    The right hon. Gentleman told the press yesterday that he was protecting the people of Calderdale by capping the poll tax. He visited the richest area in Halifax, Savile park. He went there to support local Tories who were launching their local government election campaign. Those local Tories said that people in Halifax were not concerned about the poll tax and that dog dirt was more of a problem. So on the day when my council was in court applying for judicial review to protect valuable services such as Crossroads, the Minister was making dog dirt his priority. I am concerned about dogs fouling the pavements, but such action on the part of the Secretary of State is beyond the pale.
    In his cheap, knockabout speech, the Minister did not tell the House about the teachers who lobbied him yesterday and who told him that if he went ahead with his cuts they would put education back 15 years in Halifax. We still do not have a comprehensive education system in Halifax and to set the clock back another 15 years is unthinkable.
    The Secretary of State recently accepted a system for local financial management of schools. He said that it was a good system, but is he now about to tell teachers and administrators to cut their budgets? How will he justify that? Will he tell us how many teachers and ancillary workers will be lost from the schools in which £5·6 million of cuts have to be made? The National Association of Head Teachers is considering challenging the Government in court, and no hon. Member can tell me that that association represents the loony left.
    Calderdale is a large geographical area with a small population and our services are expensive to provide. That is common sense. We kept our poll tax down and, as I said,

    393
    we were 34th from the bottom of the list. The poll tax is nothing more than an act of violence perpetrated by the rich and powerful against those who have very little. I do not enjoy seeing pensioners crying in my surgery and saying that they have to take sleeping pills at night because they are anxious and do not know how they will find an extra £3 or £4 a week. To someone on a low income, such a sum can be a devastating blow to a budget.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) I am taking a non-payment stand. I see from The Guardian last week that three Anglican bishops, a Roman Catholic bishop and five non-conformist leaders think that it is a good act of conscience on behalf of the poor. I support my people who cannot pay and I throw down a challenge to the Minister and to Conservative Members. They have been vocal in asking about our plans. What do they intend to do about the people who cannot pay? At what level of poverty are they prepared to come in and help such people? I know what I shall do.
    The rich can always avoid taxes that they do not like, and I am quite sure that many hon. Members have lawyers and accountants to help them to avoid such taxes. The poor do not have that option, and in the face of a Government who simply refuse to listen I am proud to take a non-payment stand. With poll tax capping, the Secretary of State has acted in the best traditions of Mussolini. He is a town-hall Mussolini. It grieves me to say it, but I would not be disappointed if he ended up meeting the same fate.
    7.52 pm
    Mr. Den Dover: The community charge has my wholehearted support. The principle is accepted on the doorsteps in Lancashire, but we have to look carefully at the rules and regulations that apply to the charge. The first answer at Question Time today gave the impression that we are not considering any changes to the regulations. I hope that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is following the debate and that he will look carefully at the rules and regulations before setting the rate of community charge for next year and the rules that apply to it. The main benefits of this debate are that it highlights the unfairnesses in the new tax and that we can make constructive proposals about what could or should be done.
    We changed the taxation system this year so that women are taxed separately. I fully support that move. Therefore, why is it necessary to make husband and wife jointly and severally liable for the community charge? That does not make sense. Some people have said that it is related to housing benefit or social security payments, but when introducing a major tax such as this we should treat it as an individual charge and honour that treatment in all its terms. An unemployed wife who is taxed separately from her husband who may be earning £15,000 or £20,000 should receive the full 80 per cent. rebate. We sold this tax to voters as an individual charge on a person for the services from which he benefits, and we must honour that all the way through.
    Second homes have been mentioned. I am delighted that the Government have given local authorities the flexibility to make a zero standard charge, a half charge, a full charge, a charge of one and a half times or twice the charge. A case similar to that which applies to one of my
    394
    constituents has been mentioned. A teacher living away from my constituency and teaching down south pays the community charge there and has been levied twice the charge—£730—up north on a home that she is in for only a few weeks in the year. That makes no sense.
    What system should apply if the husband and wife are to be treated separately and have a second home that they perhaps own? Can the woman opt to count one of them as hers, while the husband counts the other as his main home, in which case they would pay a single charge in each home? At it is, they pay two full charges for a main home and two charges—if the local authority chooses to levy the standard charge—for the second home. Under a separate charge system they could immediately have their community charge bill halved. That is open to abuse, but I raise it as a point of principle and I hope that the Government have thought it through.
    The Government have said that the rebate system is generous. I admit that an 80 per cent. rebate is more generous than that which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) might employ. He might have people paying half the charge, the full charge or twice the charge, depending upon their highest rate of income tax. I am delighted that students will get the full 80 per cent. rebate. However, we must consider the low rates of income that enable one to qualify for that rebate. We must change the rules. A single person of 18, 20, 25 or 30 or more may earn perhaps £50 or £60 a week. That is not a high wage in today's economy, even in the north-west. I strongly recommend loosening the rules and regulations. There should be much more of a taper in the system.
    The uniform business rate has been mentioned and the north-west will benefit most from that, which I welcome. Many businesses, and especially retailers, are small traders and there are many small country post offices. I have many such businesses in my constituency. They are paying, admittedly after revaluation, five or six times their original bill. The very large do-it-yourself stores such as B and Q pay a charge based on the depth of the store, while the small business or shop has only a small depth of property. District valuers should be asked to be more lenient to small businesses. We should treat the matter on a totally new basis. We could change the community charge, perhaps relating the residential charge to the uniform business rate on mixed premises. We should be able to examine the whole thing and see what is fair and reasonable in today's world.
    Some 15 to 20 years ago, when the last revaluation took place, there were no large sheds housing do-it-yourself shops such as B and Q. Such shops give a very good service and excellent value for money, but the present system is to their benefit and to the disadvantage of the small business man who provides a local service in rural areas. I want to encourage such businesses, because without them rural communities will die.
    What are we to do about local government finance? I have said that the community charge is fair, but how can we overcome the problem of a family of two adults and two children of, say, 18 or 20 years of age who have to pay four community charges? In the past, their rates bill may have been about £150 and they may now be asked for £1,500. That is not uncommon in my constituency. What can one say to such people? One can do more than tell them to claim the maximum rebate to which they are entitled.

    395
    There is much unfairness in the system. Chorley had a Conservative-controlled local authority—it is only a one-seat majority—and it spends exactly in line with the Government's guidelines, and all credit to it for that. However, the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which, again, has only a one-seat majority, has massively overspent. Its budget this year is so enormous that rates would have had to increase by 30 per cent. Instead of the standard community charge of £278, the charge in Chorley is £360, and the extra £80 is shown in each community charge form as being the result of the policies of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. Unfortunately, electors and voters do not read the forms carefully.
    If we are to run United Kingdom Ltd. efficiently in a tight economy and difficult circumstances, we must find better means to control spending. In general, the Government's SSAs are accurate and fair. There are two years before the next general election and the Labour party has said that it will not tinker with the system immediately, so local authorities have three or four years to bring their spending down to a fair level. The SSAs take into account the needs and requirements of the population and its demography. We have had so many different systems that, by now, we should know what the spending levels should be.
    We must change the rules and regulations. Rather than cut rate support grant to local authorities, the Government should have cushioned the blow and been generous. That would have ensured that the community charge was accepted as fair and reasonable, and there would have been wider support for it. We should have less tinkering to do now. We need to look carefully at how we change the system. I was interested to hear the genuine misgivings voiced by Labour Members, and Conservative Members share many of them. We want to see changes, and I am sure that the Government will get a strong message next Thursday which will ensure that in the next few years drastic changes will be made in the level of assessments and spending.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10-minute limit on speeches has been lifted, but some hon. Members have been here throughout the debate and I hope to call everybody who wishes to speak. Therefore, I appeal for voluntary restraint.
    8.2 pm
    Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) will forgive me if I do not follow his somewhat inconsistent speech. However, I shall follow the points made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who made historic references. I often think that we should be better off if hon. Members knew more about history. If the Prime Minister had studied English history instead of the constituents of ice-cream, I doubt that this project would ever have got off the ground.
    One does not have to go back to the 14th century and what happened to the last poll tax to form the fair judgment that the Conservative party has demonstrated its unfitness to have responsibility for the direction of local
    396
    Government. It has been said that this is an historic change in the reform of local government finance. Some of us were Members of Parliament when, through another historic change in local government, a reorganised system was inflicted upon Britain in 1973. That was the most inflationary exercise that Britain had ever experienced. It was clumsy and incompetent, and it caused dramatic heartache to the people in local government, for they had to make that difficult system operate.
    Conservative Members with experience in local government know that that is true. Now they are perpetrating a larger, and perhaps more painful and unfair, error. It will lead to an unfair and corrupt system that has been compounded by the decision to poll tax-cap authorities such as that which I represent and others in Yorkshire.
    Let me make one thing clear. It has become fashionable for Conservative Members to talk about local government as spendthrift and inefficient. I have said before that, if central Government were as efficient as local government, the country would be a great deal better off after 10 years of this Administration. Look at the Sheffield Forgemasters business with Iraq. We do not know the difference between a gun and a petrol pump. Today's trade figures are twice as bad as the Government and the City were expecting.
    After the Government's decision to poll tax-cap, the director of education in Rotherham, Mr. Snowden, sent me a serious letter, and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ask him to take the trouble to read this letter from a splendid educationist, and to respond himself. My secretary has worked for me for 16 or 17 years. She said to me, "You know what will happen." I said, "Tell me." She said, "We will send the letter to the Department and within two or three days I will get a telephone call saying that it has mislaid the letter and could I send a copy of it." I said, "I do not think that that will happen with such a serious letter." She said, "It has happened every time we have sent a letter like that to the Department of Education and Science in the past two years." Sure enough, three days later, we had a telephone call from an official asking for a copy of the letter because the Department had lost it.
    I am glad that the Under-Secretary is in the Chamber. On 3 April, the Government announced that they would be capping the poll tax. My council was condemned as inefficient and spendthrift. However, on 10 April, I got a letter from the Under-Secretary paying tribute to my council for its "tremendous effort" in administering the poll tax and in managing to send out the community charge bills. My council is efficient, but it did not know where it was. Three days after the financial year began, the Secretary of State said that it was not efficient and should be punished for being spendthrift, although apparently his colleague did not know that.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment used to run Wandsworth council, which seems to be one of the only two boroughs about which the Government are concerned. The other is Westminster, with which I shall compare Rotherham. Will the Minister comment on some of these figures? I have already set out some of them in a motion, but that motion tells only part of the story because I did not want to occupy too much space.
    Rotherham, as the Minister knows because he has been to see it, has enormous problems. It has an above-average number of old people and of children of school age, with all the financial implications that that presents. This year,

    397
    its spending will be £821·93 per head. Westminster has fewer old people because many have capitalised on the housing boom and left. It has an enormous income from second homes, to which at least 60 or 70 Members of Parliament contribute. It is a compact area with little of the unemployment and dereliction that we face. It is not supposed to be a big spender, but its average spending is £1,181·54—£259 more than Rotherham.
    Let us look at the income. The poll tax in Westminster is £195, its business rate is £292, its education grant, because it is in the metropolis, is £53·32 and it has other income of £11·11 which, together with the standard spending grant of £865·84, makes a total of £1,420·78.
    According to the Government, Rotherham is a wicked authority. It has set a poll tax of £334 and there is the business rate of £292. With low rateable values and the destruction of industry over the past decade, it has received the enormously generous grant of £ 18·39. There is other income of £28. The standard spending grant is £188·39. That produces a total of about £861.
    Westminster's income is enormously greater than that of Rotherham's, and so is its spending. Westminster's needs are not as great as the areas which my hon. Friend's and I represent and about which we are concerned. The figures to which I have drawn attention show that the spending assessments by the Government were deficient from the start. I can only express astonishment that the Government did not foresee the horrifying consequences. Indeed, they compounded them by the unfairness and corruption of the capping list which the Secretary of State produced.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Perhaps my intervention will provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to recover from his exaggerated statement. As he has acknowledged that the important feature is the standard spending assessment, I invite him to consider the positions of Lambeth and Wandsworth, which he has not included in the figures to which he drew attention. Lambeth receives one third more in grant than Wandsworth, yet there is a great disparity in the community charges that the boroughs have set. Westminster is budgeting to spend 7 per cent. below its standard spending assessment while Rotherham has chosen to budget excessively at 20 per cent. above its SSA.
    Mr. Hardy: Rotherham is budgeting for a modest increase in the level of services that it provides to match the increase in the number of children and old people. The growth element, as it was, is only £3 million. It is a far smaller sum than that created by the additional demands made by Government policies.
    In reply to a parliamentary question which I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State replied to the effect that Rotherham will be able to obey the capping order without disrupting services. I do not know what preparation was made for that answer. If the capping order is implemented, scarcely any books will be bought by the library. Of course, the Government are not worried about that. Rotherham will have to reduce the quality of school meals. There will be implications for swimming and music facilities for schools, and I am especially concerned about music. There is a fine local tradition that I wish to be maintained but I fear that it will suffer. Facilities such as the Rotherham Valley country park would go if the order were implemented. There would be consequences for street
    398
    lighting which could result in road accidents, and perhaps fatalities. I suppose that that would not unduly concern the Government because they cannot find Tories in the areas which my hon. Friends and I represent.
    As the Minister knows, the area which I represent has never sought to break the law. Instead, it has sought to conduct itself with civilised balance and to build structures within the community that embrace a cross-section of society. The authority has worked with the chamber of commerce and the voluntary bodies. It has worked efficiently and inexpensively to try to surmount the problems that we face. The Minister knows that that is true. The contemptible feature of the Government's actions is that they have caused anger of a sort that I have not experienced for a long time.
    The Government should understand that my constituents believe that the new tax is foul, unfair and incomprehensible. It has compounded their difficulties. How can the Minister and his ministerial colleagues tell the local authority that they can match spending pound for pound or penny for pound to deal with the dereliction and other problems which he has seen? If it were still legal tender under this inflationary Administration, we would not be able to match farthings for pounds. The authority will not be able to find its way out of the problems unless there is a Government who show that they have some sense of history and a commitment to justice. 'That is definitely not demonstrated by the apportionment, of public moneys that is the result of the poll tax.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about education. If he examines any local education authority he will find the extent of the savings that can be made. He will find administrators in ivory towers who should lose their jobs, instead of people at the sharp end losing theirs. Like all Opposition Members who have participated in the debate so far, the hon. Member for Wentworth said nothing about what the Labour party would do if it were in government. That is extraordinary, given that this is a Supply day.
    I represent a constituency which has a thriving light industrial base. There are many small manufacturers in the constituency and in the main they have done quite well out of the uniform business rate. I am concerned, however, about small retail businesses, including small village shops and retailers in the high streets of King's Lynn and Hunstanton. When the Government decided to embark upon the UBR and set rental values in April 1988, the economy was booming. At that stage, rental values were perhaps at their peak. Retail businesses were doing extremely well.
    We all know that the margins of village shops are extremely tight. Those who run them struggle to provide a service to village communities, which are sometimes remote. They are often part of the key fabric of a rural infrastructure. Even in 1988, many village shopkeepers were struggling. In the present economic climate, which is very different from that of 1988, they are finding life extremely difficult. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of my view that the Government must reconsider the transitional scheme for small businesses.
    The Government must also seriously consider a problem that was put to me only last weekend by one of

    399
    my constituents. He told me that he is a baker and one of my supporters. He lives above his business with two sons, who both work in the bakery. The four members of the family are paying poll tax. I told him that his previous business rate contained an element of domestic rating. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to try to explain that to someone who is running a small village business with tight margins. If my hon. Friend said that anyone running a village shop, a pub or a bakery and living next to it or above it would be liable for only one community charge, that would make a considerable difference. I do not think that it would cost much, but it would be recognised as a major concession and a significant move forward.
    My hon. Friend will probably tell me that those who run the businesses to which I have referred can make use of the transitional arrangement. I accept that, but he must face the fact that there is real concern among village shopkeepers. There is genuine concern that extends beyond shopkeepers to include many other constituents, who see village shops as a key part of the fabric of rural communities. I urge my hon. Friend carefully to consider these matters.
    I have always accepted the principle behind the community charge. I was heartened by recent opinion polls that showed that about 70 per cent. of the public accepted that everyone should contribute to the provision of local authority services. The results of a poll that are reported in the Evening Standard—I see that my hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of the report—are similar. Accountability in local government is needed greatly. I believe that the local elections next week will not show anything like the scale of devastation that Opposition Members are willing upon us. Instead, the results will show that many electors took a sensible choice. They know well that, if they elect a Tory-controlled council, they will pay a lower poll tax. That message is getting across.
    As I have said, I have always accepted the principle behind the community charge. At the same time, I have accepted that there are problems. We have a good idea, but its implementation has gone badly wrong. The other day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, if implementation of the community charge was a dog's dinner, a rates revaluation would have been a rottweiler's dinner. I rather like rottweilers. I think that the implementation of the community charge is worse than a rottweiler's dinner; it is a feast for a large number of rottweilers. Many things have gone badly wrong. We underestimated the extent to which local authorities would seize this window of opportunity to put up their expenditure. That has resulted in higher community charge figures.
    The 1981 Green Paper "Alternatives to Domestic Rates" stated:
    "The Government believes that a flat-rate annual capitation charge"
    of the order of £240
    "would almost certainly not be a practical proposition. If a poll tax were used to supplement another tax, however, the tax rate would obviously be lower, and it is in this way that a poll tax is most likely, in practice, to be able to contribute to a system of local revenues."
    If the 1981 figure of £240 were inflation-uprated, it would be about £350—roughly in line with the average poll tax—yet in 1981 the Government said that that sort of level would not be a practical proposition.
    400
    The Government must find a way to bring down poll tax levels. The problem is how to do that without throwing money at local authorities and without that money going down the drain and being spent on pet schemes and projects. One of the tragedies of this whole exercise is that, over the past 10 years, the Government have gone a long way towards containing and controlling central Government expenditure on local government—indeed, they have been quite successful in containing public expenditure generally—yet at one fell swoop a great deal of money is going out of the window.
    The Government must carefully consider taking a function away from local government. That could be teachers' pay, the police service or the fire service. They must then find a way to contain that and to ensure that the savings are dedicated to the community charge payer. They must also reconsider the rebate system. Like my hon. Friends, I have been confronted by constituents saying, "We have moved to a system of individual assessment for income tax. We thought that the community charge was a personal charge," or, "I am a mother at home looking after the children, yet I am expected to pay the full community charge."
    The Government must consider a system of individual, separate assessment. I know that the Minister will say that a millionaire's wife could then claim a rebate, but I do not think that there are many people in that category. However, there are many thousands of people who would benefit from individual, separate assessment. It would then be a genuine personal charge and they could apply for a rebate in their own right.
    I do not know what that would cost. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give an approximate figure. I do not have any idea about the probable uptake. However, it would be one way to make the community charge much fairer.
    Mr. David Hunt: It is difficult to cost a proposal without more detail. Does not my hon. Friend think that it would be wrong, under such a system, to favour the non-working wife or husband of a spouse earning £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 a year, while penalising the working wife or husband of a working spouse, both of whom were earning £8,000 a year? Such a couple would have to pay a double community charge, yet the non-working spouse and his or her partner, who had a considerable income, would pay only one charge.
    Mr. Bellingham: I accept that, but my hon. Friend must remember that there is now a system of individual tax assessment. The community charge is going in the opposite direction. I accept my hon. Friend's example, but there are many people on the borderline who do not qualify for rebates, such as pensioners, pensioner couples and mothers who have decided to stay at home to look after their children. There is always a trailer in these matters and we are looking for ways to take the sting out of a system that is perceived to be unfair—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Bellingham: I am sorry, but I must press on.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Why does my hon. Friend say that to everybody?
    Mr. Bellingham: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to make her points.

    401
    Although I was pleased by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement in the Budget, I find the formula being used quite extraordinary. The first £3,000 of savings are completely ignored, while every £2·50 over £3,000 is deemed to produce £1 of notional or tariff income. That represents a marginal interest of almost 21 per cent. That is the deemed interest that people with savings of between £3,000 and £16,000 are supposed to be receiving. That is ludicrous. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise the importance of that point.
    I also ask my hon. Friend to listen to the criticisms from constituents who previously were obtaining rates rebates because they were disabled or suffering from some incurable disease. For some reason, they are not receiving poll tax rebates. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the anomalies. He has shown that he is prepared to be reasonably open minded. He has already reconsidered the status of caravan sites. I urge him also to consider the case of disabled people who feel badly let down.
    The Government must deal with the perception of inherent unfairness in the new system. Some may refer to the soft underbelly of the British people, but there is also a hard underbelly. That is characterised by a sense of fairness. I have not yet met a single top rate taxpayer who is anything but ashamed of the savings that he is making. I have not yet met a single top rate taxpayer who would object to paying more. The mood in the country has changed dramatically, and the Government must urgently and enterprisingly consider not scrapping the system, because it can work, but imposing a premium on those paying the top rate of tax. Perhaps they could pay 75 per cent. more, or even double. That would meet the argument that the Government have introduced an inherently unfair system. I am sure that every top rate taxpayer would accept my proposal and I urge my hon. Friend to find ways to implement it.
    This is an Opposition Supply day, yet the Shadow Secretary of State gave a fairly abysmal performance. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) did not give the House any idea about Labour's policies. That is extraordinary. It is also extraordinary that, on an Opposition Supply day—Labour's big day on the poll tax—the Opposition Benches have been marked by their emptiness. Many Conservative Members are uneasy about the community charge and they might have been tempted either to vote with the Opposition or to abstain. However, if the hon. Member for Dagenham had hoped to win us over, I have to tell him quite frankly that he went about it the wrong way. He said nothing remotely positive.
    My hon. Friend the Minister has shown that he is prepared to listen. I am, of course, aware that he is moving on to new pastures. The Government, in the very phrasing of their amendment, have shown that they are willing to listen to constructive suggestions. Many Conservative Members have put forward serious and constructive suggestions. I urge my hon. Friend to show more urgency than he has previously and to consider those suggestions. Above all, I urge him to implement our proposals not in a year's time, but in the near future. We will then have a system of which we can be proud and one that will help our party and, above all, will lead to better local government
    8.28 pm
    Mr. Allen McKay: I shall begin my speech by being very constructive and giving the Minister some advice: forget the poll tax. My advice is as pure and as simple as that. I hope that the reports of our debate will be read widely outside the House. I hope that people will also read the reports of the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Act, especially the speeches made by Conservative Members.
    Conservative Members waved their papers and said that the poll tax was the flagship of their party and the alternative to the hated rates system. Surprisingly. the one thing that the poll tax has done is make the public appreciate how well the old system worked, even though it did contain anomalies.
    Also remarkable is the number of Conservative Members who say that the poll tax is fair but go on to describe all the ways in which it is unfair. We heard repeated today all the arguments that the Opposition made in Committee. The very points made by Conservative Members were contained in Opposition amendments that Tory Members rejected. Two years ago, we told the Government, "We accept that the rate system is unfair sometimes and that it contains anomalies, but before you introduce poll tax let us sit down together on an all-party basis and find another alternative." That offer was also rejected, and the Government have poll tax around their necks as a consequence.
    Last week I had the good fortune to visit Her Majesty's forces in the Falklands, and saw there a vehicle with a notice on it reading "No poll tax."
    Mr. David Hunt: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have flown thousands of miles to attend this debate. The hon. Gentleman has made clear his views on the community charge, but will he say what he considers to be his party's alternative? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) proposed a floor tax. What alternatives does the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) think that his party offers?
    Mr. McKay: I shall give a personal view and a party view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Conservative Members will not enjoy my party's view either. Local government organisation and expenditure is in a bigger mess now than ever before, and Labour must carefully examine the possible alternatives to poll tax. We must cost them and consider the correct machinery. However, I assure the Minister that our system will be based on a person's ability to pay. It will be fair, equitable, and accountable—and it will blow the Government's poll tax to pieces.
    As to accountability, my son is in the Navy, his home is in Gosport, his ship is based at Rosyth, and at present he is at sea. Where does he pay his poll tax, and how will he be accountable? What services will be provided for the poll tax that he pays? He certainly will not receive any services at sea, or at Rosyth, and he is away from Gosport for three years, apart from occasional visits.
    As to financial accountability, my local authority is accountable to the people who vote in its members, one third of whom are elected every year. Each and every year that authority is accountable. It holds public meetings on its programe and its costs, which the meetings can either accept or reject. If the authority makes mistakes during the course of the year, the electorate will show their displeasure at the ballot box. It is significant that my local

    403
    authority has been Labour-controlled for 50 years. It has 60 Labour councillors, one Liberal and two Conservatives. If the council has not been providing the right services, or if they become too costly, how is it that Labour has remained in control for the past 50 years?
    Mr. Janman: How many people vote at the elections?
    Mr. McKay: The poll is usually between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent., which is a very high vote.
    My constituency is unique in all kinds of ways, and I really love it. It is varied from area to area. Parts of it are industrial—or they were, before 10 collieries closed. Another part of it is very rural. The problems occur in the low-value, built-up area. The larger houses are in the rural area, where the best properties are to be found. If one takes the example of the refuse service, it is far easier to make collections in the low-value built-up area than in the high-value rural area, where there are houses with drives and long paths.
    An investigation of the use made of local facilities shows that the library serving the Penistone area is patronised more than the one in the built-up area. Also, I am now receiving letters about the deteriorating roads in my constituency. The worst affected are those in the rural areas, which suffer from the extremes of climate. The poll tax throws all such different considerations out of the window.
    The area has a male unemployment rate of 18·6 per cent., and it is rising. Female unemployment is 5 per cent., and it is also rising. The difference is accounted for by a geographical quirk and the loss of industries such as coal, steel and engineering, whereas there has never been a great deal of work available for females. The local authority has taken upon itself to improve the situation by increasing educational attainment, which, sadly, is currently one of the lowest in Britain due to historical factors relating to a huge area that was formerly heavily dependent on industry. I have no grumbles about that. I enjoy where I live. I enjoy living among the people there and going for a drink with them. I also listen to their views and to their grumbles, and it is clear that the poll tax is the most hated of all the Government's measures.
    Conservative Members have talked about refining the poll tax, but every time that it has been refined it has cost local authorities more money. The computer system that it was necessary for my local authority to install to collect poll tax cost £3·5 million more than that needed to collect the rates.
    Mr. Janman: If the cost of changing from the old system to poll tax is a reason for objecting to it, given the hon. Gentleman's comments that a future Labour Government will change the system again, he highlights a major practical argument against so doing.
    Mr. McKay: The answer is an overall rating and tax system. I entirely agree with the remarks about tax made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).
    Grants to local government over the past nine years have fallen from 74 per cent. to 34 per cent. Poll tax is high in our areas because of a history of a lack of grants, lower
    404
    rateable values, and the absence of any compassion or care. I agree with Conservative Members that the old system had faults but poll tax will not do away with them.
    I wish that I had more time because a lot remains to be said about the issue.
    Hon. Members have asked why a married couple should pay two taxes. Time and again people have asked me why they have received a poll tax notification form with their husband's income on it. We must ask ourselves who pays if 50 per cent. of that income is taken away. Is it the husband, who then has to pay twice as much, or is it central Government?
    Every time we tinker with the poll tax to try to refine it, it costs someone something. However, it does not cost the Government anything. They make sure of that, but the fault lies with them; the costs stem from them.
    I agree with a certain lady, for whom I have a great deal of respect, who said that, if the Government had been a charity, they would have considered the poll tax and thrown it away, because they do not mind saving face. But the Government do mind saving face; and if they spoke the truth honestly and considered the anomalies they would forget the tax.
    Let us all sit down together to devise a proper system to finance local government not only for next year or the year after but for decades to come, irrespective of what political party is in government.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said earlier that she did not intend to pay the community charge. I was appalled when she said that apparently there are bishops and other Church leaders who support her in that non-payment. We are not far past Easter, and I seem to remember that in the Bible Jesus advocated a lawful approach to the payment of tax. I do not recall that Jesus advocated a greedy approach to the law, or said that one should obey the laws that one likes and flout laws that one does not like. When Church leaders are so out of touch with biblical principle, is it any wonder that churches are empty?
    I wish to draw attention to the community charge in Wales and how it affects my constituents. I have a strong complaint against my own Front Bench, because the list of councils to be capped, which was announced on 3 April, did not include any councils in Wales. I know that that is not the fault of the Secretary of State for the Environment, because it is the responsibility of the departing Secretary of State for Wales.
    In Wales, total spending by all county and district councils will increase by £223 million this financial year—a 12 per cent. increase. That burden will fall disproportionately on my constituents. Cardiff council wants an increase of £10·2 million and South Glamorgan an increase of £26 million, which is more than £36 million out of the total for Wales of £223 million.
    The increase is not widely spread, because South Glamorgan comprises only five constituencies and Cardiff, with an increase of some £10 million, represents approximately three and a half constituencies. In other words, my 54,000 constituents in Cardiff, North will have to bear an impost of an extra £8 million, and that is merely the extra this year.
    On 3 April, the same day that the Secretary of State made his announcement about English councils, my right

    405
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in a written answer, responded to my question about capping Welsh local councils. He said that he had similar powers to the Secretary of State for the Environment and that he had determined the principles upon which local councils in Wales would be capped. He had determined that no councils in Wales should be capped.
    If the same formula was applied to Wales as to English local councils, that decision was wrong. In Wales, the figures for the community charge are slightly lower, I am glad to say. The charge is only meant to raise some 15 per cent. of the total of local council spending. It was laid down that the increase over standing spending assessment for English councils should be at least 12·5 per cent., an increase of £75 per adult, and capping would have to result in a reduction of at least £26 per adult. In Cardiff we satisfy at least two of the three tests.
    I have it on the good authority of my colleague Councillor Martin Davies—the shadow chairman on the South Glamorgan council finance committee—that each council could easily have been capped by £50 per adult without affecting the essential services that either South Glamorgan or Cardiff council provide. Therefore, we satisfy the test of a reduction of at least £26. We also satisfy the 12·5 per cent. test. When calculated in total, the community charge for the two councils exceeds the standard spending assessment by 60 per cent. That is the size of the imposition upon my constituents.
    As the figures are lower in Wales than in England, we do not satisfy the requirement where the increase has been more than £75 per adult, because the charges—some of my English colleagues may think that we are in a preferential situation—are £175 for the county council and £78 for the city council making a total of £253.
    It is ironic that the neighbouring district council is the Vale of Glamorgan, which is Conservative-controlled, and which provides almost the same services as Cardiff. Whereas Cardiff is charging £78, the Vale of Glamorgan which is a smaller council and a more rural area is charging only £24. The Vale of Glamorgan has a Labour Member of Parliament, and he has directed attention to his council, saying that it is spending significantly in excess of the standard spending assessment. I know that many of my constituents would cheerfully swap their charge for the charge being levied there.
    Many of us in Cardiff, North feel let down. It is significant that there is to be a change of Secretary of State for Wales. I know of and appreciate the courage of many Conservative councillors on both councils in Cardiff who did not want capping. They preferred to go into the next election in May next year better armed. However, I regret that the Secretary of State for Wales did not give that relief to my constituents and that we do not have capping.
    I am well aware that the incoming Secretary of State for Wales is sitting on the Front Bench. I am glad to take the opportunity to mention an important Welsh matter when he is to reply to the debate. Perhaps this is the first reference to his new office. He may think that this is not the most appropriate occasion to refer in detail to what I have said about Cardiff, but I know that he is taking full notice.
    I realise that it is now too late for Cardiff and South Glamorgan councils to be capped. Instead I look forward to the introduction of accountability. People in Cardiff are now much more interested and better equipped to see how our money is spent. I fear that the money will not be spent in the Conservative constituencies of South Glamorgan. In
    406
    the two constituencies in the north of Cardiff there are but two leisure centres, and our roads are the last to be maintained—
    Mr. Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: No, I do not think that I should give way because the hon. Gentleman has not had the courtesy to attend any part of the debate before and I know that many of my colleagues have sat here all day. In the interests of brevity I shall not give way.
    When spending decisions are being made by the left-wing controlled councils of Cardiff and South Glamorgan, there is a political dimension and they discriminate against Conservative areas. Some of our schools are in the poorest state. For example, Llanishen high school is in such a bad state that even the local Labour party acknowledges the state for neglect that the Labour-controlled county council has reduced it to.
    Of course, two of our wards last year made the mistake of electing Labour councillors, including the ward of Llanishen. That is a self-defeating, futile objective. It confirms, if confirmation were necessary, that the Labour group can continue to discriminate against Conservative areas, such as Llanishen high school. As long as there are Labour councillors, there will be no effective complaint.
    Local management of schools might provide relief, but capital spending and major repairs would still be the responsibility of the Labour-controlled county council. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who was not here earlier, the county council will be spending £234 million, an increase of £28 million, but how much has it found to rectify its neglect of schools? It has found £1·6 million.
    The catchment areas of our schools are also being manipulated. Political manipulation of the education policy in South Glamorgan means that I sympathise with the proposal that education spending should be taken away from county councils. I do not support it in principle, but the experience of my constituents tempts me to adopt it. Accountability will come into play. Two local community councils in south Wales are already coming under the most intense scrutiny.
    Last week, a packed meeting voted that one of the community councils should be disbanded because of the excessive community charge. That was not in my constituency, or in a Conservative-controlled area; that was in Vaynor, which is in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency, the safest Labour seat in the country. Electors are now deploying the accountability weapon to try to bring their community councillors to heel. Roll on next year and the Cardiff council elections. I predict that the skids are under the left. It cannot fool all the people all the time. Accountability will bring the left to heel.
    Several of my hon. Friends have already referred to the standard community charge. Constituents are going to see their Members of Parliament and telling them that they have two homes, not because they want a second home but because they have moved jobs and cannot sell their former home. One of my constituents was advised at the city hall in Cardiff, I hope facetiously, that he should separate from his wife—that he should live in one of the homes while his wife lived in the other—as the only way of avoiding the

    407
    standard community charge. If people cannot sell when they move jobs, or if they inherit a house and cannot sell it, they may face hardship.
    The second home will not be liable to the standard community charge for only three months. I hope that the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will look again at that problem. It is unsatisfactory to leave this merely to the discretion of local councils. Already we regret the fact that local councils have not exercised discretion over setting the level of the standard community charge. I should like the exemption period to be extended from three months to at least 12 months, or even for as long as it takes if people can show that they are genuinely trying to sell the second house. They ought not to have to bear the cost of the second standard community charge when the house is clearly not their second home. I hope that there will soon be action to resolve that problem.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If I express the same sentiments more gently and more softly than my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), I hope that Ministers will listen to a Scot.
    In his absence, about which I do not complain, I wish to make one remark to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). He said that Labour Members of Parliament are enjoying this. In truth, the discomfiture of political opponents can be delicious, but this matter goes far beyond the cheap discomfiting of political opponents. For a reasonably assiduous constituency Member of Parliament trying to do his job, like me, the poll tax in the second year of its operation is misery. I am not trying to have anyone on; there would be no point in doing so. However, it gets worse, not better. Any Conservative Member of Parliament, or anybody else, who thinks that these are teething troubles and that the problem will go away is mistaken. There is a geological flaw in such an argument: property is static but people are mobile. As long as people are mobile, the problem will continue.
    I have been privileged to be a Member of Parliament for 28 years. My constituency surgeries now are the most embarrassing, fraught and difficult that I have ever experienced, by any exponential factor. I see that some Conservative Members are nodding; I think that they have some idea of the taste of things to come.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the anger that has been injected into the debate. I have three questions. The first concerns a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Despite all the criticism that has been levelled at him, my hon. Friend has been intellectually rigid and has worked hard to obtain some solution. In the deepest sense, my hon. Friend is a very honest man. He has been struggling to find some an answer to the problem.
    As for the question of a property tax, I make no bones about the fact that I should be in favour of returning to something similar to the rates. In the early 1980s, there was panic in Scotland about something that was not fully understood. Scottish rating is not the subject of the debate. However, wrong lessons were learnt as the result of an outcry by a comparatively small section of the community.
    408
    My first question is this: what are the English doing? Are they looking at the Scottish experience? If I were an incoming Minister, I would spend a week in Scotland and look at what is happening there. It has been put about by Conservative Members of Parliament who are friends of mine that they were told, "We do not know very much about Scotland, old chap. English Ministers do not have very much to do with Scotland." That is an extremely unwise attitude. The experience of the poll tax in its second year of operation is wholly different.
    I ask my second question not in banter but in seriousness: what are Ministers going to do to protect the officials who have to handle the poll tax? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the fact that benefit claims have been stopped in social security offices. In my region, Lothian, it is a matter of public record that courses in self-defence are now offered to social security staff, poll tax staff and local government staff. I have tabled a question as to what form of karate, tae kwan do or judo will be offered. In one sense, that is ribaldry, but when serious authorities are offering courses in self-defence, what on earth is Britain coming to?
    The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead are accurate. In Strathclyde, 400,000 people are behind with their payments. That represents 23 per cent., or £101 million. Comparatively few people are refusing to pay as a political protest. They are mostly people who genuinely cannot pay.
    That brings me to my third question, which involves sanctions. What do Ministers propose should be done, because in year two the system is that much more advanced? It is not just a question of putting letters through letter boxes but of having to deal with people who have not paid. Are there to be sanctions against 400,000 people and, if so, what sanctions will they be? For heaven's sake, we are not talking about prison, are we?
    Mr. Hardy: Yes.
    Mr. Dalyell: If we are, what else? My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has returned to the Chamber. I referred to his comment about anger. That is what we are facing.
    I promised not to speak for long, so I leave it at those questions: the Scottish experience and what is being done about it, what is being offered to staff in the way of protection and, finally, the sanctions that will be applied when it comes to the crunch, because for us in Scotland it has come to the crunch.
    9 pm
    Mr. Douglas French: A number of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening have blamed high spending by local authorities as one of the chief causes of difficulties with the community charge. I would not depart from that practice in referring to Gloucestershire. If the same amount of money as has been collected in community charge this year were collected under the rating system, the rate increase this year would amount to no less than 55 per cent. or an average rates bill of £664. But that is not the respect in which I wish to blame the local authorities this evening. They stand charged with a much more serious offence which has not been covered to a great extent in tonight's debate.
    I wish to focus most of my remarks on the operation of the standard community charge and pick up some of the

    409
    points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). The standard community charge has been characterised by a failure on the part of local authorities to exercise appropriately the powers that they have been given to set different multipliers for different classes of property and personal circumstances.
    I am bound to say that the standard charge is something of a misnomer. It is inaptly named because the community charge system is essentially based on a personal charge. In common parlance, people would regard the personal charge as standard or basic, so the use of the word standard to imply something other than what the majority of people pay is a mistake. It would be better to call it special, adjusted or exceptional to show that it is not what the average person pays. It is often but not always double what the average person pays. The average person who comes into the category of having to pay a standard charge that has been set at double rate—it is often but not always double what the average person pays—in the overwhelming majority of cases is paying a triple rate because he is also paying his original personal charge.
    The main failure on the part of the local authorities in relation to the standard charge seems to be in distinguishing between its application in relation to second homes and second properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North made the point that second homes that are furnished and lived in for half the week or the year are deliberately retained as an additional place to live represent a category of dwelling that is completely different from a second property that a person is endeavouring to sell, but because of the difficult market is unable to do so.
    When I listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) I began to wonder whether they had paid sufficient attention to the scope given to local authorities to recognise the difference in circumstances between those who have second homes and those who have second properties. I refer them to a written answer in Hansard on 21 March, column 658, which was given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. He set out in great detail the scope that is available for local authorities to recognise individual circumstances when they set the standard community charge. The important factor is that much of the bad publicity about the community charge, and much of the condemnation of it as a system, have arisen because people have picked out one or two highly emotional examples which have often related to what has been a manifestly unfair imposition of the standard community charge, normally in its double format.
    Let me cite a couple of examples from close to my constituency. Miss Jean Godbold of Hucclecote lodge lives in the Gloucestershire, West constituency, but she was the talk of virtually everyone in Gloucester. She had been living in the upstairs part of her property. Owing to failing eyesight and health, she moved into the lower part of her property, and the upper part was made into a self-contained unit. She immediately received a bill for her personal community charge for the lower part of the property—correctly—and one for standard community charge for the upper part of the property. The standard community charge was levied at the double rate.
    Tewkesbury council—her local council—said that that was unfair in theory and in practice. However, it did not
    410
    acknowledge that, had the local authority got its act in order at the correct time—before 1 April—the problem could have been avoided. It could have created a class that made the multiplier zero-rated, and then Miss Godbold would not have been obliged to pay a double rate. The local authority then decided to blame the Government on the wrong grounds, and sought retrospective discretion to put right its mistake. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Labour Members do not wish to hear such examples, but I would like to give another.
    Mr. and Mrs. K. Smith now reside at Woodend Cam, in the Stroud constituency, but one of them came from my constituency. They were a widow and a widower who decided to get married. They had two houses, but then they married and consolidated into one, and received a bill for the double community charge in respect of the house that they had left. The headline in the local Gloucester paper said:
    "Triple poll tax a disgrace".
    However, as far as I am aware, neither the press nor any of the radio stations mentioned that that problem could have been avoided if the class had been changed before 1 April, and an extension been made to what is clearly set out as class C.
    Class C refers to properties that are unoccupied or unfurnished. They are allowed a zero multiplier for three months, but, provided that the local authority has created the class in advance, it has the discretion to extend the period for longer. That is especially important in the present housing market conditions. The failure to set the appropriate classes at the right time has caused more trouble, inconvenience and hardship, and has given the community charge a worse name, than almost anything else.
    Three months' grace is nowhere near sufficient in the present housing conditions. Realistically priced houses are taking not three months to sell, but over a year. The people who happen to live or have properties in areas where local authorities have not taken the action when they should have are being unduly penalised as a result of a deficiency on the part of the authorities, which are seeking to blame the Government. The local authority could have extended those three months to 12 months or two years if it had thought about it at the right time and had applied it to all classes of such property in its area.
    Some local authorities are using a discretion whereby they defer collection of the charge for properties that Call in that category until they have been sold. I do not know whether this is permissible under the rules—that is a matter for them and their auditors—but it makes it fairer and easier on the vendor's cash flow. However, that would not be necessary if local authorities had acted at the correct time.
    I have mentioned how local authorities have not exercised the powers that they should have, but there are many examples of them exercising their powers on the basis of a misunderstanding. I am referring to those examples, plenty of which have appeared in the press, of couples who propose to get married and are living at their respective parents' homes. They buy a property to do it up with the prospect of moving into it later, but in the meantime they receive a personal community charge bill at both homes and a standard community charge bill for the house into which they propose to move, which more often than not is levied at the double rate.

    411
    Class A of the description of classes clearly refers to property requiring structural work to make it habitable. Such property is zero rated for standard community charge purposes for six months after the work is completed. If local authorities took the trouble to look at that, they would realise that there is no need for people to be caused the anguish of being sent an erroneously calculated standard community charge bill.
    Similar provisions apply to property that has been inherited. There have been much publicised cases of the community charge bill arriving within days of the death of the owner of the property and being picked up by their next of kin. Several local authorities have clearly ignored the perfectly clearly set out example of class E, which provides for zero rating of standard community charge for three months after probate has been granted.
    All those examples are different from second homes being occupied not as the sole or main residence but because for one reason or another someone needs or wants a second home. It may be argued that the validity of applying a double community charge is doubtful because such a second home does not require further expenditure on the roads that lead to it, that the risk of calling fire engines is no greater and that its demands on the education service are much the same as a main residence. None the less, one could sustain the argument that in parts of the country a double community charge is desirable to discourage people from having a second property. If the argument is made out that a double charge is valid in those circumstances, it follows that the argument is not made out in respect of second properties which are not occupied or wanted as second homes.
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman said that he would talk about the second home tax, but he has considered its effect outside his constituency. Should hon. Members assume, therefore, that in Gloucester everyone who is running a business is happy about the uniform business rate and that all the poll tax payers are happy with the poll tax?
    Mr. French: That was an extraordinary intervention. I am talking about the standard community charge. The views of many people in Gloucester were greatly influenced by the much publicised examples that I have given. That is why I emphasise them now. It is high time that more people realised that often this is the fault not of the Government but of the local authority.
    On a different point, quite serious newspapers, such as The Times, The Sunday Times and the Financial Times—rom which I recall specific examples—have argued that somehow Members of Parliament can choose the property where they would pay the personal community charge and the property on which they would pay the standard charge. Although this news was much publicised, Members know that that is wrong and that the decision rests with the community charge registration officer. It is important to place it on record that many people have misinterpreted the position.
    Mention has been made several times of mixed hereditaments where the standard community charge can apply. A flat above a shop may have been used for many years, not for residential purposes but to provide storage space for the shop. Nevertheless, it is categorised as
    412
    residential property. It is therefore possible for the uniform business rate to be applied to the shop premises but for the flat above to attract a standard community charge. Such places could be covered if local authorities were to create a class order at the right time.
    The Government may not have as much information as they should about the standard community charge. They do not appear properly to have registered the list of multipliers and classes that have been decided at local level. My questions to elicit that information have revealed that it has not been properly collected. On 4 April, I was disappointed to receive the following answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—
    "I have not yet gathered the information requested except on an informal basis from a few authorities on a basis which did not imply that it would be published."—[Official Report, 4 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 665.]
    I was pleased to learn subsequently that local authorities are now required to make a return by the end of May which will set out the multipliers and classes.
    I hope that when those returns come in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, if necessary, exercise his powers. It may be possible to have a resolution applying from 1 April that would override the powers of local authorities that had failed to exercise the discretion that they were given. That would be desirable, especially for properties for sale. A local authority could establish a class providing zero rating for 12 months. If that is not done, an undertaking must be obtained from the local authority that it will get its act in order in time for next year. Unless such an undertaking is forthcoming, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should exercise his powers to ensure that these much-publicised anomalies are not repeated.
    9.19 pm
    Mr. David Blunkett: On what might be the last occasion on which the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities takes part in a major debate on the poll tax in respect of the whole of England and Wales, I begin by saying that it has been a mixed blessing to have him as my opposite number. It has been a blessing because he has been an acceptable Minister of State in the dealings that I have had with him. I pay tribute to the fact that he has been helpful in several ways behind the scenes. It has been a mixed blessing because he has inherited from his predecessors a poisoned chalice, and no mirrors and no clever make-up could hide the truth. I regret that he has had the job, because he will carry it with him for a long time to come. I hope that he will protect Wales slightly better than England and Scotland have been protected.
    Earlier, during the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) gave some figures about the position in Scotland vis-a-vis the rating system and the proposition that he described as the roof tax. He seemed to have transposed the figures he gave, so that they made no sense whatever. They were not a true reflection of the press conference of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Tonight we indict the Government for incompetence, indifference and ideological dogmatism because that is what the poll tax embodies. There have been 15 years of struggle to reach where we are now in April 1990. It is 15 years since the Prime Minister made the promise, and subsequently made Ministers hold to it, that the poll tax

    413
    would be imposed on the British people. In those 15 years, and in the past five years that it has taken effectively to implement the tax, no signals have been heeded, words of caution have been ignored and those who have spoken out and given warnings about the impact of the poll tax have been ridiculed.
    If one reads the press reports of three or four years ago, when the Local Government Finance Bill was in Committee, one sees not only that the Government were indifferent and determined to push through their dogmatism but that they were incompetent. They failed to understand the basics of local government finance. During the past 10 years, they have struggled with it almost as if they were walking through a minefield.
    I give the warning—the Opposition must heed it, too—that those who believe that there are simple solutions to local government finance and the problems of independent funding of local government finance and pluralistic democracy are kidding themselves. There are no simple, easy solutions or glib answers to pull off shelves. If we all remember that, the Opposition, including myself and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, will not make the same mistakes as the Government have made.
    That is why we welcome the criticisms launched against us. We are listening, hearing and taking them into account. I welcome every occasion on which Ministers have a go at the alternative that the Labour party is allegedly dreaming up. Each time they give us something new to think about, I say to them, "Please keep doing it." It is extremely helpful and it will stop us walking into the type of errors that the Government have walked into. First, they set up Scotland as a guinea pig for the experiment and walked away from the laboratory, forgetting to examine and monitor what had taken place. If they had examined the results, they might have learned more quickly what would hit England and Wales and the changes made in England and Wales that were not made in Scotland would not be uppermost in the minds of Scottish Members.
    Some Conservative Scottish Members claim the heritage of the poll tax and say that they were responsible for dreaming it up.
    Mr. Gould: Not many these days.
    Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend says, there are not many of them these days—only the zealots. Even those who are members of the Adam Smith Institute now denounce it as having nothing to do with Adam Smith.
    In those early days, we were to have no rebates or exemptions, but a simple—that is how it was described—flat-rate tax. Of course, we had to have rebates to protect the worst off, and it was necessary to have exemptions, although many of them did not come until after the Scottish people had had the poll tax inflicted on them.
    We were to have the phasing-in process, whereby some authorities were to have rates and tax together. The Government decided that that was too much of a mixed blessing and abandoned the scheme, just as they abandoned many of the other ideas that originated in the think tank of right-wing philosophy.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government using Scotland as a guinea pig for the poll tax. That is undoubtedly correct, but have not his own Front Benchers fallen into exactly the same trap by
    414
    proposing a tax on capital values, a roof tax for Scotland, which the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying carries little enthusiasm south of the border?
    Mr. Blunkett: I understood that the Scottish National party was in favour of an independent Scotland, where decisions were taken by and for Scots people, not imposed from Westminster, Walworth road or Conservative central office. We believe that the Scots should find their own solution to local government finance and structure. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable principle of devolution. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not believe that, will he wait until we come with a solution and plead with us to impose the English and Welsh solution on Scotland? He knows that he does not believe that, and that he was attempting to make a cheap point.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I am another Scot who makes no apology for the fact that I believe that this unitary Parliament should decide for the whole of the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) explain why the Labour party, which apparently also supports that, is, in his own words, putting forward proposals that are different for Scotland and is therefore making Scotland the guinea pig?
    Mr. Blunkett: We do so because we accept that Scotland is different. If the Scottish people believe that there is a solution for them that is appropriate to their economy, social make-up and culture, we should be happy to grant that diversity within our United Kingdom. We believe strongly in that.
    Mr. Favell: In the unlikely event of the Labour party becoming the Government, as the Scots are to decide for themselves local government expenditure in Scotland, will Scottish Members of Parliament be prevented from voting on local government expenditure in this country?
    Mr. Blunkett: The simple answer is no. I promise the hon. Gentleman one thing: following his earlier speech, he will not have the pleasure of joining us in the Lobby when we decide this matter. He made his position unequivocally clear; he believes in the poll tax and has not been convinced that it is bad by what has happened, or is happening, to people. He is going to smash his head into the nearest brick wall on every occasion that he can manage to do so, and I wish him well.
    Originally, the Government were not going to introduce safety nets and transitional arrangements, but they were dreamt up when equalisation, in terms of trying to balance out the different resource base of parts of our country, was abolished. When it was discovered that there would be enormous anomalies and a tide-over period was needed, the safety net was invented. Originally, local authorities across the country were going to have to balance each other out, just as they are with the national business rate. After the first year, the Government decided that they would step in.
    I have a warning for Conservative Members. Safety nets have been a big enough nightmare in terms of those contributing and benefiting. We all know that because we see the anomalies where sound Conservative councils in the south-east and good, radical, progessive, left-wing authorities such as Islington in London all contribute to the Conservatives' sordid and shabby attempt to hang on to Wandsworth next Thursday.

    415
    As a resident of Wandsworth who will be paying the Wandsworth poll tax, I think that it is an insult to the intelligence of Wandsworth residents and voters to suggest that hard-hit inner London boroughs such as Islington and Brent should be expected to contribute £116 per head in order to gerrymander the poll tax in Wandsworth, which is what it comes down to.
    There have been some other—deliberate—mistakes. Some acts of incompetence have been admitted afterwards, such as whether a nought should have been added to the £700,000 that Westminster was expected to receive in flood protection money so that it became £7 million. I refer also to the £60 a head for Westminster residents to prevent us all from falling even deeper into the mire every time we step out of this place; that is what residents of Westminster are receiving in the form of the drainage allowance that has been allocated to them this year.
    The whole incompetent gerrymandering muddle we are in at the moment is the fault of the Government, and I must tell the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) that it is disgraceful to blame local authorities for it. Local authorities did not ask for this tax. They warned again and again about the administrative chaos that would result from it, and from the late changes that were introduced, and from the way in which computer systems had to be altered and rebates and transitional help, such as what is known in the Department of the Environment as Pendle help, had to be introduced. All these changes made it impossible for local authorities to manage, and even the Government admitted as much only three months ago.
    So the chaos and difficulties are down to the Conservative party. The only reason why we have the standard poll tax, to which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred, is that the Government needed to pretend that they had done away with any sort of domestic property tax, which is what the standard poll tax is. It is clumsy and unfair, and it leads to all the anomalies that have been spelt out. There are many worse anomalies than those mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucester; they concern people who have died, and people in residential care who cannot get rid of their properties, even if they happen to be in sheltered accommodation on which the poll tax is being levied. I know of units of sheltered accommodation with community facilities which are the subject of attempts to impose the national business rate on them.
    I hope that all hon. Members will join in agreeing with the Secretary of State that it is time for a thorough re-examination of what this tax is all about. If we cannot persuade the Government to do away with it, we should be happy if they ameliorated it.
    We do care—I strongly object to what was said earlier about this—about what is happening to people. We ran rebate campaigns as a party, not just through Labour local government. We had a rebate week in February and we appealed to people to do everything that they could to spread the message about rebates. We refute the scurrilous allegation that we are in some way pleased that people are suffering this pain now. We are not; we voted and spoke against the tax.
    When we warned that the standard spending assessments would not work and were not acceptable bases
    416
    for the judgment that would be made on them, we were right, and everyone in the House knows that we were. Poll tax-capping exemplifies the fact that we were. Some poll tax-capped authorities like Islington were not going to be poll tax-capped if they had been given the SSAs announced on 6 November, but they were capped because of the changes made by 18 January. One cannot imagine a dafter system than one which catches people in a net, for no fault of their own, which would not originally have caught them.
    Authorities had no chance of altering their budgets, because by 18 January any competent authority had already set its budget and gone through all the processes of examining its departmental spending, and knew exactly what it would do. Such retrospective action is not only unacceptable but leads to further incompetence.
    At Question Time today I asked the Minister of State to confirm or deny the simple truth that the Government got it drastically wrong about who would gain and who would lose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier, when in December 1987 the then Secretary of State for the Environment said that the standard poll tax would be £178, we all doubled up with laughter. He said that at that level there would be a standard provision of service throughout the country. When it became £278 that myth was still being peddled. We were told that there would be no targets, but targets were introduced. They are used not for poll tax capping but for discriminating against people to prevent them from getting the transitional help to which they are entitled.
    Then we had the real poll tax. Warnings were given in Committee; that is why the indifference is so important in terms of this debate. In the Committee debate two years ago, Conservative Members burst into laughter when it was reported that the Church of England Synod had voted against the poll tax. Conservative Members are not laughing so much now, and a little more concern would be forthcoming if people would think a little about the real impact clearly spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
    Genuine hurt and pain are being experienced in Scotland and they are being transferred to England and Wales. People should pay heed to the fact that families and individuals are being hard hit. Disabled people are often hardest hit because of the repeal of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. They face enormous changes in their benefits, which are often ignored by the press.
    People should recognise the difficulties being faced by the two thirds of elderly people who are losing as a result of the tax. I challenged the Minister earlier about the 28 million losers and I shall be interested in his reply. I could spell out the detail of who gains and who loses. In the early days, the Government said that single pensioners would be the great gainers from the tax. They lost out under the old rating system, and two thirds of single pensioners are losing under the poll tax.
    The answer given to me on 19 April by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security spelled out that 2 million of those entitled to rebate receive it as part of couples when one of them receives the rebate and the other member of the household has no income. Instead of paying 20 per cent. of the total bill, as they did under the rating system, they will have to pay 40 per cent. even when they are entitled to full rebate, because each has to pay the basic 20 per cent. of the poll tax. That is a considerable injustice that needs to be remedied.

    417
    We all hope that the Secretary of State will do what he said he would do and will be willing to take evidence, because there is plenty of evidence against the poll tax. He should be willing to listen and learn, and if he does that he will understand what he is doing to authorities such as Calderdale. It has a poll tax imposition which reduces it to the fourth lowest in the country. It has a poll tax level that is £200 lower than that set by Conservative authorities in Surrey and Berkshire. And what about the position of Barnsley? I know Barnsley well because I worked there.
    The Government are destroying the most basic services and are undermining the most basic education opportunity for youngsters. That borough, in the heart of the south Yorkshire coalfield, must be able to alleviate the problems that people face. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who jeer should go there and look and learn for themselves. That applies to Wigan, St. Helens, Rotherham and Doncaster—a cluster of authorities that have been discriminated against because of the inadequacy of the SSAs.
    Mr. Allen McKay: We should get rid of the Government.
    Mr. Blunkett: That is the answer.
    What will help to bring about more rapid change in the poll tax, by bringing greater pressure to bear on Conservative Back Benchers and making the Secretary of State more amenable, will be not a Conservative victory, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) suggested, but a substantial Labour victory.
    I issue three simple challenges to the Government: confirm or deny the gainers and losers that we have spelt out; confirm or deny that the SSAs are so flawed that they will have to be changed this summer and that other drastic changes to revise the poll tax are needed to make it acceptable in the run-up to the general election; confirm or deny that they are willing to make available the finance and the facilities that they have, through the Department of the Environment, so that the Labour party can look at the figures that it will inherit when it gets into government. The Government are using public money to develop their proposals and their alternatives to the poll tax, because that is what it is all about.
    I make three pledges on behalf of the Opposition. Our tax will be fairer and will be based on ability to pay. It will have more gainers than losers. It will remove capping and restore freedom, autonomy and democracy to local people.
    9.41 pm
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for the generous and courteous remarks that he made at the start of his speech. I much enjoy debating with him. I recognise that he has great respect for the office that I am honoured to hold. I have enjoyed working closely with local government, in particular on the issues that do not divide us on a party basis.
    Here we are now, in Opposition time, debating the community charge. When we last had a debate similar to this, the Labour party made many accusations about how the administration of the community charge would be a great disaster come 1 April, that the bills would not contain rebates or transitional relief and that it would be impossible to meet the targets. I commend community
    418
    charge officers, because local government has done a first-class job in the administration of the charge. Almost every bill that has been, and will go, through letter boxes has the rebate and transitional relief already calculated.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) put the point simply. He said that an Opposition day—we are discussing the community charge today—is a marvellous opportunity, and one that Oppositions normally choose to lay their policies before the House. We have waited for that with great patience—I had high hopes of the hon. Member for Brightside but—we are still waiting. This has been another shameful day for the Labour party. It chose to debate local government finance today, yet where its policy on such a crucial matter should be there is a gap about as wide as the Leader of the Opposition's habitual grin, and just about as useful.
    I have enjoyed listening to 23 speeches. They have all been important in their own right, and the speeches of the Opposition Members have been important in their great diversity. All Opposition Members have a different idea of what the Opposition's policy should be.
    I always respect the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who told us that he did not want the Labour party to go naked into any election. He produced his clothing, which was a floor tax. He said that he was attracted by the idea of a form of capital rate associated with a tax on income. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) presented us with his idea. He said, "Let us all get together round a table to try to work out a better alternative." The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, "Why don't we"—presumably he was referring to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench—"drop all these ideas and go back to domestic rates?" The hon. Member for Brightside referred to "We in the Labour laboratory working out a solution." I await the product of the test tube with great interest.
    I think that the hon. Member for Brightside answered himself. At the end of his speech he said to my right hon. and hon. Friends, "Will you please help us?" Did m) right hon. and hon. Friends catch that? In effect, he said "We do not think that we, the Opposition, have the equipment to work out an alternative. Will you please help us?' That must be the lowest point for the Labour party.
    I congratulate the Opposition on having the courage to opt for a full day's debate on local government finance instead of a half-day debate. When the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) started the debate at 3.30 pm he had no way of being sure that at 10 pm the Labour party's policy would still be the same. Over the past three years. the Labour party has switched policies about 52 times. about once every three weeks. In May 1987, it started with the idea of capital value rates. The hon. Member for Dagenham torpedoed that straight away. In fairness to him, I suppose that the Leader of the Opposition did too, but probably he thought that capital value rates was a system of cheap bus fares in London. The Labour party torpedoed its own policy during the general election.
    Following that fiasco came the famous press conference of 20 July 1988. When the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was asked what it was all about, he explained that its purpose was to announce the Labour party's alternative policy.
    Mr. Blunkett: What about your policy?
    Mr. Hunt: This is an Opposition Supply day.
    From the fiasco emerged the two-tax twin torture. The Opposition could not decide whether to have a property tax or a local income tax. Rather than making a choice—choice has never been the Opposition's strong point—they decided to take both. I can tell the hon. Member for Brightside that we ran it through the computer and came up with figures, and they dropped the idea almost immediately.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: Many Opposition Members have not been here for the debate. I am replying to points made during the debate.
    I listened carefully to the points made about charge capping by the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Insley), for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for Barnsley, West and Penistone, for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). However, we are in the midst of a statutory period, during which their councils have an opportunity to put forward alternatives to the proposed caps. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail, other than to say that the hon. Members made their points robustly and clearly.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: I have been here for the whole debate. My hon. Friend has just mentioned Halifax. He will be pleased to know that the Halifax Courier, an independent newspaper, carried out a survey—we have heard a great deal about surveys—that showed that the majority, some 75 per cent., of the people of Halifax are in favour of charge capping. My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that there is a budget before Calderdale council that will meet the charge cap without any cuts in services. It is a Conservative budget.
    Mrs. Mahon rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that it is the practice in the House to respond to one intervention before giving way again. I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. Opposition Members will appreciate the fact that I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), because I knew that he would give us the facts.
    Mrs. Mahon: I promise that I will not do what the Secretary of State did yesterday when he came to Halifax, and mention dog dirt. Does he accept that, if the Halifax Courier ran a telephone survey asking, "Would the people of Halifax prefer to pay nothing for services?", everyone would say yes?
    Mr. Hunt: I now wish that I had not given way to the hon. Lady.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made a speech that I thought made a nauseating noise about non-payment, and I shall come to that in a moment. There was also a speech on Scotland from the hon. Member for Linlithgow, in which he asked questions. If I do not have the time to respond to any points raised in the debate, I shall reply in writing. I should greatly regret it if any public servant anywhere had to worry about whether he might be subjected to either verbal or physical abuse. My response is to condemn verbal and physical abuse. There has been a great deal of such abuse in the displays by the anti-poll tax demonstrators. I have not seen that in the immediate past, and I hope that it is
    420
    now at an end and that it will never return. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made a very good speech. As he responded to three speeches from Scottish Opposition Members, I shall not dwell on them now.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who made a robust and effective speech—so much so that he stimulated the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) into a bout of, I am sure, uncharacteristic heckling. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend in the coming months. He made a point about standard charges, to which a number of my hon. Friends also referred.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West mentioned a number of instances of standard charges, and two particular cases were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). Standard charges were also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). I have said—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned my parliamentary answer—that we shall carefully examine instances where local authorities failed to exercise their discretion to mitigate hardship cases.
    Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend the Minister also examine carefully the position of the 15,000 people who live on houseboats—200 of them in my constituency? As well as being expected to pay the community charge, they are asked to contribute a share of the uniform business rate chargeable to the owner of the riparian land who rents the moorings to them. It is difficult for them to refuse making that payment, because they do not have security of tenure at their moorings.
    Mr. Hunt: My understanding is that, where a houseboat is the sole or main residence, its occupants will pay the personal community charge but that the boat and the mooring will not be rateable. Where the boat is not permanently moored at a fixed mooring, or where the boat is permanently moored but is not a sole or main residence, non-domestic rates are payable.
    I say to all my right hon. and hon. Friends and to Opposition Members who raised points of detail that we state clearly in the amendment that we are determined to listen to constructive suggestions for improving the new system. We include in the amendment the assurance that when we decide that there is a need to improve, we shall implement promptly any necessary changes.
    Mr. Rooker: Given the regard in which the House holds the Minister, he does himself a disservice in not referring once to the speeches of the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which contained positive, constructive alternatives.
    Mr. Hunt: I wish that I had not allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because I said clearly to all my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that, as the amendment says, we shall listen to any suggestions to improve the system.
    I return to the point that on this Opposition day, the Opposition had an opportunity to put forward their policies. We have heard no policies. I remind the Leader of the Opposition who has now entered the fray, having

    421
    escaped the Mandelson leash, that he said that the way in which they were going to organise and think through their policies was to see what they could put together and then
    "bung it into the computer."
    That is the Opposition's policy.
    Opposition Members will have no credibility in the House until they come up with a clear policy and they stop leaflets such as the one I have here from the Lewisham anti-poll tax union, which is in the name of the Hither Green Labour party, and unless they stop endorsing law breakers. They have no policies. In the amendment we have pledged that we shall listen carefully to all the suggestions made. We should throw out the motion and vote for the amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes, 207, Noes 301.

    Division No. 178]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dobson, Frank

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Doran, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Eadie, Alexander

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barron, Kevin

    Fearn, Ronald

    Battle, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beckett, Margaret

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

    Beggs, Roy

    Flannery, Martin

    Beith, A. J.

    Flynn, Paul

    Bell, Stuart

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Foster, Derek

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

    Foulkes, George

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fraser, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fyfe, Maria

    Blair, Tony

    Galloway, George

    Blunkett, David

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Boateng, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Gould, Bryan

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Graham, Thomas

    Buchan, Norman

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Buckley, George J.

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Caborn, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Cartwright, John

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Henderson, Doug

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clay, Bob

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Clelland, David

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Coleman, Donald

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Crowther, Stan

    Illsley, Eric

    Cryer, Bob

    Ingram, Adam

    Cummings, John

    Janner, Greville

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kennedy, Charles

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Dixon, Don

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    422

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lambie, David

    Reid, Dr John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Richardson, Jo

    Leighton, Ron

    Robertson, George

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lewis, Terry

    Rogers, Allan

    Litherland, Robert

    Rooker, Jeff

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livsey, Richard

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Salmond, Alex

    McAllion, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McFall, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McKelvey, William

    Short, Clare

    McLeish, Henry

    Sillars, Jim

    Maclennan, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Marek, Dr John

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Martlew, Eric

    Strang, Gavin

    Meacher, Michael

    Straw, Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michael, Alun

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Vaz, Keith

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wallace, James

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Walley, Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    O'Brien, William

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Parry, Robert

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Patchett, Terry

    Worthington, Tony

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Prescott, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Mr. Allen McKay, and Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Radice, Giles

    Redmond, Martin

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Alexander, Richard

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Allason, Rupert

    Bowis, John

    Amess, David

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Amos, Alan

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bright, Graham

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Ashby, David

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

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Atkins, Robert

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Atkinson, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Burns, Simon

    Baldry, Tony

    Burt, Alistair

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Butcher, John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Butler, Chris

    Bellingham, Henry

    Butterfill, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Carttiss, Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cash, William

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Boswell, Tim

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bottomley, Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    423

    Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

    Janman, Tim

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jessel, Toby

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Key, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Couchman, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Cran, James

    Knapman, Roger

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Day, Stephen

    Lang, Ian

    Devlin, Tim

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lightbown, David

    Dover, Den

    Lilley, Peter

    Dunn, Bob

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Evennett, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fallon, Michael

    McCrindle, Robert

    Farr, Sir John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Favell, Tony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Maclean, David

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Forth, Eric

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Madel, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Franks, Cecil

    Malins, Humfrey

    Freeman, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    French, Douglas

    Maples, John

    Fry, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Marlow, Tony

    Gardiner, George

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gow, Ian

    Mellor, David

    Greenway, Harry (Baling N)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gregory, Conal

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Grist, Ian

    Moate, Roger

    Ground, Patrick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Grylls, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hague, William

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Hannam, John

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Harris, David

    Neale, Gerrard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Needham, Richard

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Neubert, Michael

    Hayward, Robert

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Norris, Steve

    Hill, James

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hind, Kenneth

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Page, Richard

    Holt, Richard

    Paice, James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

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

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Portillo, Michael

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jack, Michael

    Price, Sir David

    Jackson, Robert

    Raffan, Keith

    424

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Redwood, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thorne, Neil

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rost, Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Trippier, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walden, George

    Shelton, Sir William

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Ward, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sims, Roger

    Warren, Kenneth

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Watts, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Speed, Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Speller, Tony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wilkinson, John

    Squire, Robin

    Wilshire, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Steen, Anthony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Stevens, Lewis

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Yeo, Tim

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stokes, Sir John

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sumberg, David

    Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

    Summerson, Hugo

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 201.

    Division No. 179]

    [10.14 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Boswell, Tim

    Alexander, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Allason, Rupert

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Amess, David

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Amos, Alan

    Bowis, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Brazier, Julian

    Ashby, David

    Bright, Graham

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Atkins, Robert

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

    Atkinson, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Baldry, Tony

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Burns, Simon

    Batiste, Spencer

    Burt, Alistair

    Bellingham, Henry

    Butcher, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Butler, Chris

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Butterfill, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Carrington, Matthew

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Carttiss, Michael

    425

    Cash, William

    Jackson, Robert

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Janman, Tim

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Jessel, Toby

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Chope, Christopher

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Key, Robert

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Conway, Derek

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Knapman, Roger

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Cran, James

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lang, Ian

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

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Day, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Devlin, Tim

    Lilley, Peter

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dover, Den

    Lord, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Eggar, Tim

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Emery, Sir Peter

    McCrindle, Robert

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Evennett, David

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fallon, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Favell, Tony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    Madel, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Malins, Humfrey

    Franks, Cecil

    Mans, Keith

    Freeman, Roger

    Maples, John

    French, Douglas

    Marland, Paul

    Fry, Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Gale, Roger

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mellor, David

    Gow, Ian

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Gregory, Conal

    Moate, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Ground, Patrick

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grylls, Michael

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hague, William

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hannam, John

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

    Neale, Gerrard

    Harris, David

    Needham, Richard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Neubert, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayward, Robert

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Norris, Steve

    Hill, James

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hind, Kenneth

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Page, Richard

    Holt, Richard

    Paice, James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

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

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pawsey, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Portillo, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Price, Sir David

    Jack, Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    426

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Redwood, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Riddick, Graham

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Thorne, Neil

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Thurnham, Peter

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rost, Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Trippier, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walden, George

    Shelton, Sir William

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Ward, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sims, Roger

    Warren, Kenneth

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Watts, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Speed, Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Speller, Tony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Squire, Robin

    Wilkinson, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wilshire, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Stevens, Lewis

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Yeo, Tim

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stokes, Sir John

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sumberg, David

    Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. David Lightbown.

    Summerson, Hugo

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coleman, Donald

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Allen, Graham

    Corbett, Robin

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cousins, Jim

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Cox, Tom

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Crowther, Stan

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Cryer, Bob

    Barron, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Battle, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Beith, A. J.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bell, Stuart

    Darling, Alistair

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bermingham, Gerald

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

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dixon, Don

    Blair, Tony

    Dobson, Frank

    Blunkett, David

    Doran, Frank

    Boateng, Paul

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bradley, Keith

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Buchan, Norman

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Buckley, George J.

    Fatchett, Derek

    Caborn, Richard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fearn, Ronald

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

    Canavan, Dennis

    Flannery, Martin

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Flynn, Paul

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Foster, Derek

    Clay, Bob

    Foulkes, George

    Clelland, David

    Fraser, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Fyfe, Maria

    427

    Galloway, George

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    George, Bruce

    McAllion, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gordon, Mildred

    McFall, John

    Graham, Thomas

    McKelvey, William

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    McLeish, Henry

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Grocott, Bruce

    McWilliam, John

    Hardy, Peter

    Madden, Max

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Marek, Dr John

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Henderson, Doug

    Martlew, Eric

    Hinchliffe, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Meacher, Michael

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Meale, Alan

    Home Robertson, John

    Michael, Alun

    Hood, Jimmy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Illsley, Eric

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Ingram, Adam

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Janner, Greville

    Murphy, Paul

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    O'Brien, William

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Parry, Robert

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Patchett, Terry

    Kennedy, Charles

    Pike, Peter L.

    Kilfedder, James

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Prescott, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lambie, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Radice, Giles

    Leighton, Ron

    Redmond, Martin

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lewis, Terry

    Reid, Dr John

    Litherland, Robert

    Richardson, Jo

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Livsey, Richard

    Rogers, Allan

    428

    Rooker, Jeff

    Turner, Dennis

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Vaz, Keith

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wallace, James

    Ruddock, Joan

    Walley, Joan

    Salmond, Alex

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Short, Clare

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Sillars, Jim

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Soley, Clive

    Worthington, Tony

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Strang, Gavin

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Straw, Jack

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House believes that almost every adult should make some contribution towards the cost of local services from which they benefit, with relief for the less well off; welcomes the embodiment of those principles in the community charge; notes that the scale and pattern of payments is related to ability to pay with 10 million people receiving rebates at a cost of £2·5 billion; welcomes the willingness of the Government to listen to constructive suggestions for improving the new system with a view to prompt implementation of any necessary changes; further notes that living under Labour costs people more; and deplores the fact that the Labour Party have not had the courage or honesty to come forward with their own proposals before the local elections on 3rd May.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the War Crimes Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  Orders of the Day
    War Crimes Bill
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
    War Crimes Bill
      Clause 1

        JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN WAR CRIMES
        10.27 pm
        Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'with' to end of line 11 and insert '15th August 1945'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in title, line 2, leave out from `committed' to 'during' in line 3.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The purpose of the amendments, the second of which is a consequential amendment to the long title, is twofold. It removes the territorial restriction on the operation of the Bill. It is always bad law to pass criminal law which is ad hominem. There can be no justification, if there is any justification for the Bill, in confining its provisions to the crimes of the nature covered in German-occupied territory. There is no reason whatever why it should not extend to Japanese-occupied territory. If the Bill is passed, how can we look in the face any constituent whose husband was murdered by the Japanese army? How can we conceivably justify legislating within the confines of the Bill?
        Amendment No. 2 does two things. It substitutes the end of the second world war for the end of the war in Europe. It substitutes VJ day, the end of the second world war, for VE day, which so inappropriately appears in the Bill, as if the war ended on 5 June 1945, which it did not. The amendment also removes the territorial restriction. Even if that provision had been left in, it would be to the enrichment of lawyers and the prolongation of trials.
        Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It is anyway.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend says that it is anyway.
        What is a place which at the time was part of Germany or under German occupation? Does it mean, for instance the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, which was declared by the Germans to be part of Germany but not recognised as such by Great Britain? What about territory occupied by the Hungarian army, the Romanian army or the Italian army, all of which fought on the Russian front?
        What is a place? Is a place a country, a province, one of the Nazi German protectorates, such as the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia? Is it a town, is it a village, is it a house, is it a field? What is a place? It is an absurd piece of drafting. The whole of that nonsense would be got rid of if amendment No. 2 were accepted and with it consequentially amendment No. 3 to the long title.
        Mr. Kenneth Hind: I rise to oppose the amendment. I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the anxieties that he has expressed throughout the debates on the War Crimes Bill. However, I stress that the Bill was introduced following the Hetherington-Chalmers report.
        430
        It was specifically devised to deal with war crimes committed by the German Nazi party and its allies in Western Europe and not with any other problems.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Hind: I shall give way in a moment if my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my argument. The Bill was introduced against the background, following what Winston Churchill called the fall of the iron curtain, of no information being passed from eastern Europe to the western nations, particularly those involved in the Nuremberg trials, that would provide them with evidence to bring people who had committed war crimes in eastern Europe to trial. As a consequence, during the period immediately after the war, many people who had been involved in war crimes in eastern Europe fled to the west but were not accompanied by the flow of information that was necessary to bring them to trial and convict them under the law at the time.
        The position has now changed. Because of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union, there has been a flow of information which has enabled us to re-examine the cases of many people who fled from eastern Europe. They fled as legitimate refugees then, but it is now clear that they were either Nazi sympathisers, members of the SS or involved in committing atrocities behind what was then regarded as the iron curtain. Previously we had no evidence to bring them to trial. That is the logic behind the Bill. It is specific and localised towards that particular problem.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton seeks—commendably—to extend the Bill to all war crimes, particularly those committed in Japan. I ask him to examine the question of Japan carefully. Large numbers of people came to the United Kingdom from eastern Europe—Lithuania, Estonia, the Ukraine and parts of Russia—claiming that they were political refugees escaping from possible persecution in the Soviet Union. There is no parallel between that and Japan or other countries. We must recognise that the Bill has been introduced to deal with people who are resident in the United Kingdom. It gives powers to deal with them in the British courts. There is clearly no parallel with people from Japan who were involved in committing war crimes against British subjects in the far east, emigrated to this country and settled here. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton should think again about the amendment.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend inadvertently used the phrase "Germany and its allies." We make the point that Germany's allies are not covered by the Bill, but only Germans and German-occupied territory. Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is bad law to pass laws specific to certain individuals but which do not cover all war crimes committed in the second world war?
        Mr. Hind: I accept my hon. Friend's point that my use of the word "allies" was loose. I had in mind those allies in Europe and those from parts of the Soviet Union who fought alongside the German forces. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that many of them found themselves in occupied Vichy France. Those are the people about whom I am concerned.
        The allies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton—the Japanese and those in the far east—

        431
        should not be covered by the Bill because there was no major immigration from that part of the world to the United Kingdom. They did not place themselves within the jurisdiction of the British courts and are therefore not eligible to be dealt with in this way.
        Mr. Bennett rose—
        Mr. Hind: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
        I cannot emphasise strongly enough that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton is seeking to bring into the remit of the Bill those who do not fall within our jurisdiction and for whom we do not have the evidence or people to deal with in Britain today.
        One criticism that has been made of the Bill is the fact that we are looking back to the past, and it is retrospective legislation. I believe it should be used only in special circumstances which arise in relation to factors with which we can deal. It is within our power, as a Parliament, to create a body of laws to deal with a particular problem. We are doing that. We are not doing so in relation to the problem put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, because that problem does not exist. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
        Mr. John Marshall: I shall be brief, because I know that the shorter my speech is the more popular it will be with some of my colleagues.
        I feel strongly that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is not sensible. My hon. Friend talks about widening the Bill's scope to include, for example, the Japanese. But there is not one iota of evidence that there is one former Japanese war criminal in the United Kingdom. We know from the Hetherington-Chalmers report that there are former German war criminals in the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How do we know that there are not? Who has looked for them? There is no Japanese equivalent of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. How can my hon. Friend say that there are no such criminals here?
        Mr. Marshall: I should have thought it was quite obvious that there are no Japanese war criminals in the United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and his friends believe that there are, they should name names in the House. There is not one iota of evidence; this is just a pure charade to try to weaken the Bill and a strong case.
        One should remember that we were dealing with a war machine that was the most foul ever known to this country. On Sunday I was walking around my constituency and noticed on someone's door that this was holocaust day; people were remembering all their relatives who had died. There are people in this country who lost their father, mother, grandparents and uncles, and their brothers, sisters and cousins. Some lost 30 or 40 close relatives—all killed by the Nazi war machine. It was the most evil mass murder known in the history of mankind.
        We have never had a statute of limitations on murder, and I do not believe that we should introduce one this evening by seeking to defeat the Bill. Those who oppose the Bill are saying that mass murder that took place 50 years ago should not be punished. I find that doctrine repugnant.
        Mr. Rupert Allason: With his customary eye for meticulous detail, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has put his finger on a couple of rather uncomfortable facts about the Bill.
        If I may dare to correct my hon. Friend's history, I do not think that 5 June 1945 was VE day. We discussed this in Committee in some detail, and discovered that there were two possible options for that day. First, as everyone knows, it was the day when Brazil declared war on Japan. [Interruption.] We should not denigrate the Brazilians, who fought with great courage up Italy, and who sustained many casualties. The fifth of June was also the day of the tripartite meeting in Berlin, and that is what has been chosen.
        My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the prospect of the Japanese being in this country. A large number of Japanese come to this country snow; there is a great deal of Japanese investment here, too. That leads to an awkward problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) described the possibility of a resident of the Federal Republic of Germany—in Committee he mentioned the war crime of gunning people down in the sea from a U-boat—who had committed an atrocity coming to the United Kingdom; he would be liable for prosecution under this Bill.
        In Committee we discussed whether someone who stayed in this country overnight could qualify as a resident. The possibility is not so remote that a Japanese who had been involved in an atrocity 50 years before might come here. It would be very embarrassing if such a person—perhaps the director of a major Japanese concern who had escaped prosecution at the end of the war in Japan—was identified. It would be embarrassing if he were able to escape scot free although he had been positively identified—unlike someone who had committed an atrocity on German-occupied territory, who could be prosecuted.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The person does not necessarily have to be Japanese. He could be, for instance, an Indian who had been a member of the Indian national army which operated under Japanese orders and also committed atrocities contrary to the laws of war.
        Mr. Allason: I take that point. One of the interesting aspects about my hon. Friend's decision for a date in August is that it would encompass operations in the far east, which continued long after June 1945.
        There has been a tendency, especially in Committee, to say that everyone committed war crimes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) suggested that British troops were involved in the murder of German prisoners of war. I should like to give him an opportunity to correct that statement, because I have carried out a little research and, as far as I am aware, the only case of an atrocity alleged by the German Government during the 1939–45 war was the alleged murder of a single German who was captured during a raid in 1942 in the Channel Islands. He was found dead by the Germans with his hands tied behind his back. As a direct consequence of that one incident, the prisoners who were captured at Dieppe in 1942 were all handcuffed and bound. That was the reason given for that episode.
        As far as I am aware, no major or even minor atrocities were committed by British troops. It is easy for people to say that atrocities were committed by everybody and that in some way that is acceptable or forgivable. Allied troops

        433
        fought with great bravery because they knew that the rules of war were being followed by British and Allied Governments.
        10.45 pm
        Sir Bernard Braine: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great attention because he is a meticulous recorder of events and many of us have read his works with pleasure. I entirely endorse what he says about the conduct of British troops during the war. That was my experience in Europe, Africa and the far east. He discussed the possibility, as others of our hon. Friends have done, of Japanese and Indians and others might come to this country who had been guilty of atrocious conduct during the war. Has he forgotten that the Bill deals with people who were nationals of another country when the crimes were committed and that the crimes would have been charged against Britons if they had committed them? The Bill deals with people who came to this country and acquired the privilege of British citizenship. That is the basis not only of the Bill but of the law in Canada, Australia and the United States when such people enter those countries and acquire citizenship. British citizenship is surely a great privilege, and not to be held by criminals.
        Mr. Allason: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's view that citizenship of the United Kingdom is a privilege. That is the nub of the retrospective aspect of the legislation. I would entirely endorse my right hon. Friend's observations if it were the case that the crimes and atrocities were committed by people who did not realise at the time that they were committing crimes. There is no question but that at the time these events were against not just British law but international law and conventions and the German military code. People were aware that they were committing crimes. We are merely ensuring that a loophole that was exploited by such people to find safe haven in this country through a strange quirk in the law that was overlooked by many people will be closed once and for all.
        There is nothing retrospective about the legislation in terms of the crime. The only element of retrospection is in terms of the jurisdiction. My hon. Friends have made a good point about Japan and the victims of Japanese atrocities, but I urge them not to pursue it and risk wrecking the Bill.
        Mr. Spencer Batiste: I strongly support the objectives and principles behind the Bill. Equally, I recognise that there is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, which reflects the fact that the Bill is but one aspect of a wider principle. In times to come, we shall have to amend and extend the Bill. Unfortunately, the events of the second world war and the crimes against humanity were not unique in history. I wish that they had been; if they had, we might be taking a different view of the Bill. The sad truth is that crimes against humanity have been committed again and again, in different parts of the world.
        Given the encouraging climate that is breaking out in eastern Europe and elsewhere, with democratic Governments taking over from oppressive regimes, there will be a constant stream of ex-murderers and ex-torturers on the run, looking for safe havens. I would find it extremely distasteful if, because of a loophole in the law, Britain became such a haven, be it for the Nazi war
        434
        criminal, the torturer from central America or the mass murderer from eastern Europe. The Bill is a valuable signpost for the way ahead, and it is desirable that we should enact the concept that, if anybody applies for British citizenship, he must be automatically deemed to give the British courts jurisdiction to try him for serious crimes that he may have committed elsewhere.
        Although I have great sympathy for what my lion. Friend the Member for Tiverton said, I believe that the right amendment to the Bill would be far more wide-reaching, and would require careful and comprehensive thought. I am sure that, in due course, the House will have to return to it. The Bill is a welcome first step, but the amendment does not go far enough in dealing with a problem with which in time we will have to deal.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I believe it to be badly drafted and flawed. We should not introduce retrospective legislation. In Committee, my hon. Friends and I who opposed the Bill on Second Reading made it clear that we were trying to improve the Bill by tabling amendments. None of our amendments were selected, so we were not able to make the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has made tonight. Had we done so—I tabled an amendment reasonably similar to his—we could have had this debate in Committee.
        I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. South (Mr. Marshall) that the amendment does not weak en the Bill. Rather, it strengthens it by making it applicable to all war criminals of the second world war, rather than to a small number. It would be wrong to introduce a law designed to deal with specific individuals—and only a small number of people will be caught by this Bill—when we know that, during the war, others committed similar horrific crimes in other countries. I am concerned that the Bill is so narrowly drawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton makes a good point in trying to extend it to cover all war criminals from the second world war who are not covered by existing legislation.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is mistaken about the circumstances since the second world war. The Bill deals with crimes committed in that war, because anyone who was involved in a crime committed since that time will be covered by existing legislation.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) inadvertently referred to "allies", and I subsequently intervened in his speech. He then, having defined the term "allies" more carefully, spoke about those who were working with the Germans and referred to as being occupied by the Germans. Vichy France was not occupied by the Germans—that is why it was Vichy France. After the invasion of north Africa in Operation Torch on 10 November 1942, Vichy France was ruled by the French.
        It is our understanding from what was said in Committee that actions of collaborators with the German regime in areas that were not under direct German occupation will not be caught by the Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) introduced an amendment that would have added "or under German control" after "German Occupation". We were promised in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office that that proposal would be considered and raised again on Report. I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend what consideration has been

        435
        given by the Home Office to the sensible amendment that was tabled and moved by the Opposition spokesman in Committee.
        It is surely sensible to recognise that those who committed crimes in Vichy France between June 1940 and 10 November 1942, although not under German occupation, were subject to a puppet government who were very much under German control. A similar argument can be extended to other countries, such as those in the Balkans, which were in a similar position. They were not ruled directly by the Germans but they were very much under German influence.
        Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend any evidence of war crimes committed by the Vichy French which are not triable by the French authorities and therefore not subject to extradition from Britain? Furthermore, has he any evidence that such persons are now resident in the United Kingdom?
        Mr. Bennett: It is clear that my hon. Friend was not in his place when that argument was advanced a few minutes ago. It is because the Bill has been introduced as a direct result of the activities of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre that the only evidence that we have is that which has been uncovered. It does not make sense to say that we shall pass only laws that are particular. No other evidence has been produced, because no one has looked for it. The most sensible course would be to produce a Bill that had the benefit of covering all war crimes that are not presently covered by legislation. That is all that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton is seeking to do.
        Mr. Allason: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) was making the point that the French have their own legislation and that, if there are people resident in Britain who are of French origin, they can be extradited to France to stand trial there.
        Mr. Bennett: I am not sure whether that is true. We are talking about people who have taken British citizenship, who are surely in a different position from that of French citizens. In those circumstances there may be far more difficulties in dealing with an offence that took place up to 1945, and subsequently when the law changed as a result of the Geneva convention. The Bill was introduced to deal with crimes for which, under the convention, we have no redress.
        Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend has shot his case.
        Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) give way?
        Mr. Bennett: No. I have given way on several occasions already.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) says that I have shot my case, but we do not know whether there are people from Japan and elsewhere around the world, including the Balkan countries, who might be caught if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton were accepted. I cannot understand my hon. Friend's objections to widening the Bill. To widen it would not let off any of the people whom they think the legislation should cover. Indeed, it might extend it to others. Surely that is a sensible proposition. I cannot understand why my hon. Friends want a narrow Bill to deal with one specific class of person. That is not good law. If the House is to legislate in this area, it should enact general laws that are applicable to everyone who committed war crimes during the period that we are considering.
        Mr. Patrick Cormack: I support the amendment but I am not happy about the Bill. I am deeply unhappy about retrospective justice and about the difficulty of finding adequate evidence and bringing old men to trial. I have not been able to speak in previous debates on the Bill, but I voted against the measure on Second Reading for the reasons to which I have referred. If we are to have legislation, it must be even-handed.
        Clause 3(6) makes it necessary to support the amendment, or something like it. The subsection states:
        "Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions and modifications as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate, to the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or any colony."
        It so happens that one of our colonies is Hong Kong, which has been much in the news recently. It was the scene of some of the most appalling atrocities during the second world war. I find it difficult to accept that among the teeming millions of the population of Hong Kong there are not some Japanese war criminals.
        We are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that is designed to catch half a dozen people who have been fingered by one man and one institute, and to bring them to trial. We shall have an Act that can, by Order in Council, be extended yet be unable to catch people who committed in Hong Kong some of the most appalling atrocities known to man. For that reason alone, if this House is to legislate—I have grave doubts about the wisdom of what the House has embarked upon and I am deeply unhappy about it—we must be even-handed.
        11 pm
        Mr. Alistair Darling: I understand why many right hon. and hon. Members have reservations about the Bill; I do, too. However, on balance, I have reached the conclusion that the Bill should proceed. It is obvious that since the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 the problem has been resolved to the extent that anyone accused of what we loosely call war crimes can be prosecuted, regardless of his nationality, or the place at which those war crimes took place, provided that he is subject to the jurisdiction of any of the legal systems of the United Kingdom.
        We could have left matters there, but for one problem. During the past few years, and in particular after Chalmers and Hetherington prepared their report, it has become apparent that some people living in this country may have been guilty of what are called war crimes. That being so, I find it difficult to envisage how it could be right or, indeed, possible to avoid taking action. If there are people in this country accused of having committed what, by any view, are appalling crimes, it would be wrong to do nothing about it. That is what has swung my vote behind the Bill.
        I understand the thrust behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Many of these points were made in Committee. I am not as confident as the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that there is absolutely no one, beyond reasonable doubt, living in this country who may have been guilty of atrocities in the Japanese theatre. If there is no evidence that such people are living in this country, it would be pointless to add that provision to the Bill. If we were to agree to the amendment, we would be duty bound to start some investigation to try to determine whether people in that category were living here. I do not think that that is possible and, for that reason, I am not tempted to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton in his argument.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if one such person were found, we should then go through the whole procedure of enacting another Bill? That is the thrust of his argument. As we are legislating, what is wrong with covering that eventuality rather than legislating ad hominem, which is usually considered to be a disreputable legislative practice?
        Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that I would be inconsistent if I said that if we found someone in that category in this country we should do nothing about it. That would not be right. I have to tell him, reluctantly, that if it emerged that there were people living in this country who may have been guilty of war crimes in the war against Japan, there would be no alternative but to deal with them in the way that we are dealing with people accused of having committed war crimes in the German theatre of war.
        To agree to the amendment would inevitably require investigations and other work being carried out to determine whether there were Japanese war criminals—
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why not?
        Mr. Darling: We have to draw a line somewhere. It is, perhaps, a rough and ready line, but if there is no evidence that there are such people I should be reluctant to
        438
        encourage the Government to incur the time, effort and expense of engaging in a search that might be completely fruitless.
        I am one of those Members who have come reluctantly to support the Bill, simply because we are told by reliable sources that there are people living in this country who may—I put it no higher than that, and we should remember it in future debates—have been guilty of war crimes. For that reason I am prepared to support the Bill. There could be people in this country guilty of war crimes in other theatres of war, and we would have to extend the scope of the legislation beyond Japan to other countries. Suffice it to say that I understand why the hon. Gentleman advanced his amendment, but I do not agree with it.
        Mr. Hind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. but the principle could be extended. If we were asked by the Soviet Union or by republics within it to extradite people from the United Kingdom to stand trial in those countries for war crimes, we might not have enough confidence in their system of justice to provide a fair and proper trial. However, if Japan or another democratic country made the same request in respect of a person who had committed war crimes in their theatre of war, we would be dealing with a western-style democracy having standards of justice that we recognise. That is not the position in respect of the Soviet Union.
        Mr. Darling: I do not want to go down the road of extradition, but the hon. Gentleman's general point is correct. It may be possible to deal with this by way of extradition, according to the circumstances.
        I refer to another aspect that I intended to raise on Third Reading—and I may still do so, if we ever reach it. The hon. Member for Tiverton made a point with which I have some sympathy, and to which some of his hon. Friends alluded, relating to Germany and to countries under German occupation. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to extend the definition to include territories that had substantially been under German control. Vichy France was mentioned in the debate, and since then the all-party war crimes group has undertaken additional work and cited Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and other countries.
        The Minister undertook to examine that point, and he may have something to say—although perhaps not as much as we would like. If the other place has an opportunity to examine that aspect, it may choose to give it special consideration. The extent of territories under German occupation or controlled by Germany may he a moot point. It would be extremely awkward—I put it no higher than that—if the defence in a war crimes trial was able to prove that although a crime had been committed it had not occurred on territory in Germany, under German occupation, or under German control—with the result that the accused person could not be convicted under the Bill.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Gentleman accepts my amendment, that problem will disappear, because the amendment removes the definition of location.
        Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's amendment goes further than I want. I would prefer a tightening up of the definition of territory within Germany, under German occupation, or under German control rather than have the

        439
        definition removed altogether. The problem relating to location arises in practically every murder trial, and it is a matter for the Crown to prove.
        Even if no satisfactory solution can be found, at the end of the day the Crown will have to prove its own indictment. If it cannot do so, the accused will be acquitted. I see nothing wrong with that requirement, which is an essential feature of our legal system and one that has much to commend it.
        The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): This has been an extremely interesting debate. I agree largely with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has just said in his brief concluding remarks.
        I must address my opening remarks to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who has taken a close interest in the Bill. I recall my hon. Friend intervening in the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when we first debated the issue in December.
        I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has followed the proceedings of the Bill closely since then. Even though he opposes the principle of the Bill very strongly, my hon. Friend has sought to ensure that if the Bill is enacted it should be as equitable and as workable as possible—I am grateful to him for that—as has my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) also pursued that line firmly and effectively in Committee. He also disliked the Bill but sought to improve it, while engaging in some interesting historical dialectic.
        I shall examine carefully the thinking that has led my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to table the amendments. I think that they are unnecessary and I disagree with them for three reasons. First, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in December and on Second Reading, the Bill as it stands, as a matter of Government policy, deliberately reflects closely the recommendations contained in the Hetherington-Chalmers report. Those recommendations were framed carefully to ensure that they dealt with allegations that were made to the inquiry.
        I naturally understand the view that if we are to legislate to make war crimes trials possible, the legislation should apply to all crimes, wherever they are committed. However and—I think that many hon. Members would support this view—the Government would be reluctant to extend the Bill beyond what was recommended after such careful thought by the war crimes inquiry. After all, it advertised widely and people from all over the country and from abroad made depositions to it and it built up a considerable expertise.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is for the House to legislate, not for Mr. Hetherington or Mr. Chalmers.
        Mr. Patten: That is exactly what the House is doing and over the years my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has been a notable defender of the House of Commons, of the Chamber of the House and of its rights.
        Mr. Nicholas Benett rose—
        Mr. Patten: If I may, I shall continue my reply, and then I shall give way.
        440
        Nonetheless, the Government asked the Hetherington-Chalmers committee to look into the issues. It considered them objectively and made a set of recommendations which the Government accepted, which is why they formed the basis for the framework of the legislation. It is a short Bill—three clauses and one schedule—and it has been closely scrutinised in Committee.
        Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has just shot a hole in his argument because the Government set up the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry and the terms of reference were set out by the Government:
        "To obtain and examine relevant material, including material held by Government Departments and documents which have been or may be submitted by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre".
        It goes on to describe war crimes, which extend
        "only to crimes of murder, manslaughter or genocide committed in Germany and in territories occupied by German forces during the Second World War."
        My hon. Friend, the Minister prays in aid an argument that that was what the Hetherington-Chalmers report concentrated on, but the Government set up the terms of reference to consider that specific point alone.
        Mr. Patten: I do not believe that I have shot a hole in my argument or any other part of my person. I am about to deal with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, which is what we are debating. We are not reopening the wider arguments, which I know you would not wish us to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they were examined in Second Reading and exhaustively in committee. The amendment deals specifically with the extension of the legislation to deal with what one might—in shorthand—term the Japanese problem.
        Several Hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Patten: Before I turn to that, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
        Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if anyone in the United Kingdom had had one shred of evidence that a former Japanese war criminal was resident in the United Kingdom he would have produced that evidence at the time of the inquiry?
        Mr. Patten: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, as I agree with what he said in his speech.
        Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend confident that the term
        "Germany or under German occupation"
        is sufficiently wide? Concern was expressed in Committee about the probability of crimes having been committed in the Ukraine and elsewhere in Russia.
        11.15 pm
        Mr. Patten: I shall deal with that point later.
        The nub of the argument is that, despite all the publicity about the war crimes issue in the last few years there has been no suggestion that there are any alleged war criminals, other than those who committed their alleged crimes in German or German-controlled territory, living within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. That point was made forcefully by my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South, for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). We do not wish this country to be a

        441
        haven for any criminal, of whatever sort. We seek to legislate to deal with an identifiable mischief rather than with a hypothetical future event.
        As the inquiry report shows—it was a careful inquiry the—arrival in this country in the years immediately following the second world war of some men and women who may have committed crimes in Germany or in German-occupied territory reflects the nature of the conditions in post-war Europe. Thousands and thousands of people in post-war Europe had been displaced from their former homes and were seeking new homes and work, sometimes in this country. The Bill deals with the possibility that some of the people who came to settle in this country from Germany or from countries that had been occupied by the Germans may have committed war crimes.
        After the termination of hostilities in the Soviet Union, there was no mass migration from the Soviet Union to western Europe. Moreover, there is no evidence of any mass migration, or even mini-migration of people after the cessation of hostilities in the far east that led to people from Japan settling in this country.
        Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend must admit that it is not fanciful to say that migration from Hong Kong is a possibility. As there is a provision to extend the legislation to include the colonies, and as Hong Kong is by far our largest and most important colony, why does my right hon. Friend set his face against that possibility?
        Mr. Patten: Because we take the view—I personally do so—that we should seek to legislate to deal with identifiable mischiefs rather than with mischiefs that may arise at some future date. That is narrowly what we are seeking to do in the Bill.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The argument is about identifiable mischiefs, not about identifiable persons. My amendment covers the mischief. To try to constrain it constrains it to persons rather than to the whole mischief.
        Mr. Patten: The identifiable mischief is the fact that people who are now living within this jurisdiction may have committed murder or may have attempted murder in Germany or in German-occupied territory. In no sense at all does the legislation refer ad hominem to any persons named. The mischief is that some persons—all persons have names—may in the past have committed such alleged crimes.
        I now turn to the important point about territory raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and reflected in the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Pembroke. We have a pretty clear view about what is German and German-occupied territory. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke asked about Vichy France. Actions by Vichy France against Frenchmen would not he war crimes, and would therefore be outside the scope of international law at the time; they would be acts of homicide or crimes against humanity. Actions by puppet regimes against their own citizens in their own territory would fall outside the definition of war crime at any stage since the Hague convention of 1907. They would not be war crimes by that or by any other definition in international law, as far as I am aware, although they might certainly be caught under a number of crimes against humanity.
        Sir John Stokes: The French connection is a difficult issue. I was involved with the French for quite a long time. I fought the Vichy French and very nearly fought the free French. After the 1941 invasion of Vichy Syria, many British officers and soldiers were taken back to France where they were treated quite abominably for several weeks and under the armistice it was very hard to get them back. That will not be helped by the Bill.
        Mr. Patten: I do not believe that that will be covered by the legislation. I should be happy to learn more about those matters from my hon. Friend. I should be particularly interested to learn how he narrowly avoided fighting the free French. Perhaps at some stage my hon. Friend will tell me how that happy chance came about.
        I must deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central reflecting some correspondence sent to me by the former Home Secretary the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about the terms in which the Bill is drafted and whether they are adequate to catch war crimes in what might have been termed puppet regimes or the territories of puppet regimes sympathetic to the German cause. The matter was raised in Committee and I have reflected on it since. Since then we have benefited from the advice of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and some very detailed papers which I received towards the end of last week. I am studying them carefully, and if we conclude that as a result there is indeed a gap such as that alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, we shall certainly be willing to table the necessary amendments to be debated in Committee in another place.
        However, it is fair and important for me to repeat that, as with Vichy France, my preliminary assessment is to doubt whether the events described in the papers that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me fall within the definition of a war crime. The events described were undoubtedly terrible, but given the circumstances in which they took place, it appears that they might have been crimes against humanity rather than war crimes and would therefore lie outside the scope of the Bill, whatever territorial extent is applied.
        The third point that I put before my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, who I know feels very strongly about the Japanese issue, is that it is obvious that we can give our courts the power to try only cases involving people who live within our jurisdiction. The Bill does not provide the power to try alleged war criminals, whatever offences they may have committed, if they have not come to live here.
        Supposing that, on behalf of the Government, I accepted my hon. Friend's amendment and we could extend the scope of the Bill to Japan, Russia and elsewhere, I fear that we would be conveying a misleading signal to a number of people whose fathers, husbands or relations might have suffered terribly at the hands of the Japanese during the war. It might lead people to think that something could be done when, as far as I know, there has never been an allegation that anyone living within British jurisdiction might have committed such crimes. It would therefore be a mistake for the House to raise people's hopes that something might be done to right past terrible deeds when it was not in our power so to do.
        Mr. Alan Willians: The Minister's point would be more valid if the proposition struck at a specific date, such as March 1990, as in the Bill. The Bill, however, goes on to use the words "or subsequently". I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worley, West (Mr. Archer) that "or subsequently" refers to the future as well as the present. Evidence of what happened in the past is not conclusive in regard to the jurisdiction; the Bill allows for what could happen in the future.
        Mr. Patten: The Bill refers to whether a person is resident in this country from that date.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend asked what comfort the extension would bring if there were no Japanese war criminals now living in Britain, the Channel islands, the Isle of Man or a British colony. Obviously thousands of Japanese war criminals are still alive. The comfort that such an extension would bring is this: people who had lost fathers or husbands would know that those responsible would not dare to come to this country. If the amendment is not passed, however, they will be able to come here with impunity.
        Mr. Patten: There has never been any evidence that anyone alleged to be guilty of such crimes has ever come to this country. I feel that the amendment would provide scant help for those who grieve for the people who were so badly harmed during the Japanese conflict, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend would like to enable such mischief to be blocked in the future. I do not think that it is right in principle for us to legislate in that way, and I hope that, having heard my three reasons for not wishing to accept the amendment, my hon. Friend will feel inclined to withdraw it.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 151.

        Division No. 180]

        [11.26 pm

        AYES

        Allason, Rupert

        Skinner, Dennis

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Beith, A. J.

        Stokes, Sir John

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Summerson, Hugo

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Butcher, John

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Wallace, James

        Cormack, Patrick

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Kennedy, Charles

        Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

        Mans, Keith

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Boswell, Tim

        Amess, David

        Bradley, Keith

        Arbuthnot, James

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Bright, Graham

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

        Ashby, David

        Burns, Simon

        Atkins, Robert

        Burt, Alistair

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Butterfill, John

        Baldry, Tony

        Caborn, Richard

        Batiste, Spencer

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Battle, John

        Carrington, Matthew

        Beggs, Roy

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Bendall, Vivian

        Chope, Christopher

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Conway, Derek

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Boateng, Paul

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        444

        Cryer, Bob

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Dalyell, Tam

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Darling, Alistair

        Morley, Elliot

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Dixon, Don

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Neubert, Michael

        Durant, Tony

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Eggar, Tim

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Norris, Steve

        Fallon, Michael

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Fearn, Ronald

        Paice, James

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

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Patchett, Terry

        Foster, Derek

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Freeman, Roger

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Pike, Peter L.

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Portillo, Michael

        Gordon, Mildred

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Graham, Thomas

        Prescott, John

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Redwood, John

        Hardy, Peter

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Harris, David

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Haynes, Frank

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Hind, Kenneth

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Hood, Jimmy

        Rogers, Allan

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Illsley, Eric

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Jack, Michael

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Janner, Greville

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Jessel, Toby

        Steen, Anthony

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Stevens, Lewis

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Kilfedder, James

        Sumberg, David

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Lang, Ian

        Thorne, Neil

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Trippier, David

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Vaz, Keith

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Waller, Gary

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Walley, Joan

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Wheeler, Sir John

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Wilson, Brian

        Maclean, David

        Winnick, David

        Maclennan, Robert

        Wood, Timothy

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Yeo, Tim

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Maples, John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Meale, Alan

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. John Patten.]
        11.37 pm
        Mr. Darling: I made my position on the Bill clear in the debate on amendment No. 2, and I see no point in repeating it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am equally confident in saying that I shall have the support of the majority of the House in following that approach. I dealt with jurisdiction and the definition of Germany and of territory occupied by Germany. I hope that the Government will give further thought to tabling amendments in Committee in the other place. I know that

        445
        the Minister will accept my point in the spirit in which it is made when I say that I remain unconvinced by his preliminary reasoning. He will have to return to this matter.
        I am not sure whether we can resolve a further difficulty, which is how on earth we can define the laws and customs of war. They are defined in the 1907 Hague convention and, as one can see from the Hetherington and Chalmers report, the definition is fraught with difficulties. I am content to leave this issue to the Crown, which will have to prove that a killing was such as to render it contrary to the laws and customs of war. Perhaps those in the other place with greater experience and expertise will turn their minds to that difficulty.
        This must be one of the few Bills on which it is necessary for a Committee to report to the House that it has been unable to resolve many problems. First, many of the fears that we canvassed in Committee may not arise in any trial, and, secondly, they will be a matter for proof at the trial. If the Crown cannot prove the indictment against any individual, that individual must be acquitted. That seems to be the right solution.
        No one should be under any illusion that the prosecution of these cases will be easy, especially given the lapse of time since the events took place. Despite those difficulties, as I said when I spoke on the amendments, I believe that the Bill should proceed. Although it is far from perfect and can never be perfect because of the circumstances in which we have to legislate, it is not so flawed that it is unworkable. Therefore, the House should support it.
        The Government have taken one welcome step. In Committee, the Opposition moved an amendment to require the Secretary of State to submit an annual report on the progress of the trials, in general rather than specific terms. It would address the problem raised in Committee of an end date for the trials. The Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), has been good enough to write to me to say that, although he could not accept our amendment, he accepted the principle that an annual report in general terms should be made available to both Houses and, indeed, to any other interested party. It would report on general progress as well as on the costs incurred.
        The explanatory memorandum of the Bill anticipates spending of between £7 million and £9 million in England and Wales and £3·5 million in Scotland. That is a great deal of money and it would be wrong for Parliament to allow the trials to run on without any supervision. As this is a special Bill which deals with a special case, the Minister's solution is welcome. I dare say that he will refer to it again when he replies.
        I feel strongly about pre-trial publicity. I know that there was not exactly a meeting of minds on this subject in Committee. If someone in Scotland is accused of committing a war crime, from the moment that he is charged there is almost a total ban on any publicity about events that will be the subject of the trial. Furthermore, during the trial there are strict restrictions on what can be reported. There cannot be speculation about events that are not canvassed in the trial. The position in England is different. Pre-trial publicity is allowed. As we have seen in the past, publicity during the trial is also apparently allowed. I am worried that there will be trial by television or by the media. If that happened, it would be a travesty of justice.
        446
        We cannot afford another Guildford, Birmingham or Broadwater Farm where there is controversy about the circumstances surrounding the trial. If people are to be brought to trial under the Bill, they must be tried before a jury who will hear the facts in the sober silence of the court room. They should not be subject to the influence of newspapers or television. They should not be influenced by consideration of events that took place at the same time but may have had nothing to do with the individual facing trial. I feel strongly that the Government should have done something about pre-trial publicity in this case, just as they will have to tackle the matter generally in the English criminal system.
        To show that I am not partisan, let me say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the English system on dock identification. In Scotland we have a problem, in that the witness is invited to identify an accused person in court. There is usually only one person chained up between two policemen, his head hung in shame. If the witness could not identify him or her, it would be very odd. I have been invited to refer to an anecdote that I related in Committee. It would be wrong of me to do so because the hon. Gentleman concerned is not in the Chamber.
        We received assurances about legal aid in Committee. They are extremely important. Legal aid must not be a barrier in these cases. Much concern has been and, I expect, will be expressed in another place about retrospection. We should remember that we are not creating a new crime, although I accept that we are extending jurisdiction, and that involves retrospection.
        I accept the difficulties of passage of time and proof and the problems that the defence will face. But, on balance, I believe that it would be wrong of the House not to pass this legislation. Such serious allegations have been made that it would be wrong for us to turn our backs on them and ignore them. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to give the Bill a Third Reading.
        11.45 pm
        Mr. Stanbrook: I have been against the principle of the Bill ever since the request for legislation was made by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in London two or three years ago. I have followed the issue closely ever since, and have been on the Standing Committee considering the Bill. I have no reason to change my view that it is a bad Bill.
        It is bad for two main reasons. First, in principle it is wrong to enact retrospective legislation to cover something that happened 50 years ago, 1,000 or more miles away. That cannot be good or in the public interest. It cannot be right for the atrocities and awful events that took place in the last war to be re-enacted and exhumed, to be once again paraded before the people of this country and their children, when the need is for peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. No good will come of the trials that may take place as a result of the legislation.
        Secondly, I oppose the Bill because, in practice—quite apart from the principle—it will be impossible to ensure that the people concerned receive a fair trial. In Standing Committee, some of my hon. Friends and I endeavoured to improve the Bill to try to ensure that those who were likely to be defendants were given assurances and the privilege of a fair trial. We were unsuccessful, and the rest of the Committee disagreed with us.
        The Bill should not be called a War Crimes Bill. If we know anything of the allegations and evidence, we know

        447
        that these are not war crimes in the proper, even legal, sense of the word. We are talking about murder and the massacre of innocent civilians. It so happens that those events occurred during the war. We are talking about the events and people covered by the Bill. It so happens that the events occurred in Europe, in German-occupied territory. That does not make them war crimes. By any standard, those events, whether or not they occurred during the war, would have constituted murder.
        Speaking as a lawyer, may I say that those who devised the Bill made a great mistake in closely defining the offences as crimes committed against the laws and customs of war. When one gets into the nitty-gritty of the laws and customs of war, one gets bogged down—as we did in Standing Committee—over how that phrase is defined. The Hague convention of 1907 specifies what constitutes war crimes. Lo and behold, they do not cover events such as the murder of civilians and innocent people; by and large, they cover the rights of soldiers. In 1907, before the first world war, there was still a chivalrous notion that the rights of soldiers, especially prisoners of war, had to be protected.
        Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that we were dealing with murder. As he knows, there is no statute of limitations on murders in the United Kingdom, so why is he recommending one for these murders?
        Mr. Stanbrook: If only my hon. Friend would listen more carefully, he would find a little more merit in my argument, which has nothing to do with his point.
        By describing these outrages as war crimes, we misdescribe them. They were horrific crimes, but they are not to be confined within the definition of war crimes, or to be further narrowed down in this Bill in terms of territorial extent or of acts contrary to the laws and customs of war. All such terms are inappropriate.
        If suitable jurisdiction had been in force at the time, it would surely have covered these crimes without the need to refer to them as war crimes; normal criminal legislation should have covered them. That is the brunt of the arguments advanced earlier—that the jurisdiction of the courts should be extended to include all such crimes, wherever and by whomsoever they are committed. The Government have missed this opportunity to propose that our laws should in future cover all such offences. If they had taken it, it would have constituted a passport to future co-operation in matters of extradition. It would also have avoided the overtones and the narrowing of definitions involved in the description "war crimes". If this legislation designates such crimes as war crimes, that will only make the application of the law more difficult in future.
        In his wisdom, Mr. Speaker chose not to select for debate the two new clauses to the Bill that I tabled. No doubt he thought I would have the chance to raise the two issues concerned on Third Reading, and I gladly do so now. Nowhere in the Bill is any provision made to enable the defendants to gather evidence on their own behalf. It is a fundamental right of anyone in this country charged with an offence to be able to gather his own evidence and to seek witnesses in his defence to show that he is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. In most cases, this right is taken for granted and is available.
        448
        In the natural course of events, a trial will not come on until such an opportunity has been given, but in any case that may arise out of this legislation, the offences having occurred 1,000 or more miles away almost 50 years ago, the defence will face grave difficulties in securing the evidence with which to rebut the charges. The Bill does nothing to help the defence in this respect, which makes it vulnerable to criticism on that ground alone. It is not nearly enough to state that the usual laws of criminal procedure will apply. That will result in all too short a time being allowed, once a defendant has been arrested and charged, before a case comes on for trial.
        The chance of a successful application to the trial judge to enable the defence to go to Russia or Israel or to any of the other places to which the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry travelled, spending £500,000 and 18 months, will not be available once cases have been initiated in this country.
        Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter was fully covered in Committee and that the Government gave an undertaking about legal aid?
        Mr. Stanbrook: We are not talking about pure financing, although I would be glad to hear that the Government have allowed £500,000 from the legal aid fund and 18 months for any defendant seeking to establish evidence in his own cause. If that is what is meant, I welcome it because it will go some way towards balancing matters between the prosecution and the defence.
        In normal cases before criminal courts in Britain, the charge involves events that took place fairly recently. Some 90 per cent. of such cases are about events that happened a matter of days before the arrest. Here we are dealing with events that took place 50 years ago, and 49 years ago in one case that I know. After such a passage of time, is it right that there should be no provision for the defence to be able to say when the case comes before the trial judge that it is impossible for justice to be done?
        Let us suppose that the defence said, "We have not been able to gather evidence. We have not been allowed to travel unhindered in Russia. We have not discovered anything that could be of value to us and therefore choose not to offer any sort of evidence." Would the prosecution, the Government and all the people who are prosecuting and persecuting these people be content with the result of such a case? Of course they would not, yet that is the nub of the problem with which we are dealing.
        Fifty years make a tremendous difference to the quality of evidence that is available in a case. It is no use people telling me, as they often do during our debates, that the people concerned were not British at the time. That makes not the slightest difference. These events occurred nearly 50 years ago and many miles away. The alleged offences were committed under conditions in which it was impossible for evidence to be gathered. Since then, governmental institutions and well-founded bodies such as the Simon Wiesenthal Centre have campaigned and spent money all over the world in order to produce evidence that might justify the prosecution of these people, and certainly enough to justify our Government initiating legislation to permit that to happen even though it will be ex post facto a retrospective law.
        There is a grave danger that prosecutions under this legislation will be oppressive and vindictive and perceived to be inspired by motives of revenge, malice and hatred.

        449
        The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) spoke about the pre-trial publicity, all of it aimed against these people who are already identified by the media and by members of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, one of whom has been marching up and down outside the house of one of the prospective defendants with a banner proclaiming his guilt.
        Even in Scotland, where apparently the standards in such matters are somewhat higher than they are in England, what chance have these people of a fair trial? What chance do they have of the application of the normal standards of British justice that would apply to anybody else were it not for the fact that we are passing special retroactive legislation to cover these people? It is nonsense to say that 70 people are involved. There may be a list of names, but the inquiry claimed that there are only three people about whom there is sufficient evidence to justify prosecution. That claim is based on an assumption that the House will change the law—bend it—to make it possible to proceed against them in accordance with the laws of evidence.
        It will be impossible for such people to have a fair trial. It will be impossible to stop pre-trial publicity. From the moment that they are identified by name, as they will be shortly, they will be picked out by the legislation as guilty men. Already they are accused of being Nazi war criminals. We are legislating for an injustice. We are deliberately picking on three people.
        Despite the fact that, for 40 years or so, they have lived here, apparently honestly and peacefully, as useful citizens, and that the law did not cover the crimes that they are alleged to have committed, we shall finger them and rig the law so that they become guilty. I should not be surprised if, at the end of it all, after the expenditure of millions of pounds and lots of time, a good British jury said, "We are having nothing to do with this," and the whole thing would be aborted. I hope so, but one cannot depend on it. British juries are often unreliable—I speak as a practising barrister—and I do not want to hide the inherent possibilities.
        It would be wrong for the House to authorise legislation such as this deliberately directed against three named and identified people. I should always be opposed to such a move.
        12.1 am
        Sir John Stokes: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrooke). Although the events about which we are talking took place nearly 50 years ago, I have some recollection of those times and the unpleasant scenes that I saw.
        This is the third occasion on which we have debated this subject. I listened to the two previous debates and followed the excellent debate in the other place, and have listened carefully to what has been said today. All my instincts as an Englishman continue to be against our proceeding any further with this Bill. It contains new and thoroughly unsatisfactory retrospective legislation. It goes against the grain of our history, how we do things and how we introduce our laws. There remain severe practical problems in attempting to give a fair trial to people accused of alleged crimes committed so long ago. There is also the almost impossible problem of physically
        450
        identifying the supposed criminals. There is no public demand for the Bill. I have not received a single letter about it from my constituents.
        I dread what will happen if the Bill is passed. We know that long, thorough and expensive inquiries will have to be made. We shall have to rely on testimony from Soviet Russia that is bound to be highly unreliable. We are instituting special forms of trial and production of witnesses will be called for. The defendants are bound to be at a grievous disadvantage, and I shudder to think what the gutter press will make of it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) spoke of the extremes that there will be in the press, television and the radio, and how these wretched men will be condemned from the word go. People will be found guilty long before the trial, an intolerable strain will be placed on juries, and the trials will be in danger of becoming show trials—all quite unEnglish and foreign.
        Above all, the entire procedure is partial. Many of the crimes committed by the Japanese, for instance, are not covered by the Bill. At a time when our legislative process is overloaded and when the Government should be—I hope that they will be—concentrating on good government and good administration, this is an entirely unnecessary and dangerous Bill. If it is enacted—I hope that it will not—I am sure that in time it will be deeply regretted by the Government and all those concerned with it.
        12.5 am
        Mr. Michael Irvine: I feel the most profound unease about the passage of the Bill on two principal grounds. First, this is retrospective legislation. Let us have no soft soaping or weasel words about that. It is definitely retrospective legislation. The dreadful deeds to which it is directed were not triable in the British courts in the year after they were committed, and they are not so triable now. The Bill is needed to make them triable.
        Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that if any person who was a British citizen at the time the offences were committed had committed them, he could have been tried under the law of this country?
        Mr. Irvine: Yes. He could have been tried under our law. He still could be so tried. Retrospective legislation would not be needed. The fact remains, however, that to deal with the deeds in question and to bring the individuals who were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers report to trial, the Bill is necessary. If it is not enacted, those people could not be tried in the courts of Great Britain. It is without doubt retrospective legislation. What is more, it is retrospective criminal legislation.
        I have an intense and instinctive dislike for retrospective legislation of any sort. In the hands of an oppressive or unscrupulous Government, it is so easy for retrospective legislation to be used to challenge liberty and justice. The danger is that a Bill such as this will be used in the future as a precedent. That is a great peril and one that the House should consider carefully before giving the Bill a Third Reading.
        Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how many clauses of Finance Bills that have involved retrospective legislation he has supported since becoming a Member of this place?
        Mr. Irvine: Perhaps not surprisingly, I cannot give a precise answer to that question. I merely say that in principle I am very much opposed to retrospective civil legislation. It is true that that is to be found especially in taxation measures. But if retrospective legislation relating to civil matters is dangerous—I believe strongly that it is—retrospective legislation that deals with criminal matters is doubly—indeed, trebly—dangerous.
        Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Would my hon. Friend say that it was ever all right, ever lawful, to commit mass murder? If it was never right or lawful, what is wrong with retrospective legislation which has the effect of bringing to book those who committed those crimes?
        Mr. Irvine: Of course it is never right to commit mass murder. I am horrified that my hon. and learned Friend should think fit to pose that question to me. It is important that I make it clear that nothing that is said in the Chamber can possibly overshadow the fact that the most terrible crimes were committed in central and eastern Europe during the second world war. The most terrible suffering was endured by those who were subjected to those ghastly cruelties. Nothing that I or anyone else says in the Chamber should minimise that. I assure hon. Members who take a different view from me about the merits of the Bill that I share equally their horror at those crimes and deeds. However, the fact remains that this is retrospective criminal legislation, which poses a great danger.
        I draw the attention of the House to the words of Lord Reid in the case of Waddington—a not unfamiliar name in this House—v. Miah—1974, 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 683. Lord Reid was, for many years, a distinguished Member of this House. Later he sat as a lord of appeal in ordinary and became one of the most distinguished judges of this century. He said:
        "There has for a very long time been a strong feeling against making legislation, and particularly criminal legislation, retrospective … It is hardly credible that any government department would promote or that Parliament would pass retrospective criminal legislation."
        Yet only 16 years later this Bill is being guided through the House by a Minister. It was given a massive majority on its Second Reading even though it involves retrospective criminal legislation.
        It is not just the fact that this Bill is retrospective criminal legislation that leads me to feel great unease about it.
        Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my hon. Friend help me and other hon. Members by telling us whether Lord Reid was referring to the creation of new offences or to the extending of jurisdiction where neither had previously existed?
        Mr. Irvine: With great respect to my hon. Friend, Lord Reid was enunciating general principles. Soft soaping will not get the House or my hon. Friend anywhere. The fact is that whether it relates to jurisdiction, territory or citizenship, legislation of this kind represents retrospective criminal legislation.
        The second reason for my considerable unease about the Bill is my belief that it will be impossible, at this distance of time, for there to be a fair trial in any contested prosecutions brought under the Bill. The time that has passed since the deeds in question is immense. The further that those deeds pass into time, the more difficult it will be for justice to be done.
        452
        I draw the attention of the House to a passage from a judgment by Lord Justice Diplock in the case of Allen v. Sir Alfred McAlpine and Sons Ltd. (1968) 2 Queen's Bench page 229 which I read out in Committee. It was a case in which the Court of Appeal was deciding whether three civil actions should be dismissed for want of prosecution. One action involved an accident nine years previously, another a different accident that had occurred nine years previously, and the third matters that had arisen 14 years previously.
        I ask the House to consider Lord Justice Diplock's words at page 255 particularly carefully:
        "Where the case is one in which at the trial disputed facts will have to be ascertained from oral testimony of witnesses recounting what they then recall of events which happened in the past, memories grow dim, witnesses may die or disappear. The chances of the courts being able to find out what really happened are progressively reduced as time goes on. This puts justice to the hazard. If the trial is allowed to proceed, this is more likely to operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff on whom the onus of satisfying the court as to what happened generally lies. But there may come a time when the interval between the events alleged to constitute the cause of action and the trial of the action is so prolonged that there is a substantial risk that a fair trial of the issues will be no longer possible. When this stage has been reached, the public interest in the administration of justice demands that the action should not be allowed to proceed."
        His words related to matters that had taken place not 45 or 48 years previously but only nine to 14 years previously.
        Mr. David Sumberg: Does my hon. Friend recall that very recently an action was brought in the High Court by my noble Friend Lord Aldington relating to events that occurred not 10 or 20 years ago but 40 years ago, just after the second world war? The result was one of the largest libel awards in the history of this country, of more than £1 million. How does my hon. Friend square the success of that action with the quote that he has just given and the views that he advances?
        Mr. Irvine: I have no difficulty in squaring that action with the points I make and the passage I quoted from Lord Justice Diplock's remarks. The case to which my hon. Friend refers did not require retrospective legislation. Nor was it a criminal action. In the particular circumstances of that case, the jury may have been able to determine the facts and reach a proper decision, but the longer the time that elapses from the commission of the offence, the more difficult it is to have a fair trial. That is particularly so in war crime cases because of the difficulty of preparing and presenting evidence.
        At chapter nine, pargraph 44 of the Hetherington-Chalmers report, the difficulty confronting the prosecution in such cases is detailed. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) referred to the difficulties that the prosecution would face. What was not mentioned in the Hetherington-Chalmers report or in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is the difficulties facing the defence. The desirability of ensuring a fair and proper trial should be at the heart of our considerations.
        If it is difficult for the prosecution to bring a satisfactory case, it will be that much more difficult for the defence to refute it. After all, Hetherington and Chalmers employed a team of former Metropolitan police detectives working to amass evidence, and they enjoyed the co-operation of the Soviet authorities. The Soviet authorities may be very willing to grant facilities to the prosecution in a war crimes case, but would they necessarily be so ready to do so to

        453
        assist the defence? Although people living behind what used to be called the iron curtain may volunteer to give evidence for the prosecution, it might be different if they are called upon to give evidence for the defendant.
        There is no doubt in my mind that, just as the prosecution will have difficulty, so will the defence, and the difficulties of the defence are likely to be greater. Some of the difficulties that face the prosecution have been made easier by what I regard as the wrongful denial of committal proceedings which are normally available in England to the defence. Anyone who has practised in the criminal courts knows how useful committal proceedings can be to the defendant's lawyers and how they enable the defendant to test the evidence for the prosecution case and to tie down the prosecution witnesses. Yet the defendant's right to committal proceedings is specifically set aside by the schedule to the Bill.
        I fear that the defence will find it difficult to prepare its case properly. The question of legal aid is linked with that. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that the legal aid authorities will exercise their discretion generously, but there will be difficulties. Obviously, it would be absurd to allow the Legal Aid Board to grant financial assistance unconditionally to the defendants to enable them to follow up every avenue, but conducting the defence may be a massively expensive exercise, involving a great deal of travel abroad, and the use of interpreters, translators and experts to examine documents. It is important that, if the Bill is enacted, the legal aid authorities are allowed to be generous to ensure that as fair a trial as possible is achieved.
        Those are the reasons behind my considerable anxiety and doubts about the Bill. It is a bad Bill. I hope that it runs into trouble in the other place and I hope also that the British jury—in which I have more faith than my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington—will bear in mind the risks involved in trials of this nature at this distance in time.
        12.22 am
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am not a lawyer like my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), but I recognise certain legal precepts that the Bill does not match up to. The first precept—the danger of retrospective legislation—has been ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and I do not wish to comment further on it. The second is the question of equity. It is inequitable that we should bring forward a Bill which deals with a small, clearly identified group.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has already drawn attention, in an amendment that was unsuccessful, to the unfairness of producing a law which limits by location the people caught within its ambit.
        Let us consider the Baltic states and Poland, which were occupied by both the Russians and the Germans during the last war. The massacre at Katyn, which, until 12 April 1990, when the Russians came clean and admitted their responsibility, would have been within the ambit of the Bill. It is removed from the ambit of the Bill by the Russian statement of 12 April this year. The same is true of other atrocities during that period.
        One only has to look at the Hetherington-Chalmers report to see the number of people who were killed by the
        454
        Russians in the Baltic states. Those crimes will not be covered by the Bill. It is repugnant to me that some people will be caught by the provisions of the Bill for crimes committed in the Baltic states while other people, who committed exactly the same kind of crimes a few months later or a few months earlier will be excluded because the Bill refers only to Germany or German-occupied territory.
        When an alleged crime was committed nearly 50 years ago, it must be right that, if the defendant is to have a fair trial, he should have access to all the evidence. Defendants, however, will be unable to get the kind of help over the evidence that they need.
        Since Parliament has spent so much time and money on discussing the issue, I cannot believe that juries will not be influenced by the fact that Parliament had to pass a special law to bring these people to trial. At the back of their minds there will constantly be the thought that these people must be guilty because Parliament went to all this trouble to bring them to trial. That cannot be right.
        I hope that when the other place considers the Bill it will bear in mind the questions of justice, equity and fair trial. Their Lordships ought to remind themselves of their powerful debate that was held in the other place last December when Law Lord after Law Lord and ex-Lord Chancellor after ex-Lord Chancellor rammed home the fact that the Bill is deficient in terms of equity and fair trial. I hope that it will be defeated in another place, or so changed that this expensive, time-wasting and totally unnecessary Bill is rendered useless.
        12.25 am
        Mr. John Patten: To respond immediately to the request by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), I confirm that, on behalf of the Government, I am happy to undertake to arrange for the publication of an annual report on the working of the Bill. I promised during our consideration of the Bill in Committee to consider the matter. On reflection, I believe that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was correct.
        The contents of the report will have to be sufficiently general to ensure that individuals cannot be identified. Subject to that proviso, we should be able to provide an informative text that will be of interest both to right hon. and hon. Members and to the general public. The Government will place copies of the annual report in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also make copies available to the press through the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office in the normal way.
        I listened carefully to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). Alas, I cannot agree with the points that they made so forcefully. I respect their point of view, so I am sad that I have to disagree with them. I shall not go into the reasons for that disagreement. I fear that I laboured those reasons in Committee and on Second Reading. All I would add is that the Bill was carefully scrutinised in Committee over a substantial number of hours.
        Anyone who cares to read the reports of our Standing Committee proceedings will see that the Bill was scrutinised line by line and that it goes to another place having been properly scrutinised. It also goes to another place having been subject to overwhelming majorities on two occasions: when the report was debated in the House

        455
        on 12 December 1989 and after the Second Reading debate. I am sure that the Bill in its present form will be carefully and properly scrutinised in another place. It is to that other place that I hope the Bill will speedily go, after having obtained its Third Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 10.

        Division No. 181]

        [12.29 am

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Allason, Rupert

        Dalyell, Tam

        Amess, David

        Darling, Alistair

        Arbuthnot, James

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Dixon, Don

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Baldry, Tony

        Durant, Tony

        Batiste, Spencer

        Eggar, Tim

        Beggs, Roy

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Beith, A. J.

        Fallon, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

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

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Forman, Nigel

        Boateng, Paul

        Foster, Derek

        Boswell, Tim

        Freeman, Roger

        Bradley, Keith

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Bright, Graham

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Gordon, Mildred

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

        Graham, Thomas

        Burns, Simon

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Burt, Alistair

        Harris, David

        Butterfill, John

        Haynes, Frank

        Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hind, Kenneth

        Chope, Christopher

        Hood, Jimmy

        Conway, Derek

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Jack, Michael

        Cryer, Bob

        Janner, Greville

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jessel, Toby

        456

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Portillo, Michael

        Kennedy, Charles

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Redwood, John

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Lang, Ian

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Rowlands, Ted

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Skinner, Dennis

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Steen, Anthony

        Maclean, David

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Stevens, Lewis

        Mans, Keith

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Maples, John

        Sumberg, David

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Meale, Alan

        Thorne, Neil

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Trippier, David

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Vaz, Keith

        Morley, Elliot

        Wallace, James

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Waller, Gary

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Nellist, Dave

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Neubert, Michael

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Norris, Steve

        Winnick, David

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Wood, Timothy

        Paice, James

        Yeo, Tim

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Patchett, Terry

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Pike, Peter L.

        NOES

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Illsley, Eric

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Maclennan, Robert

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Mr. Michael Irvine and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

        Stokes, Sir John

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Homelessness (Leicester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  12.40 am
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I understand that this is the first time that the House has debated homelessness in Leicestershire, but because of my constituency interest I have decided to concentrate on the city of Leicester and the crisis of housing in it.
  In my weekly surgeries, whether they be in Northfields, Netherhall, Thurnby Lodge, Goodwood, Evington, Coleman, Belgrave or Rushy Mead, one issue dominates the work of my constituency—the problem of housing. It is a fundamental right of every citizen of Leicester to have a home that is warm, dry, decent and affordable. It is clear from statistics that that fundamental right is being breached every minute of every day for thousands of people who live in Leicester.
  The debate is not only about statistics but about the human misery lying behind the crisis of housing. It causes anguish and despair. Men and women who have visited my surgery have wept openly because they cannot get a council house or be transferred to another. People have literally gone down on their knees and begged me to do something to alleviate the overcrowded and damp conditions in which they live. Letters, petitions and phone calls have been made to my staff, with appeals of such desperation that it is impossible not to be moved and to become emotional about their plight. The blame for that trauma lies with the Government. On an evening when we have discussed war crimes, in the war against homelessness the Government's inaction borders on the criminal.
  The sickness that the housing crisis creates manifests itself in the breakdown of family life and in some cases leads to divorce, illness, abuse, violence and intolerable stress. It plagues parents and children and delivers them into a world of desperation and unhappiness.
  I thank Leicester city council for the work that it does and acknowledge the assistance that I have received from Councillors Surinder Sharmar and David Brazier in my preparation for this debate. In addition, three officers, John Perry, Phil Howard and Christine Laird, have provided valuable assistance. I want to pay tribute to all who work in the sector and have the agonising task of allocating property, in particular Peter Jones and the Humberstone area office, who cope not only with diminishing resources but a Member of Parliament who demands everything yesterday. I make no apology for being over-zealous in protecting my constituents.
  Leicester faces a severe housing crisis as a result of Government policies, which have systematically discriminated against the public sector provision of housing. There are over 11,000 applicants on the council's housing waiting list, many of whom face a wait of many years for properties in the areas of their choice. The number of vacancies is 30 per cent. lower than 12 months ago. There are significant parts of the city where no waiting list applicant has been rehoused over the past year. In many parts of the city, turnover rates are far lowr than required to service the waiting and transfer lists. The average stay for a tenant is now 25 years. Turnover rates are particularly low for three and four-bedroom properties; the average stay for a tenant of such a property is 27 years.
  458
  The lack of property to meet demand throughout most of the city is a clear sign of the combined effects of the Government's right-to-buy policy and the low level of activity in the private sector because of high interest rates. Over 20 per cent. of the city council's housing stock has been lost through the right to buy. That represents 9,000 dwellings. Conversely, high interest rates are producing additional demand on council stock because of the increased number of mortgage repossessions and owner-occupiers selling their properties because they can no longer afford mortgage payments.
  The crisis in housing is particularly reflected in a marked increase in homelessness. An average of 57 cases per month are now being accepted—an increase of 32 per cent. on last year. That increase in activity is reflected in a commensurate rise in the average number of interviews carried out by the homeless and hostel section of the city council, which currently stands at 750 a month. Changes in the benefits system, including for people in board and lodgings and hostel dwellers, have helped to fuel the crisis. For council tenants, they have also contributed to a major increase in rent arrears.
  There are simply not enough properties to go around. The Leicester structure plan proposed that 17,400 properties should be built between 1981 and 1986, an average of 1,160 a year. Only 323 completions were made from all sectors in 1988–89, making a total of 4,033 from 1981 to 1989. Due to financial restrictions placed on the city council by the Government, there has been no new build programme for the past four years, although the council is making major efforts to facilitate the provision of social housing by other agencies.
  The condition of properties is also a major cause for concern, with 1,975 estate and 650 acquired properties that remain unmodernised. Parts of my constituency, particularly the Northfields estate, are a prime example. It would cost over £11 million to refurbish the estate properties on an elemental basis. Full modernisation would cost over £37 million.
  Housing renewal is just as bleak. Nearly 3 million houses are in unsatisfactory condition, by the Government's own standards—15 per cent. of the en tire housing stock. There has been hardly any improvement since 1981 in the number of properties in serious disrepair. Over half the properties in poor condition are owner-occupied, often by people on low incomes who are least likely to do repair work. Any increased help through improvement grants must be set against the declining spending power of the poorest 20 per cent. of wage earners who increasingly cannot afford mortgage and repair costs. Private landlords are failing to invest in older housing. On average, privately rented property has twice as much outstanding repair work as other property, despite deregulation of rents.
  The new means test for improvement grants which has been initiated by the Government will be far too harsh on people with modest incomes. It will not help those on the Norton estate who have been seeking to modernise their properties. At present rates of clearance, houses that are unfit now will still be awaiting replacement in 100 years' time. The Government have failed to grasp the need for more incentives to facilitate clearance of the worst housing by giving adequate compensation to dispossessed householders.
  The Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils assesses the backlog of disrepair in England to be

  459
  £50 billion and calculates that private sector support from local authorities will have to run at twice the present levels if unsatisfactory housing is to be eliminated within 10 years. I remind the Minister of the answer that he gave me in a written reply on 3 November 1989, which shows a massive drop in the housing allocation in real terms—£24 million in 1981–82 to £13·716 million in 1988–89.
  A similar crisis is affecting the Housing Corporation and the housing associations. The Housing Corporation has reduced its allocation to Leicester from £13·5 million in 1989–90 to £9 million in 1990–91. Housing Association rehabilitation work has also been drastically cut in Leicester due to the problems being experienced with the new mixed funding regime. There were 80 such projects in 1988–89, while there were just 12 in 1989–90.
  I shall tell the Minister just some of the comments that I have received since I told local housing associations that I would have this debate. Referring to the new grant regime, the chief executive of Leicester Housing Association Ltd. said:
  "The new Grant Regime does nothing to assist the urban renewal process … the Total Cost Indicator Category for Leicester is appallingly low when one considers land prices within Leicester as compared to land prices within other areas of the country in the same Category … This further and substantially inhibits the viability of both 'New Build' and `Rehabilitation' schemes."
  In a letter to me dated 23 April Mr. Tony Mawby, the director of ASRA, said:
  "Those of us trying to provide homes for a very disadvantaged part of the Community of Leicester are especially vulnerable to the new funding regime introduced by the 1988 Housing Act."
  Mrs. Pat Elderfield, the chief executive of East Midlands Housing Association, said:
  "The new funding system therefore is not only reducing the number of new rented units but is likely to see a rapid reversal of private investment, an issue of wider national concern."
  Denis O'Sullivan, the director of the Leicester Family Housing Association, John Walker, the director of the Leicester Federation of Housing Societies, and Harry Perry, the director of the Leicester Newark Housing Association, all raise new difficulties caused by the allocation by the Government. Mr. Perry refers to the case of a young homeless Wigston teenager who was found living in a shed on a railway siding. The council refused to rehouse her and she had to come to the city to be rehoused. He also pointed to the Education (Student Loans) Bill and the abolition of housing benefit as further examples of causes of decline.
  Not only the housing associations but the voluntary organisations have raised the matter with me. In a letter to me, Mr. John Elliott, the chairman of the Leicester Shelter group, said that he ran an emergency telephone service on behalf of the Leicester Shelter housing aid and research project. He said that he recently received a call from a woman on a Sunday. He said:
  "She was literally homeless that night. I could not find a single hostel vacancy, not even in the emergency Night Shelter.
  All women are at risk at night—to sleep rough places them in a potentially dangerous situation. I am horrified that there is frequently no emergency accommodation in the city to offer shelter and protection."
  460
  Shelter's annual report published recently shows that the number of people who are homeless in the city has doubled. It dealt with 662 inquiries in 1978. In 1989 that figure was 1,351, an increase of 104 per cent. It says:
  "The type of enquiries has become much more severe, with the number of literally homeless people rising from 86 in 1979 to 289 in 1989, a phenomenal rise of 236 per cent."
  It concludes its report by saying:
  "This desperate situation is not the result of an accident but is the predictable (and predicted) outcome of existing Government policy."
  In letters that I have received from local people and councillors in the past few hours, it is clear where they believe that the blame lies. Mr. Les George, a former tenants' association committee member from Humberstone, asks what has been done about the amount of private properties that have been left unfilled. Local councillors in my constituency, including Andrew Parmas and Roy Stuttard in west Humberstone, Amu Devar and Merlyn Vaz in Charnwood, Dave Thomas in Coleman, Bhupin Dave of Latimer, Ramik Kavia and Mustapha Kamal of Belgrave, Mike Preston in Humberstone all talk about financial robbery by the Government of the city council.
  A local councillor in Coleman, Mary Draycott, said that nothing was being done for the disabled. She said:
  "Many disabled are forced to lead lives confined to rooms or even chairs like prisoners. Social Service funds cannot cope with the number of adaptations needed to improve peoples lives early enough due to lack of funds."
  I pay tribute to the officers and committee members of all the tenants' associations in my constituency, including Frank Kerr, Arthur Padmore, Selwyn Williams, Carole Simpson, Lyn Lowells, Bill and Jean Cooper, Bob Smith and full-time workers Kevin Brown, Nirmal Bahsey and Adrian Waite who dealt with many of the problems brought to Members of Parliament and local councillors. They champion tirelessly the cause of tenants. Three of them wrote to me.
  Ken Webb, chairman of the St. Mark's tenants' association, a non-political organisation, said:
  "This Government have categorically, and consistently reduced the level of financing to City Council in respect of all housing requirements placed on City Council … despite pressure from the various organisations who wish to see a positive and constructive improvement in all aspects of housing in the City."
  Walter Lindsay, the chairman of the Rowletts Hill tenants' and residents association, said:
  "How can a council be expected to house homeless people without new build for rent at reasonable prices? You cannot keep putting rents up without a corresponding rise in wages and benefits. This is like moving the goalposts every time the ball comes near to them."
  Diane Cank, the secretary of the Morton, Northfields and Tailby tenants association wrote about one of the worst parts of my constituency, which is in desperate need of further finance. She said:
  "The standard of properties available has dropped dramatically, some properties on the Northfields and Tailby estates still have sandstone sinks and pumps in. Many properties are unfit to live in, modernisation of properties is often too long awaited for and when done of poor standard. Properties on the Northfields Estate suffer from cracking walls and ceilings, damp and subsidence."
  If the Government need a memorial to their housing policies, they need look no further than the Hamilton estate in the eastern part of my constituency. It was planned for 4,000 homes; only 133 are built and less than 50 are occupied. The Government's disastrous economic policies have meant that people cannot afford their

  461
  mortgages and homes lie empty. I wanted it to be a showpiece for my city, but the Government have stopped that happening.
  It is as though we have entered a time warp—immovable waiting lists meeting the Government's inflexible policies, and resulting in social catastrophy. If we are truly to give people the homes they need, the Government must get off their ideological high horse and allow the council and housing associations to build and rent. The consequence of failing to do so is to condemn a generation of my fellow citizens to a life of despair.
  12.56 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on raising this important matter in the House, and I thank him for sparing some of his time. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and I find that our surgeries and constituency mail are overloaded with complaints from people suffering great hardship through homelessness.
  The reasons for that are clear. There are only two types of housing: public and private. No new houses can be built in the public sector, and houses in existence are being sold. In the private sector, people cannot afford to pay their mortgages because of the high interest rates. There is high unemployment in the knitwear, hosiery and footwear industries and too many people are being driven on to the public market, which has a shrinking stock. The result is a growth in homelessness and people who literally do not have a roof over their heads.
  There are not just 11,000 such people, but 11,000 applications. A growing number of people are suffering from the savage homelessness. That figure is, as my hon. Friend said, a direct result of the Government's housing policies in Leicestershire. I greatly hope that the Minister may provide some hope for the future for our people by saying that the Government will recognise the desperate nature of the situation and provide more central funding, which is so badly needed for many of our Leicester constituents in this awful predicament.
  12.57 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is a matter of regret that we have been treated this evening to an extraordinarily negative and whingeing speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). They failed to give credit where credit was due and have done the people of Leicester a great disservice.
  Although Leicester city council is not run by the Conservatives—it would be much better run if it were—I shall not be so churlish as to suggest that everything that it does is appalling. Many of its actions on housing have been sensible and productive. The condition of the housing stock in Leicester has improved dramatically during the present Government's lifetime. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, East does not seem prepared to accept that, because it is a fact.
  I was lucky enough to visit Leicester about a month ago. I was taken round by the chairman of the housing committee and saw many things on the ground. I was able to see the improvements that have been made in housing in Leicester. They have been made largely as a result of the
  462
  Government's generosity and the far-sightedness of their housing policies, which have concentrated on providing the resources to improve the quality of the housing stock, both in the private and public sector.
  Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would not have thought that capital spending on housing in Leicester in the past two years amounted to about £75 million—a vast amount—and that this year the amount may be as much as £25 million as a result of a much increased housing investment programme allocation. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that all that capital spending has not produced any improvements, that is a sad reflection on the council's way of spending its money. A fairer view, however, can be taken. That money has been reasonably well invested in housing in Leicester, and as a result, housing in Leicester is much better than it would otherwise have been.
  I do not think that we should have any truck with the negative approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman this evening. He does his constituents and the many people who work actively to improve housing in Leicester a disservice by suggesting that their efforts have been to no avail. Housing in Leicester has improved beyond all measure during the lifetime of this Government.
  The housing investment programme allocation to Leicester this year is about £18·32 million. Out of 47 authorities in England with populations between 200,000 and 350,000, Leicester is the 16th largest, but it has the ninth largest housing investment programme allocation, reflecting its relatively high housing needs. That shows that the Government recognise those housing needs and, more importantly, that they are taking action to ensure that the resources are provided.
  On top of the housing investment programme allocation, substantial special credit allocations are likely to be made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is also the money available from capital receipts from the sale of council houses. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he does not believe in the right to buy. He resents those in Leicester who have exercised that right under this Government. A Labour Government would deprive people of the right to buy, because they resent the rights of owner-occupation, and the freedom that goes with it. With owner-occupation also goes a willingness of people to pay more towards the cost of their own housing, thereby ensuring that the taxpayer's resources can go to those in greatest need.
  The Housing Corporation has made a generous allocation to Leicester. A total of £13·6 million has been committed to housing provision in Leicestershire during the past financial year, and at least 500 units of accommodation have already been provided. Another 130 are on the way. Of this funding, more than £12·5 million went to the city of Leicester-£10·7 million into rented housing, and the rest into low-cost housing for sale. Within these amounts, the corporation gives high priority to schemes for the homeless, but any house provided for rent should be of help to the homeless so long as the greatest needs are met first.
  Leicester City is one of the areas in which we are providing support through the citizens advice bureau for additional advice to the homeless. That should help take pressure off the Leicester homelessness unit and help ensure that each person gets full attention so that the optimum solution to his problems is found.
  We also have our targeted estate action scheme, through which we have helped Leicester city increase the

  463
  attractiveness of some of its poorer housing estates, thereby reducing re-let times and vacancy rates. The turnaround at St. Peter's and St. Matthew's estates has been remarkable. I look forward to implementation of the plans at Mowmacre estate which I visited recently. These include more temporary accommodation for the homeless.
  Mr. Vaz: What can the Government do to help the city council build more council houses?
  Mr. Chope: It is up to the city council to decide how it spends its resources. It has chosen sensibly to invest most of them in improving the condition of its existing housing stock, so that empty units are brought into use and the quality of its housing stock is improved. The hon. Gentleman implies that he disagrees with that, but it must be for the council to decide how to allocate its resources. The Government have put in substantial funds and we have provided a range of opportunities. One of the best bargains available to a local authority is to assist a housing association to provide rented accommodation in a mixed funded scheme.
  In Leicestershire an association can raise about one third of the cost of providing family houses or bungalows on the private market. An authority can pay the balance, obtaining three rented houses for the cost of two. The amount it contributes is repaid immediately by the Housing Corporation, so there is no real cost, although the outlay counts against the capital expenditure programme. As far as I am aware, no Leicestershire authority has yet taken advantage of this provision. Any council still planning to build its own houses for rent ought to consider this most attractive alternative. I hope that Leicester city council will do that following this debate.
  Councils can put in land at nil value, with the Secretary of State's consent, in order to help housing associations provide low-cost housing. Some Leicestershire districts have been making land available to housing associations in this way and have thereby been able to keep would-be home owners out of scarce rented housing. Often they have been able to arrange for some rented housing to go on these sites as well. Leicester city council has been working with a consortium of housing associations to develop several inner city sites. That is a constructive approach which bodes well for the future.
  Another way to take pressure off the rented stock lies in our arrangement under the new capital finance provisions which permit local authorities to reinvest all the proceeds of houses that they build for sale. Where there is a shortage of low-cost housing for sale, councils should be able to set up self-financing rolling programmes or, if they can find some funding, programmes of shared ownership with a limited public sector input. In this way, too, they can divert demand from their waiting lists and free their rented housing for those who need it most.
  Along the same lines we have introduced a cash incentive scheme whereby, with the Secretary of State's consent, councils can introduce schemes for paying cash grants to tenants who are ready to move into owner occupation. This is probably the cheapest way of producing a council letting for a homeless person. It is
  464
  regrettable that hitherto Leicester city council has not made any application for such a scheme. It has the resources to pursue such a scheme and I hope that following this debate it will see that opportunity to try to improve matters.
  The Government have a range of initiatives to facilitate the improvement of housing conditions, the better use of housing stock and so on, but at the end of the day it is for the housing authority to take charge of its own destiny. Leicester could do more to promote the right to buy, thereby releasing more capital receipts, and it could certainly do more for tenants through the incentive scheme to which I have referred. The resources and the opportunities are there. It is for councils to take them and to manage their own stock as efficiently as possible.
  In Leicester city, vacancy rates have been falling. The Government have been critical of the high levels of vacancies in existing council stock. The figures in the housing investment programme return show that by April 1989 Leicester city had succeeded in reducing its void rate from 3·73 to 2·77 per cent. That is certainly progress, but every tenth of 1 per cent. that vacancies can be further reduced provides another 30 houses for the homeless in Leicester. There is a real incentive there for the authority to be even more efficient in turning round its voids.
  In a determination under section 167 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, we have provided for local authorities to report on their stewardship to their tenants, giving key statistics on vacancies and other matters. I hope that that will be an incentive for greater efficiency in stock utilisation. All these measures are designed to increase the supply of rented housing and ensure that it goes to those who really need it.
  The Government have a good record of assisting the housing department of Leicester city council and housing associations in Leicester and Leicestershire. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not given us some credit for that, because credit is certainly due. From the emotional tone of his speech, one would have imagined that hundreds of families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Leicester. Other housing authorities will certainly be interested to note that the figures for the last quarter of 1989 show that no households in Leicester were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. When we compare that fact with the position in many council areas we see that, relatively speaking, the problems are nothing like as bad as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to draw attention to the Government's fine record of contributing to better-quality housing and a better quality of life for people in Leicester. Leicester city council is at its best when it is not keen on getting involved in ideology and putting that before the needs of its people. I am disappointed at the way in which the council recently put ideology first and gave a tender for a major contract to its in-house direct service organisation even though a lower contract was submitted by an outside contractor.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at ten minutes past One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to substitute stipendiary magistrates for lay magistrates in Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Stipendiary magistrates are appointed in order to give support to the lay magistracy not to supplant them.

  Immigration Appeals (Scotland)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions the immigration appeal tribunal has sat in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  None. The immigration appeal tribunal sits at its headquarters at Thanet house, London.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons qualified in Scottish law have sat as members of the immigration appeal tribunal in the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  In the last five years none of the members of the immigration appeal tribunal has been qualified in Scottish law.

TRANSPORT

  Private Street Works
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the allocation of grant aid for the improvement of private street works.

  Mr. Atkins
  I do not give specific grant aid for the improvement of private street works. Where these are undertaken by local authorities they normally bill the frontagers, but they can meet some of the costs themselves where they consider that wider community benefits justify it.

  Under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 I give grants both to private sector developers and to local authorities towards providing road access for new industrial development in assisted areas. Expenditure by a local authority on these schemes which could otherwise be rechargeable to domestic frontagers can be taken into account in assessing eligible expenditure for these grants.

  Marine Radionavigation
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached on the future of marine radionavigation in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Following a lengthy period of public consultation and careful consideration, I have concluded 196
  in principle that, on technical and cost grounds, the balance of advantage for the United Kingdom would be to join the international civil Loran C system currently proposed for north-west Europe and the north Atlantic. This would be dependent on a satisfactory international agreement being reached within an acceptable time scale with the other interested states.

  This decision has not been an easy one. It would mean closing down in 1997 the present widely respected United Kingdom Decca navigator system, the origins of which date back to the second world war. The Decca system has been successfully operated by Racal Decca Marine Navigation Ltd. and its predecessors for several decades, and the marine community owes a considerable debt to the service, which is highly regarded.

  I have had the benefit of a wide range of responses to the Department's consultative document of June 1989. Many in the marine community, here and abroad, agree that we should not be wholly dependent for marine navigation on non-European military satellite systems such as the American global positioning system (GPS) and the Soviet GLONASS system and that a terrestrial civil alternative is needed. I am satisfied that the Loran C system would meet the United Kingdom's navigational requirements to acceptable technical standards and additionally would provide more extensive cover, and be less affected by seasonal and night-time errors.

  I have given particular consideration to the representations from the fishing industry, which is concerned about the costs of convering to Loran C. I fully appreciate the industry's extensive use of the Decca system for fishing as well as for navigation and I have considered the industry's points very carefully. However, if we introduce Loran C the fishing industry will gain some important benefits. Loran C's avoidance of seasonal and night skywave effects makes it a more consistent system. Moreover, a Loran C system would allow significant cost reductions, which will work through as lower light dues paid by fishermen. In the meantime I will look specifically at the light dues paid by fishermen at present, in light of representations they have made. The fishing industry will also be aware that I am currently considering a report by the British Ports Federation which recommends that pleasure craft should be brought into the light dues system so as to share the costs falling on the general lighthouse fund.

  Moreover, I am determined to ensure that there is a reasonable transitional period between Loran C becoming fully available and the Decca system being switched off. Given satisfactory progress in the international negotiations, the new United Kingdom transmitter could be operating by the end of 1992 and satisfactorily validated for use in repeatable mode before the end of 1993. This would allow a transitional period of over three years to 1997 for the conversion of the fishing industry's Decca records. The final reconfiguration of the new system would be in place at the latest by January 1995. I am also satisfied that the financial considerations favour adopting the Loran C scheme. There would be an even stronger financial case for Loran C, were it not for the cost of running both systems in the transitional period. I am satisfied that the cost to users of premature replacement of receivers, while difficult to assess, is not sufficient to undermine the case for change.

  My conclusion, therefore, is that the United Kingdom should not stand aside from the opportunity now offered

  197
  for adopting a standard terrestrial regional radionavigation system under independent European control. Many countries are awaiting the United Kingdom decision before reaching their own, and in the longer term a favourable decision by the United Kingdom seems likely to increase the prospects of there being continuous Loran C cover throughout Europe, including the Mediterranean, the Iberian peninsula and the Baltic.

  It remains to be seen whether an acceptable Loran C international agreement can be concluded among a sufficient number of interested countries to produce a suitable international system. Our appraisal of the proposal has been on the assumption that there would be cost sharing with Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. My officials will be making it clear to the countries involved in the international discussions that the United Kingdom will finally commit itself to a binding agreement only if the terms are right. This means that the eventually agreed system must remain a genuinely international dimension and have sufficient financial support from other benefiting countries in terms which for the United Kingdom are no worse than the current cost and cost share provisionally attributed to it. The United Kingdom's final commitment is also conditional on (a) the location of, and the obtaining of the necessary approvals for, suitable sites for the new transmitter stations needed in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and (b) Parliament's approval of an order under section 34(3) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 to define Loran C as a beacon for the purposes of the general lighthouse fund, which would bear the United Kingdom costs. I expect to lay a draft order shortly.

  The United Kingdom will also be making it clear to the other potential partners in the international agreement that our window for a decision in favour of Loran is time limited. In the event of a firm commitment to Loran C, I would wish to give the marine community about six years' notice of the ending of Decca transmissions. Under Racal Decca's current contract with the general lighthouse authorities, the system could not continue beyond February 1997. I am also conscious of the need for an adequate transition period of at least three years during which both the Decca and Loran C systems would be operating. These constraints mean that a delay beyond early to mid-1991 in ratifying an acceptable international agreement would, as far as can currently be seen, effectively rule out the United Kingdom's adoption of Loran C. Thus, if a firm agreement acceptable to the United Kingdom has not been reached by then, it would be my intention to withdraw from the international discussions and to consider with the general lighthouse authorities whether to arrange for modernisation of the United Kingdom Decca navigator system so that it could continue to operate beyond 1997.

  Scottish Lowland Airports
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answers to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley of 3 April,Official Report, column 501, when he decided not to publish the responses received to the consultation document on Scottish lowland airports policy; what objections were raised by respondents to the proposals of paragraph 17 of the consultation document on Scottish lowland airports
  198
  policy that it was assumed that respondents have no objection to their responses being published, unless they specifically indicate otherwise; and what considerations of public policy underlay his decision to change his policy regarding the publication of responses to the consultation document on Scottish lowland airports policy from that set out in paragraph 17 of the consultation document.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Paragraph 17 of the consultation document did not represent a policy statement. A presumption of publication was offered as the basis for respondents to make their wishes on this known. In the light of the wishes expressed, my right hon. Friend took a policy decision not to publish any responses, for the reasons explained to the hon. Member in my reply of 3 April 1990,Official Report, column 501.

  Road Construction Costs
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost of construction of one mile of virgin road in respect of(a) single carriageway roads, (b) dual carriageway roads and (c) six-lane roads including average costs of land acquisition and design work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Construction costs of roads vary substantially depending on factors such as location and the need for structures. In view of this, the Department does not prepare information on the average construction costs per mile.

  "Trunk Roads, England into the 1990s" contains full details, including estimated works costs, of all schemes in the trunk road programme.

  Railways (Safety)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the amount of money spent by the railways and financed by Government on safety of the railways over the past five years, and the amount planned to be spent for the next three years for safety on the railways.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not possible to identify separately figures for British Rail's expenditure on specific safety measures over the last five years. Much general investment brings with it enhancements in safety. On 20 March I announced that the public sector obligation grant cash ceiling for 1989–90 would be increased by £8 million specifically to accommodate the grant-aided sector's share of additional safety-related expenditure. We have endorsed BR's plans for expenditure of £125 million on specific safety measures over the next three years. BR is currently assessing the costs of implementing the longer-term recommendations of the Hidden report on the Clapham accident, and will include them in its 1990 corporate plan.

  Coach Accidents (Schoolchildren)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has on the number of children of school age killed or injured in bus or coach accidents while on a journey to and from school, or on school-sponsored trips, over the last 10 years, five years and one year or over such period as such relevant information is available;
  199
  (2) what information he has on the number of children of school age killed or injured while boarding or alighting from buses or coaches while on a journey to or from school or on school-sponsored trips over the last 10, five or one year or over such period as such relevant information is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table shows the numbers of children up to 16 years of age killed and injured while on a journey to or from school on a public service vehicle for each of the

  Children up to age sixteen: Killed or injured on public service vehicles: On journeys to and from school; by activity

  Casualties

  Severity

  Boarding

  Alighting

  Standing

  Seated

  All1

  1979

  Killed

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Injured

  24

  57

  47

  261

  391

  All casualties

  25

  58

  47

  261

  393

  1980

  Killed

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Injured

  36

  67

  71

  310

  484

  All casualties

  37

  68

  71

  310

  486

  1981

  Killed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Injured

  21

  50

  57

  241

  369

  All casualties

  21

  50

  57

  241

  369

  1982

  Killed

  0

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Injured

  35

  84

  75

  200

  397

  All casualties

  35

  87

  75

  200

  400

  1983

  Killed

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Injured

  25

  86

  98

  206

  415

  All casualties

  25

  88

  98

  206

  417

  1984

  Killed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Injured

  37

  78

  101

  342

  564

  All casualties

  37

  78

  101

  342

  564

  1985

  Killed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Injured

  36

  70

  68

  346

  529

  All casualties

  36

  70

  68

  346

  529

  1986

  Killed

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Injured

  19

  73

  81

  290

  463

  All casualties

  19

  73

  82

  290

  464

  1987

  Killed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Injured

  24

  46

  53

  362

  485

  All casualties

  24

  46

  53

  362

  485

  1988

  Killed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Injured

  17

  46

  54

  331

  452

  All casualties

  17

  46

  54

  331

  452

  1 Includes a small number of cases where the activity of the passenger was not reported.

  Railway Gauges
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what gauge railway lines will be used for the channel link route.

  Mr. Portillo
  UIC "B".

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received representations seeking a change from
  200
  last 10 years. Figures for children as seated passengers, as standing passengers, and in the acts of boarding and alighting are shown separately.

  The data are taken from the information provided on casualties in the STATS19 accident report form. The information provided on vehicles in the accident report form does not identify school buses; nor does it record the purpose of bus journeys or give general information about passengers. Figures relating to school-sponsored trips are, therefore, unavailable.

  the United Kingdom railway gauge to one that is compatible with continental railways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received some suggestions that BR should begin to convert some or all routes to the continental loading gauge. This is a matter for BR to consider but any ungrading must be commercially justified. BR considers that the cost of conversion to continental loading gauge is prohibitive and that it is more
  201
  effective to use new wagon technology. All wagons presently in service with BR can run on continental gauge railways. BR are looking to develop a fleet of new, smaller wheeled intermodal and conventional wagons which have the same loading capacities as those generally available in mainland Europe.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the conclusions of the energy technology support unit report entitled "Energy Use and Energy Efficiency in UK Transport" up to the year 2010; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Morrison
  I have been asked to reply.

  This report was published in January as the 10th paper in the Energy Efficiency Series with the results and conclusions as chapter 6.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner-City Task Forces
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects have been funded by the inner city task forces since they were set up.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am answering this question because the inner cities task forces are a responsibility of the DTI. Between the start of the initiative in February 1986 and the end of March this year, 1,870 projects have been approved.

  Benzene
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department is aware of any evidence to suggest that the use of benzene in consumer products is carcinogenic.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any evidence which indicates a link between benzene in consumer products and the onset of cancer. Benzene is toxic at high doses and is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a human carcinogen on the basis of data from workers who were exposed to high levels in the past. The maximum concentration of benzene permitted under European directives in consumer products is 0·1 per cent.; except for motor fuels which are covered by a separate directive, this limits the amount of benzene in petrol to 5 per cent.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will deposit in the Library(a) a copy of the provisional contractual agreement of March 1988 for the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace, and (b) a copy of the final contractual agreement of July/August 1988 for the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today made arrangements to put in the Libraries of both Houses copies of both documents. The provisional agreement with British Aerospace of 29 202
  March 1988 was subject to EC Commission clearance and was superseded by the final contractual agreement of 14 July 1988.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mr. Charles Haughey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the total estimated cost of the Royal Ulster Constabulary operation in connection with the visit of Mr. Charles Haughey to Belfast; on what date the operation commenced; and on what date the operation was ended;

  (2) how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were involved each day in connection with the security operation for the visit of Mr. Charles Haughey to Belfast on Wednesday 11 April.

  Mr. Cope
  The extra cost incurred by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the operation could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not considered appropriate, for security reasons, to give details of the number of police involved and the time scale of the operation.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the level of grants applicable to Northern Ireland students studying in Great Britain will be increased in the 1991–92 academic year to take account of the liability of students for community charge.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Robberies
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the bank, post office, wages and comparable robberies which have occurred in Northern Ireland since the beginning of 1989 where the Provisional Irish Republican Army or other paramilitary groups are deemed to have been involved; and what is the amount of moneys stolen in each case.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: It is not always possible to attribute robberies to particular organisations. Nor do paramilitary organisations have a monopoly of armed robbery. However, in the period from 1 January 1989, there are believed to have been around 751 armed robberies of all kinds in Northern Ireland, in which the amount of money stolen is estimated at over £1·7 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Patients (Thefts)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations about thefts of personal valuables from hospital patients.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am not aware that any such representations have been received by the Home Office.

  Police Officers' Salaries
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the increases or otherwise in real terms of the pay of police constables, at
  203
  various levels of seniority, for the periods (a) 1974 to 1979, (b) 1979 to 1984 and (c) 1984 to 1989; and if he will list other significant changes in the terms and conditions of service of police officers and the dates at which they became effective.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Increases in real terms in the basic pay of police constables for the periods in question are set out in the table. Since 1974 other significant changes in the terms and conditions of service of police officers have included changes in pension arrangements in 1975 (counting of war service) and 1982 (increase in contributions) and increases in annual leave (1979; 1983 and 1987). Allowances payable in addition to basic pay have been uprated on a regular basis.

  1. 1974–19791

  Rank and Service

  Percentage Increase (Real Terms)

  Constable

  Percentage

  Under 1 Year

  16·74

  After 1 Year

  17·52

  After 2 Years

  17·84

  After 3 Years

  16·39

  After 4 Years

  15·75

  After 5 Years

  11·67

  After 6 Years

  8·00

  After 7 Years

  9·95

  After 8 Years

  13·76

  After 9 Years

  8·48

  After 13 Years

  13·97

  After 17 Years

  13·26

  1 1 April 1974—1 April 1979.

  2. 1979–841

  Rank and Service

  Percentage increase (real terms)

  Constable

  Per cent.

  Under 1 year

  28·84

  After 1 year

  29·95

  After 2 years

  30·94

  After 3 years

  29·76

  After 4 years

  29·18

  After 5 years

  31·12

  After 6 years

  32·91

  After 7 years

  34·59

  After 8 years

  33·93

  After 12 years

  34·90

  After 15 years

  35·27

  1 1 April 1979–1 April 1984

  3. 1984–891

  Rank and Service

  Percentage increase (real terms)

  Constable

  Per cent.

  Under 1 year

  11·20

  After 1 year

  4·77

  After 2 years

  10·44

  After 3 years

  10·47

  After 4 years

  10·43

  After 5 years

  10·46

  After 6 years

  10·44

  After 7 years

  10·45

  After 8 years

  10·62

  After 12 years

  10·48

  After 15 years

  10·44

  1 1 April 1984–1 April 1989

  Child Care and Family Services
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms his Department has to deal with services and policies on child care and family services.

  Mr. John Patten
  A ministerial group on women's issues was established in 1986 under Home Office chairmanship to co-ordinate policy issues of special concern to women. The group meets regularly and has focused in particular on child care and domestic violence in the last 12 months.

  Home Office Ministers and officials also maintain regular contacts with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Women's National Commission and with many voluntary organisations and groups.

  In addition there are staff in the Home Office establishment department responsible for equal opportunities for women, and the Department's equal opportunities officers play their part in Cabinet Office-led activities designed to promote equal opportunities in the civil service.

  Visa Stamps
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to introduce a standardised form of passport visa stamp.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for the format of visa stamps rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. My officials are consulted about the inclusion of safeguards against forgery. I understand that the possibility of introducing a single format, stick-in visa for the United Kingdom at all overseas posts is now under active consideration, although no final decision has been taken.

  Football (Restriction Orders)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the provisions to make restriction orders under section 15 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will come into effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These provisions came into effect on 24 April. Guidance to the courts, the police, and to the Football Spectators Restriction Orders Authority which will administer the scheme centrally has been placed in the Library. These provisions are expected to be of value in deterring and preventing hooliganism in respect of certain football matches outside England and Wales by prohibiting offenders who are made subject to restriction orders by the courts from attending those matches.

  Medical Care (Prisons)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what different types of medical qualification exist for prison staff involved in medical care of prisoners; and what is the minimum level of such personnel available at all times in prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  All prison service establishments are served by one or more medical officers all of whom are registered medical practitioners. Many have psychiatric or other
  205
  special qualifications. Twenty-four hour medical cover is required and is achieved by a combination of daily attendance and an emergency "on call" rota.

  Nursing services are provided by hospital officers (prison officers who specialise in health care) and civilian nurses. All the latter, and about 16 per cent. of hospital officers, have a recognised professional nursing qualification. Other hospital officers have received in-service training (currently of 24 weeks duration) in basic nursing techniques. The staffing levels and working patterns are conditioned by the size and function of individual establishments.

  Average population of Cardiff remand centre and local prison: by type of prisoner

  1979 to 1990

  Remand prisoners

  Sentenced prisoners1

  Non-criminal prisoners

  All prisoners

  Under 21

  Adult

  Under 21

  Adult

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Number

  1979

  Remand centre

  44

  —

  40

  —

  —

  84

  Local prison

  —

  73

  —

  305

  5

  383

  1980

  Remand centre

  46

  —

  48

  —

  —

  93

  Local prison

  —

  88

  —

  289

  3

  380

  1981

  Remand centre

  61

  —

  48

  —

  —

  109

  Local prison

  —

  86

  —

  288

  5

  379

  1982

  Remand centre

  63

  —

  48

  —

  —

  112

  Local prison

  —

  86

  —

  324

  1

  410

  1983

  Remand centre

  52

  —

  35

  —

  —

  87

  Local prison

  —

  93

  —

  301

  1

  395

  1984

  Remand centre

  49

  —

  38

  —

  —

  88

  Local prison

  —

  78

  —

  243

  3

  323

  1985

  Remand centre

  51

  —

  47

  —

  1

  98

  Local prison

  —

  128

  —

  245

  1

  375

  1986

  Remand centre

  61

  —

  31

  —

  —

  92

  Local prison

  —

  113

  —

  296

  2

  410

  1987

  Remand centre

  74

  —

  38

  —

  —

  113

  Local prison

  —

  97

  —

  328

  1

  427

  1988

  Remand centre

  71

  —

  38

  —

  —

  107

  Local prison

  —

  100

  —

  320

  3

  422

  1989

  Remand centre

  66

  —

  19

  —

  —

  85

  Local prison

  —

  102

  —

  291

  2

  394

  19902

  Remand centre

  70

  —

  17

  —

  —

  87

  Local prison

  —

  117

  —

  245

  2

  364

  1 Including fine defaulters.

  2 31 January and 28 February.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the maximum number of prisoners accommodated at Cardiff prison at any point during each of the past 10 years and in the current year to date; and how many were(a) sentenced offenders, (b) remand prisoners and (c) young prisoners in each case.

  Cardiff Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average number of prisoners accommodated at Cardiff prison during each of the past 10 years;

  (2) what was the average number of (a) sentenced offenders, (b) remand prisoners and (c) young prisoners accommodated at Cardiff in each of the past 10 years, and in the current year to date.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table.

  Mr. Mellor
  The greatest number of prisoners held in each establishment at a point during each year is calculated annually, and published in the report of the work of the prison service. Details are set out in the tables. Figures are not routinely collected in a way which enables
  207
  the provision of a breakdown into the categories requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Greatest number of inmates held at Her Majesty's Prison and Her Majesty's Remand Centre Cardiff

  Year

  Local prison1

  Remand centre1

  1989–902

  382

  84

  1988–89

  465

  128

  1987–88

  487

  147

  1986–87

  482

  128

  1985–86

  452

  137

  1984–853

  379

  126

  1983

  461

  130

  1982

  465

  142

  1981

  435

  141

  1980

  454

  127

  1979

  422

  104

  Notes:

  1 Greatest numbers of inmates in the local prison and the remand centre may not necessarily occur simultaneously.

  2 Period from 1 April 1990 to 20 April 1990.

  3 Period from 1 January 1984 to 31 March 1985.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, subsequent to privatisation, he will require electricity companies to publish information about pollution control either in the directors' report or separately.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to require electricity companies to publish information about pollution control which is, in any case, a matter for the Department of the Environment. However, the Government will continue to collect and publish information on fuel consumption and pollution from the electricity industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the electricity privatisation prospectus will give information about the cash flow of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Baldry
  The prospectuses of those successor companies to the Central Electricity Generating Board to be floated will contain information about sources and applications of funds. The final years of the existence of the CEGB will be covered.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will seek powers to require electricity companies to publish information about the safety of its operations.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to do so. The industry has published information on safety matters annually both centrally and on a board-by-board basis and I see no reason why this should not continue. Should he consider it necessary, the Director General of Electricity Supply has the power to arrange for the publication of such material.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been offered to the new Government in Chile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aiming for some expansion in the existing level of UK programmes for training Chileans in this country and for supporting links between Chilean and UK academic institutions. We also hope to develop a new programme of assistance in the technical education sector, and an English language training project. We have in addition agreed to increase our support to the World University Service (UK) by providing £100,000 a year for three years from 1990 to assist Chilean exiles in the UK to return to Chile.

DEFENCE

  Stores Depot, Trecwn
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to close the royal naval stores depot at Trecwn in Dyfed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans at present to close the royal naval armaments depot at Trecwn, but MOD storage requirements are kept under review in the light of changing needs and circumstances.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Royal Air Force low-flying training aircraft using Wales for exercises carry any live ammunition or weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Practice bombs, using only small spotting charges, and practice ammunition are carried frequently in the United Kingdom. Inert bombs may also be used on some ranges. Live weapons with full charges are not generally carried in training, but there is a need for aircrew to have some very limited practice in their use and a range in Sutherland is normally used by the Royal Air Force for this purpose.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of and list any regular low-flying exercises which concern the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Regular exercises which incorporate a major military low flying element over the United Kingdom include Exercises Elder Forest (once every two years), Elder Joust (once a year), Central Enterprise (once a year), Mallet Blow (twice a year), OSEX (once a year) and Salty Hammer (once a year). Some of these exercises test and practice the United Kingdom air defences while others primarily provide aircrews with training in tactical low flying techniques. Several airborne exercises are also held each year to provide joint Army/RAF training in the parachuting or airlanding of troops and stores.

  Radiation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the results of the survey into the effects of low-level radiation on the long-term health of those service men who served on Christmas Island in 1957 and 1958.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) published its report on mortality and cancer incidence in United Kingdom participants in "UK Atmospheric Nuclear Weapon Tests and Experimental Programmes" (NRPB-R214) in 1988. The study included service men who served on Christmas Island.

  The NRPB concluded in its report that a long-term health study along the lines suggested by the hon. Member was impracticable and unnecessary and its advice has not changed. The Government must rely, of course, on the expert and wholly independent advice of the NRPB on this matter.

  A follow-up mortality study is due to be completed by the end of 1991. The Government are confident that safety procedures during the tests were such that no one should have suffered harm as a result of exposure to ionising radiation. This was confirmed by the 1988 report which established no causal relationship between exposure to ionising radiation and increased incidence of any disease.

  Exercise Elder Forest
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the exercise named Elder Forest and whether this is a regular exercise; how many of these exercises have recently taken place; which nations' aircraft were involved; over which countries the exercises took place; what aircraft were involved; what was the cost of each exercise to the United Kingdom; and if he will give details of any accidents which took place during the exercises.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exercises along the lines of Elder Forest are planned for the years 1990–95; what is the number of missions in each exercise; what is the type of aircraft expected to be involved; which nations' aircraft are expected to be involved; over which countries are the exercises expected to take place; over which areas of the United Kingdom are the exercises projected to take place; and what will be the projected cost of each exercise.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Elder Forest is a biennial United Kingdom air defence exercise, centred on the United Kingdom air defence region, but involving aircraft from a number of NATO nations as well as the RAF. This year's is the sixth such exercise. Participating nations have typically included the United States, France, Germany, Norway, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands, contributing attack and electronic warfare support aircraft. The RAF will contribute tanker, air defence and attack 210
  aircraft. The costs of individual exercises are not kept centrally and it would involve disproportionate cost and effort to collate them. There has been one major accident involving an aircraft participating in Exercise Elder Forest since the series began. This occurred on 20 April 1988 when an RAF Phantom crashed into the sea 20 nautical miles east of Dundee. It is not possible at this stage to say how many missions will be flown in this year's exercise or in future ones.

  We expect the Elder Forest series of exercises to continue biennially for the foreseeable future, but it is too early to give precise details.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications took place between his Department and Sheffield Forgemasters regarding the sale of metal tubes to Iraq prior to 11 April.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications took place between his Department and the firm Walter Somers regarding the sale of equipment to Iraq prior to 11 April.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has records of two occasions on which telephone conversations took place between Walter Somers Ltd. and a Ministry of Defence metallurgical expert in 1988.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications took place between his Department and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) concerning contracts with Iraq prior to 11 April.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  These matters are being looked into at present.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is provided by his Department to firms who have queries regarding the application of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Queries of this nature are a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. My Department is not responsible for advising firms in this regard.

  Binary Fuels
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the development of binary fuels for use in large-scale artillery.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department monitors developments in this field but is not currently undertaking any such research.

  WRNS (Pay)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay of members of the Women's Royal Naval Service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government have consulted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) about the implications for pay of the decision announced earlier this year that members of the Women's Royal Naval Service (WRNS) will in future be eligible to serve at sea. The AFPRB has recommended that from I April 1990 all WRNS non-commissioned personnel liable to serve at sea, whether as new entrants or as volunteers from among existing members of the WRNS, should receive the rates of basic pay already applicable to male ratings. The review body proposes that volunteers should be accepted as liable for sea service once they have completed a sea safety course.

  The Government have accepted these recommendations in full. WRNS officers already receive the same rates of basic pay as male officers of the Royal Navy.

  Members of the WRNS, in common with members of the other women's services, will continue to receive a rate of X factor 1 per cent. below that received by men. The AFPRB has stated that it intends to review this differential in its next report in the light of the initiatives being taken to widen the role of women in all three services.

  Dr. Gerald Bull
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the work of Dr. Gerald Bull.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No formal assessment has been made, but interested Ministry of Defence staff kept abreast of professional papers written by Dr. Bull.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Earthquakes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research into further possible earthquakes is taking place, in the light of the earthquake that occurred in England and Wales on 2 April.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is not possible at this time to assess the likely occurrence and location of future events with any precision because earthquakes are rare in the United Kingdom, and because the forces that cause them are not well known. However, important information can be obtained by monitoring the aftershocks which generally occur after an earthquake. In the week following the "Bishop's Castle" earthquake of 2 April 1990, the Natural Environment Research Council's British geological survey (BGS) installed 10 seismometer stations within 25km of the epicentre to study the aftershocks, in order to learn more about the earthquakes in that area and their implications for seismic risk assessment. Together with the information from the improved national seismic monitoring network, this approach will eventually lead to a better capacity in seismic risk assessment.

  First Aid
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in ensuring all schools attain his Department's guidelines standards in first aid provision.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for first-aid arrangements in schools rests with local education authorities and other education powers. The results of a recent survey by St. John Ambulance are being studied by my Department in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, and we shall consider the need for any possible additions to the existing guidance.

  Teachers (Financial Incentives)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department collects about financial incentives paid to teachers, particularly in repect of their numbers, values and distribution on scales A to E between infant, junior and senior schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's database of teacher records contains information, collected on an annual basis, on the numbers of incentive allowance holders in maintained schools. The data can be disaggregated by rate of allowance, local education authority, type of school and by various other factors.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage increase in the amount allocated for student grants for the current academic year over the amount allocated for 1988–89; and whether the increase includes an amount to meet students' community charge payments.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main rates of mandatory student grant are 5 per cent. higher (9·4 per cent. higher for those studying away from home in London) in the current academic year than in 1988–89. In setting these, students' net liability for 20 per cent. of the community charge following abolition of domestic rates was among the factors taken into account.

  Seismic Monitoring
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds have been allocated, or what proposals exist for such funding, to the British geological survey for an improved seismic monitoring network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: The British geological survey's (BGS's) programme of monitoring and studying earthquakes has been supported principally by grant-in-aid from my Department to the natural environment research council (NERC) for the past 20 years. The BGS's work has been supplemented by seismographic stations established by Department of the Environment (DOE), Department of Energy (DEng) and others.

  In 1989–90, the NERC and the DOE consolidated the BGS work within the framework of the United Kingdom seismic monitoring and information service, co-sponsored

  213
  by a customer group of Government Departments and commercial organisations, to support the improvement of the seismic monitoring network. In 1989–90, funding amounted to £400,000—70 per cent. contributed by NERC grant-in-aid. The cost of upgrading to a uniform network at 70 km spacing is estimated at £1 million spread over three years, with total running costs of about £1 million per year. Further efforts are being made to enlarge the customer group in order to achieve this.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what percentage Government support for the Welsh language has increased since 1978–79.

  Mr. Roberts
  In 1990–91 direct Government support for the Welsh language will total £5·87 million. This compares with £349,542 in 1978–79; a cash increase of 1,579 per cent. or 580 per cent. in real terms.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate what percentage of drinking water in Wales is contaminated by faecal organisms.

  Mr. Grist
  I have been informed by Dwr Cymru that between January 1989 and March 1990 the company examined some 52,000 samples of treated public water supplies in its area of which 0·66 per cent. showed possible faecal contamination. Water quality standards and sampling regimes relating to public supplies are prescribed by the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1147). Advice on remedial action to be taken in the event of water quality standards being infringed is contained in the Department of Environment-Welsh Office publication "Guidance on Safeguarding the Quality of Public Water Supplies".

  Local authorities have a duty to monitor the quality of water supplied for domestic purposes in their areas, including private supplies. Information on the results of samples taken by authorities is not held centrally.

  Waste Discharges
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate what percentage of the volume of sewage discharged into the Welsh coastal waters has received(a) primary treatment only and (b) primary and secondary treatment.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand from information provided by Dwr Cymru that, based on population served, approximately 7 per cent. of the sewage discharged into Welsh coastal waters, including estuarial waters, receives primary treatment only and 22 per cent. receives primary and secondary treatment.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the report that his Department funded jointly with the Welsh water authority concerning viruses in sea and fresh water by Dr. J. M. Tyler.

  Mr. Grist
  Yes. The results of the research have been broadcast in various seminars and symposia and in a number of publications.
  214
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of actual pollution incidents in Wales during the last three years whereby industrial chemicals were discharged illegally into surface waters.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report (i) the number of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and (ii) the number of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools who (a) have had no experience of teaching in primary schools, (b) have had no experience of work outside education, (c) whose gross salary is below £30,000 per annum, (d) hold the qualification of D.Sc., (e) are graduates of universities outside Wales, (f) hold masters or doctoral degrees in mathematics, (g) hold masters or doctoral degrees in physics, (h) hold masters or doctoral degrees in chemistry and (i) hold masters or doctoral degrees in engineering.

  Mr. Roberts
  The numbers are as follows:

  (i) 54 with two more in process of appointment;

  (ii) (a) 47 I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 18 March 1986:

  (b) 2 have not held permanent posts outside education although most have some experience of work outside education;

  (c) 8;

  (d) none;

  (e) 21;

  (f) 1;

  (g) 2;

  (h) 2;

  (i) 2.

  School Management
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the date when final approval of the scheme for local management of schools was given by his Department for each local education authority.

  Mr. Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  LEA

  Date of Approval

  Clwyd

  9 March 1990

  Dyfed

  29 March 1990

  Gwent

  30 March 1990

  Gwynedd

  9 March 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  16 March 1990

  Powys

  29 March 1990

  South Glamorgan

  28 March 1990

  West Glamorgan

  29 March 1990

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of assisted place pupils in each school in Wales in the scheme and the number of assisted place pupils from each Welsh local education authority.

  Mr. Roberts
  As at September 1989 the number of assisted place pupils in participating schools in Wales was:

  Number

  Monmouth boys school

  139

  Monmouth girls school

  67

  Howells school, Llandaff

  190

  215

  Number

  Christ college, Brecon

  58

  Llandovery college

  32

  Howells school, Denbigh

  67

  Rydal school

  32

  Penrhos college

  46

  631

  The Department does not collect information on individual pupils and their home local authority.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what target he has set for each health authority in Wales to seek through(a) donations, (b) charitable gifts and (c) direct fund-raising activities (i) in 1990–91 and (ii) over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has set no such targets.

  School Buildings
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give, on a county-by-county basis, the funds allocated by the Government to meet the costs of(a) repair and (b) maintenance of the fabric of schools in the public sector in Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested. Allocations of credit approval to local authorities are formula-based. Capital allocations since 1984–85 are unhypothecated between services. The public expenditure provisions for education capital at an all-Wales level are shown in the table:

  Constant 1988–89 prices

  Year

  Number

  1984–85

  37

  1985–86

  37

  1986–87

  38

  1987–88

  44

  1988–89

  46

  1989–90

  48

  For 1990–91 I have already announced credit approval for local authority education purposes of some £50·1 million with an assumed gross capital expenditure of £53·7 million. Because of changes in the capital control system effective from April 1990 these figures are not directly comparable with those in the table.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give, on a county-by-county basis, the most recent assessment of the costs of(a) repairing and (b) maintaining the fabric of schools in the public sector in Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: Responsibility for the repair and maintenance of schools rests with the local education authorities, and the Department has no comprehensive information in the form requested.

  In the context of my efficiency initiative, local authorities have established a property management group and this is addressing the condition of the local authority estate, including educational establishments. A report on
  216
  property management has been prepared which recommends the setting up of appropriate records in regard to the age and condition of buildings including schools.

HEALTH

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the health authorities and units that are working on specimen contracts for health care in respect of his National Health Service reforms;

  (2) if he will list the research programmes his Department is running on the National Health Service reform proposals;

  (3) if he will list the health regions and health districts that are working on the detail of the internal market for his proposed National Health Service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All health authorities are now preparing to implement the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients", subject to the passage of the necessary legislation. The Government are, in addition, supporting development work in a number of authorities where this is more advanced. The purpose of this support is to build up practical experience and understanding of how the new arrangements will operate so that this can benefit the service as a whole. The Department is supporting a programme of development work rather than research but the results will be evaluated fully.

  The following health authorities are involved in work on contracting for services, including the development of specimen contracts:

  Newcastle

  Sunderland

  South Tees

  Yorkshire (region and districts)

  East Anglian (region and districts)

  City and Hackney

  West Dorset

  South Western (region and districts)

  Coventry

  Kidderminster

  North Western (region and districts)

  North Staffordshire DHA
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reconsider his decision not to approve the nine consultant posts and support staff to the North Staffordshire district health authority out of the funds to alleviate excessive waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The new consultant posts provided under the 100 consultants scheme, announced in the White Paper "Working for Patients", were allocated on the basis of criteria set out when bids for these posts were invited. These were that posts should:

  (i) reduce long waiting lists and times;

  (ii) help reduce junior doctors' hours;

  (iii) help improve the career structure in "out of balance specialties.

  North Staffordshire's bid for a consultant gynaecologist was successful and is to be funded from April 1990. We will not be reconsidering the distribution of other posts under this scheme.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals and other units that are seeking trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Formal applications for NHS trust status can be invited only when Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. However, the following 83 units have expressed interest in seeking NHS trust status in 1991:

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Darlington Hospital and Community Services

  Freeman Hospital

  Newcastle General Hospital

  Newcastle Mental Health Services

  North Tyneside District

  Northumbria Ambulance Services

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Bradford Acute Services

  Leeds General Infirmary and Associated Hospitals

  St. James University Hospital, Leeds

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Children's Hospital, Sheffield

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Montagu Hospital

  Lincolnshire Ambulance Service

  Nether Edge Hospital, Sheffield

  Northern General Hospital

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  South Lincolnshire Mental Handicap Services

  University Hospital, Nottingham

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  East Suffolk Community Services

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney Priority Services

  Norfolk Ambulances

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Community Services

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Acute Services

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  Harefield Hospital

  Hillingdon Hospital

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  North West Hertfordshire Priority Services Unit

  North Hertfordshire Acute and Community Services

  Northwick Park Hospital

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  City and Hackney (St. Bartholomew's, Homerton, St. Marks Hospital Trust)

  North Middlesex Hospital

  Southend District Services

  The London Hospital Group

  The Royal Free Hospital

  The Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Brighton Acute Services

  Bromley Acute Services

  Eastbourne Acute Services

  Guy's and Lewisham Hospitals and associated Mental Illness Services

  King's/Camberwell Acute Services and associated Community Services

  St. Thomas's Hospital and associated Community Services

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Croydon Mental Handicap Unit

  Croydon Community Unit

  Kingston Hospital

  Mid-Downs West Unit

  Mid-Surrey General Unit

  North West Surrey Mental Handicap and Mental Health Units

  South West Surrey Acute Unit

  218

  St. Helier and Sutton Hospitals

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Lymington Hospitals

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases

  West Dorset Community and General Hospital Services

  West Dorset Mental Health Services

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Bristol

  Cornwall Mental Handicap Services

  Cornwall Community Services

  East Somerset

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  Exeter Community Services North Devon

  Plymouth Acute Services

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals

  South Devon Health Care Trust

  West Somerset

  West Cornwall

  Weston

  Wonford Acute Services

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Alexandra Hospital

  Mid Staffordshire Mental Health Unit

  Mid Staffordshire Community Unit

  Rugby District Services

  Walsall Acute Services

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Arrow Park and Clatterbridge Hospitals

  Broadgreen Hospital, excluding Mersey Regional Cardio-Thoracic Unit

  Crewe Acute Services

  Halton Community Services

  Regional Adult Cardio-Thoracic Unit, Liverpool

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospitals

  Whiston St. Helens Hospital

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Central Manchester Hospital and Community Services

  Christie Hospital

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the units which have indicated that they wish to develop their application for National Health Service trust status over a longer time scale.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Formal applications for NHS trust status can be made only when Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Individual sponsors will then decide whether or not to submit an application for trust status in April 1991 at this stage, it would be premature to identify those units which may or may not wish to develop their application over a longer time scale.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets born in England and Wales in 1989; and what was the total number of maternities in that year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of multiple births occurring in 1989 are not yet available; it is hoped that the information will be ready in early May; the information will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Broadmoor Special Hospital
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take in the light of the report on the death of Joseph Watts in Broadmoor special hospital; and whether he will publish the report of the special hospital service board.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report of the inquiry team has been the subject of detailed consideration within the Department and, in the light of the Department's initial comments, by the general manager of Broadmoor hospital. The report, with the hospital's interim response, has now been referred to the Special Hospitals Service Authority (since 1 October 1989, the body responsible for the management of the special hospitals). The authority has been asked to address the report's findings; review follow-up action taken to date; and consider the further handling of the report, including the arrangements for its wider distribution. We expect to receive the authority's proposals shortly, and then to make a further statement.

  Hospital Travel Costs
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase public awareness of the hospital travel costs scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 30 January at column 129. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  AIDS
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources have been given to Dorset to help in the care of AIDS victims.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Wessex regional health authority has been allocated £5,027,000 in 1990–91 towards additional costs incurred in preventing the spread of HIV infection and in providing treatment and care for those who have the virus. It is for the RHA to decide allocations to district health authorities to cover the needs of people living in Dorset. We have separately given Dorset county council a grant of £13,897 this year towards the costs of its planned expenditure on social services for people with AIDS and HIV infection.

  Revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  Total salaries and wages expenditure

  Review body staff

  All other staff

  Total Non-pay

  Expenditure

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  (cash)

  (at 1989–90 prices)

  (cash)

  (at 1989–90 prices)

  (cash)

  (at 1989–90 prices)

  1974–75

  953,859

  4,030,226

  838,841

  3,544,254

  558,428

  2,359,459

  1975–76

  1,253,163

  4,210,941

  1,105,441

  3,714,558

  722,576

  2,428,036

  1976–77

  1,437,313

  4,261,274

  1,254,433

  3,719,080

  820,606

  2,432,892

  1977–78

  1,552,699

  4,044,067

  1,368,900

  3,565,355

  1,009,503

  2,629,291

  1978–79

  1,745,353

  4,106,467

  1,533,099

  3,607,075

  1,143,039

  2,689,342

  1979–80

  2,312,709

  4,659,068

  1,680,011

  3,384,466

  1,340,202

  2,699,904

  1980–81

  3,161,777

  5,382,419

  2,081,018

  3,542,600

  1,642,636

  2,796,325

  1981–82

  3,466,215

  5,374,505

  2,258,307

  3,501,595

  1,905,463

  2,954,497

  1982–83

  3,746,024

  5,417,238

  2,333,346

  3,374,322

  2,061,859

  2,981,716

  1983–84

  3,957,260

  5,467,390

  2,456,394

  3,393,779

  2,211,703

  3,055,711

  1984–85

  4,227,113

  5,563,726

  2,551,322

  3,358,050

  2,356,419

  3,101,519

  1985–86

  4,520,820

  5,647,047

  2,594,567

  3,240,926

  2,494,012

  3,115,320

  Translators (Hospitals)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that in all Health Service contracts placed with hospitals there is a requirement that translators are provided where any patients might need them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance to the NHS has made it clear that each district health authority will be required to place contracts which secure access to a comprehensive range of high-quality services for all members of its resident population. In doing so, they will need to take account of any particular linguistic or cultural needs. A number of interpreters and linkworkers are already employed in the NHS and the Department is encouraging the appointment of more. It must be for district health authorities themselves to negotiate the exact specifications of contracts in the light of local needs and circumstances. It would be too prescriptive to insist that all contracts required the provision of translators or interpreters.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the report from the Disablement Services Authority regarding the provision of powered wheelchairs for outdoor use; if he will publish the recommendations in the Official Report; and if he intends to accept them.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the Disablement Services Authority has now completed the indoor/outdoor electric wheelchair pilot study. A copy of the report on the study has been placed in the Library. The authority is in touch with the Department about the next steps to be taken and we shall make an announcement in due course.

  HCHS Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of hospital and community health services expenditure on(a) staff now covered by pay review bodies, (b) other staff and (c) goods and services, in cash and constant prices in each year since 1974–75.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Information derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department is shown in the table.
  221

  Total salaries and wages expenditure

  Review body staff

  All other staff

  Total Non-pay

  Expenditure

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  (cash)

  (at 1989–90 prices)

  (cash)

  (at 1989–90 prices)

  (cash)

  (at 1989–90 prices)

  1986–87

  4,949,899

  5,981,458

  2,735,157

  3,305,164

  2,632,110

  3,180,642

  1987–88

  5,556,864

  6,376,946

  2,911,090

  3,340,709

  2,808,757

  3,223,273

  1988–89

  6,454,412

  6,906,221

  3,107,182

  3,324,685

  2,993,451

  3,202,993

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities for the years prior to 1982–83).

  Notes to the table:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1989–90 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. Revenue expenditure on HCHS covers the total revenue expenditure by the health authorities concerned including that on hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services. All capital expenditure and expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded. However, the figures for the years prior to 1 April 1985 include small elements related to the administrative expenses of family practitioner committees (FPCs) which before that date were included in the accounts of the health authorities with which the FPCs were associated and are not separately identifiable.

  3. The figures of salaries and wages expenditure are gross costs including employers superannuation and national insurance contributions. Those for the "review body stafF. for the earliest years are slightly understated (with corresponding overstatement of those for "all other staff-) as the annual accounts did not provide for the separate identification of salaries and wages costs currently attributed to "professions supplementary to medicine" until 1979–80. The costs of employing all non-National Health Service (agency, etc.) staff are included with "all other staff".

  4. The figures of total non-pay expenditure are essentially for the purchase of goods and services but include some miscellaneous costs (e.g. staff travel and subsistence expenses, student bursaries, patients allowances, etc.).

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to alter the guidelines given to family practitioner committees on the drawing of general practitioners' practice boundaries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: No. Subject to approval by the medical practices committee, a general practitioner may choose the area from which his patients are drawn provided he can fulfil his obligation to visit patients on his list. A general practitioner must, however, notify the family practitioner committee of his proposed practice area as a condition of acceptance on to the medical list. He may, at any time, change this area with the consent of the family practitioner committee or on appeal to the Secretary of State.

EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care and Family Services
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what mechanisms his Department has to deal with services and policies on child care and family services.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am a member of the interdepartmental ministerial group on women's issues which was established in 1986 to co-ordinate policy issues of special concern to women. The group meets regularly and has focused in particular on child care and domestic violence in the last 12 months.

  I also chair the advisory committee on women's employment which meets regularly to discuss matters affecting women's employment. This committee includes the Equal Opportunities Commission's chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), representatives of the CBI, TUC and the Women's National Commission.

  My ministerial colleagues and I also meet interested groups and address meetings. In addition the Department
  222
  maintains regular contact with the Equal Opportunities Commission, Women's National Commission and other women's organisations.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when results will be available from the follow-up survey of employment training trainees, and if he will place a full copy of results in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  When sufficient data are available to satisfy my right hon. and learned Friend of the reliability of more detailed analyses he will consider placing a report in the Library.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of accidents on employment training, fatal, major and minor, for each month since the start of the scheme to the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  ET accident figures are collected quarterly, as for YTS. The table gives the accident figures.

  Accidents1

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  5 September 1988 to 31 December 1988

  nil

  24

  91

  1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989

  nil

  31

  161

  1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989

  nil

  53

  276

  1 July 1989 to 30 September 1989

  nil

  52

  286

  1 October 1989 to 31 December 1989

  13

  67

  246

  1 Training Agency figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Training Agency's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  3This was a road traffic accident.

  223
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employer-based work placements and how many project-based work placements have either been rejected or closed on health and safety grounds since employment training was introduced.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Separate figures for closures and rejections for employer-based and project-based work placements are not kept. The table gives figures of closures and rejections on health and safety grounds from 5 September 1988 to the present date. The figures are provisional.

  Closed

  Rejected

  15

  nil

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual expenditure on ET from the start of the programme to the estimated outturn for 1990–91; how much of that budget in cash terms was used to pay(a) the trainees' training allowances, and (b) the trainees' training premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the annual expenditure on employment training (ET) from the start of the programme to 1990–91.

  (£ million)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (from 5 September 1988)

  provisional outturn

  estimate

  Total Employment

  Training

  expenditure

  425

  1,096

  1,156

  Training

  allowances

  151

  527

  585

  Training premium

  (estimated)

  34

  102

  108

  Employment training is currently helping over 200,000 unemployed people to obtain the skills and experience they need to get jobs. The Government believe that the level of financial support for ET trainees is reasonable given the need to devote adequate resources to maintaining the quality of training.

  Availability for Work
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances will an unemployed claimant, following the changes in regulations under the

  Actively Seeking Work and Refusal of Employment Referrals and Disqualifications

  Period 9 October 1989—23 February 1990

  Actively Seeking Employment

  Refusal of Employment

  Regions

  Claimants Issued Warning Letters

  Claims Referred to Adjudication Officer

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Claims Referred to Adjudication Officer

  Not Disqualified

  Disqualified

  Northern

  914

  156

  23

  57

  33

  6

  16

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  874

  142

  28

  46

  89

  15

  13

  East Midlands and Eastern

  1,131

  186

  37

  46

  190

  73

  55

  London and South East

  5,828

  930

  180

  191

  1,048

  117

  159

  South West

  826

  207

  39

  57

  73

  21

  10

  Wales

  1,186

  193

  37

  40

  91

  20

  21

  West Midlands

  1,438

  258

  71

  114

  193

  41

  35

  North West

  1,918

  225

  56

  75

  107

  20

  22

  Scotland

  2,291

  278

  80

  72

  78

  24

  10

  224
  Social Security Act 1989, have good cause for refusing to take a temporary or a short-term job offered by the employment service, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The 1989 social security provision on refusal of employment makes no distinction between long-term, short-term or temporary work. If a job is offered to an unemployed person by the employment service which he or she can reasonably be expected to do, it is for the person to show good cause for refusal. The temporary or short-term nature of the job would be only a factor to be considered by the independent adjudicating authorities, in the event of refusal, with any other reasons put forward by the claimant.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance is given to offices about the treatment of a legally separated unemployed person with access rights to children at weekends in respect of the availability for work effect on his or her entitlement to benefit.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no specific guidance issued to offices about the treatment of unemployed persons who are legally separated and who have access rights to children at weekends. A person with domestic or other commitments who restricts himself or herself to working only on certain days of the week would need to show that the restriction is reasonable and that it would not limit his or her prospects of obtaining work. Benefit can be disallowed for those days that the claimant is clearly not available, and for other days claimed if, because of restrictions imposed, he or she has no reasonable prospects of obtaining work. Each case has to be considered individually.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants in each month since 9 October 1989, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, have been(a) issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims (i) allowed or (ii) disallowed, and (d) have been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those in (d) have had their benefit disqualified.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the statistical information for the period 9 October 1989 to 23 February 1990 on questions of "actively seeking employment" and "refusal of employment".
  225

  Actively Seeking Employment

  Refusal of Employment

  Regions

  Claimants Issued Warning Letters

  Claims Referred to Adjudication Officer

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Claims Referred to Adjudication Officer

  Not Disqualified

  Disqualified

  National

  16,406

  2,575

  551

  698

  1,895

  337

  345

  Marchon Chemical Plant (Fire)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to carry out an urgent independent investigation into the fire on Thursday 19 April at the Marchon chemical plant in Whitehaven and publish its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have already begun their investigation into the circumstances of the fire at the Marchon Chemical plant in Whitehaven on 19 April 1990. The HSE does not consider that the incident warrants any special report.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many field inspectors there were within the Health and Safety Executive for each year from 1974 to 1989 inclusive; how many workplaces they were responsible for in each year and what was the ratio of inspectors to workplaces in each year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: The information available is given for those factory, agricultural, mines and quarries inspectors working from district or area offices and the number of registered workplaces for which they were responsible. Field inspectors do not include nuclear installations or specialist inspectors.

  Year

  Inspector numbers1 2 3

  Workplaces registered4

  Ratio of inspectors to workplaces5

  (1 July) 1975

  615·0

  n.a.

  —

  (1 April) 1976

  670·5

  n.a.

  —

  1977

  878·0

  n.a.

  —

  (1 January) 1978

  889·0

  280,716

  1:456

  1979

  888·0

  309,757

  1:432

  1980

  934·5

  318,936

  1:422

  1981

  905·5

  318,050

  1:432

  1982

  857·5

  6585,296

  1:843

  1983

  803·5

  6477,409

  1:734

  1984

  781·0

  668,037

  1:855

  (1 April) 1985

  793·0

  724,227

  1:913

  1986

  754·0

  720,243

  1:955

  1987

  757·5

  719,738

  1:950

  1988

  711·5

  707,474

  1:994

  1989

  722·0

  692,078

  1:959

  1HSE was established on 1 January 1975. Centrally maintained staffing figures became available from July of that year.

  2 Agricultural inspectors joined HSE from MAFF from March 1976, with the field force being in place by March 1977.

  3The Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate transferred to the Department of Environment on 1 April 1987 and have been excluded from the figures.

  4The total for 1978 is for fixed premises registered with Factory Inspectorate only. Premises registered with Mines and Quarries Inspectorate are included from 1979, with those registered with Agricultural Inspectorate being included from 1984.

  226
  5For consistency, mines and quarries inspectors have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio in 1978, and agricultural inspectors have been excluded from 1978 to 1983 (see Note 4).

  6The 1982 figure was the first produced from a computerised database based on the Department of Employment Census. The database initially included premises for which HSE was not the enforcing authority: this accounts for the high figures for 1982 and 1983.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Command Papers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will state the respective numbers of Command Papers, under selected types or subject headings of their main topics, of Command Papers Cm 1–1,000.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  All recent Command Papers are indexed on the Library's POLIS system. If the hon. Member will give more specific details of his particular requirements to the Library then, from the POLIS data base, references could be produced to Command Papers for the period in question, either under specific subject headings; or by issuing Department; or by type, such as White Papers or the treaty or European Communities series.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what impact a spouse or domestic partner of an income support claimant joining an enterprise allowance scheme has on the benefit entitlement of the claimant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Income support is not normally payable to a couple when either member is participating in the enterprise allowance scheme because the participant is deemed to be in remunerative work. However, if their income is low they may continue to receive help from housing benefit and community charge benefit. In addition, family credit is available to those with a dependent child.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has received to "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" from the Disablement Income Group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Disablement Income Group has published a report, "Short Changed by Disability" in response to "The Way Ahead" proposals. The group is a member of the Disability Benefits Consortium, which I met on 5 April to discuss "The Way Ahead". We shall give careful consideration to all their comments in carrying forward the detailed work on our proposals.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has issued any guidance to local authorities as to what amounts of community charge can be demanded from applicants for community charge benefit before their entitlement to benefit has been determined; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations provide that local authorities should issue rebated or unrebated community charge bills as soon as practicable after setting the community charge level. The Community Charge Benefit (General) Regulations provide that entitlement to community charge benefit should be determined within 14 days—or as soon as practicable—of the claim being received, with sufficient information, by the local authority. The administration of the benefit scheme is a matter for local authorities who must decide what action to take if they are unable to meet this requirement.

SCOTLAND

  Whimbrel
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas of land which support more than 1 per cent. of the British population of breeding whimbrel and in each case indicate those which have been notified and confirmed as sites of special scientific interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Nature Conservancy Council advises that the majority of breeding whimbrel in Great Britain are to be found in Shetland. I refer the hon. Member to the NCC report "Shetland Moorland Bird Surveys 1986", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Sites of special scientific interest are

  Expenditure (£s) per head of population

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  Total Net Expenditure

  Grant Aided Expenditure

  Community Charge Income

  Revenue Support Grant

  Non-Domestic Rate Income

  Specific Grant

  Borders

  851

  770

  131

  559

  97

  50

  Central

  775

  686

  158

  384

  177

  44

  Dumfries

  817

  754

  140

  511

  123

  43

  Fife

  819

  693

  183

  374

  202

  40

  Grampian

  764

  695

  124

  437

  163

  40

  Highland

  1,017

  859

  143

  613

  180

  53

  Lothian

  834

  651

  234

  316

  208

  57

  Strathclyde

  853

  741

  159

  450

  176

  59

  Tayside

  817

  717

  161

  444

  151

  50

  Regions

  838

  721

  166

  430

  176

  53

  Orkney

  1,242

  1,094

  98

  761

  346

  38

  Shetland

  2,457

  1,219

  65

  1,371

  931

  47

  Western Isles

  1,596

  1,170

  107

  1,267

  160

  60

  Islands

  1,766

  1,165

  92

  1,164

  447

  50

  Berwickshire

  99

  79

  23

  48

  17

  1

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  104

  84

  29

  40

  28

  1

  Roxburgh

  118

  87

  32

  56

  22

  1

  Tweeddale

  99

  85

  31

  48

  20

  1

  Clackmannan

  163

  117

  76

  35

  51

  1

  Falkirk

  123

  101

  32

  27

  57

  1

  Stirling

  193

  133

  79

  35

  74

  7

  Annandale and Eskdale

  109

  83

  42

  33

  28

  0

  Nithsdale

  108

  89

  36

  31

  35

  1

  228
  selected according to the guidelines published by the NCC in 1989. The assessment of individual sites is based upon the range and quality of the habitat required to sustain populations of protected species such as whimbrel. Other factors are also taken into account in the process of site notification in Shetland and elsewhere. As a result sites are not generally attributed to a single species but usually represent the best example of the habitat available in a particular area.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of hedgerows have been removed, and how many miles planted(a) since 1 January 1960 and (b) since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report in relation to each local authority in Scotland and the average for all local authorities in Scotland for the financial year 1990–91 (a) the level of net expenditure per head of population, (b) the level of net expenditure per head of population as set out in the Government's assessment of expenditure need, (c) the level of income per head of population from personal, standard and collective community charges, (d) the income from revenue support grant per head of population, (e) the income from non-domestic rates per head of population and (f) the income from the other sources per head of population all excluding reference to the water community charge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The information is in the table:
  229

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  Total Net Expenditure

  Grant Aided Expenditure

  Community Charge Income

  Revenue Support Grant

  Non-Domestic Rate Income

  Specific Grant

  Stewartry

  96

  83

  31

  36

  19

  0

  Wigtown

  115

  91

  30

  50

  20

  1

  Dunfermline

  128

  112

  44

  25

  53

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  134

  110

  49

  18

  56

  1

  North East Fife

  140

  106

  60

  50

  29

  1

  Aberdeen

  183

  117

  68

  35

  74

  3

  Banff and Buchan

  120

  106

  42

  37

  40

  1

  Gordon

  120

  103

  30

  51

  17

  2

  Kincardine and Deeside

  90

  99

  19

  50

  20

  0

  Moray

  104

  111

  29

  44

  31

  1

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  101

  91

  26

  40

  29

  1

  Caithness

  103

  87

  19

  43

  31

  0

  Inverness

  97

  91

  19

  30

  45

  1

  Lochaber

  138

  94

  36

  38

  57

  2

  Nairn

  101

  86

  20

  57

  14

  1

  Ross and Cromarty

  142

  97

  35

  62

  40

  1

  Skye and Lochalsh

  135

  95

  21

  73

  27

  1

  Sutherland

  141

  107

  13

  104

  16

  1

  East Lothian

  176

  116

  57

  23

  62

  1

  Edinburgh

  198

  121

  83

  42

  69

  5

  Midlothian

  144

  110

  45

  55

  29

  1

  West Lothian

  119

  108

  40

  41

  35

  2

  Argyll and Bute

  179

  118

  58

  59

  51

  1

  Bearsden

  125

  100

  53

  57

  20

  0

  Clydebank

  229

  107

  68

  94

  48

  6

  Clydesdale

  155

  105

  57

  47

  35

  1

  Cumbernauld

  124

  106

  40

  37

  41

  0

  Cumnock

  141

  106

  44

  57

  29

  1

  Cunninghame

  156

  113

  50

  12

  85

  3

  Dumbarton

  163

  104

  73

  34

  54

  2

  East Kilbride

  143

  101

  76

  19

  46

  0

  Eastwood

  96

  101

  31

  47

  13

  0

  Glasgow

  286

  165

  64

  76

  108

  9

  Hamilton

  142

  107

  54

  44

  43

  2

  Inverclyde

  159

  110

  50

  70

  35

  2

  Kilmarnock

  131

  101

  40

  42

  41

  1

  Kyle and Carrick

  148

  116

  64

  38

  49

  1

  Monklands

  178

  114

  62

  63

  40

  7

  Motherwell

  156

  110

  47

  56

  40

  3

  Renfrew

  167

  121

  64

  42

  51

  2

  Strathkelvin

  142

  107

  59

  65

  25

  2

  Angus

  114

  108

  39

  43

  30

  1

  Dundee

  180

  123

  63

  47

  64

  6

  Perth and Kinross

  129

  106

  39

  45

  41

  1

  Districts

  168

  117

  55

  47

  56

  3

  Scotland

  1,017

  843

  219

  487

  235

  56

  Notes:

  1. Population as estimated by the Registrar General for Scotland at 30 June 1988 has been used in calculating "per head" figures.

  2. Total net expenditure is based on local authority budget estimates.

  3. Grant Aided Expenditure (formerly assessed needs) excludes loan charges against which Revenue Support Grant is also paid.

  4. Community Charge income from personal, collective and standard charges is as estimated by local authorities.

  5. Revenue Support Grant for 1990–91 is payment made by the Scottish Office.

  6. Non-Domestic Rate Income as estimated by the Scottish Office.

  7. Specific Grant as estimated by local authorities.

  8. No allowance is made for use of balances to finance expenditure.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details for each region of Scotland showing how the non-domestic rates are affected by revaluation and the Government's scheme to reduce the actual cash required to be paid by businesses with rateable values above and below 10,000 for the years 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: The table sets out the non-domestic rate for each region, islands and district council for 1989–90, and for 1990–91 following revaluation. The effect of revaluation is to reduce the levels of non-domestic rate in real terms in inverse proportion to the average increase in rateable values (column 2). The rates for 1990–91 have been further
  230
  reduced by 6·25 per cent. as the first step towards the introduction of a national non-domestic rate in Scotland (column 3).

  Rateable values have increased by an average of 34·4 per cent. as a result of revaluation. Only those ratepayers facing an increase in rateable value in excess of the average will see their non-domestic rate bills increase in real terms. In order to protect ratepayers from any significant increases in rate bills resulting from revaluation we are limiting annual increases in rateable value. In 1990–91 no ratepayer will be required to pay non-domestic rates on more than 1·613 times his 1989–90 rateable value and where the rateable value on 1 April 1990 is less than

  231
  £10,000 the limit will be reduced to 1·546 times the 1989–90 rateable value. In order to maintain the level of rate income limits have also been placed on the amount by which rateable values may be reduced following revaluation so that these arrangements have no effect on the level of rate poundages.

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  1989–90 Rate poundage

  1990–91 Rate poundage

  1990–91 Rate poundage

  Pre-NNDR Reduction

  Post-NNDR Reduction

  p

  p

  p

  Borders

  48·5

  38·4

  36·0

  Central

  56·1

  44·5

  41·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  51·6

  40·9

  38·3

  Fife

  62·1

  49·2

  46·1

  Grampian

  46·0

  36·5

  34·2

  Highland

  55·6

  44·1

  41·3

  Lothian

  63·9

  50·6

  47·5

  Strathclyde

  61·9

  49·1

  46·0

  Tayside

  57·9

  45·9

  43·0

  Orkney

  52·9

  41·9

  39·3

  Shetland

  50·0

  39·6

  37·1

  Western Isles

  77·6

  61·5

  57·6

  Berwickshire

  10·1

  8·0

  7·5

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  11·5

  9·1

  8·5

  Roxburgh

  12·7

  10·1

  9·4

  Tweeddale

  9·7

  7·7

  7·2

  Clackmannan

  20·1

  15·9

  14·9

  Falkirk

  16·4

  13·0

  12·2

  Stirling

  24·3

  19·3

  18·1

  Annandale and Eskdale

  12·2

  9·7

  9·1

  Nithsdale

  12·2

  9·7

  9·1

  Stewartry

  10·6

  8·4

  7·9

  Wigtown

  10·0

  7·9

  7·4

  Dunfermline

  13·6

  10·8

  10·1

  Kirkcaldy

  16·9

  13·4

  12·6

  North East Fife

  15·2

  12·0

  11·3

  Aberdeen City

  14·8

  11·7

  11·0

  Banff and Buchan

  13·2

  10·5

  9·8

  Gordon

  10·6

  8·4

  7·9

  Kincardine and Deeside

  8·7

  6·9

  6·5

  Moray

  11·1

  8·8

  8·2

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  8·5

  6·7

  6·3

  Caithness

  13·2

  10·5

  9·8

  Inverness

  10·1

  8·0

  7·5

  Lochaber

  15·3

  12·1

  11·4

  Nairn

  8·5

  6·7

  6·3

  Ross and Cromarty

  13·2

  10·5

  9·8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  12·7

  10·1

  9·4

  Sutherland

  9·5

  7·5

  7·1

  East Lothian

  18·0

  14·3

  13·4

  Edinburgh City

  17·7

  14·0

  13·1

  Midlothian

  18·0

  14·3

  13·4

  West Lothian

  15·9

  12·6

  11·8

  Argyll and Bute

  20·1

  15·9

  14·9

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  13·8

  10·9

  10·3

  Clydebank

  20·6

  16·3

  15·3

  Clydesdale

  17·8

  14·1

  16·2

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  17·5

  13·0

  13·0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  18·0

  14·3

  13·4

  Cunninghame

  21·7

  17·2

  16·1

  Dumbarton

  20·1

  15·9

  14·9

  East Kilbride

  15·1

  12·0

  11·2

  Eastwood

  10·6

  8·4

  7·9

  Glasgow City

  28·1

  22·3

  20·9

  Hamilton

  19·1

  15·1

  14·2

  lnverclyde

  16·9

  13·4

  12·6

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  17·5

  13·9

  13·0

  Kyle and Carrick

  18·0

  14·3

  13·4

  232

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  1989–90 Rate poundage

  1990–91 Rate poundage

  1990–91 Rate poundage

  Pre-NNDR eduction

  Post-NNDR Reduction

  p

  p

  p

  Monklands

  19·1

  15·1

  14·2

  Motherwell

  17·3

  13·7

  12·9

  Renfrew

  19·1

  15·1

  14·2

  Strathkelvin

  16·9

  13·4

  12·6

  Angus

  14·3

  11·3

  10·6

  Dundee City

  22·8

  18·1

  16·9

  Perth and Kinross

  14·8

  11·7

  11·0

  Notes

  1. Column 2 shows rate poundages which would have been required in 1990–91 following revaluation were it not for the Government's national non-domestic rate policy.

  2. Column 3 shows the actual rate poundages for 1990–91 which the Secretary of State prescribed following the £80 million reduction in the burden on ratepayers in Scotland as the first move towards the introduction of a national non-domestic rate.

  European Community Housing Ministers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held concerning the meeting of European Community Housing Ministers in Lille in December 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990 ]: My right hon. and learned Friend has held no such discussions.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he or the Under-Secretary of State has to attend future meetings of European Community Housing Ministers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider attendance at future meetings of European Community Housing Ministers in the light of the agenda for any such meetings.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of farms by region in Scotland, on which cattle were found to have bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also had sheep on them.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The percentage of farms from which cattle have been confirmed as suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy on which sheep were also present is as follows:

  per cent.

  Borders

  90·9

  Central

  91·6

  Dumfries

  88·2

  Fife

  80·0

  Grampian

  79·0

  Highland

  93·3

  Lothian

  100·0

  Orkney

  60·0

  Shetland

  100·0

  Strathclyde

  86·4

  Tayside

  80·0

  233
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cattle have been confirmed as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each region of Scotland for each year since the disease was discovered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The numbers are as follows:

  Region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Borders

  1

  1

  9

  Central

  —

  3

  8

  Dumfries

  4

  13

  32

  Fife

  —

  —

  11

  Grampian

  —

  12

  43

  Highland

  —

  5

  14

  Lothian

  1

  2

  7

  Orkney

  —

  2

  2

  Shetland

  1

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  —

  11

  64

  Tayside

  —

  5

  17

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the incidence in percentage terms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy affected herds in each region of Scotland at 31 December 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The incidence in relation to BSE-affected dairy herds in Scotland is as follows:

  per cent.

  Borders

  5·19

  Central

  6·09

  Dumfries

  2·16

  Fife

  3·88

  Grampian

  7·35

  Highland

  3·66

  Lothian

  4·26

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  3·70

  Strathclyde

  2·62

  Tayside

  6·06

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by age the cattle confirmed as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The answers are as follows:

  Age

  Number

  2 years

  1

  3 years

  14

  4 years

  48

  5 years

  43

  6 years

  19

  7 years

  3

  8 years

  1

  Dogs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and bodies which have responded to the consultation document "Action on Dogs."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: One hundred and six organisations responded to the consultation paper. I am writing to the hon. Member with the details.

  Radiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department contributed towards the funding of the aerial survey of radioactive contamination in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale which was carried out by the Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre in February 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The Scottish Office supported the survey by making available, on a shared cost basis, an inshore fisheries patrol aircraft. This contribution was equivalent to £700.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to eliminate illegal poisoning of birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Birds of prey are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Nature Conservancy Council is presently reviewing the effectiveness of the legislation and expects to report this year. We shall consider its report and any recommendations for change most carefully.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Businesses
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the liability of bed-and-breakfast businesses for non-domestic rates; and if he intends to give any guidance to local authorities on the collection of rates on those bed-and-breakfast businesses which have been assessed for non-domestic rates for 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: We have made clear our intention to clarify in legislation the boundary between domestic and non-domestic in the case of bed-and-breakfast establishments. We have recently consulted interested parties on our proposals in this respect and we are currently considering the responses to that consultation exercise before bringing forward appropriate regulations. These regulations cannot apply retrospectively and any bed-and-breakfast operator faced with an assessment for rates in respect of 1989–90 which he considers not to be justified should appeal through the normal channels. We see no need to provide guidance to local authorities on the collection of rates from bed-and-breakfast businesses.

THE ARTS

  Arts (Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assistance he is giving to the promotion of the arts in Devon.

  Mr. Luce
  Promotion of the arts is a matter for the Arts Council and the regional arts associations. In 1990–91 it is estimated that direct spending on the arts in Devon by South West Arts and the Arts Council will he in excess of £1·25 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sulphadimidine
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any information from the United States Food and Drugs Administration about the safety of sulphadimidine.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has received no new information from the Food and Drugs Administration or any other source which would affect the conclusion of the Veterinary Products Committee and the committee on toxicity that sulphadimidine can be used safely.

  Caseons Lymphademitis
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of outbreaks of caseons lymphademitis reported to his Department; what is the number of restriction orders placed on farms; what action he intends taking; whether compensation will be paid to affected farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Caseons lymphademitis has been confirmed on two premises and movement restrictions placed on a further 10 premises to date. Material taken from suspect goats and sheep is still being examined and tracing of animals connected with the source of infection is continuing. More information on the extent and nature of the infection is needed before decisions are taken on what further action is required.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has estimated the effect on sales of home grown potatoes in United Kingdom supermarkets if retailers' views were taken into consideration in assessing the research priorities of his Department;

  (2) whether the views of (a) retailers and (b) growers are considered when assessing his Department's research priorities for apples and pears;

  (3) whether the views of (a) retailers and (b) growers are taken into consideration when assessing his Department's research priorities for potatoes.

  Mr. Curry
  In setting research priorities, we take full account of the advice of the priorities board for research and development in agriculture and food. In preparing its advice to Agriculture Ministers and the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the priorities board draws on the views of retailers, as well as food manufacturers, farmers, growers, academics and others.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much local authorities overspent in 1989–90 and 1988–89; what were the effects on inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Local authorities' total net current expenditure exceeded their grant-related expenditure (GRE) by 7 per cent. in both 1988–89 and 1989–90.236
  Increases in total domestic rates added around 0·36 per cent. and 0·4 per cent. to the level of the RPI in 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively.

  Supply Side
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent measures he has introduced affecting the supply side of the economy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government have introduced many measures designed to improve the operation of the supply side of the economy, through improved incentives, more open markets, the abolition of unnecessary or obsolete regulations, and the introduction of greater competition to the public sector. The following are among the most recent measures introduced which should have important supply side effects.

  The successful transfer of the 10 water supply companies to the private sector last December means that since 1979 we have reduced the size of the state-owned sector of industry by almost half. The future privatisation programme includes the sale of the 12 regional electricity distribution companies in England and Wales in the autumn. And, of course, more competition has been introduced into the electricity generating industry with the splitting of the CEGB into National Power and PowerGen, leading up to their intended privatisation early next year. The Scottish electricity industry will also be sold next year.

  The Employment Act 1989 has continued the Government's process of gradual reform of industrial relations legislation to remove inflexibilities from the labour market and reduce unions' capacity to abuse their market power. Specifically the Act removed the remaining legal protection from all types of closed shop, and from secondary industrial action. The Dock Work Act 1989 repealed the national dock labour scheme, so removing the unneccessary costs imposed by its restrictive labour practices.

  Last October saw two highly significant reforms: the reform of employees' national insurance contributions which cut contributions for virtually all employees, and removed a major disincentive to the low-paid who previously lost out when their income rose above the two intermediate steps, now abolished; and the abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule which also removed a severe disincentive, allowing a large number of pensioners to work and earn more income without having their pensions abated or eliminated altogether.

  We have now launched the first training and enterprise councils, or TECs (local enterprise councils in Scotland), which will be charged with developing the quality effectiveness and relevance to local labour markets of the Government's existing training and business assistance programme.

  The Budget last month included a number of measures of specific help to small businesses, whose general success is vital to the efficient operation of the supply side. These included an increase in the small firms corporation tax threshold, a comprehensive system of relief from VAT on bad debts, simplification of VAT registration rules, and the maximum increase in the VAT registration threshold allowed under EC law.

  The Budget also gave a further boost to the Government's measures to encourage wider share ownership by increasing the annual limit on investment in

  237
  a personal equity plan, and providing capital gains tax deferral for sales of shares to employee share ownership plans. In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's intention to abolish stamp duty on share transactions. This will reduce the cost of share dealing, improving the competitiveness of the United Kingdom equity market and encouraging the spread of share ownership. This reform will take effect in late 1991–92, to coincide with the introduction of the stock exchange's TAURUS dematerialised (paperless) share register and settlement system.

  Public Sector Investment
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about changing guidelines on public sector investment criteria.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury issues guidance on investment appraisal by central Government, as do Departments for their own programmes. These documents are revised from time to time to reflect improvements in methodology, the objective in all cases being to achieve best value for money.

  Farm Land (Sporting Rights)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received about the valuation of sporting rights on farm land;

  (2) representations he has received about value added tax on sporting rights on farm land.

  Mr. Ryder
  The only recent representations on these matters of which I am aware are contained in a letter from my hon. Friend to my noble Friend the Paymaster General.

  Community Support Loans
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the legal conditionality which might attach to any Community support loans referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 3 April,Official Report, column 523.

  Mr. Ryder
  The possibility of attaching binding economic conditions to support loans from the Community to an individual member state was discussed at the last informal ECOFIN, but no formal proposal has been put forward.

  Delors Plan
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest proposals of the European Community Commission on the Delors plan and the financing by member states of budget deficits by monetary means.

  Mr. Ryder
  The European Commission's latest report, entitled "Economic and Monetary Union: The Economic Rationale and Design of the System", was deposited in the Vote Office with an explanatory memorandum on Tuesday 24 April. This report notes that there is a "virtual consensus" in the Community in favour of a rule proposing no monetary financing of public deficits.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Major
  The ECOFIN Council met in Luxembourg on 23 April. The Paymaster General and I represented the United Kingdom. The Council heard a report on the presidency's negotiations with the European Parliament on the revision of the financial perspective but without substantive discussion. The German Finance Minister reported on the latest developments regarding economic and monetary union between the two Germanies. There was further discussion of the site and presidency of the European bank for reconstruction and development. I stressed the strong case for London and the need for an early decision in order to begin the bank's work in eastern Europe as soon as possible. I also emphasised the need to maintain budgetary discipline in the context of agricultural price fixing.

  A brief note from the presidency outlining the necessary procedures for conducting multilateral surveillance of member states' economies was also agreed, as was the text of a speech to be given by the presidency at the forthcoming meeting of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund.

  The presidency offered a progress report on discussions concerning the scope of zero and reduced VAT rates, pointing out that there was a need for further work on a wide range of issues before decisions could be taken. In the subsequent discussion, the Paymaster General expressed our regret that no progress was made in accepting the Commission's proposals for substantial increases in travellers' allowances between now and the completion of the single market on 1 January 1993.

  A package of three tax measures which would encourage cross-border co-operation in tax affairs was also discussed but without agreement.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what routine arrangements exist for co-ordination between Customs and Excise officers and the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that regulations prohibiting the export of arms are carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Customs and Excise is in regular contact with the DTI on these matters. In particular, whenever customs staff at ports and airports in the course of their routine monitoring arrangements have grounds for suspecting an export licensing irregularity they are required to contact the Department of Trade and Industry for a ruling on the licensability of the items in question.

  Unit Labour Costs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual percentage rise in unit labour costs in manufacturing in West Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Japan, Sweden and the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Following is the information requested.
  239

  Growth in manufacturing unit labour costs in national currencies

  (annual average percentage change)

  1979–881

  1979–89

  United Kingdom

  5·0

  4·9

  United States

  2·3

  —

  Japan

  −1·2

  —

  Germany

  3·2

  —

  France

  6·2

  —

  Italy

  8·5

  —

  Sweden

  6·1

  —

  1 Latest complete annual data.

  Source: IMF except for United Kingdom (CSO).

  Optical Equipment
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) shops and (b) manufacturers dealing with optical equipment were trading in Britain in 1987; and what are the current figures.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: What information is available is shown in the table.

  Total number of legal units registered for VAT as at end of April 1989

  1987

  11989

  (a) Shops

  Opticians

  22,200

  2,476

  Chemists and photographic shops

  8,717

  8,528

  (b) Manufacturers

  Surgical instruments and appliances

  409

  402

  Scientific and industrial instruments and systems

  2,807

  2,961

  Photographic and document copying equipment

  124

  155

  1 Latest year for which figures are available.

  2 Opticians were not required to register for VAT in 1987. This figure, which is comparable to that shown for 1989, is estimated from entries in the Opticians Register for 1987.

  Source: CSO Register of Businesses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had an opportunity to discuss the Australian peace proposals for Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 26 March, at columns 29–30.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what conditions diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan will be re-established; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan have not been broken. British diplomats were temporarily withdrawn from Kabul in February 1989. It is still too early to say when they will return.
  240
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to prevent weapons from reaching elements opposed to the Government of Afghanistan in Afghanistan; and whether he will raise this matter with the United States of America or at the United Nations.

  Mr. Maude
  None. We understand the issue of arms supplies to all sides is under discussion by the parties to the 1988 Geneva accords.

  China
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any recent representations have been made to the Government of the Republic of China regarding human rights violations since the events in June 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We and our EC partners have made our concerns very clear. On 2 and 21 February, the EC presidency in the UN Commission on Human Rights recorded the deep dismay of the international community at the repression of peaceful demonstrations in June 1989, and called upon the Chinese authorities to guarantee full respect for human rights throughout China, including Tibet. On 7 March, Britain and its EC partners co-sponsored a resolution in the Commission on Human Rights critical of human rights violations in China, which was narrowly defeated. We and our EC partners made representations in February to the Chinese Government about the arrests of Catholic priests.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of deaths in the incident in Tiananmen square, Peking.

  Mr. Maude
  It is not possible to provide a precise figure for the number of deaths in Peking last June. Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,000 civilians died.

  Middle East
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has discussed with his Israeli counterpart, or any Israeli official, the issue of nuclear or chemical weapon proliferation in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No, but my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the question of Israeli accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during his talks with Professor Arens on 15 February 1989.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United Nations and other international bodies on the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in touch with interested UN agencies and other international organisations about Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, which unfortunately often falls below the expected standard. We take every opportunity to remind the Israeli authorities of their obligation to administer the occupied territories in accordance with their obligations under international law.
  241
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, through the British consulate in east Jerusalem, Her Majesty's Government are monitoring Israeli use of west bank water resources, in respect of possible contraventions of the 1949 Geneva convention on the responsibilities of occupiers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take a close interest in all aspects of the Israeli administration of the occupied territories and take every opportunity to remind the Israeli authorities of their obligations to respect international law. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs mentioned the question of discriminatory allocation of water resources to the Foreign Minister of Israel when they met in New York in September last.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process and on the relations between the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our aim is to encourage a dialogue between Israel and representative Palestinians as a first step towards a comprehensive settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute. We look to the next Israeli Government to pursue such a dialogue with vigour and speed. We use our frequent contacts with the PLO to urge it to maintain its welcome commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are monitoring Israeli use of the natural resources of the west bank and Gaza strip.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take a close interest in all aspects of the Israeli administration of the occupied territories, including the use of natural resources, and take every opportunity to remind the Israeli authorities of their obligation to respect international law.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States and the European Community on violations of the 1949 Geneva convention in the occupied territories on the west bank and the Gaza strip; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in frequent contact with the United States and our EC partners about Israel's administration of the occupied territories. We take every opportunity to remind the Israeli authorities of their obligations under international law.

  Israel
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the possession by Israel of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As far as we are aware, Israel has never confirmed or denied possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations to initiate investigations at the United Nations into the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 April, at column 1013. I have nothing further to add.

  Libya
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the article in "Defence and Foreign Affairs Weekly", volume XVI, No. 10, 12 to 18 March, by Gregory R. Copley, on the current situation in Libya and the declining political position of Colonel Gadaffi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received no such representations and we have no diplomatic relations with Libya.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's embassy in Santiago to the new Chilean Government concerning human rights and political prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Shortly before the inauguration of President Aylwin on 11 March, Her Majesty's ambassador wrote to the Minister of Justice-designate to remind him of our concern about excessive delays in the remand procedure under the former regime and its use of military courts to try civilians, and particularly the case of Sra Ledy Castro, since freed on bail.

  More recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council, who attended the celebrations following President Aylwin's inauguration, expressed to the new Chilean Ministers our satisfaction at their approach to the human rights problem.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent assessment of the level of homelessness in England and Wales.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total housing needs of homeless people.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The most recent figures available give a total of 31,840 households accepted as homeless by local authorities in England in the last quarter of 1989. Homelessness in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for homelessness in Yorkshire and Humberside region; and if he will make a statement.
  243
  Mr. Chope
  Accommodation was found for 3,100 households accepted as homeless by local authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside in the last quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the level of homelessness in Leicester.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Over the past year my officers have discussed the problem of homelessness with Leicester city council twice. The director of housing has written to my Department requesting additional resources to help deal with it.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to fund programmes to accommodate permanently people sleeping rough in London.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of new proposals to deal with the problem of teenage homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are concerned about the needs of rough sleepers and Departments are looking at the way their policies work together to ensure that appropriate assistance is available. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of households accepted as homeless in 1989 was as a result of a breakdown in family life or because of a breakdown of a relationship with a partner.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Local authorities make quarterly returns of the numbers of households for which they have accepted responsibility for securing accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. They also provide a breakdown of these acceptances by the main immediate reasons for homelessness.

  For 1989 the figures are as follows:

  per cent.

  Parents, relatives or friends no longer able/willing to accommodate

  43

  Breakdown of relationship with partner

  17

  Mortgage arrears

  6

  Rent arrears:

  Local authority dwellings

  3

  Private dwellings

  2

  Loss of private rented dwelling (other reasons)

  12

  Loss of service tenancy

  4

  Other

  13

  ALL REASONS

  100

  (Number of households accepted—100 per cent.

  (126,240)

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any new proposals to deal with the problem of homeless families and homeless single people.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on Government assistance for the homeless.
  244
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans any new initiatives to deal with homelessness.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on the progress of his proposals about homelessness in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood).

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to use Government owned empty property for homeless families.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey).

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet representatives of local government to discuss the poll tax.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet representatives of local government to discuss the poll tax.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet representatives of local government to discuss the poll tax.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There is no meeting fixed at present.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the five boroughs in inner London with the highest overspend in terms of £ sterling per head over standard spending assessment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The five inner London boroughs whose 1990–91 budgets represent the highest overspends in pounds per head of relevant population compared with their standard spending assessments are:

  Greenwich

  Lambeth

  Hammersmith

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received opposing the poll tax since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I continue to receive representations on a wide range of issues including the level of charge which some authorities have chosen to set.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities in England with the highest community charge.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The list is as follows:

  £

  Haringey

  573

  Lambeth

  548

  Camden

  534

  245

  £

  Hackney

  499

  Islington

  499

  Brent

  498

  Bristol

  490

  Oxford

  489

  Basildon

  478

  Derby

  458

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from young people about the community charge.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I continue to receive representations from both young and old people on a wide range of issues related to the community charge.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the operation by local authorities of the standard charge in respect of empty properties.

  Mr. Chope
  I continue to receive representations on a wide range of issues related to the standard community charge including the use that local authorities make of their discretion to levy no charge or a lower charge in respect of certain types of empty property.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the expected receipts from the uniform business rate in Cornwall for 1990–91; and what contribution is to be made from the uniform business rate to Cornwall.

  Mr. Chope
  The provisional amount which local authorities in Cornwall are to pay into the national non-domestic rating pool in 1990–91 is £50,105,153.

  The amount of redistributed business rates which will be paid to authorities in Cornwall for 1990–91 is £102,492,371. This money is paid in support of parish, district and county council services in the area and is nearly £293 per adult.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has as to the number of sports clubs and facilities that will benefit in real terms from lower rate bills as a result of the introduction of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 March 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) at column 483.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour of a tax on capital values in place of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any representations in favour of capital value rates.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many recent representations he has received in favour of a local income tax in place of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  We continue to receive many representations on all aspects of the community charge; however, only a relatively small number suggest that the community charge should be replaced by a system of local income tax.
  246
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the standard community charge on empty properties.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received and continue to receive many representations on all aspects of the standard community charge.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about hardship caused by his decision not to make 1 April the starting date for empty property being liable for the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  While I have received a large number of representations about empty properties and the standard community charge, I have received very few about this particular aspect.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from private tenants about the community charge and levels of rents.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received and continue to receive representations on a wide range of issues related to the community charge including from private tenants. My Department has recently produced a leaflet giving advice to people in rented accommodation on their rights following the abolition of domestic rates.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to review standard spending assessments for 1991–92.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to review standard spending assessments for 1991–92.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to review standard spending assessments for 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear both in the House on 18 January, and on many subsequent occasions, that any fresh evidence in support of a new methodology for calculating standard spending assessments will be considered with a view to making changes if that should prove necessary. Officials have already begun discussions with local authority representatives with a view to establishing a programme of work for examining any such fresh evidence.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for further changes to the poll tax system in 1990–91.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for further changes to the poll tax system in 1990–91.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for further changes to the poll tax system in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the community charge.
  247
  Mr. Chope
  I have received and continue to receive a large number of representations on a wide range of issues concerning the community charge.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Basildon area on his charge-capping decision.

  Mr. Chope
  None so far.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Labour-controlled local authorities in England and Wales have planned to increase their expenditure above the rate of inflation in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Information showing the increase in demands and precepts over corresponding figures of income from rates and grant in 1989–90 for each local authority in England has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from hoteliers and guest house proprietors about the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of recent representations from hoteliers and guest house proprietors on this matter.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities with the highest levels of uncollected council house rents.

  Mr. Chope
  The 10 local authorities with the highest arrears as a percentage of their rent roll at the end of 1988–89 were as follows:

  Rent arrears (£000s)

  Arrears as a percentage of rent roll

  Brent

  113,713

  49·0

  Lambeth

  17,492

  35·7

  Southwark

  126,820

  35·5

  Hackney

  12,357

  30·3

  Islington

  13,081

  28·9

  Ealing

  5,651

  26·2

  Liverpool

  15,292

  26·2

  Haringey

  7,200

  25·6

  Waltham Forest

  4,365

  20·6

  Newham

  5,373

  16·0

  1 DOE estimate of rent arrears.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received against the proposals for community charge capping.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has received a number of letters against capping since my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 3 April.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in real and percentage terms, the actual community charge for each local authority with the assumed community charge made by Her Majesty's Government on 11 January.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 London boroughs with the highest overspend in terms of £ sterling per head over standard spending assessment.
  248
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top 10 local authorities in England with the highest overspending in terms of £ sterling per head over standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 county councils with the highest overspend in terms of £ sterling over standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 London boroughs with the highest community charge.

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the five boroughs in inner London with the highest community charge.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top 10 local authorities in England with the highest percentage overspend over standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am arranging for a summary of information relating to the demands, precepts and community charges set for each authority to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the alterations that he recently considered making to the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  We continue to keep all aspects of local government finance policy under review.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the relevant poll tax regulations to ensure that wardens of retirement people's homes living residentially during the week, but in their own homes at weekends, do not have to pay two lots of poll tax bills.

  Mr. Chope
  Individuals are subject to the personal community charge for the area where they have their main residence and cannot be subject to more than one personal charge. Individuals with a freehold or leasehold interest in a second residence may be subject to a standard charge only if that residence is not used as the main residence of another person. It is possible that wardens of retirement homes could be liable to a standard charge but where the nature of their employment and household circumstances causes this, the local authority has a discretion to set the multiplier at a zero or low multiplier.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidelines have been given to local councils on the charging of standard poll tax to those payers in the process of selling their second homes:

  (2) if he will amend poll tax guidelines to local councils so as to ensure that those currently selling off property but living elsewhere are not subject to poll tax for the property which is in the process of being sold.

  Mr. Chope
  We have prescribed in the Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 that no standard charge is payable in respect of unoccupied property which is substantially unfurnished and has been so for less than three months. This would include properties which are in the process of being sold.
  249
  There was a similar arrangement under the domestic rating system. Local authorities have discretion to extend the period of relief or to set a multiplier different from the one generally applied. My Department has written to local authorities explaining the scope and exercise of this discretion.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage in expenditure for which Stockport metropolitan borough council is budgeting this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Information comparing the demands of individual local authorities with corresponding information for 1989–90 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Associations
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I last met the leader of the Association of County Councils on 27 March. Representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and of the Association of District Councils were also present. We discussed the community charge.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Association of District Councils on 27 March. The Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities were also present. They discussed the community charge.

  Rents
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to maintain rents at affordable levels in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  In respect of England, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Rents in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that local authority rent increases properly reflect Government guidelines.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for each local authority to set its own rents. The guidelines merely seek to ensure that housing revenue account subsidy is targeted to reflect the needs of authorities, and to encourage a more sensible pattern of rents.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to issue any new guidance on rent levels.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to issue any new guidance on rent levels.

  Mr. Chope
  We will not be issuing any further rent guidelines for 1990–91 but local authorities and their associations will be consulted in due course on rent guidelines and related matters for 1991–92.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of investment planned by the water industry over the next 10 years in the sewerage network.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of investment planned by the water industry over the next 10 years in sewage treatment.

  Mr. Trippier
  Of the total investment of £26·3 billion allowed for in determining charges limits for the water industry in England and Wales some £5·3 billion was for investment at sewage treatment works, £5·7 billion for investment in the sewerage network and £1·2 billion for investment in sea and estuarial outfalls. Discussions with the water industry are now in hand to revise these investment programmes to take account of the Secretary of State's recent announcement that in future all significant discharges of sewage to sea should be treated and that dumping of sewage sludge at sea should be ended.

  Rivers
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of British rivers are of good or fair quality; and what is the comparable figure in the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Trippier
  A review of river classification schemes across the European Community published in 1988 by the water research centre showed that 95 per cent. of river length in the United Kingdom was of good or fair quality compared with 75 per cent. in the European Community as a whole. The review also indicated that no other member state bettered our position.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the National Rivers Authority in tackling the pollution of rivers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority has already demonstrated clearly its commitment to effective regulation of water quality. A number of offenders have been successfully prosecuted, and many more have received formal warnings. The authority has embarked on a number of reviews of key policy areas, including the discharge consent system, and it will carry out a national survey of river water quality in 1990.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of river pollution to the North sea comes from(a) the river Rhine, (b) the river Elbe, (c) continental rivers as a whole and (d) British rivers as a whole.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of input of contaminants into the North sea from rivers comes from English rivers.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of pollution in the North sea comes from British rivers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Rivers are the most important source of North sea pollution, but their exact contribution varies according to the contaminant and year chosen for study.
  251
  The most recent comprehensive information available comes from a study published this year by the Netherlands-based International Centre for Water Studies, and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library. This shows in broad terms that the combined effect of all United Kingdom rivers flowing into the North sea is to contribute about 20 per cent. of river-borne contaminants. The remaining 80 per cent. of river-borne contaminants come from continental rivers with the Rhine-Meuse contributing about 30 per cent. and the Elbe around 35 per cent.

  Housing
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the director of the Institute of Housing; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the director of the Institute of Housing; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  I last met the director when I addressed the institute's presidential dinner on Thursday 1 March. My speech concentrated on housing management issues and the many new initiatives introduced by my Department to improve and enhance management practice. I encouraged the institute to play its part in promoting good management and in the productive working relationship it has with my Department.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the supply of rented accommodation.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to increase the supply of rented accommodation.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's aim is to ensure that decent housing is within reach of every family, and that enough subsidised rented accommodation is available for those who cannot afford to rent privately or to buy. The increases in public expenditure provision for housing association investment announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, together with the increased scope for housing associations to use private finance, are a major step towards achieving that aim.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allocation of the housing investment programme for 1990–91 is being allowed for building new dwellings, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for local authorities to decide their own priorities in using the resources available to them from housing investment programme (HIP) allocations and usable capital receipts, although the Government have encouraged them to concentrate on the improvement of their own stock and assisting private owners with grants. The task of providing new subsidised homes for rent and sale is increasingly passing to housing associations, with local authorities fulfilling an enabling role.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for the housing investment programme allocation in 1979 and 1990, updated to 1990 prices; and if he will make a statement.
  252
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for the housing investment programme allocation in 1979 and 1990, updated to 1990 prices, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The relevant figures for England are £5·43 billion and £2·16 billion respectively. However, since 1979 local authority spending has been enhanced significantly by resources released through the sale of council houses to their tenants.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average annual rate of decline of council house building between 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures for new house building in England in 1989 are contained in table 1.2(a) "Housing and Construction Statistics, Part 1" No. 40; those for 1979 are in table 6.1(a) of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988". Copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of housing stock is estimated to be empty in(a) the local authority sector, (b) the housing association sector, (c) the private sector and (d) the Government sector.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 27 February 1990 to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) at columns 180–81.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any new proposals to assist first-time home buyers.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 21 February to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) at column 741.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to make private housing properties which are unfit for human habitation or lacking basic amenities adequate for letting to help reduce waiting lists of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum being spent on the Government's action for cities programme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on 7 March at columns 734–35.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of hazardous waste disposed of in Britain is imported from abroad.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest figures available for England and Wales indicate that imports are about 2 per cent. of total disposals.
  253
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on implementing the agreement reached at the last North sea conference on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Ministers of North sea states meeting in March at the third North sea conference held in The Hague agreed to take measures to phase out and destroy all remaining identifiable uses of polychlorinated biphenyls by 1999 at the latest, making use of storage only as an interim option and with each country pledging to develop destruction facilities to allow each to deal with its own waste.

  Provisional estimates indicate that the United Kingdom already possesses sufficient destruction capacity to deal with its PCB waste. This and other aspects of the North sea conference declaration will be the subject of a guidance note on implementation, which I propose to publish within the next two months.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the import of hazardous waste from abroad.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government are not opposed to imports of hazardous waste to specialised facilities which are available here but not in the country of origin provided that the imports are properly notified and in accordance with all the relevant regulations. The Government are advocating, internationally, that developed countries should aim to be self-sufficient in waste disposal facilities so that transfrontier movements are reduced to a minimum.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his action plan for implementing the agreements reached at the last North sea conference.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I hope to publish a full report, detailing how we intend to implement all of the measures agreed at the third North sea conference, within the next two months.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Government are taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Trippier
  Within the Department of the Environment we have announced changes to the building regulations which will result in significant improvements in energy efficiency. The principal sources of emissions of carbon dioxide are from the energy and transport sectors, and measures to reduce these are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Transport.

  Recycling
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to increase the amount of waste that is recycled.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Environmental Protection Bill contains a range of measures which will help to bring recycling to the forefront of waste disposal strategies in the 254
  United Kingdom. These include stricter controls on waste disposal by landfill and other means which will increase their costs and make recycling more attractive, and a requirement for all waste regulation authorities to give priority to recycling in their waste disposal plans wherever it is practicable to do so. Authorities will be permitted to specify recycling as a disposal option when letting contracts for the disposal of their waste even if it may be more expensive than traditional disposal methods. All waste collection authorities will have to draw up recycling plans and they will be permitted to arrange for the recycling of all the waste that they collect unless the disposal authority has an existing recycling contract for it.

  A joint DTI and DOE recycling advisory group has been examining, in conjunction with the Government's Warren Spring laboratory, the market barriers that prevent recycling from accounting for a higher proportion of the domestic waste stream. The reports of this group will be used in drawing up proposals for the forthcoming White Paper on the environment.

  Following Royal Assent to the Environmental Protection Bill, comprehensive guidance will be given to local authorities and others on the new obligations and powers.

  Advice will also be given to the public to explain how they can fulfil the vital role that they will have in co-operation with local authorities to keep the recyclable part of their waste clean and fit for re-use.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be continuing to hold discussions with manufacturing industry to encourage it to use more recycled waste in its processes and to develop the markets for the increasing quantity of recyclables that will be collected.

  World Student Games
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has approved any funding towards the cost of the World Student Games in Sheffield.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The organisers of the World Student Games have made it clear from the outset that theirs was a private sector bid. The Government clearly stated that they would not be providing direct financial support to the games, since all central Government funding for sport is directed to the Sports Council. However, £9·45 million has been provided for games-related projects through urban programme funding, derelict land grant and city grant where normal programme criteria were fully met. In addition, the Sports Council has indicated that, subject to certain conditions, it would be prepared to earmark some £3 million in support of the games. Together these provide a substantial contribution to the games.

  Environmental Labelling
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce a scheme of official labelling for environmentally friendly products.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 9 January at columns 589–91 the basis on which the Government intend to establish a scheme of eco-labelling, and indicated that

  255
  an advisory group would be set up to help develop a suitable scheme. We expect to announce the membership of the group very shortly.

  Conservation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to discuss conservation measures.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity for a formal meeting with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. There are, however, frequent contacts at official level between my Department and the voluntary conservation bodies, including the RSPB.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of water pollution incidents in 1988.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total number of reported water pollution incidents in England and Wales in 1988 was 26,926. This information is published in the annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to minimise the input of dangerous substances into the North sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Important new agreements on the reduction of inputs of dangerous substances into the North sea were reached in early March at the third North sea conference held in The Hague. These include the reduction by 70 per cent., or more if possible, of inputs of several of the most hazardous substances (such as cadmium, mercury, dioxins and lead) by 1995 and the reduction by 50 per cent. or more of air inputs for 17 substances, as well as agreement on a new common list of 36 substances dangerous in the aquatic environment on which reductions are required for all inputs to rivers, estuaries and coastal waters.

  These new agreements build on existing reduction timetables set at the second conference hosted by the United Kingdom. Significant progress, as set out in the United Kingdom North sea action plan, has already been made towards reaching the 50 per cent. target for reduction in river inputs by 1995.

  I intend to publish a guidance note on implementation of these and other aspects of the third conference declaration within the next two months.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's campaign to increase the use of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The unleaded petrol campaign has been a great success. In the 12 months from January last year the market share of this fuel increased from 2 per cent. to 29 per cent. and is now over 30 per cent. We expect that the increased differential in duty between unleaded and leaded petrol, introduced in the recent Budget announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will increase the rate of take-up of unleaded petrol.

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking against fly-tipping.

  Mr. Trippier
  The new duty of care in the Environmental Protection Bill will place a legal duty on producers and other holders of waste to take measures to prevent illegal disposal and to secure the transfer of waste only to authorised persons. They will also be required to keep records of waste consignments. These measures. in combination with the compulsory register of waste carriers introduced by the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, will greatly assist the deterrence, detection and prosecution of fly-tippers. In addition, local authorities will be empowered to impound vehicles suspected of fly-tipping until someone comes forward entitled to reclaim them, and the person in a position to control the use of a vehicle will become responsible for fly-tipping offences committed using that vehicle.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Montreal protocol restricts the supply of chlorofluorocarbons. In the negotiations to revise the protocol the Government are pressing for much tighter restrictions on supply, leading to a phase-out within 10 years.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about damage done to sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received a number of representations from a wide range of individuals and interested bodies.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives on the criteria adopted by local authorities in determining whether or not to review planning permission given for operations on, or which would otherwise affect, a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department's circular 27/87 gives general guidance about development control in relation to nature conservation. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 8 March 1990 by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning at column 802.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has available on the level of delays by local authorities processing right-to-buy applications.

  Mr. Chope
  Serious delays continue to cause concern in some London boroughs, although the position is generally improving. Tenants are making good use of the procedure introduced last year by which they can require the landlord either to take the next step in the sale or put the rent toward the purchase price. The necessary forms are available from the Department's regional offices.

  Common Land
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about proposals relating to access to common land.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 27 March at column 116.

  European Community Environment Directives
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is seeking any changes in the method adopted by the European Commission for investigating complaints about infractions of European Community environment directives.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have for some time been pressing the Commission to take a more focused and rigorous approach towards ensuring the effective implementation of Community environment legislation in all member states. I am pleased that the Commission is increasing its efforts in this area, and I welcome recent initiatives to improve public awareness of member states' performance in meeting their legal obligations.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he is preparing to investigate the incidence of disease of cetaceans in British coastal waters.

  Mr. Trippier
  Relatively little is known about the epidemiology of diseases of wild animals. The experience of the 1988 seal virus has reinforced the need for greater study of this area. I am currently considering proposals for projects to study marine mammal strandings, including small cetacean species, in the coastal waters of England and Wales including tissue sampling, post mortem examinations, analysis of contaminants and other tests as required. I have also placed a contract with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology of the Natural Environment Research Council to review existing knowledge and assess future needs on wildlife disease generally, including marine mammals.

  Local Authority Borrowing
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was borrowed by local authorities, which was(a) sanctioned by Government and (b) not sanctioned by Government (i) overall and (ii) from abroad, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  Total net external borrowing, that is net of repayments, and total net direct borrowing from abroad by local authorities in England was as follows:

  Total net borrowing

  of which direct from abroad

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1979–80

  2,228

  n/a

  1980–81

  1,741

  6

  1981–82

  −326

  7

  1982–83

  42

  15

  1983–84

  1,018

  32

  1984–85

  2,246

  8

  258

  Total net borrowing

  of which direct from abroad

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1985–86

  2,042

  71

  1986–87

  1,703

  14

  1987–88

  2,152

  45

  1988–89

  2,588

  19

  Local authorities may borrow without the approval of my right hon. Friend in anticipation of revenue and for the purpose of repaying existing loans. They may also borrow for any other purpose or class of purpose approved by my right hon. Friend. In practice, in the years mentioned in the question local authorities operated loans pools which were partly funded by external borrowing and partly from internal sources such as balances and unapplied capital receipts. Expenditure financed from loans pools under borrowing approvals given by my right hon. Friend was as follows:

  Expenditure financed from loans pools

  (£ million)

  1979–80

  2,992

  1980–81

  2,900

  1981–82

  2,527

  1982–83

  3,358

  1983–84

  3,538

  1984–85

  3,381

  1985–86

  3,008

  1986–87

  2,814

  1987–88

  2,953

  1988–89

  not yet available

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any evidence of a change in the level of private rented accommodation arising from the implementation of the Housing Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is too early to assess the overall impact of deregulation on the supply of rented accommodation, but there are clear signs of increased activity in the residential lettings market. In particular, we estimate that about £480 million has so far been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting on assured tenancies, which will provide some 8,000 additional homes for letting.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to promote the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 to potential landlords to encourage private rented accommodation.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has published 11 booklets for both landlords and tenants since part I of the Housing Act 1988 came into force on 15 January 1989. Nearly 2 million of these free booklets have been sent out. Our latest booklet, "Want to Rent a Room", was launched this week.

  EC Member States (Environment Offences)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of European Court of Justice cases taken against each member country for environment-related offences since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table below gives the number of court cases on environmental directives for each member state since 1985, based on the best information my Department

  Environmental ECJ cases by country: 1985–90

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total

  Belgium

  7

  1

  0

  2

  3

  1

  14

  Denmark

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  France

  2

  0

  0

  4

  2

  2

  10

  FRG

  2

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1

  11

  Greece

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  5

  Ireland

  1

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  5

  Italy

  3

  1

  1

  4

  7

  0

  16

  Luxembourg

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  5

  Netherlands

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  0

  2

  2

  United Kingdom

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Total

  19

  4

  4

  20

  23

  5

  75

  Child Care and Family Services
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms his Department has to deal with services and policies on child care and family services.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  A ministerial group on women's issues was established in 1986 under Home Office chairmanship to co-ordinate policy issues of special concern to women. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), is a member of the group. Issues on which the group has focused in the past 12 months include child care and domestic violence.

  As an employer my Department operates a range of policies to support working parents. These include career breaks of up to five years, with an associated keeping in touch scheme and extensive opportunities for part-time working. Paternity leave arrangements will be introduced shortly. The Department has also supported play schemes in central London and the regions and further proposals are under consideration.

  Planning Permission
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any power to provide financial assistance to local authorities for purposes connected with revocation or discontinuance of planning permissions.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has no statutory powers specifically to give such assistance.

  Development Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether district valuers have any function in evaluating the financial viability of development projects being considered by local planning authorities for planning permission; and if he will make a statement.
  260
  has been able to collect. Figures for 1989 and 1990 are not complete as no annual report on Commission monitoring of the application of Community law has yet been published for these years.

  It can be seen from the table that the United Kingdom has an excellent record compared with other member states. Excluding Portugal, where most Community environmental legislation has been applicable only since 1989, only Denmark has been taken to the ECJ fewer times for breaches of environmental directives.

  Mr. Moynihan
  District valuers are not formally required to evaluate the financial viability of development projects being considered by local planning authorities for planning permission. There is nothing, however, to prevent local authorities from seeking such advice from district valuers, but it is not a criterion for consideration for planning purposes.

  Portable Discounts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends the recently announced portable discount scheme for council tenants to apply to tenants seeking to move to(a) Ireland and (b) other countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is for each local authority proposing a cash incentive scheme to consider what criteria it wishes to apply, and to put its proposals to the Secretary of State for approval. Scheme proposals are considered on their merits.

  Marchon Chemical Plant (Fire)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set up an investigation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution into the fire at the Marchon chemical plant in Whitehaven on Thursday 19 April and publish its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  This matter is primarily one for the Health and Safety Executive. I will not be asking Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to undertake an investigation.

  Car Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultations he has undertaken on the impact on health of increased benzene emissions in car exhausts arising from the duty concessions on lead-free petrol;

  (2) whether he will commission a study into the safe concentrations of benzene in the atmosphere consequent upon the policy of increasing the tax advantages of lead-free petrol:

  (3) whether he has established what effects the increasing use of lead-free petrol will have on benzene concentrations in the atmosphere.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: The Department of the Environment is funding a substantial programme of research into emissions from vehicles using leaded and unleaded petrol, including emissions of benzene. The Government's health advisers will be asked to consider the evidence on exposure to benzene in the atmosphere resulting from this research and advise on its implications for public health. It is not expected that the increased use of lead-free petrol will result in a significant increase in benzene concentrations in the atmosphere.

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to assist coastal local authorities with the removal of debris on beaches dumped by ships at sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: Material dumped by ships at sea is one source of beach debris, and to prevent or minimise such pollution the United Kingdom Government have implemented all the relevant provisions of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL). This includes strict controls on the discharge of oil and chemicals, garbage and the carriage of packaged dangerous goods. The provision and monitoring of port reception facilities for these wastes is an important requirement of the convention. With regard to garbage, the disposal of any plastic into the sea is prohibited and other forms of garbage may be dumped only under strict
  262
  conditions. Regulations to this effect were made by the Secretary of State for Transport, which came into force on 31 December 1988.

  The responsibility for clean up of the coastline lies principally with local authorities, and while it is for authorities to determine their own priorities, their spending on environment protection generally is taken into account in the Government's support for local authority expenditure.

  Dereliction
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of his decisions on local authority expenditure on the speed with which the problem of dereliction faced by the Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster authorities will be resolved.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: My right hon. Friend is of the view that, on the basis of all the information available to him, the caps which he proposed for authorities are reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned, and are achieveable without disruption to services.

  Excess Nutrients
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to reduce the risk of excess nutrients building up round the coasts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).

  Peat Alternatives
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice and assistance has been made available to local authorities for the purposes of encouraging the use of peat alternatives in horticulture.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply to this question.

  My Ministry has undertaken a considerable amount of work on alternatives to the use of peat in horticulture. The Agricultural Development Advisory Service is currently advising a number of local authorities on the management of amenity plant production, including the development and use of peat substitutes.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Green Belt: Increase
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the increase in the total area of land designated as green belt since 1979.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government attach great importance to green belts as an essential element of planning policy. The extent of designated green belt in England has more than doubled since 1979. It has increased from 1·8 million acres to 4·5 million acres. That represents nearly 14 per cent. of the total land area of England.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his extremely encouraging reply. Can he assure us that land, once designated as green belt, cannot be rescheduled for building purposes?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the essential characteristic of green belts is their permanence, and their protection must be maintained for as far ahead as can be seen. Within green belts there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Except in special circumstances, the construction of new buildings should not be approved unless it is for agriculture and forestry, outdoor sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds or other uses appropriate to a rural area.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the same protection is applied to draft green belt plans as to designated green belt plans?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I assume that the protection required under a green belt requires designation.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point about cemeteries, but is it not also necessary to provide some housing in areas of that kind? Does he agree that that can be done by converting barns which are now disused and not necessary for agriculture in that part of the country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is the Government's view that the aim should be to use redundant buildings for purposes which are compatible with the green belt, including institutional uses. On the question of housing, there may be scope for local planning authorities to accept limited, low-cost housing development in existing green belt settlements.

Bird Conservation in Scotland
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in designating special protection areas and Ramsar sites in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I am happy to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today designated a further eight sites. Four of those are special protection areas, one is a Ramsar site and three sites have dual designation. There is now a total of 18 special protection areas and 19 Ramsar sites in Scotland. Details of the new sites designated have been placed in the Library.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer which will be welcomed widely both here and in Scotland. However, can he tell me whether yesterday's reply from his noble friend in the Department of the Environment, which stated that planning authorities should ensure that special protection areas are treated as though they were already designated, applies to Scotland as well as to England? If so, can he say what is happening in the case of Lurcher's Gully? Is that being given special treatment?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that under the SPD Circular 1/1988 planning authorities in Scotland are required to ensure that potential sites are treated as if they had been designated. The subject of Lurcher's Gully is at present under active consideration in the Scottish Office and I cannot give the noble Baroness any further information.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend help me by saying what a Ramsar site is? Has it anything to do with sheep?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, my noble friend is wrong. A Ramsar site has nothing to do with sheep. It is all to do with wetlands.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether Lurcher's Gully has anything to do with the Scottish national drink?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, my Lords. Having been there in the middle of winter, I can assure the House that it has much to do with snow and nothing to do with whisky.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Lurcher's Gully is an important development for skiing and tourism in general and that the interests of the local population should not be lost sight of in the event of any designation taking place?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will know, various views

575
have been expressed by all and sundry as to the importance of Lurcher's Gully. It would be wrong for me to say anything further at this stage. However, the noble Lord will know from the Scottish newspapers that the Government are giving the matter considerable thought. I have no doubt that at the appropriate time my right honourable friend will take into account not only what the noble Lord has said but what others have said.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the question of Ramsar sites, which are wetlands internationally arranged for the benefit of birds, will the Government do everything possible to help to keep confidential the site where the crane has this spring come to breed in the United Kingdom for the first time for many years? Does he agree that, whether that site is in Scotland or in another part of the United Kingdom, it is best that we should not know?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and I am glad to tell him that I do not know.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if the sites are for the benefit of the public so that they can see the birds, can the Minister tell the House what is the sense of keeping the sites private?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are at cross-purposes. The sites announced by my right honourable friend today are made public and will be available for the general public to visit. They are important bird sites covering the whole of Scotland, and today we have taken a great step forward in that area.

The Capercaillie: Protection
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether action is being taken to ensure that the capercaillie does not become extinct in Scotland.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the capercaillie is a protected species and is presently listed in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As a result, it may only be killed or taken outside the close season; that is, between 1st October and 31st January. My colleague. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is presently consulting about the desirability of a statutory ban on their shooting. A copy of the consultation letter, showing those consulted, has been placed in the Library.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Can he say whether enough is known about the present numbers of this reclusive but remarkable bird or about the factors which are tending to reduce its numbers? Is he aware that the capercaillie became extinct in Scotland and was reintroduced successfully in 1837?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords. I was well aware of the fact that the capercaillie became extinct and was brought in from Sweden at the date mentioned by my noble friend. Regarding numbers, it is estimated that in the early 1970s 10,000 capercaillie existed; but there has been a sharp decline. It is quite difficult to give accurate figures, but the best estimate is that there are now only 2,000 birds.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a survey by the Forestry Commission in the north of Scotland, which is the habitat of this magnificent bird, and that a decline in the numbers of birds there was observed? Is he further aware that the Forestry Commission imposed a ban on any Forestry Commission shooting of those birds? The birds are not shot for eating but simply as trophies for some of our European friends who come over to shoot in Scotland. Would the Minister encourage the Government to follow the lead of the Forestry Commission, which is given little credit for what it does in this field? Would he also encourage the Government to impose a similar ban throughout private woodlands as well as on Forestry Commission properties?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, this is a very big subject. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will study most carefully the results of the Government's consultation. I can assure him that very strong views have been expressed on both sides of the argument. I am well aware of the Forestry Commission's voluntary ban, which, I may say, has encouraged us to bring forward a consultation paper. Moreover, we should not have considered bringing forward a consultation paper had we not thought that there was a reason for having a good discussion about the matter at this stage.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that capercaillie have been, and indeed still are, successfully reared at Fenton Barns in what I still insist on calling East Lothian?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I was not aware of that fact. However, at the moment I am much more concerned with the preservation of the wild capercaillie and getting the right answer to the question of how we should go about preserving them for posterity.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I always thought that the name was capercailzie, but I may be wrong about today's spelling. I look forward to reading the report that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in the other place will produce. From what I have discovered in the past few days, it appears that there are four or five possible reasons for the reduction in numbers of this bird. It seems to be overwhelmingly the case that shooting is the biggest single factor. It is one that we can do most about immediately. Will the Minister urge his friends to follow the ban introduced by the Forestry Commission in 1982? If so, does he agree that there may immediately be an improvement in the population figures of the capercailzie?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says to the effect that shooting is one cause of the decline. The evidence of the Game Conservancy Council, when it becomes available, will show that that body comes to a different conclusion. The question of habitat is very important. The Forestry Commission and the Government brought in the same rates of grant for native pinewoods as for broadleaves in 1988 and that has encouraged the maintenance and extension of pinewoods. To date, the number of applications received by the Forestry Commission for planting native pines already exceeds 2,500 hectares.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister consider whether the same measures to prevent extinction might help the Tory Party in Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, that is another Question and one to which I shall not rise.
Baroress Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the 'z' in capercailzie is in fact the Anglo-Saxon yogh as in Colquhalzie, Menzies and Dalziel?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward remarks of that kind. I had no idea of it. I am very glad that she has enlightened the House on the matter.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that ornithologists recommend that supplies of vaccinium myrtillus are good food for the chicks of the capercaillie? If the Forestry Commission could be persuaded to increase the planting of that desirable food, it might help the species.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. As I said, we are not certain of the reason for the decline in the numbers of capercaillie. One thing, however, is quite clear: when there is a considerable amount of wet weather at the wrong time of the year it is very detrimental to the species.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the current issue of the Field magazine, which gives statistics for birds shot last year for sport in the United Kingdom? They show that 2·2 million birds were shot in this country for so-called sport. Does he agree that it is rather hypocritical to complain, as some noble Lords did yesterday, about people in continental Europe shooting wild birds? We justify such action in this country by legalising that which shows the gulf between morality and the law.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the question that the noble Lord has asked me. I have just returned from Cyprus where very few birds were to be seen, so I think that there is a problem in some other countries as well as our own. Provided that shooting is done legally and in a reasonable way, I consider that it is a
578
perfectly valid sport to be carried out in the United Kingdom.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the keeping of game often leads to the protection of wildlife? Has he noticed that on today's Order Paper all four of the oral Questions concern the preservation of wildlife and the protection of the environment? Does that not reveal commendable concern on the part of your Lordships? Will my noble friend take note that when the environment Bill comes before the House we shall need plenty of time to consider all of its provisions?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am sure that the usual channels have listened very carefully to what has been said by my noble friend. I accept that wildlife is a very important aspect of our life in the United Kingdom. With regard to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology research of the capercaillie, three separate projects are taking place. The Forestry Commission has a project on winter habitat use. For the RSPB there is research on chick habitat use in the Abernethy forest. The ITE is monitoring the population in Glentanar. I do not believe that that illustrates that the Government and those working in that area are less than diligent.

Environment Week
2.52 p.m.
Lord Glenamara Lord Glenamara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are planning any events to mark Environment Week, which starts on 28th April.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will launch the Environment Week at the Telecom Tower on Thursday 26th April. The Government very much welcome this initiative by the Civic Trust to encourage people to help improve their local environment.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. The annual Environment Week has the support of a very large number of reputable national organisations under the leadership of the Civic Trust and sponsored by British Telecom. Does he agree that it is an admirable opportunity to focus attention on improving, enhancing and preserving the environment? We are grateful that the Government are sending a Minister to open the event. It is too late this year to do anything more. However, can they not make a resolution to be rather more helpful and to do a little more next year?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the significance and value of Environment Week. We also consider it to be a wholly admirable occasion. It is an enterprise undertaken by the Civic Trust. Its intention is to focus attention on the local environment in order to encourage people to find out more about the area in which they live and to join in practical local projects.

579
We consider that that is best left to the bodies which have joined together to bring it about. However, we have done what we consider appropriate in opening the week.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in New York yesterday there was an event in Central Park in honour of Earth Day? I take that to be an environmental cause. As a result of the event grave damage was caused to the vegetation of the park and four and a half tonnes of non-recyclable litter was left behind. Is not the best way of protecting the environment to be very wary of environmentalists?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was not aware of the facts about which the noble Lord has informed the House. There were Earth Day events in this country also. So far as I know they did not lead to such unhappy consequences. There was no direct government involvement.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider a practical way in which the Government could show whether or not they are serious and genuine in their concern for the environment? The Government could announce that they are intending to give backing to the Bill which was sponsored in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and which has passed through all its stages in this House. Will the noble Lord take this opportunity to say that the Government will back the Bill on CFCs? Such provision could greatly reduce those dangerous emissions of gases which are a direct danger to our environment.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. It is a matter for the other place.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, to the participation by the Minister of State for the Environment in Environment Week tomorrow. What participation is expected from the Departments of Transport and Energy? They have a very great involvement in environmental needs and improvement?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not aware of any other government involvement in Environment Week other than launching the week itself.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are all agreed that litter messes up the environment more than anything else. I hope that the Minister is aware that the young farmers' organisation has carried out an exercise of cleaning up litter in various areas. It deserves some credit for that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, a great many voluntary bodies are doing a great deal to clear up the environment. We welcome all such efforts. A considerable number of bodies are involved in Environment Week. I have a list that I shall not read out. They are all organisations which receive substantial government support.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider it very surprising that the Department of Transport is not involved in Environment Week? Transport, in particular heavy lorries, is the cause of much destruction of the environment through fumes, noise and the destruction of people's property.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the intention of Environment Week is very much directed at local activities, very largely on a small scale. The leaflet that was distributed by British Telecom advertising the week listed some of the achievements last year. Those included items such as hanging baskets and window boxes which gave a facelift to Gateshead Technical College. An unsightly broken fence was pulled down and replaced in a single day by the Polesworth Society. A three-mile stretch of beach was cleared by the Llanelli Society. Those are thoroughly admirable achievements but we feel they are best left to local groups under the admirable lead of the bodies that organise them at the present time.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is UK 2000 making any contribution to the week; or is there not enough of the body left?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government provide the Civic Trust with financial support. The Civic Trust also receives support from the department via UK 2000. That amounts to £152,500.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the debate in the name of the noble Baroness the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time-limit. However, I am confident that noble Lords will limit their speeches to lengths within the spirit of these short debates.
In the debate in the name of the noble and learned Lord, it means that all other speeches should be kept within a limit of 12 minutes.

Educational Governing Bodies
2.59 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to call attention to the case for balance on the governing bodies of places of education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing the debate on governing bodies I should like to look back in history to the 1944 Act so that we can appreciate the enormous changes that have taken place in the composition of those bodies and their vastly increased importance and responsibilities.
The 1944 Act was not prescriptive. LEAs could do pretty well as they chose provided that they

581
allowed minor authority representation. A research study in the 1960s showed that only about one-third of schools had their own governing bodies. In 20 cases the borough councils simply nominated a single governing body to act for all their schools. In one borough there was a single body of managers for all primary schools and a single body of governors for all secondary schools.
The need for change and balance was forcefully made in the 1977 report, A New Partnership for our Schools, chaired by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. I am glad that he will be speaking today. Paragraph 4.6 of the report states:
"the means by which governing bodies could be made more representative should be based on the recognition first and foremost that each of the four main interest groups"
that is LEAs, staff, parents and local community,
"can contribute towards the establishment of a partnership based on their common interest in the welfare of the school; second, that no one interest group should play a dominant role; and, third, that between them, members of the body should be able to speak with knowledge and experience over the whole range of matters which are likely to come up for discussion".
The Government made two attempts to write the partnership principle into law. As regards schools, the principle was included in the Education (No. 2) Acts 1980 and 1986 but they ignored it in regards to the governing bodies of further and higher education colleges and polytechnics where business interests predominate and the principle of balance has been lost. The Education Act 1988 set up their governing bodies.
The 1980 Act ensured that each school had its own governing body and that there should be minority authority representation. Voluntary aided and controlled schools had their foundation governors. The 1986 Act made more changes which are in force today. It does not provide for the full and equal partnership proposed by the Taylor Report. The size of the governing body is determined by the size of the school and it varies from nine to 19 members. There is an equal number of parent and LEA governors (between three and five); one to two teacher governors and the head if he or she so chooses; and three to six co-opted governors. The scope for co-option in voluntary controlled schools is reduced to one with the balance of places going to foundation governors. The rules for voluntary aided schools are less precise. There should be governors from the various categories but there needs to be a majority of foundation governors.
Clearly, the representation of foundation governors in voluntary controlled schools introduces a complicating factor in terms of achieving balance. The need to recognise the interests of the foundation is understood but it produces a contradiction in the approach. In the case of a voluntary aided school proprietors are given a legal majority over the governors. A school in which the LEA is in effect the proprietor has minority representation balancing that from the parents. It is an illustration of the complications and untidiness that inevitably exist in a mixed system. Indeed, it is indicative of the diminishing role of the LEA.
As regards LEA schools, one can make some criticism of the current prescription through
582
legislation. One accepts the balance between parents and the LEA but prescribing the actual size of the governing bodies gives rise to some oddities. In the smallest school the governing body will outnumber the staff. In the largest school there may well be a case for increasing the teacher representation or introducing representation from other categories of staff. Where a school has been designated a community school surely there is a case for direct representation from the wider community which uses the facilities controlled by the governor. Under present legislation one can look only to governors to recognise that through co-option. We would argue for more flexibility.
Another problem, particularly for county councils, is the cycle for the appointment of governors as determined by the 1986 Act. The governors are appointed for a four-year term in the year immediately preceding county council elections. Within a year those appointed may cease to be properly representative if the electors change the composition of the council. Councils can remove their representatives and appoint new ones but that is not the happiest way of proceeding. Continuity is important.
It would be much better if there was provision that allowed councils to match the cycle for governing bodies with that of the council. That is not an argument for securing representation from a particular political party. I emphasise the fact that we do not support LEA governors being appointed to secure representation only for the majority party. I shall return to that issue. Nor is it an argument about representing the LEA at governors' meetings. Governors will want their LEA representatives to be able to take back their concerns to the authority. I consider that to be one of the most important aspects of LEA representation. Even though not all the LEA appointed governors will be councillors I believe that, for the reason of reporting to and from the education committee, it is important that a majority should be.
I return to political balance. The Government's attempts to achieve balance in the composition of governing bodies through legislation sits oddly with their opposition to using legislation in order to achieve a political balance in the representation of the LEA. A number of LEAs have appointed only members of the majority party and every political party has been guilty of that; for example, Barnet, Wandsworth and Kent for the Tories, the Isle of Wight for the SLD and Manchester for Labour. I believe that some pressure has been brought to bear, and in his reply the Minister will perhaps enlighten us about the latest position.
In an oral Question tabled on 17th January this year my noble friend Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would amend the Education Reform Act in order to ensure fair representation of local opinion on governing bodies. The answer was no. I was sorry about that because I believed that it would be at least appropriate for guidelines to be issued. I wonder whether in his reply the Minister will tell us of the most recent government thinking about that.
On 7th February this year my honourable friend Mr. Jack Straw introduced a Bill to ensure fair shares between the political parties in the LEA appointments. It will place a duty on each appointing LEA to ensure that the political balance of governing body appointments proportionately reflects the party balance on the appointing body. It is the first occasion in recent memory on which the Official Opposition has introduced a Bill.
Of course a balanced school governing body cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Questions must be asked about the ratio of men to women. Is the ethnic composition of the community which the school serves reflected? Are governing bodies dominated by education or by other professionals and businessmen? Questions have been asked about the appropriateness of teachers being appointed as parent governors.
There is also the question of students. During the passage of the Act we tried hard to secure student representations but we failed. I still believe that that is very misguided, particularly in schools where there are sixth forms, in sixth-form colleges and tertiary colleges where students may well be old enough to vote in local and national elections. After all, they are the consumers. My experience as a governor—that was before the implementation of the Act when we had student governors—was that they made useful, enlightening and refreshing contributions. Now we must make do with having them as observers.
The National Foundation for Education Research carried out a survey for the DES on membership. The report, entitled Reconstitution of Governing Bodies, was published last August and revealed serious under-representation of manual workers, ethnic minorities and women. Of all the co-opted governors there are 1,037 men to 489 women, only 55 places for manual workers, and almost three times as many for retired people. Maybe that reflects the increasing workload. The predominant group totalling 754 is from industry, business, the professions and education. I do not call that exactly balanced.
I now turn to further and higher education. In the PCFC sector of the independent nominees appointed by the Secretary of State—that is 50 per cent. of the body —more than two-thirds are company directors, managers, or from the professions. Of the 12·5 per cent. from the public sector, which would include educational interests, only 13 of the 72 have any direct contact with education. Of the rest, the LEA is entitled to between one and three places. I understand that in fact it is usually only one. Students are allowed one place, teachers one, general staff one, and up to two academic nominations from the academic board may be made. I think that that is shocking. Their input is of vital importance. As yet, there is little feedback about how the balance of representation is viewed by those directly involved with the colleges but the lack of educational input seems unfortunate to say the least.
As regards the FE colleges maintained by the LEAs, the ERA required the establishment of new
584
governing bodies—the maximum size to be 25. In practice, in approving the instrument of government, the Secretary of State has mostly insisted on a maximum of 20 with just enough exceptions to be able to demonstrate that he is not automatically substituting that judgment for the provision made in the Act.
Apart from that, the basic legal limitations are that at least half of the governors should be representative of the world of employment or co-opted governors largely from the same sphere. LEA representation should not exceed 20 per cent. The effect of those factors has been to limit the scope for any very strong representation of other interests. It will be common for there to be only one trade union representative, staff representation will be limited and there are problems finding places for all the varying interests which may exist depending upon the particular role of the college.
The thinking behind the legislation has not been to achieve balance but to create employer-led governing bodies with the minimum necessary representation from other key interests. Surely greater flexibility is needed to reflect the particular role and nature of individual colleges—and they vary considerably —particularly now that the employer-led training and enterprise councils have been set up. It seems to me that there may be some duplication.
I have dealt with the composition of governing bodies and I now turn to their responsibilities particularly as regards the local management of schools and colleges. They now have much greater powers and burdens and of a different sort from before. With reference to the National Association of Governors and Managers, I agree that it is a mistake for governors to assume executive responsibility. They should be the channel through which the institution is accountable to the community it serves. Management must be undertaken by the head and senior staff. The governors set the rules and principles within which that management is conducted.
The direct executive role should come into play only when there is a need to intervene. If governors were to be regarded as the executive, that would place excessive demands on the time of lay people performing a voluntary task. There is considerable anxiety that governors are being overloaded. Meetings are longer, often going on for three hours. More sub-committees are being set up —for example, finance and appointments. Governors have to supervise the budget, appoint and dismiss staff and have responsibility for the maintenance and repair of buildings. They have to absorb an enormous amount of material. There have been more than 20 circulars in the past 12 months. Governors also have responsibility for creating a school's policy on sex and religious education and have to attend annual meetings of parents.
That service is voluntary. Many governors are finding that the out-of-pocket expenses are making it almost impossible for them to continue. The question of payment for loss of earnings or travel is left to individual local authorities and many do not pay. Therefore, bus fares, baby sitting fees and other costs can prove too expensive. There have been

585
rumours of a large number of resignations from governing bodies because they find the job too much, because it is too expensive or they are dissatisfied with the budgets allotted to their schools. I have not found any solid evidence of that and there are conflicting accounts. However, perhaps the Minister has some figures on that.
To sum up, there have been efforts to achieve a balance on school governing bodies although women and ethnic minorities are seriously under-represented and the numbers allowed may restrict some representation particularly of the local community. The smaller body may give rise to some difficulty with the larger task which governing bodies have under LMS. In the further and higher education sector, I consider that the industry business employer interest has been carried too far, important though it is, and, that the educational contribution is not adequate. After all, primarily those are educational establishments.
When she replies I hope that the Minster can tell us that the work of these bodies will be monitored and that we shall have a report on them in the future. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady David, for introducing this debate. It is rather like old times for me. We have had many long and happy arguments across the Chamber on this subject. Whatever we have said to each other during the debates, we have always ended up as personal friends. There cannot be anything very bad about a person who spends a lot of her time in the Yorkshire Dales. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, also knows much about this subject. I have always forgiven him for the fact that he comes from Lancashire. Nobody can be perfect in this life.
There was a time shortly after local government reorganisation when I could probably have gone into the Guinness Book of Records as sitting on more governing bodies than anybody else in the country. I was chairman of the then schools sub-committee of the North Yorkshire County Council. As such, I was an ex officio member of every maintained secondary school governing body in the country. The point of that was that if a crisis arose at a school, there should be somebody in authority from county hall who could go along and try to defuse it before it got out of hand. That was quite useful and I enjoyed it. I did not know a number of the schools, although I tried to attend the meetings of as many governing bodies as possible. I seemed to be going to meetings of governing bodies morning, noon and night, day in and day out. In the course of my office I tried to attend all of them but I did not manage it.
For that very reason I was also co-opted, not by the LEA but by the governing bodies themselves, on to all the voluntarily aided and direct grant schools in North Yorkshire. I was a member of the special services sub-committee in North Yorkshire which meant that I was an ex officio governor of all special schools in the county. I was a governor of Atlantic College, that excellent and unusual establishment in South Wales, because we were one of the first
586
authorities to send children there. For good measure, I was also a manager of the two local village primary schools, a governor of an agricultural college, an outdoor education centre, two teacher training colleges, two further education colleges and two independent schools. I do not believe I quite made the ton but I very nearly did. I am quite certain that that is now illegal under the new legislation, which is probably just as well because no one can do all that. However, I have attended a few meetings of governing bodies over the years.
I should like to say a few words about political bias on governing bodies. To a certain extent I suspect that that has always been the case. Long before the 1944 Act, when the churches ran all the schools, I can imagine that the vicar invariably would have been the chairman of the governors or managers and would have invited the squire to join him along with a few other benefactors. I suspect that at that time the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. Even in those days, most of the governors or managers would have had the same political views.
It was certainly true in the early 1960s when I was first elected to the county council that local county councils had responsibility in their area for nominating managers of the primary schools. I certainly never asked anybody or tried to find out what political party they supported. However, among friends, neighbours and acquaintances in the villages, most tended to be conservative, at least with a small "c". Things have gone downhill since then as regards political bias. I shall return to that in a few moments.
It was rather intriguing that at that time a new secondary modern school opened in the local market town. There was great excitement. I was not a governor from the day it opened but I was so appointed very shortly afterwards. That was splendid. I forget exactly how the governors were appointed but there were a certain number from county hall, a certain number from district councils and some were co-opted. The first chairman was a very formidable lady who rode regularly to hounds. That was rather splendid. There was an absolutely unwritten rule that the governing body or sub-committee should never meet on two particular days of the week because that was the day when the Bedale Hunt met.
On the question of political bias, I do not want to be too controversial but I shall be delighted to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady David, says regarding the official policy of the Labour Party being not to insist that members of a governing body belong to one particular party.
I had a very interesting experience. The only maintained school of which I am still governor—in fact I am chairman of the governors, and am very pleased about that—is a special school. I do not like the word "special", but it is a very special school. I was involved when the school was planned and it was at the time when the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, produced a report on which there was perhaps more unity than there was on one or two of her later reports. That was a report on special education.

587
The school in question took all the ideas from the Warnock Report and incorporated them. It is now one of the leading schools of its kind in the country. On our governing body, which was formed by appointing so many representatives from each political party, we had the most delightful Labour Party appointment. He was attached to York University, a man of very good intellect and particularly interested in the study of children with special difficulties. His contribution to the school was enormous.
Following the next round of county council elections I was horrified to see that he was no longer on the school board of governors. I wrote to him and said that I was sorry that he had felt the need to resign and could not carry on but perhaps I could persuade him to change his mind. He replied that it was nothing like that. He said that the local Labour Party was going through one of its tendencies to the extreme Left and he had been chucked off because he was not nearly Left-wing enough. He was particularly angry about it.
His successor arrived, who was obviously very good politically and very far to the Left. He appeared for one meeting. He had no interest whatever in education, especially that of disadvantaged children. He saw that that particular governing body and the school were not the seedbed for some form of revolution and never attended another meeting. We managed to co-opt the previous Labour member back on to our governing body. He has been on the board for many years; sadly, he retired earlier this year due to lack of time. I thought that that was pretty disreputable behaviour and I am delighted that the party opposite has changed its policy in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady David mentioned the increased duties and responsibilities assigned to governors. That is a good thing. They are governors and it is a good idea that they should govern. The Government made a good job of the various pieces of legislation that they introduced. I must admit that when it was going through I had some personal doubts as to the wisdom of the provision allowing so many parents to be on governing boards. I admit that I was bigoted. I thought that they would be interested only in their own particular child, little Johnny or Sarah, and would not have a lot to contribute to the actual overall running excellence of the school. I am delighted to say that from my experience I have been proved totally wrong. The parents appointed to the boards have been extremely sensible, extremely helpful and not just interested in their own children. They have made an enormous contribution.
One of the most important responsibilities, with all the extra duties, is to ensure that correct training is given. I hope that what I am about to say will receive some publicity, not because I am trying to boast, but because it is a very good idea. Radio York put on for the Yorkshire area a series of radio broadcasts for new and more experienced governors. I took part in the first broadcast. There was an opportunity for people to listen to the series of weekly broadcasts and they could then write in. It
588
ended with a general phone-in and certain people answering questions. I thought that that was a very good way of training people. If that were done on a nationwide scale it could have very good results.
The governing bodies are in pretty good heart at the moment. I listened to the list of grievances given by the noble Baroness. I am sure that my noble friend, when she winds up the debate, will answer most of them. Governors are doing a very good job. I was delighted to be proved wrong in my heart of hearts regarding parents on governing boards, and I believe governing bodies have an exciting future to look forward to.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady David this afternoon. I am also delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, taking part. It is like old times. We have been through many arguments and discussions; we can now look at the situation with different eyes and see what progress, if any, has been made.
There are one or two points I must take up with the noble Earl regarding the political position. It has been the policy of the Labour Party for many years—not just recently—to try to ensure that there is no single political party on a governing board. What happens in local parties is no concern of the national party. It is up to local individuals to decide. It is sad when there are people of high calibre leaving the boards of special schools, or any schools. We could recite cases of that kind throughout the country happening in Conservative Party areas. We do not want to enter into that debate this afternoon; we want to look at the balance within the schools.
I was asked in the early 1970s to chair this committee because of my feelings and because my views had been made known to various Secretaries of State and Ministers of Education as regards the political imbalance in various governing bodies—or rather they were called managers in those days. Like the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I was very worried because I was the chairman of a county education committee. Being chairman of that committee meant that I was also chairman of 27 school boards. It was impossible to do justice to individual schools, being chairman of so many. We had managers' and governors' meetings approximately once a quarter, if that, though we were supposed to have them once a quarter. I sat in the chair with my vice-chairman, who was a Conservative, sitting at my side. The governing body comprised one-quarter of the education committee. The head teacher would come in and present his or her report. There would perhaps be one question put forward and the next head teacher would come in from the next school. Matters continued like that. It was a real farce.
I am pleased to say that all that has now changed. My committee chose the title A New Partnership, for the report. We were trying to get out of the political rat race which many authorities found themselves in. We wanted to strike a balance and a partnerhsip within the community. Our recommendations were that one-quarter of the board should be drawn from the LEA, because we acknowledged the work and the

589
responsibility of the LEA. We wanted one-quarter of the board to be drawn from the staff, because, again, we acknowledged and recognised the work and contribution that the staff could make. When I say "staff I am not referring to the teaching staff alone, but also to the ancillary staff within the schools. We also wanted representatives of the community to comprise one-quarter, because the community has a lot to offer.
Schools can play a vital role in the community, especially in small rural areas, where they are the centre of all the local activities. Even in urban areas the community can be involved. People from the industrial organisations, trade unionists and various other prominent individuals can contribute a great deal to schools. We also wanted to involve the parents.
In our recommendations in the report we emphasised that we did not want any one particular body to be in complete control. In producing those recommendations we felt that we had obtained the right balance to help the school. We wanted people in the school with whom we could work. We also tried to do away with the situation in which both I and the noble Earl found ourselves by stipulating that nobody should serve on more than three or four governing bodies. We felt that they should perhaps serve on the board of a primary school, a junior school and a secondary school and could go on to part of a college, a technical college, and so on. We found that to be the right sort of balance, again, that any one individual could serve within the community.
We recommended that in order to persuade people to serve on these governing bodies one must give them a reasonable job, some work to do, so that they felt than they were bringing in their expertise. One cannot expect an industrialist, a trade unionist or a parent to attend a meeting where the only subject to be dealt with is the head teacher's report and the date of the next meeting. People will not attend meetings for that alone. Therefore we recommend to the Government—I am glad the recommendation was accepted—that more authority and responsibility should be given to governors. Now we have governors with more responsibility for the finances of the schools and other matters. The committee was not unanimous about that recommendation. A minority report said that it should not be done. Nevertheless, it came to pass and fortunately the Government accepted it.
These matters are important. We find in the polytechnics that there is not the balance that we had hoped for when the legislation was going through and they were taken out of the hands of the local authorities. We find also that my recommendations were not accepted in full because in some cases too many parents were on the boards and in other cases too many politicians. Nevertheless, we must let matters lie for a while and see how they work out. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness whether she can bring us up to date on how matters are working out, because one hears all kinds of stories.
One recommendation that we made—I am glad to say that it seems to be working in some parts of the
590
country, though not in others —was on the training of governors. Many people misjudged our wishes in regard to training. They felt that we wanted governors to go in for a bachelor of education degree, or something of that nature. That was not the idea. We wanted something simple. I give an illustration which I believe sums up the position. When I was first appointed a magistrate about 27 years ago I was invited to sit on the Bench with no training whatever. Fortunately I had a wise old chairman who said, "Just sit back and listen to what goes on. You will find that after a while you will gain some experience". Of course, that has now changed and magistrates are trained. Now we are training governors.
It is important that governors should be trained because so much legislation has been enacted over the years. They do not need to be fully aware of every little dot and comma in the legislation but they should get to know the principles of it and become aware of their duties and their role.
One aspect which frightened us in the early days was whether we could convince people that the governing bodies were not set up to teach or to interfere but to assist. We recognised the professionalism of teachers. We recognised the work they do and the contribution that they make. We also realised that many teachers need assistance. They need assistance today probably more than ever before. Some of the best teachers I ever appointed came out of the services. Those people have had some experience of life and what goes on outside the teaching profession. They knew exactly what they wanted to get over to the children in their schools.
Unfortunately—I say this with the greatest of respect—what often happens these days is that people enter the teaching profession having gone from school to college and from college to university and then into teaching. They do not know what is going on in the world outside. Therefore, I should like to see more training of teachers in the activities of commerce and industry so that they can take that knowledge back into the schools. I believe that to be important.
If that experience cannot be obtained it can be acquired by having governors within the schools. They can impart that knowledge into the schools. I am not suggesting training for jobs because I do not believe education is training for jobs, especially at the secondary level. I believe education is training for life and that training for jobs comes later. Governors with that expertise are able to assist the teachers and tell them what is going on. They are industrialists and trade unionists and people from within the community. Parents, of course, can give their point of view, which is all part of the system.
Training is extremely important and I am glad that it is being carried out. Of course, there are areas like my own in Lancashire where there is a great ethnic community. It is important that ethnic communities should play a role within schools. They can do that by having their members co-opted on to governing bodies or elected by the parents' associations.
I am pleased that schools now also report to parents on what is happening in the schools. At one

591
time schools were a closed book. Often an autocratic head teacher would not even allow parents to go beyond the school gate. However, much of that has been wiped away and parents are encouraged to go into the schools.
On the whole, I am pleased at the way governing bodies are moving forward. I am not satisfied, but I am pleased. I shall never be satisfied as I still want more. I shall always want more and I hope that I shall get more as time goes on. However, there is an enthusiasm that I have not seen for many years in many places throughout the country. I hope that local political parties will realise that there is this enthusiasm and allow the governors to govern. I hope that the Department of Education and Science will realise—this is equally important—that there should not be too much bureaucracy from the top.
I hope there will be a period of stability because over the past decade there has been far too much legislation on education. Time should now be allowed to let the dust settle and see how matters are progressing. We should not be constantly digging up the roots to see how the plant is growing; let it go its own steady way for a while and we can then perhaps rectify the wrongs of the 1980 and 1986 education Acts.
I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the Minister's reply. I am grateful to my colleague and noble friend Lady David for initiating the debate.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lady David for introducing the debate and for the comprehensive way in which she did so. I have read the Department of Education and Science document School Governors: A New Role which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was good enough to send to me. The new responsibilities are daunting and it does not surprise me to learn that the AMA regional meetings in March found that education officers were reporting an unusually high number of resignations from governing bodies.
I cannot equal the record of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but I served on four governing bodies simultaneously. Those covered three different age groups in the state system and a grant-aided school containing many private pupils. I therefore had a wide experience, but endeavouring to do those four jobs together was difficult. If I had to do that under the new rules I am sure that I could not cope—at least, I would not be able to do justice to each school. However, it was a rewarding experience.
As my noble friend Lady David pointed out in her informative introduction, very few of us who served at that time in the 1970s would have had the time to devote to detailed administration and the fine control of finances which now seems to be required. There were many excellent governors and their contribution to the educational and community life of the schools was beyond price. I hope that under the new regime such people will still be found. I am optimistic that they will.
The new responsibilities need first-class people who are able to give sufficient time to the job and
592
who are fully committed to the success of our schools. As my noble friend said, a school is important to the whole community. It is part of the local scene and should be supported and cared for by all the political parties, no matter which party is in power in the town hall.
Concern for education is common to us all. I go further than my noble friend Lady David. I believe that minor parties which fail to win seats but which attract support from a significant section of the population should not be kept off governing bodies. The local authority appointing governors should take that into account. I understand that that has happened in some areas and not just involving one party, which would be the one-party approach.
School governing bodies are not intended to be political battlegrounds. Elected councillors have a part to play but neither they nor their officials should expect to dominate. From my own experience, though we were political appointees in a sense we were mixed appointees. I believe that without exception we all left our politics at the door except in the sense that one joins a political party because one thinks in a certain way. That way of thinking goes through everything that one does. That element of politics is valuable. It helps to achieve that balance that we all hope will continue.
The role of the local education authority is that of a facilitator which guides and advises. Since the schools are no longer run by the LEA after the 1988 Act, councillors should be using their influence to help the schools along rather than attempting to retain their power covertly. One of the tasks of the governors is to oversee the national curriculum. There is a danger that the school may concentrate on foundation subjects to the detriment of broader matters. The performing arts, environmental concerns and an awareness of the structures and problems of the local community and of society as a whole could be neglected if the right balance on the governing body is not achieved.
A briefing note from the CBI which many noble Lords will have received seems to attach overriding importance to the inclusion of industrial and commercial governors. Financial expertise is useful. In the past, industrial governors have given excellent service to many schools, but their expertise should not be allowed to obscure the priorities of education. My noble friend said that teachers should get industrial experience. They certainly should. It has been said to me on occasion in the past by head teachers that the commercial representatives do not appear to be nearly so willing to learn what is going on in education. It should be a two-way process. When people come from the CBI or any other organisation they should be prepared to learn at least the elements of what they are supposed to be doing.
A school is there first and foremost to provide a well-rounded and balanced programme to fit all of its pupils for the whole of their lives thereafter. Job training comes later, but training for life starts at school. It cannot and must not be run as a small business with emphasis only on the financial outturn. I fear that that may happen if we are not very careful. There are other balances to be achieved. A mixture of male and female governors is obviously desirable.

593
My noble friend Lady David told us that that is not happening in some governing bodies and I regret that.
Though I am a great supporter of the idea of the equality of the sexes, there are differences of approach between the male and the female. Both should be represented on school governing bodies to bring their different approaches to the problems. It probably goes without saying that, so far as is reasonable, the religious and cultural backgrounds of the pupils should be reflected in the composition of the governing body. That may not be so easy to achieve but it is a matter which should be attempted especially where there is a large balance of pupils in one direction or the other. It will not be easy to find enough people of ability who can give the time for what is now an exacting task. Attempting to achieve a healthy balance of the necessary attitudes will make it even harder. The future well-being of our children is one of the most important aims of our society and we cannot afford to fail.
3.44
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I also add my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for introducing this subject which is a very important one. I came prepared with certain things to say on the subject of balance. However, the noble Baroness has said them so well that I feel my job has been done for me. Instead I wish to say a few words about governing bodies in general and in particular to relay to your Lordships two conversations which I have had during the past week with people in key positions.
The first conversation was with the officer in charge of governing bodies in East Sussex which is my home county and home area. Both he and the other person I spoke with were, to my surprise and pleasure, extremely optimistic about the way in which governing bodies were proceeding. I thought that I would help to cheer up noble Lords this fine spring afternoon by relaying these conversations.
I certainly echo what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said about the fears of some of us in the early days that parents might not make the best sort of governors; that they might be too diffident or unconcerned to come forward and offer themselves. Possibly worse, they might be too exclusively preoccupied with the interests of their own children so that they would not be sufficiently disinterested in the governorship of the school.
I am assured that neither position is the case in East Sussex. Apparently, there is emerging a general willingness to serve on the part of the right kind of parent; namely, those who are prepared to shoulder the new burden of work and responsibility, the prospect of which is proving a salutary deterrent to the wrong kind of people. Parents are not being regarded as delegates to give voice to the complaints or dissatisfaction of other parents. They are sitting on governing bodies to give expression to their own free opinion in their capacity as elected representatives.
There is no evidence of political manipulation. A feeling of partnership is developing in many
594
governing bodies based on the unspoken consensus that the matter of supreme importance is the welfare of the children. Such is the unbiased impression of a public servant.
I spoke next with a lady who heads a special unit set up by Lewisham Council. As noble Lords will know, Lewisham is one of the 13 London boroughs that has had to devise its own education service within a very limited length of time in view of the demise of the ILEA. Lewisham Council has set up a special unit with special responsibility for the advice and support of governing bodies throughout the borough. I was interested to know how an urban area would compare with my predominantly rural one. To my surprise, the lady gave a similar report on the situation in Lewisham and, as far as she knew, in other London boroughs. She knew a good deal.
By and large parents are coming forward although the number varies from one area to another. I assume that there will be less willingness to serve in areas of deprivation or those where there is a high black or Asian population. In that situation parents may very often feel themselves too unfamiliar with the language and with the system to offer themselves for election as school governors.
The lady described the political aspect as not really being an issue. The real issue was getting the right kind of people into the job. I understand that the boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Southwark are having difficulty in finding enough paid-up party members to fill the large number of vacancies for their own nominees. The borough of Islington is considering adopting a policy of nominating non-paid-up members if necessary. That is in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said just now: that there seems to be a very promising relaxation of the intense pressure to get party members into governorships. That is good news for all of us.
That relaxation of pressure will give greater opportunities for ethnic minorities to have adequate and fair representation on governing bodies. I repeat that the all-important point is to get the right kind of people; namely, those who are prepared for the work and the responsibility; who want to do the job; who have not been coerced on political grounds and who are dedicated to the best interests of the children. I speak with humility before the noble Earl and other noble Lords who have made references to the vast number of governorships that they have had in the past. Perhaps they would not be so ready to take on so many governorships these days. The lady I spoke to said—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I was not boasting about the number of governing bodies. I was trying to make the point that it was a damned stupid system.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Earl's comment is amply confirmed by the lady I was speaking to who described as "outrageous" the idea of anyone serving at the moment on more than at most two governing bodies. That was her word. The permitted number is four but she considered that two is the maximum permissible in view of the new responsibilities.

595
Governing bodies are encountering plenty of problems. It occurs to me that with their new importance central government may have to listen to them. The first and most obvious example is connected with local financial management. In the London boroughs all present governors who were appointed two years ago will be due for retirement in two years' time, just when local financial management becomes effective in London. That will create problems. East Sussex has been reproved by the Department of Education for being too sensitive to local issues in applying the formula funding. It has apparently considered too closely the particular needs of particular schools. I should have thought it was obvious that schools in deprived areas may require more generous funding than others, but not according to the Department of Education and Science. I shall give one example.
The Moulsecomb district of Brighton is a deprived area. Two or three years ago—I have forgotten exactly when —two small children strayed away from their homes and were kidnapped and murdered in a park nearby. They were on their way to or from the local shop. Since then East Sussex has put extra resources into lunchtime and breaktime supervision in the primary schools of that part of Brighton, as much to allay the anxieties of parents as anything else. With central funding the LEA had the flexibility to do this. With strictly controlled formula funding such care would be "too sensitive" in the eyes of the department. That protection is no longer offered. My hope is that the governing bodies of the schools will be able to make themselves heard where the LEAs have not been able to.
This Government have not listened for 10 years but they have now created governing bodies with parent power which I sincerely hope will make a thorough nuisance of themselves. Is it too much to hope that where the Government turn a deaf ear to local authorities, to HMI and to the teacher unions, they may have to fit a hearing aid to their own creatures, the newly formed governing bodies, when they protest about the state of our maintained schools, which were described only yesterday, by the chairman of the headmasters' conference no less, as "scandalously underfunded"? What machinery will there be for the new governing bodies to voice their concern and demand some satisfaction? I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that point.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I too have served on a number of governing bodies of both schools and colleges, though I cannot begin to compete with him in terms of the number of schools or colleges on whose governing bodies I have sat. Indeed, I wonder how he finds time for anything else in his life. Perhaps he sleeps rather less than the rest of us. But what both he and the rest of us taking part in the debate must remember is that since the Education Reform Act 1988 the powers of school governing bodies have been greatly increased. My noble friend Lady Nicol
596
referred to daunting new responsibilities. That seems to be an apt description.
The introduction of local financial management means that governors now have to take decisions about school budgets and how they should be spent. They also have much increased powers with respect to the employment of teachers and other staff which previously resided with the local education authorities. These changes give the governing bodies of schools an importance which they did not have in the past. There have also been changes in the powers of polytechnic governing bodies as a result of the removal of the polytechnics from the local authority sector, and in the powers of college governors, again as a result of the devolution of financial management from the local authorities to the colleges. These changes greatly increase the need to ensure that there is a proper balance on governing bodies of the various interests which ought to be represented. Governing bodies can now influence what happens in the institutions for which they are responsible far more directly than they could in the past.
During this debate we have focused mainly on primary and secondary schools. In replying for the Opposition, it is only right that I should do the same. I shall not go into the details of the 1986 Act, nor will I comment on or describe the recommendations of the report by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. However, I should like to say how delighted I am that, as one of the acknowledged experts in this area, he has been able to contribute to the debate.
While focusing on the schools, I want to say something about the post-school sector. In passing, I should also like to record that there are some 600 nursery schools in England and Wales, and that they are not required to have governing bodies. I am puzzled as to why this should be the case. Why have they been excluded? Many of those schools are larger than a good many rural primary schools. I know that LEAs usually make some kind of informal arrangements for their governance. However, surely there should be a requirement for them to have governing bodies. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply can say whether the Government have any plans for rectifying this rather odd anomaly. And if they do not have any such plans, why not?
The first concern about balance involves the representation of local education practices of some authorities in appointing to these positions only members of the majority party. I should like to restate what has already been said by my noble friends. We deplore this practice. Fortunately, nearly all authorities have now come into line, partly because of the campaigning of the Opposition spokesman in another place, Mr. Jack Straw. I am glad to say that the remaining Labour authority guilty in this respect, Manchester, is about to reconsider its policy of excluding Conservatives from LEA governorships. However, my understanding of the latest position is that the London borough of Bamet is still turning its face against changing its policy of making all LEA governor appointments from the ranks of the local Tory Party, even though 30 per cent. of councillors

597
are Labour—the figure will be a good deal higher after 3rd May—and 5 per cent. are Liberal Democrats.
Is it not rather surprising that the Government should have let the Tories get away with this in the Prime Minister's own constituency when both the Secretary of State and his predecessor have said that this practice is quite unacceptable? If Labour were to gain control in Barnet—admittedly something of a tall order, because it would require a swing of more than 13 per cent., but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility —how would the Government view the wholesale replacement of all Conservative governors by Labour governors? I hope that a Labour-controlled council in Barnet would not do that. However, the Tories' provocative behaviour could evoke a tit-for-tat response. Conservative councillors in Barnet clearly do not have the interests of pupils at the forefront of their thinking. If they did, they would have conceded long ago the need for balance. This is not the best way of ensuring some continuity on governing bodies when there is a change in control after local elections.
I have some sympathy with the Government's wish to avoid legislation on this matter. In some ways it would be taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Moreover, local authorities may wish to make some appointments of people with no political affiliations but with relevant expertise and commitment to do the job properly. As the noble Lord; Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has already said, it would certainly be wrong to insist that LEAs make political affiliation an essential requirement for appointment to school governing bodies. However, my noble friend Lady David is surely right to ask for guidelines on this somewhat vexed question.
As has already been said, there are a number of other questions of balance besides political affiliation. It is obviously desirable that the composition of governing bodies should cover a broad cross-section of the community. Indeed, so far as. possible they ought to reflect the community which the school concerned actually serves. It is particularly important that there are substantial numbers of black and Asian governors in areas of high Afro-Caribbean and Asian populations. The ethnic minorities are currently under-represented according to research carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research. Perhaps in her reply the noble Baroness can say what steps the Government might take to encourage higher participation from the ethnic minorities. For example, could LEAs be asked to nominate from the ethnic minorities where they are under-represented?
As my noble friends Lady David and Lady Nicol said, it is also rather disappointing to discover that there are many more men than women on governing bodies; for example, 58 per cent. compared to 42 per cent. according to the NFER study. That is in spite of the fact that women form the majority of parent and teacher governors. However, even in those categories they are in the minority in secondary schools. But the most serious imbalance is in the co-opted group of governors where according to the NFER study there were 1,037 men to 489 women.
598
Most disappointing of all is the fact that only about a quarter of women chair governing bodies. It is high time that that situation was changed and that more women were chairing these bodies, whether they ride to hounds or not. That will only happen when LEAs, which take a disproportionate share of the chairmanships, appoint more women and encourage them to chair these bodies. The NFER finding that only 55 out of 1,534 governors were in manual jobs is also a cause for concern.
There has been some concern expressed this afternoon about school governing bodies being perhaps over-full of people who are already in the education industry. If that is the case—and the evidence is rather conflicting—then it could be argued that the Government's intention to provide opportunities for parents and for representatives of the local community to become involved in educational decision-making at the school level has been thwarted.
At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy with the teachers' unions which we hear denigrated in this House rather too often. They argue that it would be quite wrong to deny teacher parents the right to stand as governors like any other parent. Nevertheless, the findings of one study which suggested that between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of governors were involved in a professional capacity in education in some way is perhaps a little worrying. It is worrying if we accept —as I believe we probably should—that those from outside education, including parents, have a contribution to make in that it is desirable to broaden the base of educational decision-making at this level. It would be interesting to know how the Government are responding to this genuinely difficult dilemma.
The more successful we are in bringing new people into education decision-making through governing bodies, the more important it is to provide adequate training for them. I was glad to hear both the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn refer to the importance of training. The Government have provided funding for the training of governors through the education support grant mechanism. That was a welcome initiative. However, the need for training will not go away when the ESG runs out in two years' time. Indeed, local financial management, as has already been said, will go on putting increasing demands on governors to deal with a great many complex problems.
Training can help to create confidence, as well as improving the quality of the decisions made. In turn, this should help stem the tide of resignations which some fear are likely because of the demands of local financial management. Can the noble Baroness say what the Government intend to do when the ESC money runs out? It will not do to tell us that the LEAs must do this out of existing resources. We all know just how constrained local authority education budgets have become. We all know that poll tax capping will make matters even worse in some authorities.
At present nearly all government training is done outside the schools. However, the Task Group on School Management set up by the DES has argued that the most effective training of heads and deputies

599
is done within the schools, although some of their training must be done outside. The National Association of Governors and Managers has suggested that the same applies to governors: rather than sending them off in ones and twos to train at outside centres, group training with all the governors working together, using open learning packs which have now become available, ought to be tried.
Would the Government consider delegating some funds to schools, perhaps on a pilot basis, to be spent on governor training of that kind? Would they also consider allowing some bids through the Department of Education and Science local authority training grant scheme for the training of governors? Some joint training of heads and deputies with the chairman and the deputy chairman of governing bodies would be particularly helpful. The local management of schools must be a partnership between heads and government—it might help to forge this partnership with some joint training.
I turn now to the post-school sector. Some rather regrettable decisions were taken by the Government to legislate to stuff the governing bodies of polytechnics and colleges under the PCFC and LEA FE colleges with businessmen and perhaps businesswomen. I have nothing against businessmen; indeed, some of them are very splendid people and some of my best friends are businessmen. However, I cannot see why they should be regarded as so special and their potential contribution so great that they should be expected to take the lion's share of places.
The Government also took the view—again, wrong in my opinion—that FE and HE colleges maintained by the LEAs should also have large numbers of employers on them. Under the Education Reform Act, from the 1st of this month PCFC institutions have to have large numbers of so-called independent governors who come from industry, commerce and the professions. On the other hand, the LEAs which, after all, maintained these institutions before, are left with minimal representation of between one and three governors. I suggest that that number is too small and that it does not create a balanced governing body.
The appointments made to those governing bodies by the Secretary of State have been heavily biased in favour of male middle management so far as concerns employment interests. I regret that fact. Is that really what we want? I do not think so. Surely, just as balance is important on school governing bodies, so it is among the governors of the polytechnics and the colleges. What kind of monitoring do the Government have in mind in relation to the new unbalanced bodies that they have created? I would be grateful for some indication of their intentions in this respect. It would also be useful if a survey, similar to that carried out by the NFER on schools, could be undertaken of the new membership of the governing bodies of polytechnics and colleges.
I shall deal now with the LEA FE colleges. The prescription that at least 50 per cent. of governors should either represent employment interests or be
600
co-optees seems to be heavy handed. The Secretary of State has been in some conflict with LEAs when considering the approval of proposed instruments of government for each college. It would be interesting to see an analysis of his decisions on the composition of governing bodies in this sector. As my noble friend Lady David said, it is unfortunate that education interests have now been neglected and the interests of industry, of commerce and of the professions overstated so far as concerns the governing bodies of post-school institutions.
Last but not least, it is terribly regrettable that students are so poorly represented on the governing bodies of post-school institutions. Many Members from all sides of your Lordships' House questioned the wisdom of restricting the number of places to only one student in debates during the passage of the Education Reform Bill. Those of us with rather more experience of these matters than the previous Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, made it clear that the student's voice is a valuable one and that a minimum of two places for students would have been more appropriate. As in the case of the poll tax, as in the case of an over-prescriptive national curriculum and as in the case of a top heavy system of testing, he simply would not listen. Perhaps his successor will be willing to look again at this matter, as well as the other questions raised in this debate on the very great importance of balance in the governing bodies of our educational institutions.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for allowing this very important subject to be discussed. Although few Members have spoken in the debate, it has certainly not lacked quality. As I know most of the speakers personally, I know that the experience they have brought to the debate is considerable.
I think I shall be joined by those who have spoken in the debate if I admit to some degree of relief about the self-condemnation of my noble friend. He took a fairly dim view of a number of governing bodies. It was a pretty impressive list. However, I hope that the days are past when people sat on large numbers of governing bodies when one had to question the kind of contribution they made, not because they were not good people but simply because they were entirely overstretched.
I wish specifically to mention the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The work that he and his committee did in the field of opening up governing bodies was particularly welcome. The thrust of the work of the Taylor Committee was probably rather different from where I stand. Many of us in local authorities welcomed that report. Those of us who already had governing bodies found that what we were doing was underwritten by the report of that committee. However, in many parts of the country there was a chalk mark across the playground beyond which parents and governors had no place. The change was something of a revolution in many parts of the country but was nevertheless welcome.
Perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for the note of optimism. There is certainly

601
an air of optimism in our new governing bodies. We have identified much common ground on both sides of the House. The issue before us is not a party political one and I am pleased to note that almost everyone who has spoken has mentioned that.
Before tackling in detail some of the specific issues which have been raised, I should like if I may to reinforce two particular areas of agreement which unite all Members of this House, and then deal with one area of disagreement which the noble Baroness has emphasised but which I do not think is as significant as she has suggested.
The first and fundamental agreement is on the importance of the governing body—implied in the Motion before us and given full expression by your Lordships throughout this short debate. Governing bodies are the means through which we seek to ensure that our educational institutions are not only for their communities but of their communities and answerable to their needs.
A good governing body is close to the institution for which it is responsible and has the best interests of its pupils and students at heart. The new arrangements for school government set in place in the 1986 Act and given full force by the Education Reform Act 1988 allow school governors to exercise significant control over the curriculum, over staffing and over the finances of the school. We have sought to set in place arrangements which will allow these weighty responsibilities to be exercised effectively; for we are clear that it is at school level that they are best discharged, within an overall statutory framework.
We do not accept that the task we have given governors in this context is too weighty for them. However, I note the understandable comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Comparing what has gone before with the present duties of the governing body shows that there is quite a distinction. However, we accept that governors will need help and encouragement to carry out the task effectively. We have therefore made arrangements for training for both college and school governors., We are giving grant in support of some £23 million of LEA expenditure on governor training. We are also offering a good deal of central help, both by producing materials for all governors such as our Guide to the Law and by producing training packages which LEAs and governors themselves can use to develop their skills.
At this point perhaps I may say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referring to her request about ESGs, that I cannot give a specific answer because I do not think what happens when ESGs run out has been considered. However, I can promise that as long as training for governors is considered important, funding for it will be considered in the setting of budgets each year by the department. I can go no further than that.
In offering this kind of help we are also conscious of the need to limit the flow of paper to governors. We aim to send out only material of direct, practical use, written in a clear style and accessible to governors from all backgrounds. The results so far are most encouraging. We have had two surveys
602
of reconstitution of school governing bodies. The evidence is that governors from all walks of life are coming forward willingly to meet the new challenges. This was a point made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. The response from business governors who some sceptics forecast would never devote the necessary time and energy to the task has been particularly pleasing. Over 40 per cent. of governors who are employed, other than those elected as teacher governors, are from business and the professions. The signs are equally encouraging for college governing bodies.
Perhaps I may say a word on the fair amount of criticism that has been made about the fact that by and large our representatives in business and commerce come from middle or senior management. For many of us who served in local authorities one of our great criticisms about the representatives from business and commerce was that often they were not sufficiently high level to go back and make practices change in companies. We want the kind of representation from companies whereby the people who are sitting on the governing bodies can go back to the workplace in their companies. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. Those representatives will have an increased understanding of what is done in our schools. They can then make something happen at company level so that full advantage can be taken of it and they can learn from each other.
We are certainly not complacent. We recognise and admit the burdens on governors over recent months. We are therefore carrying out a further survey to see what early evidence of turnover can tell us. But we are confident for the future. The evidence from pilot local management schemes is that once new responsibilities turn from theoretical problems into real opportunities, giving governors and heads the opportunity to control resources and direct them for the good of the school, the effect on morale is powerful and very positive. We expect to see this pattern repeated in the 87 authorities which have delegated at least some budgets for 1990-91.
So on the importance of governors we are all agreed. What about balance? That too is a matter of general agreement. I mean here both kinds of balance—that between the interest groups on the governing body and that among LEA nominees in particular.
The 1986 Act set in place arrangements for overall balance in appointments to school governing bodies. There are a number of important interests which need a strong voice on the governing body and we have secured that. Parents will have a strong voice through their elected representatives. The teachers will have a similar though smaller representation. The LEA will be able to nominate the same number of members as the parents. Those members will collectively co-opt a significant number of representatives of the wider community, in particular local business and industry but also any other groups with whom links can usefully be established.
I return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, about quarters. Looking at the arithmetic for the new composition of governing

603
bodies, the LEA and the parents have one-quarter representation each. The other 50 per cent. is made up of staff and community representation. So we have continued to honour that recommendation of the Taylor Report.
Similarly, we have ensured under the Education Reform Act that college governing bodies have no more than 20 per cent. of their governors nominated by the LEA. Employment interests and co-opted governors make up at least 50 per cent. of each college governing body, with the remaining members representing staff, students and the local community.
This arrangement replaced one in which the LEA had a majority of all appointees on most governing bodies—a system under which the whole notion of independent power for governing bodies would have been no more than a sham. We have not replaced LEA domination with an overall majority for any other group. The philosophy behind our reforms is indeed one of balance, of encouraging dialogue and working together so that the governing body reflects the full spectrum of views inside and outside the school and college and can set a balanced course in the light of competing claims. Again, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, the essence of partnership is very important.
A number of specific points were made. The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Blackstone, asked about the state of play with the schools in Barnet, Kent and elsewhere. The department can give the House only partial information on this matter for the good reason that those decisions on political appointments have been subject to change and second thoughts, not surprisingly, as time has gone on. I understand that Kent and Wandsworth, to our knowledge at the moment, may have reversed their earlier thinking.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, questioned whether there could be guidelines for making LEA appointments. I am afraid not. We are clear about the issue here. Appointments and elections to those bodies are already governed by regulations made under the 1986 Act. There are no plans to issue further guidelines. I believe it is a matter for local authorities.
The noble Baronesses, Lady David, Lady Nicol and Lady Blackstone, were concerned about the numbers of resignations. In connection with the survey that was mentioned during the course of the debate, I should say that the department commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey of LEAs regarding the reconstitution of county and maintained special schools' governing bodies. That took place during the autumn term of 1988. The results of the survey were published in February 1989 and it is clear that the recruitment of governors of all kinds was generally successful. The number of vacancies at that time represented only 1 per cent. of the total number of places. The NFER carried out a further survey of 500 county schools during the summer of 1989 and the report was published on 19th September 1989. That report showed that the
604
number of vacant places on governing bodies remains at about 1 per cent.
A point was made in connection with women governors. I am pleased to say that the latest figures that we have on the split between men and women on governing bodies show that women account for 42 per cent. of governors while men account for 58 per cent. Further to that, the criticism was made that more women on governing bodies should be chairmen. I cannot be specific about that matter because I do not have figures but I can say that at least three Ladies of this Chamber, including myself, come from a county where there was a predominance of women chairmen of governing bodies. However, I accept that I am only speaking about one authority rather than the majority of authorities. That subject may well form part of another survey.
The other important issue that was raised concerned ethnic minority representation. The survey of schools suggests that ethnic minority representation on governing bodies accounts for about 2·5 per cent. of the total. Of the ethnic minority governors reported on, 13 per cent. were LEA appointees, 36 per cent. were parent governors, 2 per cent. were teacher governors and 49 per cent. were co-optees. The ethnic minority groups covered by the survey consisted of Afro-Caribbean or other black groups, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and the Chinese. I think it is fair to say that where there is a predominance of ethnic minorities in an area, one would expect them to be represented on governing bodies and if that were not the case LEAs would have to be asked why that was so.
The matter of nursery schools was raised. Given that nursery provision is not part of statutory provision, to make a requirement in law for there to be governing bodies for nursery schools is not part of our planning. However, it would be interesting to know whether there is any nursery school in the country that does not have some kind of informal arrangement as regards communication with the local authority.
On the question of college governing bodies, I can assure all those who asked whether they would be the subject of a survey that that will be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, made a point about training. I think those who talk about training can be rather intimidating. Those people who do not have degrees can be put off if they are made to feel that a degree is necessary to be a governor. I feel very strongly that we must not intimidate people or inhibit them from coming forward to be governors. I also think that we should not overtrain governors. The last thing we want to do is to suck governors into the system. They need to be an independent interface between an LEA and their school, not an arm of the LEA. However, they need to understand the job they have to do. Therefore the purpose of training for them is to enable them to understand the job in hand rather than to enable them to act as an extension of the local authority.
I now come to the point of disagreement. I should re-emphasise the fact that your Lordships are united on much of this matter. However, where I differ from the noble Baroness, and must continue to do so, is in whether this issue is capable of resolution

605
by statute. Our only difference lies in finding a means to an end. I am not convinced that this issue can be resolved by statute. I have not been convinced of that during the course of this debate. I believe it would be a victory for those who are seeking improperly to make this a party political matter for us to require it to be seen as such by law. We shall not give them that satisfaction.
Quite apart from this issue of principle there are severe practical difficulties as regards legislating in this way. When the Bill was given a First Reading in another place it did not manage to find a way round the difficulties. We cannot legislate for balance on every individual governing body. That would be a mathematical impossibility given the small number of LEA appointees under the new arrangements. The Bill would also have given the right to appoint governors to any political grouping on the council, however small, without any restriction. The parallel which has been drawn with the requirement for balance on council committees is not a fair one. That extends only to council members who have personally stood the test of the ballot box.
On this issue, which I believe is a relatively minor one, I must beg leave to continue to disagree with the noble Baroness. I hope, however, that she will agree that there is more that unites us than divides us on this matter. The aim we all share is to encourage and support governing bodies of all kinds as they work for better education in their institutions throughout the country, whether they are large or small. We aim most particularly to encourage them to work in the interests of our children.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to thank all the speakers who have taken part in this short debate, though there were not many speakers. The quality of the debate has been good and each individual had his or her own contribution to make. It is particularly nice (o be facing my old opponent, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, as we have faced each other across the Chamber so often. I should not imagine that anyone can equal his record as regards the number of governing bodies that he has sat on. He certainly would not be allowed to sit on so many governing bodies now as the maximum number that one can sit on is four. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, pointed that out. However, in view of the new responsibilities I should imagine that to sit on four governing bodies is quite sufficient.
I was interested in the ideas of the noble Earl regarding training. A number of speakers have referred to training, and it is an extremely important matter. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that one does not want to overtrain people. One must leave them their individuality. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, talk about his committee. However, we do not have the resources that he suggested. Staff are not available in the numbers that the Taylor Committee recommended.
I was also interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said about parents coming forward. When parents were first elected to governing bodies, it was quite difficult to get enough of them in many cases, The situation is obviously improving, but
606
we must encourage the ethnic minorities to come forward in greater numbers. We must find some way to achieve that.
I am sorry that nursery schools are not to have governing bodies, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone suggested. I believe it is a pity that they should not be treated like other institutions. However, I was delighted to hear that less paper will arrive on governors' desks. Clearly that has been a matter that has overwhelmed them. I am also glad to hear that there have not been many resignations. However, as the new governing bodies have only taken over their increased responsibilities recently, it will be some time before we shall know exactly what is happening and whether governors can take all they are being asked to take.
I am glad that there will be a further survey. I hope that survey will encompass the further and higher education colleges. That is the area where my noble friend Lady Blackstone and I have the greatest anxiety as the balance on their governing bodies does not seem evident. If a survey is carried out within the next year or so when the new governing bodies have had some experience of their new roles, the results will be extremely interesting. Again, I thank all speakers who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Constitution: Powers of a Second Chamber
4.28 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to call attention to the appropriate powers and constitution of a second Chamber within the British Constitution; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I presume to say that I am quite content with the powers and constitution of your Lordships' House as they are at the moment. However, proposals for alteration are in the air. Nothing like the same consideration and public debate has taken place in relation to these proposals as took place, for example, between 1910 and 1925. Therefore it seemed to me that your Lordships' House, as the most appropriate forum of all, would give great benefit by giving thought, even in this short debate, to this question. I hope that in due course the usual channels may provide time for the ampler debate that is needed, when the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has finished wearing out our features on his legislative grindstone. I hope that we can then turn to what seems to me to be the more profitable task for your Lordships; namely, to discuss broad issues of policy, particularly future policy such as this.
As this is a short debate and a very big subject, I do not propose to do more than try to set out heads of agenda, so to speak, for your Lordships' consideration. I hope thus to provide additional time for noble Lords whom your Lordships will undoubtedly wish to hear at the greatest length possible. However, as I cannot see the clock I should be grateful if a noble Lord in my vicinity would alert

607
me when I have been talking for 12 minutes, when I shall bring my observations to an end if I have not done so before then.
The Motion refers both to powers and to constitution, or in other words composition; indeed, those are related. The powers to be given to a second Chamber must be affected by the duties expected from the Chamber, and vice versa. In the end there must be a balance between those two considerations.
First, one should ask whether there is a need for two parliamentary Chambers. It is true that all parties in this country, so far as I know, are united on the subject; and in almost every case that I can call to mind foreign opinion demands two parliamentary Chambers. But if we ask why that is so it may help us to analyse what is required. Two parliamentary Chambers are presumably required because one Chamber, whether by composition or by power—or more likely by both—cannot perform all the tasks that are demanded of it which are necessary for the performance of a parliamentary Chamber.
I have been using the term "parliamentary Chamber" rather than "legislative Chamber" advertently, for the reasons which I think I have already made obvious. If it is the case that we need two Chambers because one is not sufficiently copious and flexible to deal with all the tasks demanded, does it not follow that it would be uneconomic if the second Chamber merely duplicated the first in respect of either powers or composition?
I placed the Motion in the context of the British Constitution. I have assumed thereby that the other place, the House of Commons, will continue to exercise much the same powers, particularly concerning finance, and have much the same composition in the future. I know that parties above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House would wish to have a system of proportional representation, and that might come as a result of bargaining in a hung parliament; but on the whole that seems to me unlikely. Moreover, if it did come about, the whole subject of your Lordships' present consideration would have to be thought out anew. So I assume that the lower Chamber will be first-past-the-post on the principle as at present electorally devised.
The advantages of the first-past-the-post system were stated cogently recently by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in the debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I will not waste your Lordships' time in repeating them, because it is the disadvantages which point to the composition and powers of the second Chamber which are really in question today.
The first of those disadvantages is that although the members represent their constituents in an elected Chamber that Chamber is not necessarily representative in political colour of the electorate as a whole. Indeed, since 1945 we have never had in government a party which commanded the votes of the majority of the electorate. The second disadvantage is that a first-past-the-post system gives inadequate weight and representation to minorities, not least to Cross-Bench opinion, which I think is a
608
very powerful political consideration. I think that that is strongly represented in your Lordships' House. The third disadvantage—and I appeal to the several noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have had experience of the other place—is the sharply polemical nature of its politics, both on the hustings and in the Chamber. Of course, that has its advantage, but the disadvantage is a very real one. It is that such politics become distasteful to many people who would be usefully represented in a parliament, particularly the elderly statesmen of great experience whose expertise should be drawn on.
If I am right, those disadvantages point to a not wholly elected second Chamber. If it is to be elected in part, should that part not be elected by proportional representation on a regional basis in order to be complementary? The non-elected part could be either a hereditary element or what used to be called "fancy franchises" such as the chairmen of the Trades Union Congress and the CBI, the vice chancellors of universities—although I realise that at present they are unlikely to be popular with the Government—senior judges and similar people. The third way of having your non-elected element is the present system of appointees.
As for the hereditary element, in the past it has been subject to contumely: the fourteenth wearer of a noble nose—Lloyd George down in Limehouse, and so on —but in these days we really know much more about genetics and the cultural influence of a political ambiance.
We need not be afraid of the hereditary element. It has real advantages, particularly by way of continuity and tradition. In a debate like this, noble Lords must be conscious that at the Dispatch Box, where the noble Lord the Leader of the House will shortly speak, there spoke Disraeli, Salisbury and Rosebery as Prime Ministers, noble Lords who were ex-Prime Ministers, like Balfour, Baldwin and many others. Today we are greatly honoured by the presence of three former Prime Ministers in our midst.
It therefore seems to me that there is a strong argument for continuance of the hereditary element. It would be advantageous if it were recruited like the representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland in the former constitution, and by proportional representation so that there would be a regional element and an element of young Peers, who have proved themselves so valuable in this House in recent practice.
I would not countenance the fancy franchises simply because one does not know where to stop. If you are to have the Moderator of one Free Church, where do you stop? My specific would be that we should continue with the present system of appointment, which works well.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to three other matters. First, in this context, should we not reconsider the need for a written constitution? Secondly, there is the question of finance, a subject which, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, intends to speak, I can safely leave to him. We have seen in the recent student loans Bill that the control of finance is absolutely clinching. I take it that that would remain in the

609
House of Commons. The third matter, with which I do not think the House of Commons deals well, is scrutiny of legislation. I merely call to noble Lords' recollection the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, that we should have a specialised committee in order to scrutinise legislation quite apart from policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we have all had frequent occasion to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for guidance on our constitutional position and the proper practices of this House, but this afternoon we are grateful to him again in another respect for raising this as a general issue of national policy and for his cogent suggestions as to possible change.
We perhaps tend occasionally to fall into a degree of self-admiring complacency. We say on all sides of the House, "We are a revising Chamber—jolly good thing" but does that represent our true beliefs? We know, for instance, that Her Majesty's Opposition, which may—I say no more than that—be transformed in a couple of years into Her Majesty's Government, hold a different view. They are committed not only to abolishing this Chamber in its present form, but to replacing it with an elected body.
In the review of policy published by the Labour Party last year, it gave some details as to what they would consist of It would be a regionally elected body. It would have some functions in revision or scrutiny of legislation. It would have a curious power to delay ordinary legislation by only one return to the other place. However, on matters in which governments were thought to have infringed human rights in that legislation, the new second Chamber would have the power to delay the implementation of legislation for the rest of that Parliament.
Those are all interesting ideas, but they raise a great many questions. We have the opportunity this afternoon, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, replying for the Opposition, to put to him some questions which may be in our minds. What, for instance, is the assumption about the kind of people who would seek election? Would they be tempted to serve by the offer of salaries? What other reasons could be given to them to serve? Is it expected that they would, like so many Members of the European Parliament, be either young politicians on the make or elderly politicians in retreat?
With regard to the protection of constitutional rights and human rights, how are those rights to be defined unless we have a written constitution with a Bill of Rights? If we are to have a written constitution with a Bill of Rights, why should a Chamber of a legislature be entrusted with defending them when, in every other democratic system, that is thought to be an appropriate matter for a court of law? Is there not some confusion in the question of what is legislative and what is judicial?
We are also told in the policy statement that the House would differ from the present one not only in being wholly elected, but in having no Ministers
610
present. I find it difficult to see how legislation can usefully be discussed in the absence of those responsible for putting it forward. Therefore, one must again ask what kind of consideration it is thought that a body with no ministerial representation could give to legislation.
It is also laid down that no legislation should be introduced originally into the second Chamber. One wonders what kind of parliamentary timetable is envisaged for that future bicameral legislature. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is prepared to answer those questions because they are clearly matters of considerable interest.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, would deliver his own speech instead of making me manufacture mine.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it seems to me to be not uncommon in this House to ask questions of representatives of political parties about documents to which they are publicly committed. I have not made, and would not venture to make, a speech for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but he often asks questions of this side of the House and that is, after all, common form in our procedure. It would certainly not be for me to speculate on what his answers will be. So much then for Her Majesty's would-be Government.
However, I should point out that there is some relevance in their proposals for the future and their attitude to our present proceedings which occasionally seem to me to be dominated by the idea that no precedent should be set which could in any way strengthen the revising powers of this Chamber. For instance, on Monday we had the last round on the student loans Bill, to which spokesmen of Her Majesty's Opposition, along with some members of my own party and members of the other Opposition parties, have given consistent opposition. Yet, when it came to the vote, although a number of Peers on the Labour Benches voted in accordance with their views, the Front Bench remained mute and glued, if I may say so, to the Bench. The understanding is that it was decided that no precedent should be set by which the House of Commons could be asked to think again more than once. That, as I said, is in accordance with the proposals for the new second Chamber.
However, on our side of the House there may also be questions upon which my noble friend the Leader of the House may wish to enlarge. What is the true attitude of Her Majesty's Ministers to the revising functions of this House? Are they happy with the way in which those functions are exercised? It appears to some us that in certain quarters it is thought that the House of Lords is a rather disagreeable nuisance, that it occasionally presses for measures which Ministers have already decided are unacceptable, and that the business should be to get the Government's measures through with the maximum of celerity.
I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will say that I am judging on too few instances for a generalisation to be possible. But if we are to defend the House with its present composition and present

611
powers, it can be done only on the basis that governments of whatever complexion are prepared to take seriously the often expert opinion which the current system favours in the present House.
There are other possible There are other possible weaknesses which the Procedure Committee looks at from time to time: whether we could make more use of our committees and so forth. After a decade of experience in your Lordships' House it seems to me that there is something much more crucial and difficult to tackle, which brings me back to the question of Ministers. I believe that it is difficult for this House fully to exercise either its powers of questioning the Executive or its legislative powers when in most cases the individual who responds from the Front Bench is a junior Minister or even a Whip with only that status. It means that, whereas in another place the responsible Minister can respond immediately if he so desires and can explain his point of view or the reason why the point of view expressed in criticism of his policy is unacceptable, in this House the most that we can obtain is an assurance that our views will be conveyed to the senior Minister in another place. I am sure that that is always done effectively, though occasionally, one feels, a little grudgingly. But is that really sufficient?
If we are to prolong the life of this House as it has developed over the centuries, might there not come a time when Ministers of the Crown from another place occasionally help us to understand and follow the thrust of their policies?
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I must begin with an apology to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who introduced the debate in such an interesting fashion, and the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, who is to reply. I must also apologise to the whole House because I am afraid that I have to leave early in order to discuss these matters before a much less select audience. It is an audience of perhaps millions of people, yet I think I may say that although we are less numerous we are perhaps better informed.
The fact that my name appears early in the list of speakers does not mean that my leaders attach any significance to my contribution. It will be entirely impersonal. I hope that it will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If he is embarrassed by it, I am sure that he can handle the situation and will laugh it off.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, set an impossible standard for himself. I have known him make the greatest of attacks on the Government. Today he has been an almost slavish admirer of the Government. At least, that is what I gather from his attitude to the Opposition. The noble Lord has in my time made the most deadly attack on the Government ever mounted from the Conservative Benches; but we did not have that today. The noble Lord put a series of questions to my noble friend, which I am sure he will handle perfectly.
I do not wish to provoke the noble Lord. However, there was a fundamental omission in his speech. He
612
did not say whether or not he can justify the present composition of this House? I love the House of Lords; I am grateful for many years of happiness here. It is a peculiar place. No one has ever copied it; no one is ever likely to.
Let us consider its composition. I have made a few inquiries and I have obtained some figures from my party office which I imagine will be substantially accepted. There are 782 hereditary Peers out of 1,176 Members. In other words, two-thirds of noble Lords are hereditary. Straightaway that makes it a very peculiar Chamber. How many of those 782 hereditary Peers take the Labour Whip? The answer is 12. That makes the voting system absurd.
Of course it is absurd. One has here the best debates in the world and the worst voting system. No one could possibly justify the voting system and on one has ever done so, at least not in my hearing. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, wisely did not attach himself to it. So that is the situation today. To put it another way, there are four times as many Peers taking the Conservative Whip as take the Labour Whip. How can a Labour Government be expected to lie down indefinitely under that situation? It would be absurd to suppose that they would do so.
In my few remarks I shall imagine—though it is far from being the case—that my revered leader, who is the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has asked for my advice on what the Labour Party ought to do if returned to power. I offer a few thoughts of my own.
There are three options open to a Labour Government. The first is to do nothing, or nothing substantial. The second is to proceed by way of consensus. The third is to proceed without consensus. For the first Labour Government following the election there is a good deal to be said for doing nothing or at any rate doing nothing substantial. There will be great social injustices to be put right, much poverty to relieve and many other very important matters to tackle. So my first piece of advice to that government is to think long and carefully before doing anything at all about reform of the House of Lords. However, that could not remain the position. A party could not say, "We are too busy to think about it." Eventually, one has to come up with a point of view.
The question therefore arises of whether one could find a consensus or must go on without one. In 1968 a consensus was almost agreed. It was agreed between the leaders of the two parties. I was about to say that I took the initiative but in fact it came originally from the Clerk's Table, and from the late Henry Burrows, who recommended to me on the golf links at Rye, where we met every week, to consider what he called the two-writ plan. When I had just missed a putt, he would say to me, "You do believe in the two-writ plan, don't you?"
Eventually, when I became Leader of the House I recommended the two-writ plan. The subject was taken up by more important people and very nearly became the law of the land. It did not do so; it was sabotaged by eminent people on the far Right or far Left in the House of Commons. That was what happened to the last attempt at a consensus. If

613
anyone thinks that a fundamental consensus is possible, I shall be delighted to frame one again. However, I cannot think that any consensus is likely in view of the position that I have explained about the hereditary peerage.
If I were a Member of the Conservative Party I should think long and carefully before I abandoned such a colossal advantage. Members would have to be very hard pressed—perhaps having to consider that the Chamber was about to be abolished —before they agreed to that. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his memoirs has recommended an elected second Chamber. It is not impossible to consider a consensus, but it seems unlikely.
We are therefore faced with the question of the approach of the Labour Government, if not in the next parliament then in the following one. If one gets rid of the hereditary element, one is left with the question of whether one has an elected or appointed Chamber. I do not believe that a combination of the two would be a very happy solution although some countries adopt that method.
I speak personally. Although the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is entitled to make debating points about the policy provisionally stated by my party, and we are a very long way from seeing that carried into force, we are still at the stage when those within the Labour Party are entitled to offer guidance and thoughts, however humbly, to those who frame our policy.
I believe that an elected Chamber would produce a second class version of the House of Commons. I am not in favour of that. We are then left with the suggestion of an appointed Chamber. One big disadvantage about that which will occur to everybody is that it places enormous patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. So far as possible, that is mitigated. The Prime Minister consults with other leaders and so on. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental difficulty. I do not think that it will be completely overcome in any form of appointed Chamber.
The best approach that I can suggest is that some statutory commission be set up and that the Prime Minister should be under a statutory obligation to consult that commission before making appointments. Whatever method is adopted, it will never be perfect. However, if one were looking to the long-term future, one should proceed along that line.
It will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords that in the very notable debate on student loans recently the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressed strong disapproval of the student loans measure. Perhaps I may complete the remark; I know that the noble Lord will be on his feet in a moment. He expressed the most damning criticism of that measure. However, when it came to the vote he voted in the Conservative Lobby. That is the situation with regard to party politics. With the huge Conservative majority, that will be the position until there is a fundamental reform.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that matter, I hope that he will consult Hansard a little more carefully than he appears to
614
have done. He will see that on the amendments that really mattered my vote was cast in favour of the amendments and against the Government. Perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw the general effect of what he said a moment ago.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall only add to the general effect by saying that the noble Lord showed increased wisdom as the debates went on.
I have allowed myself to be distracted. I intended to say a word about hereditary Peers. It will not have escaped notice that the main initiative—the crucial Motion —was taken by a hereditary Peer if ever there was one, the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There is no name more famous in the hereditary peerage than that of Russell. We must therefore face the fact, as it was faced in 1968 when we spoke of reforms, that a great many hereditary Peers ought to be appointed Peers. I therefore close on that note. It would be a tragedy if the great wisdom and faithfulness of the hereditary Peers in this House were lost.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Addington: In speaking on this debate, I feel a little shy in coming to the fore. Not only am I very much younger and less experienced in the procedure of this House, and also have no experience in the procedure of another place but also, as a hereditary Peer I feel that to a very great extent I shall be criticising what I am said to stand for.
The debate calls into question the appropriate powers and constitution of a second Chamber within the British Constitution. I suggest that before we discuss the second Chamber we must first look at the British Constitution as it currently stands. At the moment the House of Commons sits very long hours. I believe that they are the longest of any legislative body anywhere. It still cannot get through its entire workload. On many occasions we seem to be picking up the pieces and debating subjects that have not been debated in another place. On certain occasions the guillotine comes down very hard. We are indeed a gilded dustpan and brush. I suggest that if that situation continues there is no point in discussing procedure here because we have a body with fundamental flaws. It has the initiative, power and prestige behind it but we would be just tinkering with the edges.
The party for which I speak is very strongly in favour of great reform of the procedure of the government of this country. As is well known, we are in favour of some system of proportional representation. Because of the first-past-the-post system we have been very hard-pressed to achieve an appropriate representation of the number of votes cast in our favour. Such a system does not gain great favour with the other political parties. I freely admit that the political party on my left is starting to take steps towards proportional representation for government of at least part of the country. The Scottish party is suggesting that if there were an assembly for Scotland it should have a PR selection process for those who sit on it. However, we do not feel that one can undertake any fundamental reforms unless one first reforms the House of Commons. That is the basic point with which I entirely agree.

615
I cannot see how one can countenance a situation where one has an elected Chamber, with a second chamber—a subservient Chamber—elected by a different system. If a PR system were used, the Chamber would have a better claim to being a more representational body, when confronted by a House of Commons which was selected by a first-past-the-post system. I can safely say that if I had such legitimacy behind me, I would have absolutely no hesitation in disagreeing with and voting against any measure that was brought forward from another Chamber. If I felt that I had more legitimacy I would consider that I had the absolute right to oppose such a measure.
If we are to take steps to overcome the problem, we must start other reforms, looking first at ourselves. All Members on this side of the House have on occasion been angered by the fact that many Members of your Lordships' House who are not seen for months or literally years on end arrive and will outvote those of us who regularly attend. It is a matter that has caused great consternation in this House and brings the Chamber into disrepute outside.
I do not know what can be done about that. My favourite suggestion is that anybody who is not prepared to turn up for a small proportion of the number of days that we sit in one parliamentary year might, for instance, lose their voting rights in the next. It would mean that those who are not prepared to take an interest in and at least listen to the debates should not be able to influence the procedure of the House until they have done so. In that way we can keep their opinions which on many occasions are valid. I agree that many noble Lords can attend for only one or two days in a Session but they would be able to speak with knowledge and expertise when required. I suggest that that is the first issue we should look at when reforming the Chamber unless we are prepared to undertake a major constitutional change which would ultimately be required before an elected Chamber could replace the House.
It is often suggested to me outside the Chamber that we should become a totally nominated House. That second suggested change has precedent in the 1968 reforms. However, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, there is a danger that whoever is in charge of the nominations to this House would soon create a new Chamber. Furthermore, with each change of government there may be a new influx of Peers. There could be several thousand Members of this House after 20 years.
I suggest that such a situation is not only farcical but extremely dangerous. Effectively it would create a body of yes-men in the Chamber. That has not happened yet. In respect of the student loans Bill the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, went against his normal stance of supporting the Government. I am personally grateful and was glad that he voted with us for many of the substantive amendments. I suggest that there is a danger of creating such a body; for instance, by appointing people with vested interests in doing what the Government say or creating interests for them in order to ensure that they will do so.
616
We must look carefully at the way in which we behave if we are to retain any degree of credibility. At present our standing is high. Before I came to this House it was suggested that not only would I be a much younger Member but vaguely akin to something from a different planet; that Members of the House would not know what was going on and I should be much more aware. I can safely tell all and sundry that when I arrived I soon became aware of my ignorance on the vast majority of matters. We have a high standing and we must maintain it. Our first priority should be to make reforms which will ensure that we do so. Any fundamental reform must look on this Chamber as being part of the whole legislative process. If we lose sight of that anything that we do will become superfluous.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I first wish to apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House because I must leave before the end of the debate. I shall read carefully everything that has been said. When we discussed the matter some years ago, a suggestion was made which then appealed to me. It was that we should have a two-tier House consisting of Peers who could speak and vote, and Peers who could only speak. After thinking about the matter carefully, I realised that such a system would create two difficulties. First, who will make the selection; and, secondly, on what grounds will they do so? The more I thought about the matter, the more I realised that the best prescription for your Lordships' House is that which already exists; a mixture of heredity and life Peers.
I have been a Member of this House for almost 40 years. I remember the time when life Peers first arrived and I am the first to say that they have made an enormous contribution. The House is more alive than it was when I first arrived. However, the hereditary system should be preserved. I wish to say a few words about it because a great deal of abuse has been thrown at it. It is not so extraordinary that the hereditary system should work; it works in other walks of life. For instance. Bach would not have been such a superb musician had it not been for the fact that his father, brothers, uncles and practically his whole family were professional musicians. Therefore, the hereditary system has an influence. I am the first to admit that sometimes the system makes mistakes; but so does the electoral system. There cannot be many noble Lords who are unable to name members of one elected body or another who are by no means suitable for the work that they are supposed to carry out.
I wish to mention one outstanding member of the hereditary system; of course, I am speaking of Her Majesty the Queen. Some noble Lords may say that it is not a similar case, but I believe that it is precisely and exactly the same. Her Majesty the Queen occupies her position simply and solely because she is the daughter of His late Majesty King George VI and for no other reason. But how magnificently she has fulfilled that position!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Somers: My Lords, nobody could work harder than the Queen. There is no 36-hour week for her; she is on duty practically all day, every day. She seldom has a day to herself. She attends countless events many of which can be of little interest to her although she never betrays the fact. She visits every corner of the globe—if it is possible for a sphere to have corners—and everywhere she goes she arouses admiration, loyalty and love.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Somers: Can your Lordships honestly see any elected head of state doing so much? I certainly cannot.
Many noble Lords said that an electoral system would be ideal for your Lordships' House. However, it must be remembered that such a system has a great disadvantage. The elected Member always looks back at his electorate before doing or saying anything and wondering whether his future re-election will be affected. Therefore, he cannot have a completely disinterested mind. This House does not have that disadvantage and to a large extent that is the most splendid thing about it. Sometimes I wish the independence could be a little more widespread. With the exception of the Government Front Bench, I should like to see the House consisting entirely of Cross-Benchers. That is by no means because I sit on the Cross-Benches—and if any noble Lord thinks that, he has it the wrong way round. I sit on the Cross-Benches because I dislike party politics. Party politics are the poison of practically the whole world. They make it impossible to give an absolutely unbiased view. However, that is my own personal opinion.
As regards this evening's debate, I believe that a second Chamber is absolutely essential, and except for perhaps minor alterations I should like to see it preserved as it is.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Somers—my twin. His experience of this House in years is exactly double mine—that is, 40 years against 20—but the number of years for which we have been on the earth is exactly the same.
I express my deep gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this subject and for inviting the Leader of the House—I am grateful to him for attending and for listening to all the speeches so far —through the usual channels to try to afford time for a fuller debate because obviously the topics to be considered are far too lengthy, important and wide-ranging to be considered satisfactorily under the form of a short debate.
To begin with, I wish to concentrate on two points which I think are of considerable importance. I hope that your Lordships do not consider them to be of minor importance. They are matters which affect our rights and powers under the heading of this debate. We have two delaying powers in order to enable us to maintain certain important principles such as the democratic principle involved in limiting
618
the length of a Parliament or the independence of the judiciary involved in not allowing one House alone to dismiss a judge. Over those important constitutional principles we have an absolute veto; that is, the consent of both Houses is required and there is no question of the other House overriding us if we disagree on those matters.
In order to enable us to maintain our power to consider and revise legislation, we have a limited power of delay. That arises because of course it would be a matter of doubt as to whether the other place would give serious consideration to all our suggestions unless there lay behind that the muscle of being able to delay for a period. Expressed simply, that period of delay is one year but that is perhaps an over-simplification.
In short, we have those powers to enable us to ensure that that somewhat rumbustious, necessarily partisan and guillotine-friendly body which we call the other place gives serious consideration to our suggestions and should—to use the regular phrase—be brought to think again. That is my understanding, which is perhaps over-simplified, of the present constitutional position.
As to the power of delay, in 1911 it was made clear that that power was intended to be used. Has it been used? It has been used hardly at all. It has been felt to be too dangerous; would possibly give rise to a conflict with the other place; and, as with any other muscle, there is always the danger of atrophy setting in through lack of exercise of the power.
Why are we afraid to use it? The answer is that it is too strong a power. It has been likened to the sting of a bee; that is only to be used in the final resort and only to be used once. We all know what happens to the bee afterwards. I take the view that we should reduce that power of delay to six months as was recommended in the 1968 White Paper. That would give to the other place the appearance of being helpful to it but in practice it would give to us the likelihood of using a power which we are afraid to use. Therefore, in practice, that would add immeasurably to our real power of delay.
As to the veto, that exists for the major reasons which I have indicted. It also exists with regard to statutory instruments. There was a very interesting series of speeches on Monday, as noble Lords present will remember. Why on earth do we regard statutory instruments, delegated legislation generally, as being in the same category as the maintenance of democracy and justice? Clearly it is not.
I have always accepted the explanation that that matter was not dealt with in 1911 because nobody conceived that it would be of any importance. It was a facility which governments practically did not use. People at that time could not conceive of a Bill like the student loans Bill where a government come forward and say, "Give us the power and we will give you the rules". Certainly that could not have been envisaged. However, as we know, the very fact of the increasing volume of legislation means that naturally, governments turn more and more to delegating powers under a Bill. Although Ministers have the final responsibility, more and more of the

619
subsidiary legislation is carried out, as we all know, by the Executive and not by Parliament. More and more that is the case and, therefore, more and more it is necessary for us to have powers in relation to delegated legislation.
There was great rejoicing on Monday when your Lordships were reminded that the Government have been good enough to allow a change from the negative to the affirmative resolution on the first introduction of the rules to which I refer. That is a complete snare and delusion. The Government have given absolutely nothing to your Lordships' House. As we all know, what happens is that the dangers of exercising our rights with regard to affirmative resolutions are so great—namely, the power of veto —that we do not use them. If we did, every single statutory instrument brought before us approved by the other place and of which we did not approve would die. There is an absolute power of veto. I resisted all sorts of pressures to take a different view when I had certain responsibilities in these matters. We wisely—I repeat wisely—continued not to exercise our right under that veto to vote down a statutory instrument approved by another place.
We now have the situation that an instrument cannot be amended, it cannot be denied, and it has the appearance of giving your Lordships' House some say in the matter. It gives the other House some say in the matter, but it gives us nothing. Therefore I suggest that the root cause of this problem is not merely that the convention is a little unclear; it is that it is far too strong. It is like an atomic weapon, which you may well have but God forbid you should ever use it.
I invite the Leader of the House seriously to consider taking steps to see that that power is reduced and changed to a power of delay under an Act of Parliament of the kind to which I have referred, the 1911 Act. On the assumption that there would then be a six-month power of delay, that would be perfectly adequate for both the purposes to which I referred—making the other place think again and making our views felt with regard to the ever-increasing volume of statutory instruments which will inevitably come before us. Those are two important matters which could immediately be taken in hand.
Regarding the general constitution of your Lordships' House, which I now understand to mean the composition, I am bound to say that the real power and continuity of this place rely on its legitimacy, its acceptability to the populace and electorate as a whole. With regard to its legitimacy, the greatest deterrent to its acceptability is the hereditary principle.
I have referred to that principle many times. The Conservative committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Home, said that there was no justification for it. A senior ex-Cabinet Minister pushed a document through my letter box inviting me to support him and sound Tory principles. Noble Lords can see that the document is blue-edged. It says:
620
"Britain enjoys less constitutional protection against extremist minority governments than any other democratic country. Like Lord Hailsham, I favour an elected House of Lords".
So in part does virtually every committee that has considered the matter—either elected or part elected.
My view and that of the joint body of Liberals and Social Democrats which considered this matter and published a very full report under the chairmanship of a distinguished judge is that the sensible way is to have a House that is part elected and part nominated but non-hereditary, though the hereditary Peers could continue for the time being.
My time is up. That illustrates how important it is to debate this matter again when these issues can be discussed more fully.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure that we all wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for yet again enabling us to consider our position as a second Chamber within the British Constitution. These exercises in introspection have recurred with a certain regularity for nearly 100 years, since the defeat of Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill upset the apple cart and started people thinking. In practical terms the only major changes made to our powers were the drastic changes which occurred in 1911, with regard to powers, and again in 1958 when our composition was considerably changed by the advent of life Peers and of women Members. That was a change which I regard as being very much for the better.
It is generally agreed that this short debate—grateful as we are for the occasion—is not suitable for discussing these very wide-ranging topics. Nevertheless, it may result in better arrangements being made in the future. However, we have no certainty that any major changes will ensue in the future even if we have a most successful debate, whatever government may be in power within the next few years. I say that because past experience is not in the least encouraging, when one thinks of the 1907 arrangement, the Bryce Commission, or the near consensus in 1968 which the combination of Enoch Powell and Michael Foot destroyed. We are an extraordinarily difficult House to deal with by way of major reform.
My own thinking is that perhaps we might do better to look more closely not to a very distant future, but to ourselves as we are. I suggest that the majority of Members of this House agree that we operate more by quality and influence than by direct power, which rests elsewhere. My concern is that that influence may be in danger of decline. I will explain why in a moment.
I am concerned about the tenor of some proposals for our future put forward by my own political colleagues in another place. I believe that they need further consideration, although I do not believe that they are anything like as definite as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, would have us suppose.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I brought with me, in case someone said that, the

621
actual text from a document which refers to the "Final report of Labour's Policy Review". I should have thought a final report was final.
Baroness White: Not in politics my Lords! I leave my noble friend Lord Mishcon on the Front Bench to deal with this matter except for one point which I will touch on before I conclude. I have spent nearly 45 years working in the Palace of Westminster, first, in the Press Gallery and the Lobby; then on Back and Front Benches in both Houses—20 years in each. So I have a fair claim to a reasonable perspective.
When I came to your Lordships' House in 1970—I might say that I came here voluntarily because I could have held my House of Commons seat —like most Members of another place I had only a sketchy idea of how this House worked. However, experience has convinced me of its value. While we all recognise the very difficult problem of a built-in Conservative majority, I do not intend to pursue that issue on this occasion. What worries me is how effective we are in influencing government business and government policy, not on the occasions of manipulative crisis votes, but on a day-to-day basis.
If our value is based on influence, how successful are we? What is the point of having unparalleled talent on the Benches of this House with so many noble Lords having invaluable experience, usually at the highest level of public or private endeavour, if the Government pay little attention to their opinions? By what method if we have no power —because our decisions can so easily be overturned when one party has an overwhelming majority in the other place—do we exploit the value of the experience and talents of this House?
That brings me to the Government Front Bench. I am sure that the Leader of the House will not take me amiss if I sound to him perhaps unkindly critical. Nowadays we have only two Cabinet Ministers in this House. That matter has already been touched upon in the debate. At the junior end are the Under-Secretaries of which we have six, plus the Whips. They are such nice young men! We have an affectionate appreciation for all of them. They are all hereditary Peers, but they cannot help that. There are two admirable women, both life Peers who had to work their passage before coming here.
All of the team work very hard. However, one doubts whether they are in a position significantly to influence departmental policy. They stick to their briefs and they do their best. As I said, we appreciate that. However, how much can they really convey of the value which is to be found in the expertise in many quarters of this House?
In between the Cabinet and the juniors come the five Ministers of State and the Paymaster. I do not know what one calls those who come between the monkey and the organ grinder. Here there is considerable varied and valuable experience but, again, how effective that is departmentally one can only guess.
Apart from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I think it is fair to say that on the Government Front Bench there is now no
622
heavyweight champion, past or present. The former heavyweights are all elsewhere. Furthermore, only one Member of the present Government Front Bench has had direct experience as a Member of another place, which is astonishing but I believe that is correct. I refer to the Lord Advocate. No one else really knows how the other place works, yet that is the Chamber which possesses the power.
I am sure that the Lord Advocate does a first-rate job for Scotland but I cannot suppose that he would claim to have very much political clout. By comparison, therefore, with some previous Administrations, the recent 10 years of Conservative rule has not strengthened this House, but weakened it. We may perhaps surmise that we are not the Prime Minister's favourite child.
It is of concern to those of us who have been accustomed in another place to debating with those who have the power of decision to come here and find that we are in a situation where with the best endeavours in the world we do not have the opportunity to influence what will happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, rightly said. We are too frightened to use such powers as we do have.
That brings me to another touchstone of our value as a second Chamber. This is an area with which I have been particularly concerned since I had the privilege of coming to this House. I refer to the work of our investigative committees. I mention these because they have an almost worldwide reputation for the quality of their investigations. I am not including the domestic or procedural committees of the House, excellent as they are, but referring to the European Community Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Some 10 years ago I had the honour of being chairman of the European committee—a position since held by my noble friends Lady Llewellyn-Davies and Lady Serota. Its standards had been set by the much lamented Lady Tweedsmuir. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, played a part for a short period at the beginning but I am sure he will agree that it was really Lady Tweedsmuir who set the scene.
In my time 96 Members of your Lordships' House worked on the main European committee and its seven sub-committees. There are now six sub-committees but only 74 of your Lordships labour thereon. However, the volume and complexity of the material emanating from Brussels increases almost daily and will continue to do so. It is a tremendous effort to keep pace with the changes in the European scene. One can ask whether this is work which should be left to the other place, which has itself vastly increased the number of its committees during the past decade or so. I hope not. I hope we shall continue to regard this work as one of our major contributions to the body politic of this country.
There is a profound difference between the regimes of the two Houses. Our approach is not based primarily on party interests or party numbers. In the investigative committees we aim for a broad balance on the main committee but membership of the working sub-committees is based on experience, expertise and excellence wherever those qualities may be found. We are genuine seekers after truth.

623
Our work is generally on a consensual basis. It is partly for those reasons that the reputation of these committees stands as high as it does.
However, with the grudgingly slow pace at which new creations are being made, in some areas we are running short of expertise. Older Members become less active and younger Members are snapped up for other public duties. There are some very important areas of the natural and physical sciences and in the developing areas of technology, and so on, where it is difficult for us to recruit working Peers. This particularly applies to the European committee, where it is difficult for my noble friend to find Members to chair and to work on some of the sub-committees.
We need the experience and judgment of men and women, many of whom would never stand for election to this House under any form of proportional representation, regionalism or whatever. They are far too much engaged in their own work, but they will give time, because they feel that it is worthwhile, to these important committees of this House.
This is an area to which we can contribute in a way that the other place cannot. This is a matter to which our political colleagues in the other place should pay more attention, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Mishcon, will tell them so.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, for as long as I can remember—and I have no doubt for much longer than that—the possibility of reform of your Lordships' House has been a matter for discussion. One of the main arguments that it should be reformed is that your Lordships are not accountable to the public. I respectfully submit that in many respects that is more of an advantage than a disadvantage. For a start, I am not aware of any abuse that has arisen in my time as a result of non-accountability of your Lordships' House.
However, I turn to the advantages which I suggest exist. Many of your Lordships have spent years as elected representatives in another and much more prestigious place than that in which I served three terms of office. I would not have had the opportunity to serve those three terms of office had it not been for the fact that proportional representation was the form of franchise in Northern Ireland at that time.
Unless my experience is very different from theirs, I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in saying that it is very difficult to avoid the shadow of the constituents. You tend to think twice before saying anything that might be unpopular. Worse still, you think many times if the realisation comes to you that it is several months since you said anything at all. Therefore, there is the pressure on the elected representative to say something just to get it into the local press so that the constituents can see that the elected representative is still functioning. Therefore, there is a temptation to speak even if you have nothing to say. That is one of the main advantages of your Lordships' House. There is no incentive to speak in this place unless you have something to say.
There is another element. If you are going to show your constituents that you are still functioning, you
624
have to do constituency work. In my experience that is almost a full time job. It would mean that we would be deprived of the expertise of many of the noble Lords and Ladies whom we are privileged to have in this House at the moment. It also means that, being a full time job, a salary would have to be payable. That would be extremely regrettable. It would entirely change the tenor and character of your Lordships' House if this were to be a place where Members had to be paid.
If there were to be an elected body in this Chamber it would be on a regional basis, and I presume that there would be no constituencies as such. We all know that unless you have a constituency of a manageable size, it is virtually impossible to make yourself felt. With such a constituency you can move about, do constituency work, get yourself known and establish a reputation on a regional basis for being a hard worker. That will be very difficult to do. On a regional basis only those who had nationally known names would stand much chance of being elected.
That is the second reason for being opposed to having an elected Chamber. My primary reason is one which has been raised already by several noble Lords. In my view one of the greatest strengths of this place is the size of the Cross-Bench coupled with the fact that to the best of my knowledge, though I have never actually tried it, defiance of the Whip, if you take it, does not incur a penalty. I understand that in another place whereas one or two transgressions may be permissible, if repeatedly you defy the Whip, that Whip is withdrawn and you are then on the short list for deselection unless your constituency party and association are firmly behind you.
That means that in this place noble Lords can vote according to their conscience and accumulated knowledge and expertise. In my view, that makes us a truly revising and possibly at times a reforming Chamber. That is a role which the other place would find it very much more difficult to assume under present circumstances.
Having spoken of the importance of the Cross-Bench, it is a fact that if you stand for election as an Independent, there is very little chance of being elected unless again you have a nationally-known name. You have no party machine to work for you and no well-known policy which you can sell to the nation unless you are a crusader of some kind. Therefore, the question boils down to being well known. You cannot very well be a previous and prominent politician because that is incompatible with being an Independent. Therefore, you either have to be a television personality, perhaps a nationally known and successful sportsman, or a pop star. I certainly do not come into any of those categories though perhaps some Members do. I believe that qualification would very much narrow down the field.
Therefore, in my view the fact that we are not accountable is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. It may be asked: What is the need for reform? That has been mentioned already. I am both aware of and in sympathy with the concern that when there is likely to be a critical vote on the afternoon of the debate, people turn up many of

625
whom one cannot remember having seen before. They come to vote and then go away again. Sometimes, but not always, the result is that the final decision of this House is contrary to the wishes of the majority of Members who have researched the Motion in advance, followed it through all its stages in the other place, followed any stages through which it has been in this place, and therefore have gone to vote in an informed manner. Yet that body of expertise is overthrown by people who have come in because they have been whipped from distant places. That is the main reason that criticism can be addressed at your Lordships' House.
Therefore, the question is this: if any reform is needed, how can it be approached? I say not on the voting record. It is entirely commendable to refrain from voting on Motions about which you know nothing. That is my policy. I would say not on the speaking record. I would defend the right of Members to come to this place whenever there is a subject on which they can make a contribution, but not to feel it necessary to speak on matters about which they know nothing.
My father sat in this place for 24 years and to the best of my knowledge he never spoke. He was a shy man by personality. More important, I believe he felt that there was nothing that he could tell noble Lords of the day that they did not know already. It is most unlikely, but if there had been a debate on large-leafed Himalayan rhododendrons, he might have made his maiden speech because he was an expert on that subject. In the event there was no such debate so he never spoke. That is absolutely right and I am sure that many noble Lords wish that I had followed his example.
Another criterion should not be expertise. After all, who can fairly say who is competent to speak on a matter and who is not? Another aspect has been touched on already. A good case has been made for the elimination of hereditary Peers. I wish to refer to one experience that I had. I was interviewed on one occasion by Simon Winchester, a prominent and well-respected journalist. He was researching material for a book either on your Lordships' House or on the parliamentary system in Britain —I cannot remember which. I said to him that while I totally supported the system of having an Upper House I could not see the justification for having hereditary Peers. He replied that although he used to agree with that view, he had changed his mind. He said that to eliminate hereditary Peers and have only life Peers would immediately raise the average age of Members of the House to 70-plus. I see the noble Lord, Lord Blease, looking at me. I was not speaking about him.
Secondly, the hereditary system, although random, is probably as good a form of selection as one can have. I do not favour eliminating hereditary Peers, who are in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned, declining in numbers. Some 45 have no successors, and so the number is actually dwindling. One idea is to have representative Peers. But it would be difficult to be fair, and it would be difficult to keep the system divorced from party political influence. Such influence would be regrettable. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord
626
Addington, who suggested that a minimum attendance might be the best solution.
I can think of no fairer way. Noble Lords who had not attended more than a minimum number of times over a certain period would be disqualified unless they had a valid excuse, such as serving overseas and so on. It is the fairest method that I can think of. But I would argue most vehemently—I feel very strongly about this —against having an elected Upper House.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, all noble Lords, or at any rate most noble Lords, will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this discussion. Although I am grateful to him for introducing the discussion I found myself disagreeing with much of what he said. It is the subject for which I am grateful rather than the content of what he had to say. However, he said it extraordinarily well. The fact that I found myself disagreeing with him would not matter much except that one or two other noble Lords were also in disagreement.
While I was waiting to speak I was thinking of one or two sayings. I may venture to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, but I find myself in strong agreement with Disraeli. He said that without party there can be no democracy in modern society. Only in a place like this, which is responsible for important secondary decisions but is not the primary place where decisions are taken, can the luxury of Cross-Benches be afforded. In a place from which democracy emanated, only the party system can maintain and spread democracy. Only the party system can give people the sense that what they say when they vote counts, that they are in fact, though indirectly, governing themselves.
Some speakers have suggested that democracy is inconvenient. So it is. It is that very inconvenience which makes it good. In this Chamber we are free to say what we damn well please. That is a great luxury for us but do we pause and ask ourselves whether we are speaking for anyone other than for ourselves? What right have we to speak only for ourselves? By what virtue do we sit here when most other people do not-sit here and do not enjoy the privileges which we enjoy? Therefore the notion that there is something highly creditable about this Chamber brings me to another saying which passed through my mind while I was waiting to speak—self-praise is no recommendation.
I shall quote another distinguished Conservative, Winston Churchill. He said—I cannot remember what he said. I shall come back to it. I should have taken the precaution of writing it down.
Lord Mishcon: "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: No, my Lords, that is not the one. There is another one. I shall come back to it.
In the meantime I shall quote a sentence from the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff,

627
the Final report of Labour's Policy Review for the 1990s. The first sentence of the subsection which deals with this Chamber says:
"A second chamber of Parliament based on inheritance and patronage is unacceptable in a modem democracy".
This Chamber is the only place in the country or in the world where that statement would be challenged. We must recognise ourselves for what we are. We are an anachronism. We are a useful anachronism. We are a place in which good work is done. But we should not pretend that we have any constitutional justification which would carry a moment's conviction anywhere else outside this Chamber. That brings me to my recollection of Winston Churchill's words. He said that we are, more than we know, the creatures of our institutions. Only we creatures of this institution could begin to think that we have the kind of merit which has been described to us by so many speakers. We have not. But we do a useful and good job.
For that reason when I was in the other place I spoke against my colleagues at the time who said that we could do with a single Chamber. I even questioned Harold Laski's addiction to unicameralism, which was a great thing to do at the time. To this day I am still convinced that he was wrong and I was right. We must have two Chambers. The two Front Benches tried to bring about reform in 1968. They came together and said that they would abolish hereditary peerages and arrange a system of patronage whereby the Prime Minister of the day would in future have the right to choose Members of the Upper House. Unfortunately, as my noble friend Lord Longford said before he had to depart, the proposals were upended by the fact that the Back Benchers would not follow the Front Benchers into the Lobby. There was a substantial rebellion on both sides.
This illustrates the fact that one can always go through a Lobby with people with whom one fundamentally disagrees. I went through the Lobby with Enoch Powell—he, because he did not want to see any change in your Lordships' House; and I, because I felt that the proposed change was entirely inadequate and that something more substantial should have taken place. The notion that one cannot for opposite reasons go into a Lobby and upset the Government is not valid. However, that is by the way.
I seem to be full of quotations today —and they have been mostly quotations from Conservatives. At a Conservative Party Conference in the early 1980s a motion was put forward to reform the House of Lords in the then current Parliament. However, it was opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who was the Conservative Leader of the House at that time, on the ground that such a measure would need all-party agreement and no such agreement was in sight. I think that what the Labour Party document says is true.
It is all very well for us to carry resolutions abolishing this House and not specifying what should replace it, if anything. It is all very well for Conservatives to propose alternatives at their
628
conferences. However, how you deal with it from that point on is a different proposition. What do you do? How do you move from one position to another? That is the difficulty which has never been faced.
Here we are in our present situation and over there is the desirable position that we wish to reach. Just how can it be reached? When I hear a reasonable proposition in that respect I shall be more convinced of the possibility—I am convinced of the desirability —of making a fundamental alteration to this House. I think perhaps it could be done; but the notion that you can do it without all-party agreement is an illusion. Such an agreement is not only made between the two Front Benches; it must also extend throughout the House. Changing the constitution is the most difficult task you can undertake in a traditional society like ours. However, I think that it should be done.
I believe that this Chamber is wrong in its present form. As I said, I think that the Labour Party proposal to which I referred contains some very good ideas which I think could, and should, be carried out. However, I wonder how far it will get. Will it get from here to an election manifesto? I am inclined to doubt it. Further, if it were to be included in an election manifesto, how far would it get in the Chamber? Would it be tabled before all the other important matters? Of course it would not. Even if it were to be tabled, as all the Committee stages would be taken in the Chamber itself, no other business would be transacted for about six months. Would any government give it that degree of importance? I think not. Constitutional change is vitally important; it ought to be carried out, but I wish someone would tell me how.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, all of us who regard it as a privilege to be a Member of this very civilised House—and I am proud to call myself one—will be indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving us the opportunity even in a short debate to discuss our future. I must say that if anyone is to introduce it in this Chamber I do not think that any of us would prefer a name other than that of the noble and learned Lord. It is not just a question of his political career which was eminent, or of his judicial career which was even more eminent. He has been a great fighter in this House for the rights of the Members of the House of Lords. The noble Lord the Leader of the House had to put up with some very fine and direct oratory quite recently in the Courts and Legal Services Bill as to the infringement of the rights of this House by those who dominate the Front Bench opposite.
I am told—although I have never understood it —that the astrology page of a newspaper is one which is very popular among readers. I suppose, therefore, that it is with some joy that we are able to indulge in a little astrology tonight by looking into our future. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will not mind very much if I look into his stars at this moment. In two or three years' time I see the noble Lord moving his seat. I see him with neighbours opposite of great intelligence and wisdom wishing to care for the traditions of this great

629
country, but wishing to do it justice, reflecting upon words which they may have uttered when not having the responsibility of government and finding that those words may have to be altered in the interests of all concerned. I also see him rising to his feet and cheering what they have done. That, I suppose, is the answer I would give to the noble Lord in response to the various questions which he asked me.
The duties and powers of this House have been discussed today but no one has referred, as yet, to the Bryce conference. It was held in 1917; that is only six years after the Parliament Act and obviously when this country was at war. At that conference, which consisted of Members of both Houses, Lord Bryce set out the conference's views on the powers and duties of this Chamber. As those views are very succinct I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I quote the four functions. They were quoted by the Leader of the Opposition in one of the debates which have taken place on the powers and duties of your Lordships' House.
The four functions were:
First, the examination and revision of Bills brought from the other place. Secondly, the initiation of Bills dealing with subjects of a comparatively non-controversial character. Thirdly, the interposition of so much delay—and no more—in the passing of a Bill into law as may enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. Fourthly, to act as a forum for the discussion of general questions of policy—such as foreign affairs".—[Official Report, 3/4/84; col. 691.]
Those words set out very succinctly the duties of this House which we have tried to fulfil. It is not quite a powerless House. I can remember many occasions on which your Lordships have acted with due wisdom in defeating the Government and where, indeed, amendments have gone to another place and have not been reversed by virtue of the fact that there was respect for the opinion which your Lordships had expressed by the votes cast.
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the other matters which have been added to the duties of this House. She talked about the European Committee and its sub-committees. She was so right in what she said. She mentioned the Standing Committee on Science and Technology which is so much admired not only throughout the nation but also, as she rightly said, universally among those interested in such matters.
However, there was just one other matter which was not mentioned. I refer to the power of this House—and in my view it is a very valuable one—to put a negative in the way of the other place endeavouring to extend its life beyond five years. What a valuable right that is in the defence of freedom and democracy which we so value in this realm of ours. These are powers and duties of a very substantial nature which one realises must be carried out by some Chamber, if not this one.
Therefore, if one asks oneself the next question —"Do you have to have a second Chamber to carry out these duties and powers?" —the answer must be yes. There must be a programme for the future, in spite of the fact that such a programme might have to be altered in the light of wisdom as it may evolve. That programme says that there must be a second Chamber.
630
We then move on to a very robust description of your Lordships' House. I remember very well that it was given by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose eloquence seems to increase with the years that grace him. I wonder how he came from these Benches because in introducing the debate on the powers and duties of the Lords he used the words:
"Your Lordships' House is the only restraint in Parliament to the arrogance of an elective dictatorship"—[Official Report, 19/12/84; col. 657.]
That came from our Benches. I was amazed at the words; they have remained with me over the passage of time.
We then come to the question of whether the composition of our House is right, given that we have these essential powers and duties. I believe that they are important. I would not use the words of my noble friend Lord Houghton but they are important to safeguard the freedom of our people. On that composition I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I took the trouble to read the speech that he made not long ago when he dealt with a Motion that concerned the powers and duties of the House in regard to Public Bills and so on. He did not quote—as he was entitled to—the words that occur in the report of the committee, I believe I am right in saying, that was set up by the Conservative Party and the noble Lord, Lord Home. I wish to refer to them because he cited them in his speech. We must take into account that this is not limited to one side of your Lordships' House. It concerns the essential reform of the composition of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will remember that on 3rd November 1983, according to the Official Report, he referred to the Bow Group on the reform of the House of Lords. That group said:
"Reform of the House of Lords is urgent if the second Chamber of Parliament is to be preserved". [Official Report, 3/11/83; col. 643.]
What did the Conservative committee on the reform of the House of Lords, chaired by the eminent noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, say? It did not believe that leaving things just as they were should be considered a viable option. With regard to the composition of the House the report considered that it was virtually impossible to defend.
I should have thought that it was common ground that we must ensure that there is a second Chamber. We must ensure that the powers and duties of the second Chamber are roughly consonant with those that we have. Some of us wish that they were a little more effective with regard to statutory instruments and other such matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. For the future we must look at the composition of the House. That is where the hereditary principle comes up against logic and democracy. I say this with the utmost deference to the many noble friends I have in the House who sit here as a result of their inheritance.
As with many things that happen in our wonderful country, we start with a complete illogicality in our Constitution which, as we all know, is not written, and in the composition of many of our institutions. It seems to work. However, in regard to making

631
decisions on behalf of the nation one must do a little more than just say, "It is illogical but it works".
In closing what I have to say to noble Lords who have been patiently listening to me trying to wind up the debate on this side of the House, perhaps I personally may cast doubts on the question of elections to the House. This was carefully considered in the White Paper on House of Lords reform issued in 1969 by a Labour Government. We must consider what that Government said in regard to any matters that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, raised quite properly in his speech.
I shall not bore your Lordships by reading the remarks but at pages 10 and 11 the White Paper came down hard and fast against the idea of regional and national elections. It did so on the basis that we cannot have a Chamber which competes with the House of Commons. The White Paper advanced other arguments and I have no doubt that those arguments will come up again when final decisions are made. Who should make them? I should have thought —but here again I venture humbly to give a private view—that there will have to be a broadly based Royal Commission reviewing all the reform debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House. It will ignore the speech I have just made since it will be deemed to be worthless, but it will examine all the speeches of my other colleagues in the House. The Royal Commission will look at White Papers and other documents that have been published over the years. Somehow or other I believe that the future of the country will demand a second Chamber. May it be as worthy of history as your Lordships' House has been up till now.
6.27 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for the debate this afternoon which gives us the opportunity to air our perceptions of the composition and powers of a second Chamber within our Constitution.
I wish to approach what could in a way be a hypothetical question from a basis of hard fact by examining where we are at present. In short, I feel it may be useful if I seek first to outline the functions of this House so as to focus on the purpose of a second Chamber and the very reasons for its existence.
I am sure that all your Lordships will join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in endorsing the summary of the duties of the House set out so many years ago by the Bryce Conference. That summary had as its fourth function general debate. One of the valuable functions of the House is the comparatively frequent opportunities for general debates. Those opportunities have, if anything, increased since the institution of Motions for short debates which are balloted for every month. They are sometimes the chosen form of a Wednesday debate, as we saw last week when debates moved from Benches on this side of the House on tenant farming and forestry occupied the afternoon.
632
It is in our general debates that the advantages of the composition of your Lordships' House are apparent. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said, there are many noble Lords who bring to your Lordships' House particular experience and knowledge from outside the political arena. There is no doubt that that is one of the reasons why the House can claim to make a substantial contribution to public debate.
Since several of your Lordships' speeches have referred to the composition of the House, perhaps I may say how glad I was to hear the noble and learned Lord say that we need not be afraid of a hereditary element in the House. Indeed, I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Longford, express the same view even more robustly. The noble Earl has the distinction of having been created a Peer in his own right at the same time as having inherited peerages. In his absence, I should like to suggest that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, demonstrates in many ways the advantages of the composition of this House in his own person. What I am saying is that many hereditary Peers can make a unique contribution, largely because so many come to the House by routes other than through professional politics. For very much the same reason life Peers also make a unique contribution.
Once again, it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who referred to "fancy franchisers". Two of the examples that the noble and learned Lord mentioned—namely, former Secretaries General of the Trades Union Congress and vice-chancellors—have been and are represented in this House not through election but through the conferment of life peerages. To me that argues the strength of our present system.
However, the legislative function of your Lordships' House, as opposed to its debating functions, is to revise and to go through Bills line by line and clause by clause. With that function goes the power to amend or even to delay legislation. Those powers are limited partly by convention and partly by statute.
As all noble Lords well know, there is the convention of the Salisbury-Addison doctrine. That means that the House does not oppose, in principle, legislation for which a Government with a majority in another place has a mandate; in other words, the House does not oppose the principle of a manifesto Bill.
In that context, I was interested in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, I thought that his proposal that it was another place that needed reforming stretches the Motion before us this afternoon, if it does not go beyond it. Nevertheless, the remarks of the noble Lord regarding how much freer he would feel to vote against measures coming from another place if he had been elected rather than being an hereditary Peer were important because they illustrate the dangers of conflict which would be inherent in a comprehensive reform. Therefore there are limitations, by convention, on what we do here, and there are the powers and limitations enshrined in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. So the House has a delaying power, in effect of one

633
year, under the 1949 Act. The 1911 Act gives a power—the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Mishcon, reminded us of that power—of an absolute right of veto in respect of any Bill which would seek to extend the maximum duration of a Parliament for more than five years.
The most topical constraint on the powers of your Lordships' House—this was a matter debated as recently as last Monday—is the financial privilege of the House of Commons. Aids and supply were confirmed as being in the sole gift of the other place by the Parliamentary resolutions of the House of Commons in 1671 and 1678, and were later amplified by the resolutions of 1860 and 1910. In addition of course further limitations in respect of money Bills were imposed by the Parliament Act of 1911.
I would contend therefore that the two main functions of the House are debating matters of public interest or concern and revising Public Bills. Those are two of the four functions that were chosen by the Bryce Commission. But in addition many of your Lordships contribute hours of time to work on Private Bill or Hybrid Bill committees. Many noble Lords also contribute to the valuable work of the Select Committees of the House. That work has an effect on legislation as it is going through Parliament. I am thinking of the Science and Technology Committee and of course the European Communities Committee. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the House can take pride in its foresight in that when the United Kingdom entered the European Community 17 years ago, not only was a Select Committee on European legislation established, but its structure consists to this day of sub-committees covering the main subject areas of European directives. The reports of those sub-committees are, I know, read with great interest, not only in Britain but in the other countries of the European Community.
What conclusions should be drawn from this catalogue of the work of your Lordships' House? First, as I have already mentioned, I believe we benefit greatly from the wide range of experience and knowledge to be found here which is drawn from each of the political parties and from the very large number of noble Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches.
Although I must confess that I did not agree with the criticism of party politics made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers—I thought that was well answered by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney —I do, nonetheless, agree with the noble Lord that it is a strength of the House that we have a large number of Cross-Bench Peers.
Secondly, I believe it is a major advantage for a revising Chamber that we are not a mirror image of the House of Commons. Your Lordships' House is unelected, and your Lordships speak here in a personal and not in a representative capacity. A further difference is that no political party in this House has an overall majority. That is due not least to the very substantial number of Cross-Bench Peers who sit in your Lordships' House independent of party allegiance and who interestingly enough, do not have a single elected equivalent in another place.
634
When one considers that there are about 240 Peers who sit on the Cross-Benches, that is a remarkable difference between the two Houses.
Thirdly,—this is perhaps the most important of all the conclusions that I would draw about our work—the Committee and Report stages of Bills provide us with a valuable opportunity for revision and a further screening process for proposals which are of public concern. This is of particular importance—I shall say this before any other noble Lord says it—when Bills have been subject to the guillotine in another place.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, nonetheless, asked what real influence this Chamber has. Some measure of our revising work was shown in the previous Session of Parliament where statistics show that the House made 2,401 amendments to Bills, of which all but a handful were accepted by another place. Of course a large proportion of those amendments were of a technical or tidying-up nature. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly reminded us, many would have been substantive and many were important. Their sheer volume shows the extent of the revising work which has to be done before legislation can reach the statute book and proves the part that is played in that process by the second Chamber.
Nonetheless, from time to time proposals are made to reform both the composition and the powers of your Lordships' House. It is interesting to reflect that the last attempt in 1968 foundered not here, but in another place. It might well be assumed that if a Bill to reform the composition of the House of Lords was to be sabotaged, it would have happened in your Lordships' House where, with no Speaker and few rules of order, we rely on self-restraint, essentially regulating our proceedings by a kind of self-denying ordinance. That must be an arrangement which is unique among the legislative assemblies of the world.
I have therefore waited in some anticipation to hear this afternoon the plans which noble Lords opposite have devised for the future of your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out, there is a policy document which contains such proposals. Previously, I had understood that the Labour Party favours an elected House—however, I think it is fair to say that the method of election has not been revealed —which would act as the guardian of fundamental rights. Those rights are termed colloquially in some speeches a charter of rights. That would consist of Bills which could not be altered within the lifetime of a Parliament without the express consent of a reformed House.
I find that easy enough to understand. Less easy to comprehend is the relationship of an elected second Chamber to the powers it would have; for apparently, according to the Labour Party's policy review of last year, its reformed House of Lords would be a Chamber in which no legislation would be introduced and no Ministers would sit. That is not exactly an assembly to which people would compete enthusiastically to be elected, and not exactly a Chamber which would do anything to meet

635
the criticisms of the Government voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in her speech.
Like my noble friend Lord Beloff, I find the Labour proposals raise a number of questions which, if noble Lords opposite will forgive me, have not been answered this afternoon. I pick out one. On the one hand, the Labour Party expects the second Chamber to stand up to the House of Commons in protecting the Bills which would fall within the scope of its charter of rights; on the other hand, it is clear that there would be one opportunity only for revision of a measure by the House of Lords before final consideration by the House of Commons and that the second Chamber would not be designed to frustrate the will of the Commons. It is not easy to understand how that could be guaranteed in an elected Chamber unless the House's power were to be whittled away almost to nothing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way. Of course it is very easy to criticise proposals for reform. Before the noble Lord finishes his speech, are we to hear whether he, on behalf of the Government, has any reform proposals at all to which we could listen, or is he going to say that he wants the situation that we are in to continue for ever?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord made an interesting speech. As he is always very courteous, I am sure he will not think that I am being brusque in any way when I say that, unlike noble Lords opposite, I shall indeed indicate before I finish how I see the House of the future proceeding.
I have been genuinely disappointed —which is why I said a few words about the plans of the party opposite—not to hear some explanation of what noble Lords opposite really envisage for the reform of this House if they had the chance, although they have put out a document.
Before coming to that point, perhaps I may say that the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, invited us to consider the appropriate powers and constitution of a second Chamber within the British constitution. I have considered our present powers and constitution, and have commented on the plans of the party opposite. From these Benches I can say that we certainly do not contemplate a comprehensive reform of that kind; but that is not to say that I believe that everything must remain exactly the same.
When my noble friend Lord Whitelaw was Leader of your Lordships' House, he was instrumental in setting up the group on the working of the House of which I was a member. That group provided us with an opportunity of reviewing many of our procedures. The changes which flowed from the work of that group were not earth-shattering, but I believe they were valuable. Part of their merit was that they have been integrated into our procedures with very little disruptive effect.
I believe that must be right. The British constitution is not a machine; it is an organism. It grows and changes, and its institutions grow and
636
change with it. Sometimes the very weight of the legislation with which we deal has stretched the procedures of your Lordships' House, but I believe that it is precisely such pressures which can bring about valuable changes in our procedures.
Thus on occasions I see as positive pressures which some of your Lordships may see as negative. But I hope that we can all agree on one thing. The fact that we are prepared to debate these matters in the midst of a heavy legislative Session demonstrates that the present House retains the capacity to debate its own place in the constitution and to consider change if need be.
Before I finish, perhaps I may answer three questions. My noble friend Lord Beloff made an assertion that there are some—I believe my noble friend thought, in politics—who perhaps do not really value the revising function of the House. I should like to make it quite clear that I believe that this function of your Lordships' House is taken seriously on all sides in politics. That is certainly the case within the Government. I wish that all Bills were perfect on introduction, but they are not. I need only reiterate the very large number of changes made in this House to show how vital the revising function is for the Government's own legislation, as well as for many other reasons.
I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, when the noble Lord referred to the delaying power and the power of veto. I must state that I do not believe your Lordships refrain from using your undoubted powers for the delaying of primary legislation, or in rejecting secondary legislation, simply because the House is afraid to do so, as I think the noble Lord suggested. It is a long-standing principle that it is Parliament's duty to secure the Crown's business, so I believe that if your Lordships' powers were infinitely greater than they are today your Lordships would wisely —and I take that word from those which the noble Lord used—accept at least the vast majority of statutory instruments. That being so, I do not believe that to introduce a six months delaying power would be to increase the real efficiency of your Lordships' scrutiny of subordinate legislation which, after all, is exercised in detail by a the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Finally, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that I was glad that he qualified his description of this House as an anachronism by conceding that this is a place where useful work is done. I cannot follow the noble Lord in quoting eminent Conservatives, but I can quote to him a wise proverb in return: "If it works, don't fix it".
In that context I hope it does not sound complacent if I conclude by saying that the present arrangements for the House not only work but, broadly speaking, have stood the test of time. This is very important, and here for once I most certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. On all the evidence, not only is the principle of a bicameral legislature obviously crucial to the parliamentary process but clearly there is a considerable workload which falls on the House as the revising Chamber.

637
Your Lordships' House performs an essential function as a Chamber of revision and deliberation, and as a guarantee of constitutional continuity. Long may it continue to do so.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to thank all of your Lordships who have contributed to the debate for the most important ideas that have been ventilated. The very fertility of those ideas points irresistibly to the need for a more ample debate, although I venture to say that today's debate has been fully justified.
In opening the debate, I invoked the shades of Beaconsfield, of Salisbury and of Rosebery. During the debate I rather felt hovering around us also the shade of the Abbé Sieyes, because we have had plenty of constitutional ideas ventilated.
It would be inappropriate for me to mention any particular speech, although I propose to make two exceptions. First, I know all your Lordships would wish, through me, to express our appreciation that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has replied to the debate as a member of the Cabinet. I venture to think that when his speech is read—although he always expresses himself with caution—it will be seen to contain a lot that will give hope to those who have spoken today.
The other speech that I wish to mention is that of the noble Baroness, Lady White. I do that, not because we have been colleagues in one place or another for many years, but because she started her curriculum of political life with her experience in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. However, she was, so to speak, born in a Dispatch Box. Having said that, I merely repeat my thanks to noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Pharmaceutical Innovation: Patent Protection in the EC
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the European Commission's proposals to restore patent protection for new pharmaceutical innovation and, if so, what steps they are taking to secure agreement to the proposals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question is directed towards a draft Council regulation which was adopted by the Commission of the European Communities on 28th March but which has only recently taken the form of an English version. It is the proposed Council Regulation Concerning the Creation of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for Medicinal Products. It applies both to human and veterinary medicinal products and its objective is to extend the patent protection for those medicinal products.
It is proposed that the Council regulation will operate in this way: manufacturers of medicinal products who both have a patent still in force and a valid authorisation will be entitled to apply for an
638
extension of patent protection up to a maximum of 10 years. This will effectively create patent protection for medicinal products for a period of 16 years. The calculations for that are somewhat complicated in Article 6 of the draft Council regulation, but, assisted with a drawing board, it comes to a simple 16 years.
It is also proposed in Article 13 of the draft Council regulation that there will be transitional provisions which will apply when there is a valid patent but no authorisation —the situation being that the product is being developed but not to the point of it having been licensed to be used on the market—or if the product is covered both by a valid patent and by a valid authorisation the transitional provisions under Article 13 will be extended when the patent expires on or after 1st July 1992 and the authorisation has been obtained after 1st January 1984. Again, without getting out any pocket calculators, the effect of that is to enable patent protection for medicinal products, which would otherwise have their period of patent protection ended by that date, to be extended beyond 1st July 1992.
Despite the slightly complicated calculation in Article 6, the Council regulation is remarkably free of bureaucratic content. It is proposed that it will operate through existing patent offices in member states and will not be the producer of more bureaucracy.
In asking this Question in the House, I am seeking the best commitment that I can from Her Majesty's Government of their support for the proposal. It may therefore be helpful to noble Lords if I give some indication of the timetable as I understand it to be. As I have already told noble Lords, the Council regulation has been adopted by the Commission and it must now go through the process of being approved and adopted by the Council. The first period therefore is the consultation period with member states and with the relevant departments of state in every member state. I understand that it is planned that that consultation period will end roughly at the end of May. At that stage it is proposed that the Council will adopt the draft Council regulation in whatever form it may be by the end of that consultation period.
After that, the further processes must be gone through. The opinions of the Economic and Social Committee of the Community must be taken as the European Parliament is also entitled to be consulted. I therefore anticipate that the Council of Ministers will finally adopt the Council regulation, on the basis that it goes satisfactorily through all those processes, some time before the end of the year.
The timing of the Question is therefore of some importance in this member state of the European Community in ascertaining the position of Her Majesty's Government on the proposal and in encouraging the Government to be as supportive as they can, if they are not to be persuaded to be totally supportive, of the proposal. I say that with a caveat. There are one or two paragraphs in the Council regulation upon which I or others should like to make representations, but those are matters of detail and I need not at this stage take noble Lords or the Minister through those aspects.
The value of patents has been perceived for many centuries. Indeed, patents have had their advocates of support in this country for over 400 years. There are references in the 15th and 16th centuries as to the value of patents. I think I am right in saying that the first time patents were introduced in a statutory form in the United Kingdom was in 1624. The value of patents can be illustrated in a different way because, when the Netherlands abolished its patent system in 1869, it found that there was a diminishing proportion of exports of manufactured goods and therefore reintroduced the patent system in 1912.
The value of the patent system in the United Kingdom was assessed in the Banks Report on the British patent system which was presented to Parliament in July 1970. As the basis of my Question is the value of patents, I can do no better than quote what the Banks Committee said in chapter 2 of its report. It broke down the value of patents into four parts. It says:
"first, that it encourages research and invention; second, that it induces an inventor to disclose his discoveries instead of keeping them as a trade secret; third, that it offers a reward for the expense of developing inventions to the stage at which they are commercially practicable; and fourth, that it provides an inducement to invest capital in new lines of production which might not appear profitable if many competing producers embarked on them simultaneously".
Again, it is interesting to note the widespread support that the Banks Committee was able to attribute to the system of patent production. Paragraph 58 of the report refers to consultations with,
"the Ministry of Technology, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, industrial and professional associations and individual industrial firms, and an analysis of all the evidence shows it to be positively and overwhelmingly in favour of the maintenance of the patents system".
Unfortunately the patents system has not worked very well in recent years for the pharmaceutical industry. That is because the pharmaceutical industry has been faced with ever more complicated research and longer periods of development. It has also rightly been faced with increasingly stringent licensing procedures and—although they are now abolished—licences of right. As a result the pharmaceutical industry's period of effective patent protection for its products has averaged out at only 10 or 12 years. Indeed, in the explanatory memorandum to the EC regulation it is shown as low as eight years.
I can tell noble Lords that with certain drugs of considerable importance to patients—for example, a drug called Feldine, which is an non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of arthritic diseases; Diprivan, an anaesthetic drug of special value for day surgery; and Zoladex, a drug used for the treatment of prostate cancer—the period of effective protection was considerably less than the 8 or 12 years to which I drew your Lordships' attention. For Feldine it was four years; for Diprivan it was five years and for Zoladex it was only six years.
Arising from that there have been a number of debates in this House—for example, on licences of right—and the matter has also been subject to
640
consideration by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. Its report. Priorities in Medical Research, was ordered to be printed on 1st March 1988. At paragraph 6.8 the committee said (I shall read the whole of the paragraph because it is of particular importance):
"The Government should ensure that patent protection available to the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom in practice affords levels of protection similar to that afforded by the patent laws in major competing countries, both in Europe and in the United States and Japan. The Committee are aware that the Government is taking steps in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill to deal with the anomaly in the United Kingdom's present licence of right provisions which constrain effective patent life".
That has been dealt with in the 1988 Act.
The report continues:
"The Government has not however tackled a further point on effective patent life: when periods for drug testing and registration are lengthened, this effectively reduces the period during which a product will be on the market with full patent protection (the period during which the company can recoup its investment). The Committee believe that it is important that the United Kingdom keeps in step internationally because otherwise companies will either take their research elsewhere, or else they will need to charge higher prices for new drugs to recoup their investment in a shorter time. Both of these eventualities would be bad for the United Kingdom. The Committee are aware that these matters may need European action. The Government should press our partners in Europe on the point if necessary".
Therefore the arrival of this report should be welcome news. It is also heartening to learn that the Government recognise the value of the pharmaceutical industry. I can do no better than quote from a recent speech of Mr. Kenneth Clarke, which he made on 16th February 1990. About the British pharmaceutical industry. He said:
"The starting point for this Government's—and indeed any Government's—approach to prescribing has to be recognition of the tremendous contribution drug therapies have made to the treatment of NHS patients and the enhancement of their quality of life. It is a great tribute to the UK pharmaceutical industry that it should be a world leader in producing innovative products whose result is to help alleviate human suffering. On any realistic forecast of the future we can expect the demand for drugs to increase both in response to new treatments brought about by medical advance and the fact that life expectation will continue to rise".
However, I ask noble Lords to consider this Council regulation—as it must be considered—in terms of a European perspective. The Council regulation is directly applicable in all member states and in any event is directed toward the pharmaceutical companies throughout the world community. It is therefore particularly significant that 10 years ago the number of molecules—that is, the active ingredient of a new pharmaceutical product —of European origin to reach the research and development stage was 65 per cent. That figure has now dropped to only 40 per cent. That information has been obtained from paragraph 6 of the explanatory memorandum to the EC draft Council regulation. Therefore, the effect of this proposal will give the European pharmaceutical industry equivalent patent protection to that enjoyed in the USA and Japan.
I shall listen with care to the Minister's reply and all that he says but particularly to what he says on this point. I am particularly anxious that the Government do not place themselves in a position of conflict. On the one hand, the Government are

641
the supporter of British industry and the case for supporting the pharmaceutical industry, as I have described to your Lordships, must be a strong if not an overwhelming one. On the other hand—this is also recognised in the explanatory memorandum, so it is not unique to the United Kingdom—the Government also have another concern, which is the cost of the National Health Service. One can go on producing figures to show that pharmaceutical products do not cause increases in the overall cost of keeping the nation in good health.
I have already addressed your Lordships for 16 minutes and I do not want to develop my argument in great detail. However, I should like in particular to hear from the Minister that the Government are dealing with this matter and approach it from the position of the best interests of British industry. I want to be assured that in their approach to this matter they will not place themselves in a position of conflict as the monopolistic buyer of pharmaceutical products within the United Kingdom.
The benefit to the pharmaceutical industry and the society which it serves in having that additional patent protection is enormous. At this very time there is research being conducted —for which patents have already been obtained—into asthma, migraine, acute schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. All that research can only be accomplished if the pharmaceutical industry can invest with confidence in its own and our future. On that basis I ask this Question.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the House is deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for drawing attention to what I think by any standards is one of the most far-reaching and, from my point of view, most welcome proposals that we have had for some time from the Commission in the field of pharmaceuticals. Nearly a year ago I had the privilege of being invited to make the keynote address to the annual conference of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations, which is, as it were, the European Trade Association for the pharmaceutical industry—EFPIA. At that conference we were addressed by the commissioner responsible, Dr. Martin Bangemann. I found it quite interesting to see how much common ground existed between the commission and many of those who addressed the conference, including, I add with humility, myself. I drew the conference's attention to precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has mentioned about the erosion of the effective patent period because of the conflict between two different regulatory procedures to which the industry is perhaps more subject than any other. I am sure that the noble Lord was right to make the point.
The patent legislation is now intended to give patent protection for 20 years. The great majority of industries enjoy a period of 20 years. But for the pharmaceutical industry the period has been progressively reduced from the moment that the clock begins to run because of the length of time after the filing of a patent that is taken up by the
642
necessary procedures, which are mainly aimed at efficacy and safety. The hurdles that a new drug has to overcome—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking—quite rightly, before it may be prescribed and used by the medical profession for the benefit of patients, are now very substantial indeed and have been lengthening. We all cast our minds back to the dreadful thalidomide tragedy. There have since been a number of other instances where drugs originally thought to have a balance of advantage over disadvantage have turned out the other way.
I never miss an opportunity to make the point, and I do so again, that no really efficacious drug is ever without risks. It would not be effective if it were not fairly powerful. It is therefore a question of balancing the benefit with the risk. However, one needs to know the risk and that requires a great deal of clinical trial and other work. It is interesting that the commission states that the effective period for a pharmaceutical patent is now eight years. It is the conflict between the intention of giving 20 years and the amount of time that is actually given that has justifiably caused a good deal of anxiety in the industry and should have been causing the Government some anxiety.
Let me state one or two truths. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I make some points that I made to the conference in Paris 11 months ago. The pharmaceutical industry will remain competitive only to the extent that it is able to continue to finance research and development. That is what lies at the heart of the argument. If one does not see sufficient reward for the expenditures—and they are very substantial expenditures; for any one, single drug the expenditure can run into hundreds of millions of pounds before one eventually finds a product that can be put on the market—then one does not undertake the research. Alternatively—and it is a point upon which the European Commission has seized —one moves to do one's work and to exploit the results of it in countries where the patent climate is more favourable than it has been in recent years in Europe.
The Commission has drawn attention to the fact that over the past 10 years the proportion of new drugs that have emerged from the European industry has fallen. I quote from the explanatory memorandum for the proposed regulation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred. In Part One under the general headline "Aims", paragraph 6 states:
"Over about the last 10 years there has been a fall in the number of molecules of European origin that have reached the research and development stage (40 per cent. as against 65 per cent. 10 years ago) and a slow erosion of European market shares as compared with those of the USA and Japan".
It continues:
"US and Japanese companies have, since 1984 and 1988 respectively, benefited from patent term restoration for pharmaceutical products on their national markets".
Therefore the conference paid a good deal of attention to that. It was considerably heartened when it heard the commissioner, Mr Bangemann, in the course of his speech—and he referred to these arguments —state:
"The requirements of the proper functioning of the internal market, the improvement of our competiveness compared to our trading partners, and the promotion of research in the area of

643
health, are fundamental objectives which justify a proposal for a Community measure in this field.
"A legislative initiative could therefore be envisaged by the Commission for the end of this year".
We have had to wait a little longer for it than that. However I repeat what I said. It is rare to read a Commission proposal and an explanatory memorandum with which I find myself more in agreement than this. It seems to make all the points with great clarity.
One point has been made by the consultants who have been appointed by the British drug industry to look at the proposals. Messrs. Touche Ross state in their brief report:
"The UK attracts a disproportionately large share of research investment in the EC because of its innovative track record".
That is one of the most remarkable factors. Three of the very major drug discoveries that are the largest selling drugs in the world in recent years had their origin in British research laboratories. That is a matter in which the nation and the industry can take considerable pride. The report of Touche Ross continues:
"The benefits are considerable in terms of high added value, and export potential from related active manufacture and from royalties and profits to the UK-based company. It is therefore particularly vulnerable to reductions in R&D spend and well placed to obtain a share of extra R&D spend".
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to the debates that we had on the copyright legislation when we were dealing with the four-year period with regard to the licence of right. There was a very widespread agreement in the Committee at that time that there was a considerable danger that if patents lost their attraction to any greater extent we would see a reduction in the amount of R&D that was done in this country, and its transfer abroad.
There seemed to be all the arguments for supporting this regulation, which, as the noble Lord has described with great clarity, will give a maximum additional 10 years with an overall maximum of 16 years for a patent where there is a considerable period between the filing of the patent and the beginning of the exploitation. Yet one reads that there is bound to be—indeed the Commission has acknowledged this—a very great deal of opposition to it. It clearly sees that this will not be a straightforward process in the Commission. What are the arguments against and what are the answers? There are two main arguments. One is directed to cost; and, secondly, and related to that, is the question of competition and the availability of the generic products rather than the branded products where the drug industry generally obtains its return.
The Commission has this to say. These are very important arguments. I quote from the explanatory memorandum, at paragraph 24:
"The argument concerning health and social security costs is no doubt the most important. Health expenditure is rising continuously throughout the world. At the same time, the shortfalls in the social security system are a subject of concern to those with political responsibilities. It is therefore legitimate to question the possible effects of this proposal for a Regulation on costs.
"The system established by the proposal does not apply to all patented medicinal products placed on the market, but only to
644
those which consist in new medicinal products. A large proportion of medicinal products sold on the market have only few innovative features, or none at all. These are not covered by the scope of the proposal. Each year, only about 50 new medicinal products are authorised worldwide. It is these that are covered by the proposal for a Directive. As for the transitional arrangement provided for in the proposal, the aim of this is to strike a fair balance between what industry needs and what can reasonably be accepted by society".
The Commission then makes an important point, particularly in relation to this country where we have the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. It states:
"Furthermore, the proposal for regulation does not affect the Member States' ability to control the prices of medicinal products on their markets".
There is another point which it is perfectly fair to make and which was made by the Commission. If there is a long period in which to exploit your patent perhaps you can then afford to charge a lower price rather than attempting to recoup your expenditure over a shorter period by charging high prices.
I have been at both ends of the argument; at the Treasury and in the DHSS as it then was. I have never had any difficulty in accepting the argument that if we are to have a thriving and prosperous pharmaceutical industry—and that same argument applies to the Community as a whole—the industry must invest a great deal in research and development and in new products. Therefore, it must have the incentive to do that and the resources to pay for it. That will not be achieved by the continual erosion of the effective patent life; therefore, I believe that the proposal is justified on those grounds.
The other argument about generics is well answered in the explanatory memorandum. It is that if there is a shorter patent life the cheaper generic products will appear quicker on the market because there will be more competition. The Commission states:
"However, this will not mean any reduction in competition. The well known effect of the patents system is to promote competition through innovation. For this, a balance is struck between the encouragement of innovation and the making of innovations available to society by disclosing them. Generic products exist only if new medicinal products are developed and disclosed. Producers of generic products therefore have every interest in not seeing research being stifled".
The argument used by those who facilely say that we should have more generic products on the market in order to reduce the costs of prescribing to the health service can be seen to be short term. It is interesting to note that in this country a higher proportion of generic products are prescribed and sold—approximately 15 per cent.—compared with half or less in our main competitor countries in Europe.
On the grounds of cost and competition the proposal has everything to be said for it. I believe that the Department of Health will be sympathetic to the argument. Initially the battle will be with the Treasury and then with some of the interested parties who will be lobbying powerfully in Brussels to have the proposal amended. I hope that this evening my noble friend on the Front Bench will assure the House that the Government accept the principles and that they will do their best to prevent any erosion of the proposals. Furthermore, I hope he will say that they will listen sympathetically to those who

645
will argue that if a patent period is intended to be 20 years why is the proposal limited to a maximum of 16 years? They should also look at the effect of the transitional proposals. I know the Commission says that it has struck a fair balance but there is an argument to suggest that the new certificate for patents already in force should be made more widely available. That would be of advantage to the United Kingdom drug companies thereby encouraging them to carry out research.
I hope that at least the Government will say that they will not countenance any erosion of this modest but important proposal as the procedures are fulfilled and that by the end of 1991 the regulation will become effective. In this country the pharmaceutical industry has a huge balance of payments surplus and is extremely valuable to the economy. Therefore, I hope that it will have the encouragement of knowing that not only has the Community made a valuable change to its legislative background but that Her Majesty's Government have given the proposals their fullest support.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I apologise most sincerely to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for becoming caught up in a most extraordinary traffic jam between Bowring's Tower in the City and Parliament Square. In my view, there was something close to a London coronary thrombosis on the Embankment. However, I am now proud and pleased to be here.
I am also proud to speak in support of the Question tabled by the noble Lord. I am a user of pharmaceutical products. I am old and grey and when I look back on all that the world and the national pharmaceutical industry has done to help doctors and patients during the past 50 years that I have been involved in medicine I see that the scene has unrecognisably altered. I am also in a position to raise a voice in support of our industry because for six years I had the privilege and honour of being chairman of the Medicines Commission. It was set up under the Medicines Act and has an overall responsibility of keeping a watchful eye on the way in which the Act proceeds. It also heard appeals against the decisions of the medicines divisions and the various official committees.
I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, about the industry. I support the way in which he displayed and mounted the arguments for this important development which will extend the patent life of our products. I have two reasons for encouraging the Government to proceed along these lines. The first was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin; it is the pharmaceutical price regulation committee. It was in existence when I was a member of the Medicines Commission. If ever there was an example to hold up of how a government—they representing the taxpayer, the National Health Service and to some extent the medical profession—and the industry worked together it was that committee.
I wish to pay tribute in particular to Mr. Long of the medicines division, who had a heavy
646
responsibility for the discussions. Perhaps in recent years noble Lords have noticed that in photographs of Test matches people are seen wagging their fingers at the umpire. However, as regards the pharmaceutical price regulation committee I never detected any complaints or noises about the decision of the umpire: it was final. We must be grateful that the committee has been so well launched and is so well founded. It gives all sides an important assurance as regards the funding of the pharmaceutical industry and the way in which it can recoup its costs of development. The committee is an important touchstone and ensures that we are achieving the kind of fair play for which we are world renowned.
Another point which I wish to make is about our pharmaceutical industry and the increasing costs which it faces. Those costs must be recouped during the sale of the product in general but particularly during the time that the patent is operating. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, reminded us of the industry's contribution to our balance of payments of £2 billion per year. That will not be the final positive figure but that is a fairly remarkable performance in my view.
Apart from the dreadful thalidomide tragedy, the industry, with its regulatory bodies in this country, the United States and elsewhere, has achieved a remarkable record for the safety of products as regards the patients. We must all agree that there are no completely safe medicines. There just cannot be. I am loathe to try to develop that point further in the presence of my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington. He was a professor of therapeutics and I have only been a professor of physic, which actually means the application of natural philosophy to the body. Therefore, I am not in his class on pharmocological matters.
Following that terrible thalidomide tragedy, that safety record is a great triumph of the application of care to the testing, reporting and combing of the reports by the civil servants over the years. Recently with some other noble Lords I had the privilege of visiting the research laboratories of our leading pharmaceutical company, Glaxo. There they showed us a file of 87 volumes which had to be sent off when a new product was to be presented for scrutiny. Each of those 87 volumes had no fewer than 500 pages. It is a great triumph on the part of the civil servants that they are able to read it and check it as quickly as they can to make sure that no mistakes are made and that there are no awkward clues about unexpected toxic effects lying in that record. However, one must not be surprised if it takes them four or eight years, or that length of time, to sort it out. In my view it is in that sphere that the pharmaceutical industry is asking for help.
It seems to me that the arguments have been very well put and there is little more that I can say. However, it is very important that I convey to your Lordships that modern pharmaceutical research and development is very close to important British research ideas, developments and, indeed, Nobel Prizes. When I was a medical student most of our effective drugs either came from the refinement of plant products or from our belief that we were having

647
a direct influence on chemistry inside the cell. The new pharmaceutical products are much more concerned with working on the surface of the cells of the body.
I should like your Lordships to consider the cells of the body rather like the moon with craters. Those craters are special shapes on the surface of the cells which accept certain messages and signals. In my work we have been very interested in which part of the insulin molecule fits into its particular little slot on the surface of the cells.
All that has come out of two great British developments: first, that of the Braggs of Cambridge who won a physics Nobel Prize for work on what is called X-ray crystallography, working out the structure of molecules, including proteins. Secondly, there was the quite remarkable work of the doyen of molecular biology in Cambridge, Max Perutz, who worked out the exact sequence of the atoms in the red pigment of the blood.
I am leading your Lordships in this direction. Young laboratory workers can now take one of the craters from the moon, multiply it and then, with patience, they can crystallise repeatedly the same crater. They can then take pictures of the structure of the crater and more intriguingly, through the developments in computer technology—and let us not forget that this country has had a good deal to do with the development of computers at the University of Manchester—they can take the crater, rotate it and look at it. In that way they can actually look at the little hole in the crater into which the biological signal fits. Once they have got that far they can go into the laboratory and start to try and fashion new chemicals which will stick in that little hole and get in the way of whatever they are trying to interfere with.
I am trying to make two points to your Lordships: first, that that is a really exciting modern development. It stems from fundamental British research and the British pharmaceutical industry is well to the forefront in that application of molecular biology. It is a way in which new products can be designed without resorting to a very large animal testing programme.
I should read into the record that none of us can see any alternative to giving new drugs to living creatures. I suppose it may be argued that those of us who are over a certain age —and I expect that I have already reached it—should volunteer to be the subjects for the drug development programmes. However, we have not yet reached that stage in our Good Samaritan acts. Until that is seen to be one way in which one can help the race, it seems to me that we must inevitably recognise that we must have animal testing.
These modern techniques and the crater on the moon image which I have given to your Lordships are providing marvellous new ways of short-circuiting much of the old experimental work. However, your Lordships will not be surprised if I say that it is very expensive. At Glaxo £400 million per year is being spent on their research and development programme. For that they expect to
648
have a brand new drug on average once a year and two or three important developments which will be better than a competitor's drug in any particular field of activity.
Inevitably, that will be the big poker game of the pharmaceutical world. That poker game is being played like mad in America. When the molecular biology plant had been operating for a few years in Cambridge we discovered that of the first 350 men who came to be trained in it, over 300 came from the United States. We all know where they have gone now. They have returned to America and are helping the pharmaceutical industry there.
There can be no doubt that the resources available in the research laboratories in Japan are prodigious. Even British pharmaceutical chemists who visit the laboratories in Japan are dazzled by the array of apparatus. We must be very grateful that in some mysterious way—perhaps since Sir Francis Bacon's time —we have produced these people who can think laterally and come up with new ideas. The pharmaceutical industry is a very important part of that and it is for that reason that I hope Her Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to this proposal. It is a way of ensuring that they have blood in their circulation and can stand up to international competition.
Along with our colleagues in West Germany, where there has been this great chemical industry, in France the Pasteur Institute has produced much work on antibodies; and we have our own molecular biology industry. I hope that those three old European cultures and countries are given the encouragement embraced by this proposal. We could then give the rest of the world a good run for their money. I hope we give the encouragement where it is due.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this very important Question in his usual very persuasive manner. I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House taking part in this debate who is not a doctor or a scientist, has no interest to declare in the pharmaceutical industry and has not been a Minister—shadow or of substance. However, my family for many generations had a great interest in the medical industry.
This is a very complicated subject. Patent law is complicated enough by itself for those who are experts, let alone those who are not. However, some very important questions arise. We shall be full members of the European Community within two years. Quite clearly the whole question of patent law is very important in any case.
There are two very important aspects to this Question. The first relates to those who are working in the British pharmaceutical industry, particularly in research and development; the second relates to drug safety. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and others rightly pointed out, there is no such thing as a completely safe drug. If the proposals inherent in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, are adopted, it will be an enormous

649
incentive to drug safety. It will prevent, I shall not call them "private companies" but companies which have not had to go through the long process of research and drug safety, jumping the queue. That is why the Question is so important.
The British pharmaceutical industry has a fine record in its very careful drug testing. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Butterfield, I too visited the Glaxo laboratories. I have a relative who actually works for that fine company. Mention has been made of such diseases as migraine, Alzheimer's disease and asthma; all are diseases for which, if it were not for medical research and the thorough testing by British pharmaceutical companies, there would be no cure. There is at least a partial cure for asthma. One must hope with regard to other conditions such as Alzheimer's disease that with the present research there will eventually be a cure. There are now remissions for many of those conditions. If it were not for the innovations of the pharmaceutical industry they could not take place.
It is vitally important that patent law is reasonably embarked upon. I cannot see that the request inherent in the Question is other than thoroughly reasoned. It would not only encourage more people to enter medical research because they would know that their products were thoroughly tested, but it would enhance the safety of drugs. Drug safety is an emotive matter. Leaving aside thalidomide, as has already been mentioned there have been one or two other very tragic occurrences. They are tragic to the families concerned, but if one looks at the record of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole there are very few such accidents—if I may use that word.
There is then the matter of allergies. One hopes that the pharmaceutical industry will eventually be able to combat the whole question of allergies, particularly in the field of cancer. If one is given a drug and another has to be prescribed, there may be side effects. That is an esoteric subject at this time on a Wednesday evening, but it is one of great importance. I also believe that an extension of patent protection can do much to enhance that research.
With those few remarks, I urge my noble friend the Minister to give very careful consideration to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and other noble Lords with their lifetimes of experience in this very important industry.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for giving us this opportunity. I will be brief because there seems to be unanimity in the House and I do not disagree with that.
For the past two days, with the help of the officials of our European committee, I have been trying to obtain the English version of this regulation. We have not yet been able to obtain it and I am therefore at somewhat of a disadvantage. However, I have the paper from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association. That tells me, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others mentioned, that what is proposed in the first instance is that there should be a regulation. The argument
650
used by the European federation with regard to that regulation is that it is directly applicable and so avoids differences in the ways that EC member states implement it.
It is on that point that I wish to ask a number of questions. The European committee has wide experience of the differences between our lifestyle in this country and abroad and are spending a great deal of time studying the Single European Act. One is reminded of the position in 1963 when the Committee on the Safety of Medicines was appointed. That was the predecessor of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. The person chosen to chair that committee was Sir Derrick Dunlop. He was chosen for his charm and ability. I feel almost as though his spirit was abroad in this House tonight because it was his work with the pharmaceutical industry which led to their co-operation, even though they knew—and it happened—that what was to be demanded of them from the chairman of the clinical trials committee and others like myself would affect the patent life of drugs. Since then I have been pressing and had long discussions on many occasions with Mr. Long as to what can be done.
The case is substantial. It has been made forcefully and eloquently. However, I am uncertain—I ask the Minister for advice—about the effect in regard to a number of aspects. One is the recognition in our pricing of medicines committee of the research base of the companies concerned. I remember discussing this on many occasions. The result of that is a strong United Kingdom industry which contributes significantly to exports, as has been said. I am sure that that procedure is supported by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health. If we are to have a regulation imposed upon us which avoids differences on how member states do things, we want an assurance from the Government that we shall not upset a system that is so important to our industry.
I should also like to say that the way the limited list was handled by the present Secretary of State in a previous incarnation, and by the Government, was excellent. We have not prejudiced the situation of the pharmaceutical industry in this country, which is in sharp contrast to a number of other countries that I do not need to name.
There are two other factors. One is the text of the Commission's regulation and the other is the Government's recent decision to introduce a special office headed by a chief of research and development who obviously would have an interest in the pharmaceutical industry. We want to ensure that what is allowed to continue and flourish is the best of the British system. Therefore, we are seeking assurances that the Commission's proposals do not fundamentally upset this system. When replying to this Question I ask the Minister to tell the House whether the Government expect, as I believe we would expect, the new director of research and development to be a next generation Sir Derrick Dunlop with the charm to obtain the productive co-operation of the pharmaceutical industry in this important matter.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in replying to the short debate for the Opposition I should declare an interest; namely, I am a member of the council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which, as noble Lords will know, is the statutory body concerned with the profession of pharmacy in this country. In saying I declare an interest, I do not mean that I have a pecuniary interest but simply that I find the twin subjects of the profession of pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry extremely interesting. They are fascinating activities, especially to an economist.
I extend the normal courtesies to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in thanking him for tabling this Unstarred Question but, as he knows, I believe that he has been somewhat premature in doing so. I have listened to his argument that timing is of some importance but, speaking for myself, I was only able to obtain yesterday the document that I think we are talking about by courtesy of a colleague. During that period I was fully involved until the early hours with the new health legislation and I have only had an opportunity to look at the document during the course of today.
I have to say that I have not been able to think it through or to obtain any advice. Indeed, I also have some difficulty since the document does not appear to be dated or have any authenticity about it and therefore I have no way of knowing the status of the document. I am not even certain that the document I have is the same document that others have. I hope it is. Therefore, though I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, feels he should raise this matter now, I have to say that because of my position I certainly cannot give him a view which can be defined as that of the official Opposition.
Indeed, I would be surprised if the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who is replying for the Government, can give a definitive reply. Obviously he is slightly better supported with expert advice than I am but these matters must be examined with great care. I go further. I would be unhappy if the noble Viscount felt that he were able to answer the Question in terms. I would consider him to be rushing into this matter too rapidly.
Having said that, it may assist noble Lords if I outline some general principles and state my views on the subject generally. May I also say that, although I intend to support strongly the pharmaceutical industry, I am not an uncritical admirer of that industry. The industry spends an enormous amount of money on public relations and seems to have about the worst image of any industry in this country. How it managed to achieve that is slightly beyond me, but one possible explanation is that some of us find certain aspects of its marketing methods a little difficult to accept.
However, the central principle that I put forward is that we need, have had and can have in this country, a successful pharmaceutical industry. Such an industry must be research based. The industry must be profitable. Indeed, in terms of the industry itself, what success means is profitability. I hasten to add that in considering the profitability of the
652
industry I, for one, believe that it is right to look at the overall position. I do not accept those who point to the fact that companies make enormous profits on individual pharmaceutical products. What those people should do is look at all the other products on which no profits are made at all and where, in fact, companies make considerable losses. I do not believe that it is a criticism of the industry to say that when companies have had success they are doing very well out of it. In an area like this, which is so full of risk and uncertainty, that is exactly what one would expect to happen. That is also a not unacceptable state of affairs if the industry is earning those profits by meeting consumer demand and, more generally, consumer needs. Therefore, I start from the position that I do not regard profit as bad in this industry.
I also add—a point made by other noble Lords—that I am fully aware of the international mobility of this industry. As my initial position referred to the United Kingdom I underline what I want to see. I am not, so to speak, a world altruist in this field. I am pleased if drugs are discovered elsewhere but I want to see a successful industry in this country.
A research-based industry does not depend solely on patent protection. Curiously enough, when we were finishing our deliberations on the student loans Bill recently I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, who pointed out how important postgraduate research was to this country and how important was the stock of postgraduate students for this industry if it is to survive and advance. Nonetheless, one must accept that in this field innovation centrally depends on patent protection. Certainly, I accept as a general principle that this industry deserves decent treatment in the way that patent laws are applied to it. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, stated clearly, for technical reasons the law as it stands gives too limited a protection; if the period of effective protection it receives is simply shorter than the legislators originally intended for industry in general; if because of the particular nature of this industry it does not receive sufficient patent protection, then I entirely agree that something must be done. Therefore, there is no difference between us in that regard.
Incidentally, perhaps I may add a point which shows why debates of this nature are worthwhile but why one must think further. It had not occurred to me—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland —that if the industry is assisted in this way it might also improve the safety aspect. That seemed to be a persuasive point and certainly a point on which I wish to reflect further; but that would add to the case as I see it.
More than one noble Lord—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and also the noble Lord, Lord Hacking himself—pointed out that there is sometimes an apparent tension between the needs of the industry, on the one hand, and those of the National Health Service, on the other. The tension is there. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said in that what we seek to do is to achieve a fair balance. I regard that as possible. I am not saying that in every single year the Secretary of State gets the balance right. The industry complains

653
that in the use of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme the industry is being squeezed excessively. On other occasions it appears that the industry is not being squeezed enough.
The odd factor about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme is that it is not a price regulation scheme per se. It is a profit control scheme, which is a fact people often forget. I believe that the Government have it within their power to get the balance right. I add very strongly here my own view at the moment. It is argued that by helping the industry we may be neglecting the needs of the NHS and the taxpayer. However, I do not accept that view as over whelming. I believe that we can both help the industry and protect the taxpayer who finances the National Health Service. We can get that matter right.
As an economist I am not saying that everything is perfect as regards pharmaceutical prices. What we have seen happening in the past few years with so-called parallel imports suggests to me that something has gone seriously wrong on pricing generally in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned 1992 and all that. I shall be intrigued in trying to work out whether the differential prices that we see in Europe can persist beyond 1992.
Those are my broad remarks. I hope that they will be interpreted as supportive of what the regulation is. That is certainly my intention. Equally, I hope that I am regarded as a critical supporter of the industry. I place on record, as other noble Lords have done, my convinced view that the drug advances we have achieved have been enormously important in terms of improving the health of the nation. The drug advances that we wish to see will be equally important. I do not wish to detract from that.
It is rare for me to say this speaking from the Dispatch Box, but broadly speaking I agree with virtually everything that noble Lords have said. More generally, I am sure that either through your Lordships' Select Committee on Europe or in some other way we shall return to this subject. In reiterating my remark that I am not yet ready to say anything finally on the subject, I also hope that it is a matter that we can return to very soon in order to hear something more definitive from the Government. I am not saying that I am not interested in what we are about to hear from the Minister. I also hope that we shall have something more helpful to say from these Benches.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for raising this important matter of the proper duration of patent protection to be afforded to new pharmaceutical innovations. I have listened with interest to the learned and very germane views that have been put forward on it today.
As has been outlined, new pharmaceutical products may only be marketed once they have passed safety tests and been given statutory approval. That means that for a new drug a substantial proportion of the patent life—which in the UK and
654
most other EC countries is 20 years starting from the patent filing date—has often elapsed before sales of that drug can begin.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has explained, the European Commission is bringing forward proposals for a Council regulation concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products. The grant of such a certificate would extend the period of protection of a new medicinal product beyond that conferred by the relevant patent by a period equal to the patent life lost in obtaining marketing approval, minus four years, subject to a maximum extension of 10 years. The Commission believes this formula will provide new patented drugs with a period of monopoly which is consistent with that in other sectors of technology. Transitional provisions for certain drugs that have already been patented in the recent past are also envisaged.
While the certificate would have the effect of extending the period of protection afforded by an initial patent, it is presented as a notionally separate piece of industrial property from the patent. By doing so, the Commission hopes to avoid a clash with the European Patent Convention, which specifies a patent term of 20 years, and to which 10 European Community states, including the UK, as well as four non-Community states, belong.
I should point out that although the European Commission floated last year some informal preliminary proposals, its formal proposals, including an explanation of the aims behind them, have only very recently become available. Indeed, I understand that even now these proposals have not yet been officially forwarded by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. I hope that that will help the noble Lord, Lord Hunter.
The Government have not yet had an adequate opportunity to examine these formal proposals and are not in a position now to take a view on them. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has pointed out that the Government should not be rushed in these matters. I agree with him. We are assessing them and will naturally take due account of the significant arguments for and against them, including those which have been articulated in the debate this evening.
Several arguments in support of the measure have been advanced by, among others, the European Commission itself. Foremost among these is the observation that the portion of the 20-year patent term on a new drug which elapses before marketing authorisation is granted is now on average some 12 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, told us, that erosion of the effective patent life is continuing to increase because the necessary safety tests are becoming more time-consuming.
It is widely asserted that the patent life left —some eight years on average—is insufficient to allow the industry's heavy investment in research and development to be recouped and profits to be maintained at a level which creates the incentive for further innovation. It is argued that the owners of pharmaceutical patents should therefore be compensated, at least partially, for the loss of patent

655
life which they must bear in performing safety tests, which I am sure all would accept are essential but which are nonetheless imposed as a statutory obligation. Although this burden does not bear uniquely on the pharmaceutical industry, since it also applies to, among others, the pesticide and food additive sectors, it is one which does not affect most fields of technology.
Perhaps I may say in this context that the Government fully recognise the important role played by the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. It makes an enormous contribution to the prevention and treatment of disease and illness throughout the world. It also makes a major contribution to the health of the UK economy, as can be measured, for example, in terms of its exports of some £2 billion and a balance of payments surplus in excess of £900 million last year.
The Government appreciate, moreover, that the success of this industry is founded on the basis of a substantial investment in research and development in this country. To enable that investment to be recouped, it is essential that effective patent protection is available for the products obtained given that they are expensive to innovate but easy for others to copy. That is also necessary for the encouragement of further innovation, particularly as new drugs become harder to invent, albeit that they will carry the expectation of greater returns.
It was indeed recognition of such considerations which led the Government to include in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provisions which extended from 16 to 20 years the maximum unhampered life of older pharmaceutical patents granted under the Patents Act 1949. Notwithstanding these arguments, however, the Government, in coming to a decision on the European Commission's proposals, need also to give due consideration to countervailing factors. The justification for the proposed certificate demands careful scrutiny to ensure that it is in fact necessary—that is, that continuing erosion of patent life in the United Kingdom is actually placing essential research and development at risk—and that the increased revenues which would be generated by effectively extending patent term for new drugs is indeed required to fund further innovation.
Furthermore, the Government need to examine the Commission's assertion that a longer period of drug protection is necessary in maintaining the prominence and excellence of pharmaceutical research in the Community. It has been suggested by contrast that other factors, such as the availability of highly skilled research personnel and relatively inexpensive facilities, are the keys to attracting and retaining research laboratories. Strong patent protection is arguably more important in respect of countries where products are to be manufactured or sold rather than in those where they are researched. This of course raises the related question of whether extending the monopoly conferred by a patent within the European Community market benefits non-EC patent owners more than it does EC businesses which own patents.
The broader effects of the Commission's proposals beyond those on the research-based pharmaceutical
656
industry also require examination. The generic drug manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is relatively small but should not be overlooked. The ability of that industry eventually to produce legitimately generic versions of drugs represents a keen incentive to efficiency through competition, which can provide advantages for industry and the consumer. Generic drug producers are dependent on a flow of drugs coming out of patent, which in turn requires research-based industry to be able to reap sufficient reward to be encouraged to undertake the initial innovation. However, a balance needs to be struck, since extending patent term will defer the onset of the competitive situation and may be expected to have a direct effect on drug availability and probably drug prices. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that in this context the Government will need to consider the implications of the proposals for the National Health Service as the principal consumer of pharmaceuticals in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has drawn our attention to the good work of the price regulation scheme and the fair balance that it has achieved. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme is a profit control mechanism, not a price control mechanism, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out. It provides support for research and development in the costs that it allows. It has encouraged the establishment of research and development centres and the setting up of manufacture here. Overall, pharmaceutical price regulation has balanced the needs of the patient with the needs of industry to research and discover new products. The operation of pharmaceutical price regulation mechanisms in the United Kingdom and elsewhere within the European Community will also clearly have a bearing on the proposals' possible effect on drug prices, but it is nevertheless important that the Government should give full and separate consideration to the price implications of extending the duration of drug monopoly protection.
It has been observed that measures have already been taken by the governments of the United States and Japan to provide a degree of extension of patent term for pharmaceutical products. However, it should be borne in mind that these are limited extensions, available only in particular circumstances. In the United States, for example, there is a 14-year ceiling on the patented marketing period allowed and the patentee has to be able to demonstrate diligence in order to obtain an extension. Whether or not the United States and Japanese decisions to provide for extensions represent precedents which the European Community should follow, it is notable that the European Commission's proposals are even more generous than the provisions in those countries.
I turn to one or two of the points raised in debate. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding stressed the erosion of patent life. The Government accept that there has been this erosion but I point out that sales of a drug do not cease at the end of the patent cover. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme currently allows companies to launch a new product at a price chosen by the company. Doubtless, any

657
increase in patent life would need to be taken into account when setting the price in those altered circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Auckland suggested that medicines, whether branded or general, must satisfy the quality, safety and efficacy conditions before obtaining a licence and a place in the market. Drug safety is important. The increasing number of clinical tests undertaken has inevitably reduced the market life. I can assure my noble friend that this will be one of the considerations in any review.
I think I answered the question about the proposals not being submitted to the Council. A formal test has not therefore been received. As soon as one has been it will be deposited in the Library.
The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme is a voluntary agreement and its existence is recognised by the Government as providing a means of containing profits and therefore prices. Its length of life will need to be considered in the light of the movement towards 1992.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that I am doubtful whether the consultative period will be over by the end of May and that the adoption will be by the Council by the end of the year.
The European Commission's proposals clearly raise a number of complex issues which the Government will wish to weigh carefully before reaching a conclusion. The views of interested circles have been, and continue to be, canvassed. The Government will take due account of those views,
658
and of course of those expressed today, in judging the merits of the Commission's proposals in regard both to their general principles and to their finer details and will take a view on them at the appropriate time.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down I should be grateful if he could assist the House on the timetable. He told the House that he was unable to give a definitive reply at this stage and he mentioned some doubt about whether the timetable that I put forward could be adhered to. Does he accept that there is a limited timetable for consultation with member states? Will he also be kind enough to accept that the argument that the pharmaceutical industry should have an extension to its patent protection period is hardly new? In those circumstances can he tell the House when the Government will be ready to give their response; and when they are ready, whether they will make their response public?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think the answer to that request is no. I have outlined the position in which the Government find themselves. The consultation period is taking place at present. I am afraid that I cannot go further in informing the noble Lord or the House as to when that period will be completed or what the next step will be.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.

  ECOFIN COUNCIL, 23rd APRIL
  ECOFIN COUNCIL, 23rd APRIL
  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT: RESTRICTION ORDERS
  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT: RESTRICTION ORDERS