Lords Sitting of 5 March 1991

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

Radar Masts: Brecon Beacons
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present position relating to a proposal by the Ministry of Defence to erect four radar/radio masts on Mynydd Eppynt, on the northern boundary of the Brecon Beacons National Park.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we are considering a requirement for new communications facilities, and the Sennybridge training area is under consideration as a possible site. However, no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer which is reassuring as far as it goes. Is he aware—and if he is aware will he bear in mind—that the installation proposed would be 1.5 times the height of the Eiffel Tower and positioned at 800 feet on Mynydd Eppynt, that it would be visible throughout the length and breadth of the Principality, quite apart from being visible from the Cotswolds and Exmoor, and that it would dominate the whole landscape of the Brecon Beacons National Park? Although I fully accept the priority which must be given to NATO's defence needs, can the Minister explain in further detail what is the purpose of this installation additional to the masts already proposed to be erected on the St. David's Peninsula? Finally, in view of the anxiety to which mention of this proposal has given rise in the public mind, can he assure the House that, as was agreed by Mr. Alan Clark in the case of the St. David's Peninsula project, the full planning procedures will be observed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, the masts will be approximately 1,500 feet high. There will be four masts in a lattice-work complex. It depends upon the weather conditions as to how far away they can be seen. However, it is thought that they will be seen at a maximum of five miles away.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that this is a classified operational requirement. It has nothing to do with the over-the-horizon situation at St. David's. As regards the Minister of State whom the noble Lord mentioned, my honourable friend the Minister for Defence Procurement should be in a position shortly to consider this matter before deciding whether to go ahead with the submission of a notice of proposed development.
Lord Moran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 1,500 feet is half as high again as the Eiffel Tower, which is just over 1,000 feet, and compares with the height of St. Paul's, which is 365 feet, and the height
1302
of Nelson's column, which is 185 feet? The masts would be enormous and intrusive. It would be a great pity to have them erected in an area of still unspoiled countryside. Therefore, will the Minister think again?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made it perfectly clear in my original Answer that no decision had been taken. However, I am now aware of the relative heights which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend give us hope that those large posts will be replaced by satellites in the future?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that that is unlikely in the short term.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that, if this gaunt edifice is erected upon Mynydd Eppynt, the National Parks Authority will be fully consulted and its views taken into account? Can he further assure the House that the Government will guarantee an environmental impact assessment before any action is taken?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as is normal, the Ministry of Defence will follow the procedures laid down in the appropriate DoE or Welsh Office circular. As regards environmental impact assessments, no decision has yet been taken as to whether Sennybridge is to be the area chosen.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as my noble friend asked, does that include consultation with the local people, because that consultation was noticeably absent in the St. David's case?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I said, no decision has been taken. I am sure that if that area is chosen all the local people will be consulted. I repeat that no decision has yet been taken.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would it not be better to consult the people before a decision is taken? Can the noble Earl tell us also which other areas are under consideration for this monstrosity?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is not a monstrosity; it is an operational requirement which is important for the defence of this country. Some five or six other areas have been looked at, most of which already belong to the Ministry of Defence.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Earl ensure that the National Parks Authority is kept adequately informed? I understand that a letter was sent to the Ministry of Defence several weeks ago for which no acknowledgment has been received. I should have thought that courtesy would have demanded at least an acknowledgment even though information may not be forthcoming.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, until a decision has been taken this is merely a matter for speculation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of modern technological developments in this sphere, are the Government satisfied that a mast of this kind and height is necessary.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government will consider a mast of that height only if it is regarded as necessary.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government be prepared within a year or two to rename the mast as a monument to the end of the cold war?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is unlikely.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's assurance that he will consult local people. Speaking as a local person—I happen to live practically next-door—I look forward to that consultation. However, will he assure the House that, having consulted with local people, the Government and the Ministry of Defence will abide by any result of the planning application, if and when it comes, and not invoke prime authority to override it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that all planning procedures are strictly adhered to within the Ministry of Defence.

The Disabled in Greater London: Grants
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the London Boroughs Grants Committee has so far failed to decide upon its budget for the coming financial year, with the result that the Greater London Association of Disabled People has not been informed that it will receive any grants for that year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, at the committee's request my right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed to exercise his powers to set a maximum budget. He will consult all 33 London local authorities on a proposal to set a maximum budget of £30.155 million. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that eminently satisfactory reply. In declaring an interest as a patron of GLAD, may I remind her that for many years the organisation has done wonderful work for the disabled in Greater London? Without the financial support of the London boroughs GLAD's work would cease.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's comments. I agree with all that he said in regard to the GLAD organisation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the failure of the committee to come to a decision and set a budget is causing anxiety generally and not only in the case raised by the noble Lord? Can the Minister give an assurance that the committee is progressing and will shortly produce a budget so that people can be assured of their grants?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the decision is for the committee. The Secretary of State made a recommendation and it is for the committee concerned to accept it. It became apparent that aspects of the grant scheme operate in an unsatisfactory way and more could be done to oversee the scheme and secure value for money. For that reason my right honourable friend decided to include the whole operation of the scheme within the review of local government.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am glad that the Secretary of State took that decision and therefore overruled the several Conservative-controlled London boroughs that created the crisis. Has the Minister seen the representations made today by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in which it is said that the infrastructure for local voluntary action is being virtually dismantled? Organisations which took years to develop are being closed down in a matter of weeks. Is the noble Baroness aware of the serious position in which voluntary organisations find themselves, not just in London but throughout the country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have not seen the specific report referred to by the noble Lord. However, I disagree that we have dismantled the voluntary sector in the London area. Each individual borough that must reach an agreement has its own view regarding whether agreement can be reached. The position is unsatisfactory. For that reason the whole working of the grant scheme should be brought within the local government review.

Hoax Calls: Penalties
2.46 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice is given to magistrates about dealing with hoax telephone callers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, within the maximum powers given by Parliament the sentencing of offenders who are convicted of bomb hoaxes is a matter for the courts. It is not for the Government to advise them how to exercise that discretion.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of the House would like to wish the noble Earl well now that he is back in his place on the Front Bench. We are delighted to see him. However, his Answer is surely not good enough. In view of the inconvenience caused by hoaxers, could not the Government instruct magistrates to pass the highest possible term of imprisonment on these people?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's kind remarks. On my first day back yesterday I was told that I would be answering a Question today and I am bound to say that I thought it was a hoax. The advice that I gave to my private secretary was not the same as the advice that the Government give to magistrates' courts. The Government cannot give advice to magistrates. It is up to them to do what they will in the light of the circumstances which obtain. I

1305
agree that hoax calls cause appalling frustration, are a terrible waste of time and are far from amusing to anyone other than those who make them. However, to put the matter into perspective, the noble Lord may like to know that in the 24 hours following the Paddington and Victoria bomb incidents on Monday 18th February there were 79 hoax calls.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to say what charge is made against hoax callers in that they receive sentences of only three months' duration? Many of us, if we were sitting on the bench, would ensure that they received 30 years.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in all cases which are triable either way the magistrates must decide whether to accept jurisdiction or whether the case is suitable for trial in the Crown Court. In one year of the cases which came before magistrates 12 received custodial sentences; in the Crown Court eight received custodial sentences. The maximum penalty on summary conviction in the magistrates' court is three months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum of £2,000. After conviction in the Crown Court the maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. Bomb or other hoaxers can be charged also with the offence of wasting police time under Section 55(1) of the Criminal Justice Act. That is a summary offence and the maximum penalties are six months' imprisonment and a fine of £1,000.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that we welcome his presence back at the Dispatch Box? That is not a hoax. We also welcome the fact that he deplores these calls which disrupt everyone's life, particularly in the metropolis. Can he tell the House whether there are any techniques available to the police, or any other body, for trying to stop these incidents happening? Can he also say whether it is possible to determine which call is a hoax and which is genuine? At the moment we seem to have a great many mainline stations shut in London when these calls are received. I do not see how one can detect which call is genuine and which is a hoax, but I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can help me on that matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for saying that he welcomes my presence on these Benches. However, I do not particularly welcome the noble Lord's questions because I have come to learn that they are usually quite difficult. In a way this question is of a similar character. It would be wrong for me to say how the police determine between a hoax call and a genuine one. In the right circumstances the police can trace a call. They can send a fast response vehicle to the location and catch the caller before the call is over. Calls which are made through the 999 number can be traced relatively swiftly, especially if they are handled by a modern digital exchange mechanism.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a sentence of three months' imprisonment means in reality six weeks' imprisonment? Given that, and the fact that his right honourable friend Mr. Patten indicated that the
1306
Government will be reconsidering the maximum penalty for this offence, what has the noble Earl to tell us about that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, magistrates' courts have the power to give a sentence of three months' imprisonment. What that turns out to be in practice is for the courts of law to decide. My right honourable friend Mr. Patten recently undertook to consider the case for increasing the maximum punishment available at the magistrates' courts. He is considering that at present.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, has the noble Earl any information as to the background of the people who have been caught making these calls? Is there an international background—perhaps Iraqi or Irish—to any of them? It will be interesting to learn whether that is so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any particular pattern to the nationality of the people who have made these hoax calls. One offender who was recently given a three months' prison sentence was an Irishman.

Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Blatch)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Personal community charges: substituted amounts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert:
("(1A) This section shall have effect subject to the making of an order under sections 6(1) or 6(2) below, and before making any such order the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of the results of any review of local government finance being undertaken at the date of Royal Assent to the extent that any such results are or may be in the future relevant to the operation of the duty to set substituted amounts under section 35 of the 1988 Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, with my usual deliberate speed, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. This Bill had a brief but not particularly friendly reception when it received its Second Reading early in February. The reasons which we adduced for disliking the Bill and for feeling that it required drastic amendment if it were to go forward in any form—though we made clear our preference for it not to go forward at all—were that principally it is an unnecessary Bill and a waste of parliamentary time at a time when Parliament as a whole, and the Government in particular, are deeply exercised by the future of local authority taxation.
We were deeply concerned with the fact, now almost universally recognised, that the poll tax introduced by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 is a failure and has to be either dramatically altered or abandoned altogether. Last week noble Lords had the benefit of an extensive and interesting debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham—in Conservative time, much to our surprise and admiration. In that debate the fact that the poll tax has few, if any, friends was made very clear indeed. On that occasion a number of noble Lords took the opportunity to speak particularly about the structure of local government, which was another of the subjects of the debate. Virtually no noble Lords said that the poll tax in its present form should continue or that it should continue without drastic alteration.
The point I wish to make about the Bill and these three amendments is that not only does the Bill become totally unnecessary if the poll tax is abolished but also if there is any significant alteration to it involving the introduction of another tax to supplement the poll tax. The very rigid mathematical formulae which are included in this Bill only apply if the sole source of local government finance other than from central government comes from the community charge. If there is any other source the mathematical formulae which are included in this Bill go out of the window straightaway. Therefore, not only the opponents of the poll tax (there were many on the Conservative Benches) but those who feel doubts about its operation and who felt that it should be supplemented by other forms of local revenue raising will all be in a similar position to myself. They must be forced to the conclusion that this Bill is unnecessary, a waste of parliamentary time and an intrusion on the rights, privileges and duties of local authorities.
What was said in your Lordships' House only last Wednesday has become even clearer following the Conservative Party local government conference which was held last weekend. At that conference it became clear that there is no consensus on what should be done about local authority taxation within the Conservative Party. The present Secretary of State made it clear in his election campaign for the leadership towards the end of last year that he wished to see a property tax. It is now evident that a significant number of Members of the Cabinet who are not powerless feel that the poll tax should continue virtually unchanged. That view was expressed very vividly by a delegate from Finchley to the Conservative Party local government conference who sought, with considerable success as I understand it, to stiffen the nerve of a number of Ministers and leading spokesmen of the Conservative Party and persuade them that the poll tax should continue.
The continuation of the poll tax in its present form would be the death of the political career of the present Secretary of State. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine how we are going to achieve the appropriate result at the end of the present review. This entirely helpful series of amendments is suggesting to the Conservative Party, and to the Conservative
1308
Government, that they might well find it desirable not to rush ahead with legislation of this kind. They should take the time they need to sort out their own ideas about what local authority taxation should be. At the end of that process they should come back and say what should be done about this Bill.
This Bill is not merely about the poll tax. It is concerned with the fact that the poll tax is self-evidently a failure in its own terms. It was supposed to introduce accountability. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that widespread poll tax capping, which is the denial of accountability, is to be allowed by government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In view of the line being taken by the noble Lord, has he or any of his colleagues thought of accepting the invitation to put constructive views to the Minister responsible for looking into this matter?
3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rather feared that the noble Lord was going to say that. We have made our position extremely clear. There are plenty of publications which say what we think should be done about local authority taxation. One thing we are not going to do is to write the Conservative manifesto for the next general election. That is the only thing we are being invited to do by this phoney invitation to take part in what is proving to be a phoney review. What we are seeking to do with these amendments is to help the Government. We are seeking to ensure that the Government do not rush ahead with this legislation until they have made up their mind what it is they are saying to Parliament and to the country about local authority taxation.
It is not as if the law is unclear as a result of the Lambeth judgment which gives rise to the Bill. It is perfectly clear. The only trouble is that the Government do not like the Lambeth decision. What the decision says is that the Government have no right to insist that local authorities should take new decisions in the summer when poll tax capping has been introduced on old information available in March. Anyone who has been involved in business will agree that it is common sense to say that when one has to make a decision in a new situation one takes account of new information and of the most recent judgments that one might have had to make about the desirability or otherwise of passing on to ratepayers what the Government have called the "savings" from rate capping.
I must come back to the issue because at Second Reading the Minister made repeated reference to the duty of local authorities to pass on to local poll tax payers the savings from the capping imposed by government. That is simply not the case. Of the 21 authorities which were capped in 1990–91, seven cut their poll tax rate by the exact amount required by government and would have complied therefore with the provisions of the Bill. Six cut their poll tax by less than the amount required. But eight cut their poll tax by more than the amount required. They included both Labour and Conservative authorities. The Bill

1309
would prevent those authorities passing over more savings to poll tax payers just as it would the fewer authorities which passed on less.
The amounts of money are minuscule in comparison with the additional costs involved in the poll tax itself. If one looks at the whole amount which arose in 1990–91 from the poll tax capping exercise the whole fuss is over a figure of £4.28 million. I know that there are Members of the Committee opposite who quite frequently leap to their feet whenever one mentions figures to say that any amount of money is important. However, I put it to anyone who might be tempted to do so that the cost of producing the register for the poll tax alone—not the full collection cost, but the cost of producing the register is £130 million. In comparison with that, the £4.28 million, which is the figure on which the Bill is based, is virtually insignificant.
I am suggesting to the Committee that the Bill is a petty instance of political spite. It would be for the benefit and honour of Parliament if we passed the amendments, forcing the Government to make up their mind about future policy before proceeding with it. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I am afraid I was not present at the Second Reading of the Bill but I have read the four speeches which were made. I am bound to say that had I been present I might have been rendered speechless by this little horror of a Bill. I must say that the Secretary of State for the Environment has my sympathy. This was really foisted on him. It is totally unnecessary and quite inappropriate at a time when he is reviewing the whole position.
My noble friend the Minister said that at first sight the Bill might appear to be complicated; and indeed it is, even at second and third sight. The Rent Acts were called a welter of chaotic verbiage. They were literary masterpieces compared with this Bill, which, if it were put in Punch, would be regarded as yet another joke at Whitehall's expense. My noble friend described the Bill as a technical one. We ought to know and the people who read Hansard ought to know just what we are discussing in Clause 1. I shall refer only to Clause 1(5). I quote:
(5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5)—
"(5A) In a case where the substitute calculations mentioned in subsection (4) above are made under section 107(1) below, subsection (5) above shall not apply but subsection (5B) below shall apply.
(5B) In such a case, any amount set in substitution under subsection (4) above must be set in accordance (and only in accordance) with—

(a) the standard formula (set out in subsection (5C) below) in a case where the charging authority referred to in subsection (4) above is not a special authority, or

(b) the special formula (set out in subsection (5D) below) in a case where the charging authority referred to in subsection (4) above is a special authority.

(5C) The standard formula is—
A-(B-C)/D
where A, B, C and D have the meanings given by section 35A below.
(5D) The special formula is—
A-( (B -C) × E)/D
where A, B, C, D and E have the meanings given by section 35A below.
(5E) For the purposes of subsections (3)(c) and (5)(c) above a qualifying precept is a precept issued by a precepting authority which is not a relevant authority within the meaning given by subsection (2) above."
It is a lawyer's paradise but nobody else's. What is the purpose of all this? It is to correct what is called "the Lambeth loophole". When Lambeth made its substitute rate it estimated that its non-collection rate would be 15 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. it had optimistically estimated previously. The Government consider that Lambeth should have stuck to 10 per cent., although the Evening Standard yesterday said that the authority has been unable to collect 44 per cent. The action of Lambeth was held to be perfectly legal, but the Government do not like it. So we have this little Bill which the Minister says is as robust and watertight as possible.
I am reminded of what happened to the so-called "Bromley error". When I spoke at the Third Reading of the Bill which introduced the community charge I referred to the "Bromley error". It took the Government three goes to put the "Bromley error" right for what that was worth. I suggested then that following the Committee stage of the Bill we were liable to run into the same kind of trouble again. I concluded my Third Reading speech by saying that,
"if any of your Lordships believes that it is the last time that you will be troubled … you may be sadly mistaken".—[Official Report, 13/7/88; col. 916.]
But little did I know that we would end up with a Bill like this.
The truth of the matter is that the process of rate capping runs totally contrary to the whole principle on which the community charge was based; namely, accountability. What the Government are inviting Parliament to do in this Bill is to amend the law so that they can make a political point. The Government want to say to community charge payers in the local authority which has been charge capped that they have reduced the charge by a certain amount this year and that the Government should be given credit for that. If the Government think that that is going to rescue the present standard spending assessment and rate capping system from the odium in which it is held by many, they are absolutely mistaken. What is most depressing is the inclusion of yet another ad hoc addition to this Byzantine statutory edifice that now governs the community charge and the addition of further legislation to the statute book which I defy anyone present here even to begin to understand or to grasp the totally absurd financial principles which it embodies.
In another place the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, Mr. Portillo, talked of the attitude of Lambeth being mere cussedness. Mr.

1311
Robert Key, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said that the Government intended to give,
"no flexibility or discretion to authorities to cheat hard-pressed local people".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/90; col. 110.]
The issue has nothing to do with cussedness or cheating.
The Secretary of State has ample powers to deal with the situation under the present law. The problem raised by the Bill is, I agree, a simple one in essence. When a community charge is set, a local authority has to estimate the amount of charge which will produce the amount of money needed. As we all know, although everyone may be liable to pay the charge, in the real world, unfortunately, not everyone pays. Therefore, the authority has to estimate the amount which it will fail to collect.
In effect, the Bill requires that when a local authority makes a substitute community charge it should and must assume the same collection rate as it assumed when it made the original charge. It is because Lambeth Council did not do that and because the Court of Appeal found that that action was not unlawful that we have the Bill. But why should an authority assume the same collection rate as it did when it set the original charge when it makes a substitute community charge?
I do not wish in any way to anticipate the discussion on the next amendment upon which I do not want to speak. Lambeth Council was probably right to assume that a 10 per cent. rate as regards failure to collect was wrong and that 15 per cent. was more likely to be the correct figure. It is true that the present law restricts the information which an authority can take into account in setting a substitute charge. That is pretty fierce and probably wrong in any event; but it is no argument in favour of increasing legal fiction.
Local authority finance should be conducted on a realistic and not on a fictional basis. The Bill tries to impose a fictional basis. Another principle which we have always adopted in local government is that local authority finance should be conducted on an annual basis and that any departure therefrom should be carefully scrutinised. The Bill before us involves such a departure. Of course, as estimates have to be made, there may be an anticipated or an unanticipated surplus or deficit in any year, even with the best available estimates. It is one thing to try to balance the books on the best information available and fail to do so; but it is quite another to introduce such a Bill to try by law to require an authority not to make an estimate on the best information available but to make a fictional assumption which will almost undoubtedly prove to be wrong. That is what happened in the Lambeth case.
In my view there is no justification for the Bill. It merely seeks to eliminate one of the few remaining areas of judgment now held by local authorities when setting the community charge following capping; and it would enable the Government to say exactly how much they had benefited the charge payer. But that is
1312
not the object of making local authority budgets. The Bill is a further piece of ad hoc legislation which is pernicious in principle and which will not be effective in increasing the popularity of the poll tax.
Local authority legislation is becoming increasingly incomprehensible to many people and, if I may say so, it should not become increasingly indefensible. I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested on Second Reading, the best thing for the Government to do would be to withdraw the Bill and accept the noble Lord's invitation to take part in the review which is necessary. However, failing that eventuality, we should accept the amendment and await the outcome of the review. That is all I wish ever to say about this Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend said that he read all four speeches made on Second Reading. One assumes therefore that he also read my small contribution. He will no doubt appreciate that I half agree with his central premise that community charge capping (originally rate capping) is not a long-term process which is in any sense desirable. However, my thesis on that occasion, and it remains so, was that it is necessary as a temporary expedient until the accountability of any system of local government finance, either on a permanent or a temporary basis, is arrived at and until the local charge payers can vote and become accountable. In my view, from that moment—although the Government have not yet expressed agreement with me and perhaps they will not do so —it can disappear.
But let us consider poor, hard done-by Lambeth. We learned from reports in today's newspapers, and indeed in the Evening Standard of yesterday, that half of the residents have still to pay this year's £521 poll tax. Only last month councillors voted to send in bailiffs and it appears that a total of £15 million has not been collected. We also know that last October the council was still owed £32 million in rates. Moreover, the housing department is owed about £22 million in rents. That cannot possibly be an example of a well-run authority. Further, so long as such money is not collected, the circumstances will change and there will be a constant spiral downwards.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Will my noble friend agree that this is a measure which is intended to apply generally? We are not discussing Lambeth. Indeed, one may think that Lambeth is a good or a bad authority; but its charge payers can make the judgment. Under the Bill, the so-called "Lambeth loophole" applies to anyone. It says in effect that in setting a substitute charge the authority is entitled, with the best information available, to decide that probably 15 per cent. is a better percentage than 10 per cent. as regards non-collection.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree. However, my noble friend raised the subject of Lambeth. On previous occasions we have tried not to make this into a Bill aimed at criticising and deploring the actions of

1313
Lambeth. But, as my noble friend raised the matter, I felt honour bound to put the facts as I understand them to the Committee.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I should point out that it was the Minister who said on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill was to close the "Lambeth loophole". Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss such a loophole.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I agree. But, nonetheless, the issue of a loophole only arose because of a case which involved Lambeth Council. I accept that it also applies to any other council which finds itself in such a situation.
Perhaps I may now turn to deal with the amendment. I am sure that no one either wants or expects a lacuna to arise in raising local government finance. As I understand it, should the Bill receive Royal Assent, the amendment leaves the Bill on the shelf until such time as the review of local government finance, and the wider review in which it is encompassed, is completed. However, when it is completed, we shall presumably have a Bill which in due course will become an Act of Parliament. The acceptance of what is proposed would mean that the Bill would never become operative. I simply cannot accept that proposal. In a sense, it is something in the nature of a wrecking amendment. It must be said that this Chamber has never liked such amendments.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that I regret my noble friend's intervention. I regret it for many reasons. The first is that a major review is in progress and a number of the general points he raised will be addressed as part of that process. The second reason is that I believe I could take almost any piece of legislation in this place and make it sound unintelligible. Most legislation is unintelligible to me. Indeed, I have to say that I have never found a piece of legislation which I understood on the basis of a simple reading. In my view, it is too easy to quote from the Bill and make it sound unintelligible in order to make a case.
We are talking about an authority which denied its charge payers the sum of £29 per head of population. When the Government required it to set a substitute rate, that method was used to ensure that the full benefit was not returned to the charge payers. My noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham said that the Bill involves a departure from the annual basis of local government finance. My noble friend is right. I share his view of the importance of the principle of annuality; but the Bill is entirely consistent with that view.
My noble friend also said that if we dropped the Bill we might then invite noble Lords opposite to participate in the debate. I continue to say that it is regrettable that they have not agreed to take part in the local government review. The noble Lord's local government colleagues, who are much closer to the issue than him, have agreed to participate, and we welcome their participation in the review.
The noble Lord introduced a number of red herrings to sustain his arguments for the amendment.
1314
He talked about registers and the review, and he asked why we did not wait. Whatever the outcome of the review, we are talking of at least one and perhaps two more years during which the system will still be in place. It is essential that the due benefits go to the charge payers of Lambeth, or any other capped authority that is required to set a substitute budget and charge. The sole purpose of the amendments is to delay operation of the Bill. The noble Lord justifies such delay on the grounds that the Bill deals with substitute charges and the community charge itself is currently under review.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of course conducting a thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the charge; a review which includes issues of structure alongside issues of finance. He wishes to consult widely on the review; I should be delighted if the noble Lord were to participate. But there can be no question of our withdrawing this Bill and leaving charge payers unprotected. As my right honourable friend has said in another place, depending upon the progress of discussions, he hopes to give a first indication of our thinking in April. As he said, by the nature of the review anything he can then say is unlikely to deal with all the issues but it may make sense to focus the national debate—to rule some things out and some things in.
Even if it were decided that the community charge should be replaced with another source of local revenue, there is no prospect that a new scheme could be designed, passed through Parliament and implemented in under two years. There is no sense in tying the operation of the Bill to the outcome of the review. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to delay the protection which the Bill affords to charge payers. The Bill is needed to help charge payers next year by, plugging a loophole exploited by Lambeth this year to deny its charge payers the full benefits of capping. Perhaps I can say to my noble friend that we call the loophole the "Lambeth loophole", but we should take an equally dim view of any authority that resorted to it to deny its charge payers the full benefits available. It is undesirable to delay operation of the Bill during which time the current unsatisfactory situation would continue, with charge payers subject to the caprice of local authorities.
The provisions of the Bill are needed to prevent any repetition next year of what Lambeth did this year. The Bill is about giving local people the certainty that if their local authority were capped they are not at risk of being put in the same position as the unfortunate people of Lambeth. It is not desirable to perpetuate uncertainty, and leave charge payers at risk, by delaying operation of the Bill. I call upon the Committee to reject these amendments.
Baroness Seear: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may point out that trying to do anything to make Lambeth behave rationally is a completely lost cause. I live in the "People's Republic of Lambeth". It took a letter and four telephone calls before it would admit that I existed. Until it admitted that I existed, it was not prepared to send out a claim to collect my money which I was panting to pay. That was because

1315
I was not on its computer. The state of Lambeth is such that no rational attempt to make Lambeth behave rationally is in the least likely to succeed. It is an impossible task.
Baroness Blatch: I find it almost impossible to disagree with anything that the noble Baroness has said. What is sad is that the behaviour of that authority does a great disservice to local government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What is sad about the whole business is that we should have such a Bill presented to us, and that we should be seriously discussing it in Committee today. Little needs to be said after what was explained to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. He put the Bill into its context. He showed that it has been brought forward to deal with one local authority although it will now apply to all. It seems to me that we are taking a sledgehammer to crack what must be a small nut.
As my noble friend pointed out, the nut amounts to £4.2 million. Here we have, in all seriousness, a Bill placed before Parliament. It has had its Second Reading and we are now in Committee. We are having amendments and so forth all for £4.2 million. That brings Parliament into disrepute. Cannot the Government deal with one local authority that kicks over the traces over one item without asking for the full panoply of a statute to deal with the problem when it amounts to £4.2 million only?
No wonder people feel contempt for the Bill and the community charge or the poll tax (call it what we will). Ordinary people who are expected to understand the tax easily now find the whole business so complicated that they cannot come to grips with it. Although the Minister and her noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls criticised the Labour Party for not taking part in the present discussions, the Labour Party and other parties have told the Government, from the start of the poll tax legislation, that it was bad legislation and that would land the Government in considerable difficulties. We told them that time and time again, not just on the English Bill but before that on the Scottish Bill.
I and my noble friends took part in that serious debate and tried to prevent the Government from getting themselves, and the rest of the community, into the mess which they are in and which is now being compounded by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, accused the Opposition of not putting forward any alternatives to the poll tax. He could not have been here last Wednesday, and it is a great pity that he was not, because he would have heard Members from all sides of the Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who made an excellent speech, putting forward alternatives to the poll tax which has proved so disastrous for the Government and the country.
Even now, the Government could salvage some of their reputation if they would say—they are still not doing so —"We recognise that the community charge (the poll tax) has caused people a great deal of bother and expense and wasted money".
1316
At this stage people should tell the Government, "For God's sake, get us out of our misery, tell us that you will abolish the community charge". If the Government would only do that they could take away the Bill and we could all go home early tonight, very satisfied. If they will not do that, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will press the amendment. If he does not, I certainly shall.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am sorry to extend the debate on the amendment, which is not worth it. The mover, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and, to some extent, my noble friend are not playing fair. I shall tell noble Lords why. We all know from our past experience that the Government would not be doing their duty if they did not try to block a loophole that had become apparent. There is a clear loophole which ought to be dealt with and it is the Government's duty to deal with it at the earliest possible moment.
We should not disregard what my noble friend said—a lot of money is involved. It is all very well to believe that it is just a matter of spending a few hours to debate a point of no consequence. If there were to be a general review (in which the noble Lord and his friends would not join), if those making the review could get to work quickly and find an alternative, all would be well. Then this temporary Bill—because that is what it will be—need not be brought into operation.
However, we also know that the situation which disclosed the loophole is likely to continue for one or perhaps two years before the alternative replaces the present system. The Government would not be doing their duty if they allowed a flagrant loophole such as has been disclosed at Lambeth to continue without doing something about it. No one knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Indeed, if the Government had not faced the problem, I know well that with his great achievements and experience in trying to persuade the House, the noble Lord would have been on his feet asking, "Why are the Government not doing their duty and dealing with this?" The noble Lord made it perfectly clear that this was just another reason to continue dragging into the limelight the political advantage that noble Lords think they have in the poll tax. That is what is behind this. The Opposition believe that they are on to a good thing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That accusation does not become the noble Lord. He and I served together in the House of Commons and he knows that I am a perfectly reasonable, honest, straightforward, non-party political chap. He knows it because he was present during the debates when I and my colleagues on all sides of the House—and even those on his side of the House—did our level best to prevent the Government from digging a pit into which they would fall, to their detriment and that of the country. Frankly, nobody could have been fairer than that. For the noble Lord to make unjustified accusations against me is deplorable and quite unfriendly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If I may, I shall add to that. The noble Lord knows that there will be an election

1317
within the next 18 months, whatever happens, and perhaps sooner. He knows that the main plank upon which his party will try to win the election is what they call the poll tax, the community charge. He also knows that at every opportunity they can find members of his party who will try to blacken the idea of the community charge. This is just another example.
I was interested that the noble Lord paid a great compliment to my noble friend. However, he paid him no compliments when he was pushing through the signing of the Treaty of Rome, with which the noble Lord is not at all happy. My noble friend uses today the same forensic skill as he used then. The noble Lord was not being fair. He read quickly through one or two paragraphs of the Bill. If one reads the Bill, it is quite clear in print. Many arithmetical formulae may be quoted orally which cannot be easily understood. However, written down they can be. I congratulate my noble friend and the Government. When we read the Bill, the examples and formulae in it are perfectly clear and make the provisions that much easier to operate when the Bill becomes an Act.
My noble friend knew that, but he is a pretty experienced operator. He does not like the Bill. His views are honourable and I respect him for them. He is using this as an opportunity to add a little lustre to the general argument against the community charge. However, this Bill is essential if we wish to deal with a loophole. The Government would not be doing their duty if they did not face it and noble Lords must recognise the political feeling behind the amendment and the speeches supporting it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not winding up the debate but I am lost in admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—a man who finds the Bill clear. Perhaps I may refer him to Clause 2, which is entitled "Interpretation":
"35A. - (1) For the purposes of section 35(3B) above -
(a) A is the amount for which the amount is required to be set in substitution under section 35(1) above".
What does that mean?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may reply. The noble Lord read that quickly but if instead he had produced a blackboard and set out the figures, as in the Bill, and the formulae explaining the provision, it would be perfectly clear. That is what a parliamentary Bill is supposed to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord does not know what it means, but I do. I shall tell him. Where the Bill says:
"A is the amount for which the amount is required to be set in substitution under section 35(1) above",
it means the old poll tax before capping. I have worked it out. Where it says:
"B is the amount of the precept for which the precept issued under section 107(2) below is substituted",
it means the old budget before capping. Where it says:
"C is the amount of the precept issued under section 107(2) below",
it means the capped budget. Where it says:
1318
"D is the relevant population for the financial year mentioned in section 35(1) above, of the area of the charging authority there referred to",
I think that even the noble Lord could get it right—it refers to the population.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may make a humble suggestion to the Committee. We have said everything that can be said for these amendments and everything that can be said against them. If the Committee accepts my humble suggestion, it will find us all doing the Lambeth Walk.
Baroness Phillips: On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, most legislation by the Government affects local government. It is generally carried out because people in local government understand it. In my borough—not Lambeth—the officials obviously did not understand the original Bill; many of us thought it was defective. In the good old days rates simply involved filling in one form and the rate was issued. However, the community charge so far as I was concerned necessitated five different forms. They were all dealt with by a mailing company; they were all equally inefficient and wrongly addressed. Like the noble Baroness, I wrote stating that I was willing to pay and would pay, but I still received a reply threatening me that I would be fined because I would not pay.
This was a totally inefficient operation, quite unlike the way in which local government has always operated. It can only be ascribed to the fact that the legislation was defective. As we all know, it was rushed through both Houses with indecent haste because the Government wished to get it on the statute book. We are now seeing its effects. Legislation cannot be hurried through which is unintelligible without there being another equally unintelligible Bill to try to put it right.
I taught maths. I do not know whether this is maths. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that even with a blackboard I could not explain what the Bill means except that somehow we must get more money from people. If the original legislation had been understandable and operable there would have been no reason for this stupid little Bill to go through Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: We are in danger of becoming self-indulgent in respect of matters which are for the review. Different people have different views about the way in which the community charge is working. Even if we were to respond immediately to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and abolish the tax tomorrow, it would still be in place next year and possibly the year after due to the lead-in time for an alternative system.
It was said that the amount involved is only £4.2 million. Yes, I suppose that it was only £4.2 million last year but that money belonged to real people who were denied it. From all that we read about Lambeth council we understand that this year it is likely to produce a budget which will be well above that deemed necessary to charge the people of Lambeth. If the change to the Bill were not made—if the loophole remained unamended—the council could simply use a

1319
substitute setting by increasing the percentage of non-collection to that amount and justifying the excessive budget. Thereby it would again deny the people of Lambeth their due deserts.
I agree largely with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. However, I hope that she was not ascribing the inefficiencies of Lambeth to other local authorities. A large number of local authorities are doing a good job of billing their people and having efficiently compiled registers. Many are on top of the job of collecting their moneys and therefore, because of its inefficiency, Lambeth sticks out like a sore thumb.
The Bill is not about getting more money out of people; it is about getting less money out of people. It ensures that the reductions are properly handed back to the charge payers not only of Lambeth but of any other local authority which resorts to this method of obtaining more money than is necessary to meet the cost of local services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that everything that needs to be said or that can be said has been said. Therefore, I shall do no more than to summarise the argument. In doing so I am bound to say that the degree of misrepresentation in this Bill which has come from the Government is astounding. What was said by the Minister during the last minute is also astounding. She said that the Bill is not about taking more money from people. Can she deny that of the 21 authorities which were affected by capping last year six took less money but eight took more money? Furthermore, can she deny that if the Bill had been introduced last year, the effect would have been that Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, North Tyneside, St. Helens, Basildon, Bristol and Wigan councils would have had to charge their poll tax payers more money? Does that not totally give the lie to the argument that the Bill is designed to give people the money that is their due?
This has been the most misrepresented Bill per line of its length of any Bill that I have seen since I have been in this House. Not only has the purpose of the Bill been misrepresented but the effect of our amendment has been wildly misrepresented. This amendment is the only way in which the Conservative Party and the Government can gain a shred of credibility for their review. If the Government persist with the review as it stands—
The Earl of Onslow: Then why are you moving it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may come as a surprise to the noble Earl but I am concerned with the reputation of Parliament and the conduct of public business. I am also concerned that we should not spend our time, that of another place, of parliamentary draughtsmen and of officials in the Department of the Environment, in producing a document which gives the lie to the claimed seriousness of the Government in carrying out their review.
I repeat, and I summarise, that if any significant change whatever is produced by the Government's review of the function, structure and finance of local
1320
government the Bill will become obsolete in regard to its financial aspect. The Minister is right in saying that the Bill will not become obsolete immediately. It is true to say that the Government will take years to get out of the hole that they have dug for themselves, and I do not deny that. However, it will become morally obsolete because it will be impossible for any Minister with a clear conscience to stand up and say that the Government will carry through the kind of poll capping which, if the poll tax has been abandoned or modified, will have been shown up as the denial of accountability that it is. I believe that the Committee should take a decision on the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Auckland, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Longford, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Essex, E.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hooson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hughes, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hunt, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Borthwick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Allerton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Chelmer, L.

Blyth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Boardman, L.

Cockfield, L.

1321

Colnbrook, L.

Marsh, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Middleton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Monson, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donegail, M.

Munster, E.

Downshire, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Nelson, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Erne, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Flather, B.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Gainford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pennock, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gisborough, L.

Pym, L.

Goold, L.

Quinton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Reay, L.

Gray, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Renwick, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hailshaim of Saint Marylebone, L.

Savile, L.

Shannon, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hood, V.

Sudeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Swansea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Teviot, L.

Joseph, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Tranmire, L.

Knollys, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tryon, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Waddington, L.

Long, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Westbury, L.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.53 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
("(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) In any case where a substitute precept mentioned in subsection (1) above is issued under section 107(2) below the relevant authority may in setting any amount or amounts in substitution have regard to such factors or information as it reasonably considers to be relevant, provided that such factors or information have come to its attention, have altered or have become relevant, since the date on which the original amount was set or amounts were set in accordance with section 32 above." ").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 4.
I heard it said that the previous amendment was a wrecking amendment. I hope that even the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will agree that these two amendments are entirely helpful. They are intended to enable local authorities to do what I am sure he would wish them to do—to behave in accordance with best business practice.
What happens in the setting of the poll tax and in the substitute setting of the poll tax, which is called capping? As noble Lords who read the newspapers at this time of year know, between January and March local authorities go through an agonising process of setting their budgets. At about this time of year they come up with their proposed budgets for the coming financial year.
In the old days when rate capping was in force it was introduced in the course of the year but it was not applied in the course of the year. Rate capping applied to the previous year. When the 1988 Act was going through Parliament we warned with all the experience and seriousness at our command that in-year poll tax capping would prove a disaster, particularly if it was as widespread as the Government evidently intended. It is a disaster for obvious business reasons. If one has set one's budget and sent out one's poll tax demands what happens as soon as it is known that the budget is to be capped? Those who have been asked for, say, £450 and are told that the charge will be capped but that it is not yet known what the new amount will be obviously will not pay their bills. Common sense dictates that they will not. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with all her enthusiasm for paying the poll tax, would agree that she would not wish to pay it if she did not know how much it was going to be because the Government had denied the local authority the right to say how much it would be. That process takes place between the setting of the original poll tax in March and the completion of the capping process in June or July.
What happens between March and June or July? The world does not stand still. There are important relevant factors which will become better known in June or July but which are not known in March. In March it is not known what the losses will be on collection of the charge. In March the local authority does not know what the loss will be on collection of the national non-domestic rate. That is not because the local authority has any control over the national non-domestic rate, but the number of bankruptcies occurring at present is bound to lead to a shortfall in the national non-domestic rate. That figure is not known when the poll tax is first set in March. Therefore, the local authority does not know how much it will have to provide to make up for any shortfall in the national budget for the national non-domestic rate.
In March it is not known what poll tax payers will decide about the timing of their payments. It is not known how many will pay by direct debit, how many will pay immediately or in instalments and how many

1323
will try to avoid paying until the last possible minute. It is not known what the income will be from the standard charge on second residences. Above all, the most up-to-date information on interest rates and inflation is not available.
Therefore, by the time the new capped budget is set under the existing legislation—which is not the purpose of the Bill—there is a great deal of information available to the local authority which would not have been available earlier because the position has changed in the meantime.
The Bill says—and it is hardly possible to credit it—that the local authority shall have no flexibility whatsoever in setting its community charge. It shall not take any account of the information available to it and known to be available to it; it must set its community charge in accordance with a mathematical formula which takes account only of what was known and taken into account when the original budget was set in March. Any private business which attempted to produce a business plan and to set its prices or establish its raw material prices on the basis of information which was three or four months old would rightly be driven out of business.
It has been determined by learned judges that even local authorities have fiduciary duties to their poll tax payers. I suggest to the Committee that it is in breach of the fiduciary duty of a local authority to set its poll tax on the basis of information which is not only out of date but known to be out of date. Yet that is what this Government propose to do with this amendment. If I cannot entice the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, to agree with me on this point and to intervene once more despite his stated objection to doing so, I shall be very disappointed. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I am happy to agree. I should declare an interest as a member of the Bar. The Bar profits enormously from the fact that the Government are unable to define correctly the duties of local authorities.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments are calculated to undermine the essential purpose of the Bill by leaving out the requirement for a charging authority to reset its charges on the basis of the appropriate formula and instead to let an authority rework completely its estimates of such matters as non-collection rates when its charges have to be reset, taking into account new information.
The point of the requirement to use a formula is of course to achieve the objective of guaranteeing that budget reductions achieved by capping feed through in full to charge payers. The formula approach is deliberately designed to make sure that authorities which have to reset their charges because of capping do not have the flexibility or discretion to deny their charge payers the full benefits of capping. When the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reads the Official Report he will see that when speaking to this amendment he always refers to setting the community charge. Here we are talking exclusively about resetting the
1324
community charge. That is the difference. We are determined to ensure that there can be no repetition in future of Lambeth's action this year to deprive its charge payers of some £29 each by changing, when it had to set a new charge after its excessive budget was capped, the allowance for non-collection it had made when first setting its charge for the year.
The effect of these amendments would be, in practice, to abandon any form of ground rules for setting substitute charges after capping. This year's experience with Lambeth shows what can happen if the interests of charge payers are left to the discretion of local authorities. Far from plugging a loophole to protect charge payers, as the Bill aims to do, these amendments blow a yawning hole in the statutory provisions for setting charges. Even under the existing statute authorities, when resetting their charges to reflect budget reductions, cannot take into account new information. As I explained there were good reasons for that when these provisions were enacted and those reasons remain.
The traditional principle of local government finance is that authorities should not be able to increase their charges part-way through the year except in highly exceptional circumstances. That has been the position since we abolished supplementary rates and precepts back in 1982. What this Bill seeks to do, consistent with that basic principle, is to give charge payers certainty about what they can expect to pay and to protect them from the possibility of unforeseen increases during the course of the year.
These amendments, however, run directly counter to those principles. There would be nothing to stop an authority setting new charges which are higher than the old ones. In short, there would be no guarantee that charge payers would receive the full benefits of capping. It has been argued that capped authorities are in some way in a unique position so that they should not be subject to the normal rules. We do not accept that capped authorities have a special need, when resetting their charges after capping, to take account of changes of circumstances or fresh information since they initially set their charges for the year. As I said in our Second Reading debate, all must make their best estimates of income and expenditure when setting their charges at the start of the year and live with the consequences. If the number of charge payers turns out to be less than anticipated this will lead to a collection fund deficit which an authority must take into account in setting its charges for the following year. The Bill does not alter these arrangements.
There is no reason why capped authorities should have some special dispensation to review their estimate of non-collection. Until a new charge is set, charge payers are legally obliged to pay the old charge and authorities should enforce it. It is clear that under the existing statute a capped authority cannot increase its estimate of the non-collection rate to allow for the fact that it has been capped. The noble Lord will be aware that Haringey did just that when first resetting

1325
its charge after capping last summer. That charge was found by the divisional court to be unlawful and was quashed.
In short, these amendments, rather than seeking to ensure that capped authorities remain in the same position as all other authorities, seek to give them a special advantage, to the detriment of their charge payers. The amendments abandon the formula approach and with it the safeguards for charge payers which we are seeking to provide. I call upon the Committee to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's reasonable tone ought not to give the Committee the wrong impression. What happens in this Bill and in the amendments I have put forward has seriously been misrepresented by the Government's arguments. I have to repeat—I challenge the Minister to deny it if I am wrong —that last year more councils reduced their poll taxes by more than the suggested figures than those who reduced their poll tax by less than the suggested figures. I repeat that the councils of Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, North Tyneside, St. Helens, Basildon, Bristol and Wigan reduced their poll tax last year by more than the suggested figure. The effect of this Bill will be that they could not do so again. In other words, more rather than less money will be taken from the poll tax payers. If I am wrong, I shall be delighted for the Minister to correct me.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer that. He referred to the Bill preventing an authority from passing to charge payers more than required. I am not sure what he means when he refers to the required amount. The simple point is that we want to ensure that the reductions in budget feed through in full to charge payers; nothing more and nothing less. We believe that the Bill does that. I add that it is always open to any charging authority voluntarily to reduce its charge if it so wishes. That remains the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is being opaque. I rather fear that her advice is deliberately opaque. When she said "nothing more and nothing less", that is the truth of the matter. The Bill proposes an arithmetical formula which says that the reduction in the budget set by capping shall be carried through to each resident—the entire amount, nothing more and nothing less, shall be carried through. She does not deny the fact—as I understand it—that last year more local authorities passed on more savings than were required, and would be required to pass on less savings now, than there were authorities which passed on less savings, and would now be required to pass on more savings.
Again, if I am wrong, I shall gladly give way. But unless I am wrong this Bill is being totally misrepresented from the Government Front Bench. I do not blame the Minister personally but the Government's position is utterly untenable. I shall not be corrected on matters of this kind, unless I am wrong. However, it is quite clear that I am not wrong. The purpose of these amendments is very clear. It has not been adequately described or rebutted in any way
1326
by the Minister's arguments. The purpose is to make sure that information which was not available at the time and facts which have transpired since the time when the first poll tax level was set are taken into account in setting the new poll tax.
There is no freedom, as the Minister says, for the local authorities to set a higher poll tax than before. Their budgets have been capped. Why should they do so? There is no possible reason for it. Of course, in general terms they will be reflecting the reduction of their budget in the reduction of the poll tax, but not on a one-to-one arithmetical basis and not on the unbusinesslike basis that is proposed by this Government.
I had not intended to press this matter, but I shall again have to take the opinion of the Committee.
4.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fitt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allerton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Arran, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Astor, V.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blake, L.

Chelmer, L.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blyth, L.

Cockfield, L.

Boardman, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Borthwick, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

1327

Cornwallis, L.

Marsh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mersey, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Donegall, M.

Mountgarret, V.

Downshire, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Munster, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Erne, E.

Norfolk, D.

Faithfull, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pennock, L.

Goold, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray, L.

Pym, L.

Greenway, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renwick, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Savile, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount

Hylton-Foster, B.

Royal, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Joseph, L.

Swinfen, L.

Keyes, L.

Terrington, L.

Knollys, V.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsay, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Waddington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wharton, B.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("case") to end of line 24 and insert ("the authority may in setting any amount or amounts in substitution place any interpretation which it reasonably considers appropriate on such factors or information as were known to it on the date on which the equivalent original amount was set under section 32 above.").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 5. In some ways the amendment is a reflection on—another way of considering—the issue raised by the previous set of amendments. We suggest in the amendment, with some reluctance, that in this respect the 1988 Act was not that bad after all. In other words, the provisions which Section 35 of the 1988 Act sought to implement were, as the law interpreted them, perfectly acceptable, clear and capable of implementation.
On this occasion we do not say that local authorities should have the ability to give effect to new information which becomes available to them. The Committee in its wisdom has decided that that shall not be the case. I hope that nobody who voted against the last amendment runs a business. I should hate to
1328
think of being a shareholder in such a business. Nevertheless that is what the Committee decided; and I shall not pursue the point.
However, it is more difficult to argue that it would be wrong for a local authority to exercise its latest judgment on the meaning of the information already available to it. That was the intention of the 1988 Local Government Finance Act, as interpreted by the courts. That is the status quo now. The amendment intends to achieve that position in legislation.
I have avoided being drawn into discussions about Lambeth because, as I make clear, the Bill is far more concerned with local authorities such as Brent, North Tyneside and others which I listed than with Lambeth. The only difference is that Lambeth was taken to the courts and won in this respect. It is not that the Bill is about Lambeth. However, I am bound to recall not only the finding that Lambeth Council had behaved properly in setting its poll tax but also the words of Mr. Justice Otton—Sir Geoffrey Otton—in the High Court that councillors had,
"approached their task with the utmost care".
They may have approached their task with the utmost care. But what they were doing when they attempted to reset the poll tax level later in the year in accordance with their own judgment was exactly the same thing but in a more up-to-date way. That, I suggest, is the path of prudence.
It may not be true of all the activities of Lambeth; it may not be true of all the activities of many other local authorities. Nobody is suggesting that they are all uniquely, or universally, perfect. But it is the path of prudence to exercise your judgment as best you can. Indeed, it is your duty to the local electorate to exercise your judgment as best you can according to the best information available at the time. That is what this amendment would make possible. That is what the Bill as drafted does not make possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The previous group of amendments, which the Committee considered and rejected, sought to undermine the purpose of the Bill through the device of enabling authorities resetting charges after capping to use information which has come to light since the original charge was set. These amendments are similarly designed to torpedo the Bill by enabling a charging authority which has to set a new charge after capping to put a new interpretation on information which it had when setting the charge originally.
This amendment invalidates the Bill. It is no more than a wrecking amendment. Such an approach would clearly enable an authority to change the estimate of non-collection it made when it first set its charge for the year. This is of course precisely what Lambeth did this financial year when it increased its non-collection estimate from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. when resetting its charge. In so doing the council deprived its charge payers of over half the charge reduction implied by the cut it had already made in its excessive budget.

1329
I am aware that, on the facts of its particular case, Lambeth's action was found by the courts to be lawful. The courts accepted that Lambeth was entitled to draw a different conclusion in resetting its charge in August 1990 from the one it had drawn in March as to the allowance to make for non-collection on the basis of the information it had in March. The courts accepted that Lambeth had taken no new information into account.
These amendments do indeed appear to presuppose that it is realistic to expect a council to be able to ignore any and all information coming into existence after the original charge is set. As Lord Justice Mustill said in his judgment in the Lambeth case:
"the practicality of the exercise … is … highly questionable".
Lord Justice Mustill went on:
"Surely it would demand too much of anyone, let alone an elected local councillor under intense pressure from his electorate, to perform again the process which he or his predecessor had carried out months before, wholly ignoring the colourful, widely reported, and highly politicised events which everyone knew only too well had taken place in the meantime. Nevertheless this is just what the Mayor of Lambeth has sworn on behalf of his members, without challenge, did indeed happen."
A heroic task indeed. In any event the fundamental point is that even were performing such a task practicable, it is thoroughly undesirable. It is just what the Bill is designed to prevent. It was precisely because of the Lambeth case that we introduced the Bill in November to prevent a repetition of Lambeth's behaviour.
I do not propose to detain the Committee by reiterating why we do not accept that capped authorities should enjoy special treatment when it comes to resetting their charges, treatment which would put them in a wholly unjustified, privileged position vis-à-vis other authorities and to the detriment of their charge payers. But I shall repeat that it is an established principle of local government finance that authorities cannot increase their charges partway through the year, except in highly exceptional circumstances. These amendments represent an open invitation to an authority to reset its charge after capping at any level it likes. It could even be higher than the original. These amendments are plainly wrecking and contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill. I call upon the Committee to reject them.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responds to my noble friend perhaps either he or my noble friend can answer a particular worry that there is in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has expressed his total antithesis to the whole subject of community charge capping, or any capping.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Antagonism.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, antagonism. I am grateful. The question that arises in my mind is: would there be any circumstances under which the Secretary of State could recap—in other words, cap the authority again —if such an amendment as this were passed into law?
Baroness Blatch: If this amendment were to be passed into law, then setting at the wrong rate would actually be illegal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed. The wrong rate, either too high or too low. Eight authorities saved their ratepayers more; six authorities saved their ratepayers less.
Baroness Blatch: I come back for the third and last time on the point that the noble Lord raises. In the debate on the first group of amendments the noble Lord referred to the Bill preventing authorities passing on more than the amounts required. He subsequently spoke of more than the amounts suggested. If he is talking about comparing the reductions made with the exemplifications which we published it is entirely wrong to suggest that these exemplifications represented the precise charge we expected capped authorities to reset.
The charges they actually set could be lower if they reduced their budget by more than the amount required to comply with the cap, as Hillingdon did last year. They could also be lower than those exemplifications, depending precisely on the population figures used. The key point is that the Bill removes all uncertainty. It means that reductions in budgets, whether the minimum to meet the cap, or more where the authority so decides, are fed through in full to the charge payer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know where I am going to go. We are now having direct misrepresentation of the Bill from the Minister on the Front Bench. To whom do I appeal? How do we get the truth told in this Chamber? The Bill says that any amount set in substitution must be set in accordance with the formula. The Minister herself said it on the last amendment; no more, and no less. Those authorities which set either more, or less, last year than in accordance with the formula will no longer be allowed to do so. Am I right, or am I wrong?
Baroness Blatch: The Committee must be exhausted. I have come back three times on this point. The noble Lord will have to refer to Hansard for all my answers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am entitled to an answer. I am entitled to be told whether those authorities which set a poll tax either less or more than the formula last year would be constrained by this Bill to set only in accordance with the formula. That is what the Bill means. If the Minister cannot explain the Bill, then the Committee should not be considering the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord is entitled to come back, as he has just said, but I do not think that under any rules he is entitled to say that the Minister is deliberately telling an untruth. That is carrying the language of the debate to a point where it could become jolly near intolerable. I do not think the noble Lord should allow that to stand without trying to rectify it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will read Hansard he will find that I did not say that the Minister was not telling the truth. What I said was that I have not had an answer to my question. My question is a simple question. If this Bill had been in force last year would it not have prevented those authorities which set a capped poll tax, resetting their poll tax in accordance with the capping either higher or lower than the amount provided for? Would they have been able to do so or not?
Baroness Blatch: Last year there was no formula. We are talking about a formula that will apply as and when this Bill gets on to the statute book. But I will throw a question back to the noble Lord. Is he talking about the reductions made with the exemplifications that we published, or is he talking about some other figure?
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister ought to try to answer my questions before she throws questions back to me. My question is very simple. If this Bill were introduced, would it be possible for any authorities to reset their community charge in any way other than in accordance with the formula? If I am right, is it not the case that, if it had been applied last year, those eight authorities which reset their poll tax by more than the arithmetical amount would have been prohibited from doing so just as surely as those which reset their poll tax by less than the amount?
Baroness Blatch: The point is that the formula applies to the reduction in charge and not to the reduction in budget. I am informed, as I said in my third answer to the noble Lord, that authorities have to reduce their budget and it is possible to reduce to the cap or lower.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the Minister will regret that. Of course it is true. The Bill reflects the possibility of the Government forcibly reducing the budget. That is what charge-capping is. But what the Bill does is to set a single arithmetical formula for every part of the country except the city of London for the relationship between the reduction in budget and the reduction in the amount charged to each community charge payer. If that is the case—and I again ask whether it is the case—does it not apply to those who would wish, as they wished last year, to set their community charge lower or higher than the amount which would be reflected in the arithmetical formula?
Baroness Blatch: I regret nothing of my answer. What I have said, and I shall say it once more, is that it means that reductions in budget, whether the minimum to meet the cap or where the authority so decides, are fed through in full to the charge payers. That is at the cap level or lower.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall have to leave it at that. But the Minister has not heard the last of this because that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that the amount set in substitution must be set in
1332
accordance with the formula. It does not say that you are entitled to put more or less into reserves or to change your budget in any other way. The budget has been set by the capping procedure. It is quite clear that we shall not get a straight forward debate on what should be a simple subject which ought to be dealt with around a table. With utter dissatisfaction with the answers given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Substituted amounts: interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Losses to collection fund
.—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 35C of the 1988 Act—
"Losses to collection fund.
35D.—(1) For the purposes of section 35(5) above, where the Secretary of State determines to make an order under sections 104(2) or 106(2) below, as a result of which an authority will be required to set a substitute amount under section 35(4) above, he shall before laying a draft of the order lay before Parliament a statement of—

(a) the basis of calculation of D;

(b) the collection rate of any authority concerned;

(c) an estimate of the losses likely to be incurred to the collection fund of any authority referred to in the order as a result of the setting by it if of a substituted amount; and

(d) an estimate of the additional community charge likely to result in the following financial year in that authority from the losses estimated under paragraph (c) above.

(2) In having any estimate or statement under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any relevant information received from the authority." ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is again concerned with the issue of getting the best possible information on the basis on which the local authority budget should be set, but it is on this occasion a very much more modest amendment. What it says is that, recognising the fact that Parliament will have to approve the poll tax capping orders, Parliament ought to be fully informed about the assumptions which government have entered into in introducing the poll tax capping orders. Therefore it provides the basis of calculation of relevant population for the purpose of the formula—and that is the part which is perhaps the least difficult to understand of the whole Bill—and the collection rate of the particular authority, because there must be some assumption about collection rate made when the capping is introduced, as well as an estimate of losses which the Secretary of State expects to be incurred in the collection fund as a result of setting a substituted amount.
I shall not weary the Committee by repeating what is self-evident to anybody who knows anything about local government: if you set a tax and you are then told that you have to change it, the people who would

1333
otherwise pay their tax have no incentive to do so and hold off until they hear what the final figure will be —in the case of Lambeth, Haringey and some others, I believe that that lasted until September last year—and an estimate of the additional poll tax which will be likely in the following financial year to make up the losses.
Parliament has a duty to consider these matters; Parliament has a duty to question Ministers about the assumptions that they make in producing the orders, and Parliament has a duty to question the figures. Surely the best way to ensure that Parliament carries out those duties properly is to make sure that the Minister provides the information in advance when he makes the capping orders. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This new clause seeks to impose on the Secretary of State a number of requirements relating to the substitute charges which an authority has to set after capping. It is based on the false premise that capped authorities are in some way disadvantaged by the formula approach of the Bill in general and in particular that it will lead such authorities to incur a deficit on the collection fund. It is not the case that the Bill radically changes the position of such authorities by preventing them from increasing the allowance they made for non-collection when they first set their charges for the year. It may help noble Lords if I set out the position in some detail.
There is a statutory requirement for an authority to balance its books when setting its charges at the start of the year. The Bill does not change this. All authorities have to make their best estimate of income and expenditure at the beginning of the year and live with the consequences. An authority's actual income and expenditure is bound to differ somewhat from its estimates, so at the end of the year its collection fund will be in surplus or deficit. If the actual number of charge payers is lower than the authority estimated when setting its charges, actual income will be less than estimated and a deficit will ensue. No authority can increase its charges part way through the year just because it realises that it got its estimates wrong. The statutory arrangements are that any deficit has to be allowed for when setting next year's charges.
All authorities are in the same position. The Bill simply makes sure that that remains the situation. It ensures that capped authorities cannot take advantage of having to reset charges because of capping to have a second bite at the cherry by increasing estimates of non-collection and thereby deprive charge payers of the full benefits of capping by failing to pass on through lower charges the whole of the reduction in their excessive budgets. I do not accept that capped authorities are disadvantaged by the fact that the formula deliberately prevents them from changing their non-collection allowance. The whole point of the formula is to ensure that charge payers in such authorities are not disadvantaged by a repetition of what Lambeth did last year.
There is no reason why a capped authority should have the opportunity not available to other authorities to look again at its non-collection estimate when it has to reset its charge because of capping. As I have
1334
already explained to the Committee, charge payers in a capped authority are legally obliged to pay the old charge until a new one has been set and the authority should enforce this; and even under the current statute a capped authority cannot change its non-collection estimate to allow for the fact that it has been capped.
It has been suggested that the formula—specifically, factor D—by requiring the use of relevant population could make an authority set too low a substitute charge and thereby lead to a collection fund deficit if the relevant population figure is less than the figure the authority used in setting its original charge. The definition of relevant population is in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Relevant population is calculated on the basis of information in authorities' own community charge registers. In England, it is the population figure we calculate for the purposes of calculating authorities' revenue support grant and non-domestic rate entitlements and for apportioning precepts. In Wales, relevant population is calculated by authorities themselves as the basis on which precepts are apportioned. It is, I believe, an appropriate measure of an authority's population and any discrepancies arising from the use of relevant population would be minimal.
Nor do I accept that the Bill puts up charges in the following year. Apart from the fact that the Bill does not alter the current statutory arrangements for dealing with any collection fund surplus or deficit, a deficit, if such there be, is only one factor affecting charge levels in the next year. Clearly a charging authority will take into account all factors. It does not necessarily follow that that deficit will of itself lead to an equivalent increase in charges or to an increase at all.
In any event, the requirement on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament before laying draft Section 104 or 106 orders is putting the cart before the horse. The purpose of the orders is to set the final caps for authorities which have challenged or not responded to the caps initially proposed by the Secretary of State. It is only after the orders have been approved and authorities notified of the final cap levels that authorities set substitute levels and charges.
The proposed new clause is misconceived and has no bearing on the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect charge payers by guaranteeing that the budget reductions achieved by capping feed through in full to lower charges. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister protests far too much. This is a very simple and modest amendment. It merely states that Parliament should have the information which it needs in order to reach a proper decision. I cannot think what is the objection to that. The Minister's description of the process is accurate and I do not contest it. However, Parliament has the duty of confirming the capping orders. The Minister does not deny that in preparing his capping orders the Secretary of State must make assumptions about all the items detailed in the new clause. This amendment merely asks that Parliament should know

1335
what are the assumptions in order to be able to make a proper decision. I cannot see any of the objections which the Minister raises to that.
At present, the Bill states that the obligation in Section 32 of the 1988 Act to balance the collection fund is no longer the prime obligation of a local authority. Local authorities will be surprised to discover that. They will also be surprised to discover that they are required to reset, after capping, their new poll tax on the basis of information which is not only out of date but is known to be out of date. The short discussion on this amendment has revealed the inadequacy of the thinking behind the Bill as a whole.
Baroness Blatch: I did not say that there is no obligation on the authorities to balance their non-collection fund. I said that that should be done at year end. At year end there is either a surplus, a deficit or it is neutral. That is dealt with by setting the following year's budget.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That means that you know what is the real situation but you are not allowed to take account of it when resetting the charge. It reminds me of the "Hunting of the Snark". Members of the Committee will remember that,
"The bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes;
A thing, as the Bellman remarked,
Which frequently happens in tropical climes
When a vessel is, so to speak, snarked".
In the introduction to that brief but informative narrative Lewis Carroll reminds the reader that the Bellman had introduced a new rule. He had said that not only should no one speak to the man at the helm, which I understand to be a standard rule of seamanship, but also the additional rule that the man at the helm should speak to no one. The effect was that there was no connection between the facts and the way in which the vessel was being steered. That is rather what is happening with the Bill as proposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Application of amendments and repeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("This Act applies") and insert ("Subject to the requirements of section (Safeguarding of statutory duties) below, sections 1 to 5 above apply").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 10 to 14. Here, perhaps rather despairingly, I appeal to the party of law and order. From the setting of local authority financial levels and the budgets in the course of this year it has been obvious that there have been screams of pain and anguish from police and fire authorities in particular, but far more from the many services carried out by local authorities which are required by statute to be carried out by them. Those are set out by statute, as is their level, and local authorities financially under-provide for them at their peril—it is
1336
not merely that Labour local authorities are screaming with anguish. That is happening all over the country in councils of all political complexions.
These amendments make it a requirement in the Bill—I hasten to say that we make it applicable only to an authority which is being poll tax capped—that the Secretary of State must say that no statutory duty is to be infringed because of the requirement to set a lower poll tax. If it is found that a local authority may be forced to infringe its statutory duties by setting a lower poll tax he must withdraw such a capping procedure.
As I said, this is a matter of increasing anxiety not only to local authorities but also to the police and fire authorities which depend considerably upon local government finance. In the debate on that matter last week a number of noble Lords strongly made the point that it would be most undesirable for us to move, for example, towards a nationally funded, and therefore nationally administered, police force.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his great experience of the police service, made that point very clearly. He did so despite the fact that his own former police authority, as well as a number of others, had expressed their anxiety about the provision being made for the police service in their areas. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Knights, knew what he was talking about when he said that.
Under those circumstances, surely the Secretary of State has a duty to give active consideration to whether capping would force a breach of statutory duties and, if so, to withdraw a capping order. I bitterly regret going back to the case of Lambeth in case that provokes the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to his feet. However, last year in the consideration of Lambeth's education budget the argument was put that local authorities, having made their provision for education for a particular year, have no legal right to reduce that provision in their budgets because there is a statutory requirement to make financial provision for local management of schools. The financial provision required is laid down in some detail by statute.
Again, I do not believe that it could be said that this is a wrecking amendment. It merely seeks to preserve a part of local authority services—services financed by local authorities—which seriously run the risk of being under-funded and which deserve the protection of Parliament. The Committee now has an opportunity to give that protection. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Again, the noble Lord has brought a red herring into the debate. There is nothing in this Bill to suggest a national police force.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I made no such suggestion as the Minister will discover when she reads Hansard. I said that those who knew about the police force valued the continuation of local authority financing. The risk of the capping procedures is that in capped authorities local authority financing is at risk. I did not suggest that there is a move in the Bill towards a national police force. Such a suggestion would not be handled by the Minister's department.
Baroness Blatch: I shall not apologise because when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find that he made reference to a national police force in respect of last week's debate. I believe that that has nothing to do with the Bill before us.
This is not a wrecking amendment but it seeks to delay the operation of the provisions of the Bill for any particular year by requiring the Secretary of State first to make an order. This requirement is based on the notion that the Bill in some way affects the fulfilment by a capped authority of its statutory duties. That is not the case. The provision of services by capped authorities is not affected by the Bill, which is about the translation of budget cuts, following capping, into commensurate reductions in charges. This Bill is not about capping in general. It is not about the size or implications of budget cuts resulting from the capping of excessive budgets. The legislation on this is in Part VII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It is unaffected by anything in this Bill.
However, let me make it clear that, as regards the effects of any budget reductions required by capping, any caps set would represent the Secretary of State's view of what was reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of each individual capped authority. There are procedures for authorities to make representations about any caps proposed and these are fully taken into account by the Secretary of State in, making his decisions on final cap levels. The first year of capping, in which three authorities' proposed caps were increased, shows that these procedures are no mere charade.
Time and again with capping there have been dire predictions which in the event have simply not been borne out. In that connection I draw the Committee's attention to the service rendered by the publication of the National and Local Government Officers Association entitled Public Service. It carried out a survey of what actually happened in some of the authorities whose excessive budgets we capped last year. Let me give some examples from the survey. They scarcely support the predictions of gloom and doom and the talk of horrendous consequences for service provision which we have heard. Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million but there were no compulsory redundancies. Bristol's budget was cut by £7.6 million; there were no redundancies, no cuts in services, no charge increases and almost £5 million was saved on financial adjustments. The rest was due to cuts in committees.
So much for 1990–91. But what of next year? Again we hear scare stories about what authorities will have to do to avoid being capped on the basis of our firm intentions for charge capping criteria. So far the evidence is that authorities generally are proposing to set sensible budgets. Indeed, a number of the most efficient authorities are contemplating setting budgets which are not only well within the intended criteria but also below their standard spending assessments. This shows what can be done. There is no doubt that there is considerable scope for local authorities to examine the administration of their services to reduce waste, improve efficiency and manage their affairs better. The
1338
Audit Commission has to date identified scope for over £1.3 billion of value for money improvements, only around half of which have been achieved. As my honourable friend rightly said in another place:
"Value for money means value for people".
This new clause is misconceived and has no bearing on the purpose of the Bill. I urge the Committee to reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is right in saying that the provision of services is not affected by the Bill. She is right in saying that what is wrong with the whole poll tax system is not in question when the Bill comes forward. She is right in saying that we are concerned in the Bill only with what happens when a capping procedure has been adopted, when a reduction in budget has been ordered by the capping procedure in the 1988 Act and when the question arises whether and how to translate that reduction in budget into a reduction in the rate of poll tax to be levied in that year. All that is correct.
We do not deny that we are attacking the only part of the poll tax legislation on which we can lay our hands; to mix my metaphors, it is the only bit that has put its head above the parapet. If we were allowed to carry out a full-scale attack on the poll tax and to re-run the poll tax Bill of 1988, nothing would please us more. However, we must do the best we can with the material at hand.
In her reply to the final group of amendments the Minister made clear that there is nothing we can do to undo the fundamental injustice and damage brought about by the introduction of the poll tax in 1988. We have done the best we can at this point of the injustices; we have done the best we can under the circumstances. I do not feel that our time has been wasted in exposing the inconsistencies, illogicalities and injustices of the poll tax legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 not moved]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1991
4.57 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 21st February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1991 be approved.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is an exceptional measure justified only by the wholly exceptional threat that this country faces from terrorism, and it is absolutely right that each year Parliament should have the opportunity to consider whether the powers conferred by the Act need continue in force. Today I am asking the House to approve the continuance in force of the Act because it remains an essential part of our defences against the terrorist. I do so against a pretty sombre background.
Terrorism has continued to cast a shadow over daily life in Northern Ireland, and last year there were more terrorist incidents on the mainland of Great Britain than at any time since 1975–19, with three people killed and 56 injured. Last month we had the mortar attack on Downing Street and the diabolical bombing at Victoria Station in which one person was killed and another 38 injured. The House will also need no reminding of the three murders perpetrated by the Provisional IRA on the Continent of Europe last year.
Our thoughts are with all those in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere who have suffered at the hands of terrorists. I know your Lordships will join me in thanking the members of our security forces for the courage, steadfastness, skill and vigilance they have shown in protecting us from these evil people. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude.
We certainly owe it to them at this time not to weaken our defences against terrorism by allowing the provisions of the Act to expire. Without the Act the police would be seriously handicapped in the work we ask them to do on our behalf and there would be a grave danger of the terrorists themselves believing that we were weakening in our resolve to continue the fight against them. Quite frankly, it would be madness to drop the Act at this time.
As Home Secretary I was personally responsible for authorising extensions of detention and for making exclusion orders, and I can assure your Lordships that these decisions are never taken lightly. There is always a full and careful assessment of the available information. Of course there must be adequate safeguards for the people against whom the powers in the Act are used, and detention under the Act is now subject to broadly the same controls as those provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, including the right of access to a solicitor and to contact family and friends. As the House knows, we are experimenting with the tape recording of interviews with suspected terrorists at Paddington Green police station and the main Bridewell in Liverpool.
Further protection for suspects has been provided by the annual review of the operation of the Act which since 1984 has been carried out by an independent person. That duty was at first performed by Sir Cyril Phillips, but in 1986 my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross took over and I should like to thank him on
1340
everybody's behalf for the painstaking work he has done over the years. In preparing his report on the operation of the Act in 1990 my noble friend has had access to all the files relating to the use of the executive powers of exclusion and extended detention in London, Edinburgh and Belfast. He has visited police forces and ports. He has scrutinised all complaints against the police in cases where the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been used.
Each year since 1986 he has also examined in depth some broader themes. This year he has looked into the operation of the system of periodic reviews of detention, and the operation of the Act's powers against terrorist finances. The system of periodic reviews of detention which was introduced into the prevention of terrorism legislation with the 1989 Act, is modelled on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is part of the broad aim to ensure that, as far as possible, people who are held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act are afforded the same safeguards and protection of their rights as those held under the usual powers.
My noble friend has concluded that the procedure under which the need for a suspect's detention is reviewed at increasingly senior levels by officers unconnected with the case is working satisfactorily. The report draws some contrasts between procedures in Great Britain and those in Northern Ireland; contrasting the somewhat bald RUC reports of review interviews with the very full reports given in such cases by mainland police forces. But in fairness to those responsible for operating the procedures in Northern Ireland it has to be said that the caseload in the province is far higher than it is on the mainland where detentions under the Act are comparatively infrequent.
My noble friend has made a careful assessment of the operation of the financial provisions in the Act and has compared these provisions with the those in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act which are designed to get at the proceeds of drug trafficking and those in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which are there to get at the proceeds of other crime. My noble friend has some harsh words to say. It is certainly true that the legislation is complex and there are differences between the provisions in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act; but the complexities and the differences arise out of the different circumstances with which each of the Acts has to deal.
The main difference, of course, is that in an ordinary criminal case and a drug trafficking case the question is whether money used to finance a lavish lifestyle has been gained through criminal activities. In terrorist cases a very different matter is at issue. The question is: is money, which may have been gained legitimately, intended to be spent on terrorist activity?
My noble friend has concluded that the present arrangements do not go far enough in allowing for the restraint and confiscation of terrorist funds. It is true that so far there have been no prosecutions under these powers; but it was never thought that there would be many prosecutions. The police have found the associated investigative powers very useful in

1341
gaining evidence and information which may lead to charges, although not necessarily under these provisions.
Since the publication of my noble friend's report, noble Lords will be aware of the Government's proposal to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, at present before Parliament, to strengthen the powers to tackle terrorist finances in the Province where the problem of terrorist racketeering is most prevalent. We will watch carefully how effectively these new powers work in practice. In the light of that we will consider any amendments to the existing provisions which would significantly strengthen the hand of the police in tackling terrorist funds.
There is one last thing that I must say with the utmost seriousness. Recently, Mr. Hattersley, the right honourable gentleman who is Shadow Home Secretary, has been calling for discussions between the political parties so that we may make common cause in the fight against terrorism. I do not doubt that Mr. Hattersley detests terrorism quite as much as I do; but voting against the renewal of this Act and showing one's preparedness to do away with all the powers in the Act seems a very curious way of demonstrating that detestation. It is a very odd way to set about making that common cause.
The truth is that there was common cause: there was a united front. All the Labour Party has to do now is to make common cause again. All it has to do to join in a united front is to support the legislation which it introduced when in government and invited Parliament to renew year after year while remaining in government. Indeed, not only did the Labour Party support the legislation when it governed, it even continued to support it for the first two years after it went into opposition in 1979. Then, in 1982, all that changed. Why? Had the menace of terrorism diminished in any way? Had that changed? Unfortunately not. Only one thing had changed and that was the Labour Party. Because of changes which had taken place within the Labour Party at that time, it was no longer prepared to face up to its responsibilities. They were changes which, incidentally, led to a substantial movement of people out of the Labour Party onto other Benches in this House as they had seen that the Labour Party had succumbed to pressures within it and as a result had abandoned its responsibilities in these matters.
I cannot imagine that anything could be more damaging than that Parliament should send out a signal now that we were weakening in our determination and resolve to fight terrorism. That would be the signal were the Act not to be renewed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I could follow a great part of the first part of the noble Lord's speech, but I thought that the last part of his speech was well below what the subject demanded. I make it perfectly clear that we on these Benches are as committed to fighting terrorism as are noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
1342
I do not believe that that is a point which I have to argue particularly strongly in this House or which I need to justify. The Labour Party has fought terrorism in the past; it continues to fight it today and it will continue to do so in the future. We share the Government's view as expressed by the Prime Minister recently when he said that the Government and the Opposition are united in their determination to destroy terrorism and to defeat it in this country. Therefore, there is no disagreement as far as ends are concerned. There are legitimate anxieties, of which I hope to convince the House in a moment, about some of the means.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said; namely, that this is an exceptional Act designed to meet exceptional circumstances. It is also right that it should be regarded carefully each year when it comes up for renewal.
I also echo the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House in the tribute he paid to the security forces and the police. As I am in an echoing mood, perhaps I may also echo what he said about the work undertaken by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in respect of this Act. It is extremely helpful and very valuable.
This has become in a way a regular annual exercise in which, as far as I can tell by looking at past copies of Hansard, little new seems to be said on either side. This year, however, for all the scoffing of the Leader of the House, my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley in another place added some new elements to our collective thinking. I wish the Government would treat them more seriously. They are serious concerns which deserve to be seriously addressed. As the Leader of the House said, prima facie, the detention provisions of the Act which are to be renewed by this order run counter to our normal criminal practice. In general the police are not allowed to detain a suspect indefinitely in order to gather information. The principle is a simple one; they have to charge somebody or let him go. We are therefore faced with a different type of procedure. The Government cannot expect a blank cheque in relation to this order every year. There are legitimate concerns which they ought to take seriously.
There is a difficult question of balance here as to the extent to which interference with normal civil liberties is justified by the exigencies of the situation. Certainly it is true to say that this Act has attracted some criticism both at home and abroad. The European Court is not exactly enamoured of some of its provisions and civil rights groups and certain legal organisations in this country are also concerned. The criticisms are too well known for me to justify repeating them here. But I do put this point to the House. Faced with that as a background and faced with the fact that this order has now been renewed for a number of years, it is perhaps time that we try to arrive at more of a national consensus on these issues. Frankly, they are too important to be left to a party dog fight and to the sort of remarks that the Leader of the House felt compelled to make when he was finishing his speech.

1343
I read with some disappointment the Hansard report of the renewal of the order in another place. I regret that the Home Secretary rejected the offer of discussions with other parties so that we might make a more obviously common cause against terrorism. What on earth is wrong with that? The essence of this House is consensus building, if I may say so, and not party political division and confrontation.
We have reservations about some of the provisions of the Act, particularly the powers of exclusion and questioning at ports and the exercise of the powers of detention. They are legitimate concerns; they are intellectually respectable concerns and they are concerns which I should have thought the Government would be anxious to discuss in a somewhat calmer atmosphere than across the Floor of the House of Commons.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. No doubt each side in this argument can find quotations which would justify its own position. I shall not enter into that somewhat sterile argument. I merely observe that, in respect of at least one of the Labour Party's major reservations, the report seems quite categoric. Perhaps I may quote from it. My right honourable friend in another place quoted from it last night. The report stated:
"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Isle methodology, but nothing except a bold new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedure between the rest of Europe and ourselves".
My right honourable friend went on to say:
"I repeat my offer on the terms set out by Lord Colville. We are prepared to co-operate in examining the 'bold new initiative' which is essential to the successful continuation of the Act".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/91; col. 36.]
The Labour Party has five points that it would wish the Government to take into consideration and which we hope would be capable of being discussed calmly, objectively, and in a non-party context. I shall set them out very briefly. First, we should accept the view of the European Court and of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that detention should be extended only after the case has been reviewed by a judicial tribunal. Secondly, we should abandon exclusion orders, about which there has been a great deal of discussion as to their deficiency and efficacy.
Thirdly, we should toughen up provisions affecting the financing of terrorism. When the Government introduce the measures which the Leader of the House mentioned this afternoon, the Labour Party will support them. Fourthly, we should consider—we ask for no more than consideration—the feasibility and desirability of setting up a national agency, a British intelligence bureau—perhaps something along the lines of the American Federal Bureau of Investigation —which might provide an effective countrywide response against terrorism. That should at least be considered. Fifthly, we should fully introduce the Colville suggestion of video recordings of interviews of all suspects in police custody.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House can mock the position of the Labour Party as much as he likes
1344
but those five points are legitimate and sensible concerns which really do need to be addressed. For the Government merely to say that all the Labour Party has to do is to go back 12 years and all will be well is not good enough. Those concerns remain and those issues will have to be addressed. It is better that they should be addressed in a non-party context than that they should be made a political football, as we saw from the Leader of the House this afternoon.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, once again we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his admirable report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. He has raised in his report a number of matters of significance, some of which I propose to mention. First, I shall deal with the matters of significance. Like the Leader of the House I think it is important to be quite clear where the political parties in this country stand on this extremely important issue. Our view on the matter is clear. We believe that this order should be supported and like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I find it depressing that there has been opposition to this order, particularly when we are told that there is a need to create some form of national consensus.
Once again the Labour Party in the House of Commons last night chose to vote against the renewal of these powers. The legislation was enacted by a Labour Government. The powers contained within the Act were regarded by that Government as indispensable including, if I may say so, the exclusion order provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has just referred. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has reminded us, in the first two years of opposition the Labour Party did not choose to challenge the renewal of the order.
In 1982 there was a very regrettable change of heart. No one can possibly maintain that there has been any lessening of the terrorist threat since 1982. One has only to look at the series of terrorist attacks since then to see that such a judgment would be quite absurd. We have experienced a significant number of vicious attacks even in the past 12 months: the bombings of army information offices, the Stock Exchange, the Carlton Club, the Royal Overseas League, the murder of Ian Gow and of a young soldier at Lichfield station, and recently we have had the attack on Downing Street and the bomb at Victoria Station. It seems quite extraordinary that in these circumstances there should be any vote in the House of Commons against the renewal of these powers.
If anyone attempts to suggest that these powers are not of major assistance to the police in their struggle against terrorism, I suggest that he reads paragraph 1.6 of the noble Viscount's report. It is headed "Extension of detention in Great Britain". I quote:
"Four such orders were granted by the Secretary of State for Scotland, two for two days, one for three, and one where a two-day order was supplemented by another for three days. In three cases the outcome was an exclusion order and in the other the detainee was released. In the latter case I have every reason to believe that the detention led to a substantial

1345
disruption of terrorist activities, and in all cases I am satisfied that good reasons for the order were put forward to the Secretary of State".
If I may say so, that seems to be a fairly powerful argument.
There is then the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to in his five-point plan. He suggested that there should be some form of national agency to deal with terrorist attacks. The idea of some form of FBI was put forward by the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police during the police foundation lecture which was given the year before last. It is hardly a new idea; but, nevertheless, it is not to be despised for that reason. In fact, progress has been made in so far as arrangements are now being made to improve considerably the national intelligence gathering procedures. Therefore, that aspect is already in hand. So far as concerns the proposal that we should have some form of operational national agency, that is more controversial. However, it is an issue which will have to be addressed in the future.
I turn now to deal with the matter which causes me continuing anxiety. Last year I expressed my concern about the manner in which the Government had reacted to the Brogan case. The European Court of Human Rights has held that seven-day detention orders should he subject to some form of judicial intervention. However, the Government have chosen to derogate. I am well aware of some of the problems which would arise if we tried to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights. Nevertheless, I remain uneasy on that aspect of the matter.
I am attracted by the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred, that some form of new tribunal should be established to oversee the exercise of such powers. As the noble Viscount said in his report,
"nothing except a bold and new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedures between most of the rest of Europe and ourselves".
We must have a decent regard for the views of other governments in the democratic West. Splendid isolation is not a viable policy. We rely upon consistent support from our colleagues on the continent of Europe, and in the United States where the president is under constant pressure to cease his government's policy of close co-operation with our law enforcement agencies.
I shall now put that matter aside and turn to consider briefly two other matters. I acknowledge the fact that they are outside the scope of the order. However, I should like first to refer to a matter which was dealt with during Question Time this afternoon.
In recent weeks we have experienced an epidemic of hoax bomb warnings. When the culprits have been caught, they have been taken before magistrates and the maximum penalty—that is, so far as concerns the magistrates—has in many cases been awarded. But, as I pointed out earlier today, a sentence of three months' imprisonment actually means six weeks. Concern was expressed in another place about the situation and Mr. Patten undertook to consider the matter. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will
1346
indicate to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there is widespread concern in all parts of this House on the matter. A sentence of three months' imprisonment in such circumstances is frankly ludicrous.
Moreover, I believe that it is perceived as such by members of the public. It is an "either way" offence. I very much hope that the Attorney-General will consider the matter with a view to ensuring that, when it is appropriate, such cases are referred to the Crown Court. In the past, people have been sentenced to many years of imprisonment—not three months—by Crown Court judges. The issue should be reviewed by the Government as a matter of urgency.
Secondly, I am sure the noble Lord is aware of the deep anger felt by the travelling public because of the constant disruption of public transport both in London and elsewhere. Perhaps I may give the House an example of what took place a few weeks ago. A bomb went off at Paddington Station in the early hours of the morning. Subsequently, another bomb went off at about 7.40 a.m. at Victoria Station killing a passenger and injuring many other people. The IRA announced that they had sent a bomb warning soon after 7 o'clock that morning. Within hours the tabloid press was suggesting that a massive error of judgment had been made by our security forces. Again, that is quite absurd. Scores of such telephone messages are received every day by British Rail and many other similar organisations. Many department stores constantly receive these messages and some of them have now decided to ignore all bomb warnings. However, they have taken steps to ensure that a bomb is not placed on their premises.
It is now time for Ministers to consider the matter collectively. It is not enough to say that these are operational questions to be considered by the police or by British Rail. We must take a tougher stand on the issue. I am well aware of some of the problems which will arise, but it has now become a matter of urgency. Having said that, I simply repeat that the order has our total support.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I rise only to say how very sorry I am that the Labour Party finds itself unable to support the Motion and that, as I understand it, it was prepared in another place to vote against the measure. For years this matter has been treated on an all-party basis. In 1982 the Labour Party supported the renewal of the powers under the Act which were effected by the order. Noble Lords Will no doubt recall that such powers last only from year to year and are subject to annual renewal. I find it deplorable that the Labour Party is now apparently saying that such powers are no longer needed.
It serves no purpose for the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to criticise the various aspects involved in the handling of the security law in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt a great deal in what he said, and I was not unsympathetic to some of the points he made. But the important question now before us does not relate to these matters which will no doubt be discussed during the coming year; it relates to the issue of whether we should allow such powers to lapse.

1347
In the light of what has happened during the past few years, and indeed during the past few months, it would be absurdly irresponsible for any government to allow such powers to lapse. It is inconceivable that any party in office should do so. Therefore, I believe that it is all the more deplorable, with the Labour Party being out of office, that it should apparently take the view that such powers should be allowed to lapse. That attitude contrasts very badly with the thoroughly responsible attitude which the leadership of the Labour Party—I do not say the whole party—has adopted in respect of the Gulf war. It has adopted a responsible line for which it has received due credit. However, to say in respect of Northern Ireland that these powers are no longer needed, is either a complete abnegation of responsibility or an indication of a complete obliviousness to what has happened. I can only say that many people will feel that the attitude of the Labour Party on this business is conclusive on one point: the Labour Party is still unfit to govern.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I support the order and the provisions of the Act. I believe it is right that this measure should come before the House for regular scrutiny and approval. I know from experience that there can be peaks and troughs in terrorist activity and bursts of activity when either the act is dramatic or the incident results in numerous deaths. We have seen such happenings in recent times, both in the Province and also on the mainland. Of course those acts feed the terrorists' propaganda machine and spur them on to more well-planned daring deeds in the wake of their success. There may then be a lull for some weeks. Security lapses, and in the meantime the terrorists flit to their safe houses, reconnoitre a new area and embark upon a new mission.
Increased activity on the mainland may well indicate that our security and intelligence services in Northern Ireland are frustrating many of the terrorists' plans. Consequently the Provisional IRA has decided to step up its terrorism in Britain. That is especially true of the Provisional IRA. There were more terrorist incidents in 1990 than in any year since 1975. They were not confined to military and security force targets. Gone has its claim that it is a war against the military and ministerial authorities in the United Kingdom. It is now an indiscriminate attack upon civilians and places where hundreds congregate. Mass slaughter is its aim. If the Victoria bomb had exploded during the peak period or rush hour, scores of innocent persons would have been killed or mutilated.
The order and the Act are to be welcomed. I believe that the Act should be strengthened. In the light, or prospect, of mass murder and mutilation by the Provisional IRA, further measures to tackle the menace should be considered. I still strongly believe that there is a need further to strengthen the intelligence-gathering network (the anti-terrorist branches of the Metropolitan Police and Scotland Yard) and therefore I welcome the expansion of the
1348
use of police forces outside London on counter-terrorist activities. Apart from expertise being placed at the disposal of provincial forces cannot we also have a growth in the use of provisional anti-terrorist squads, financed and trained for anti-terrorist operations? I also ask the Minister to lay to rest the oft-quoted suggestions made in the press about cost-cutting exercises in security, whether in the protection of listed persons or in respect of the national wellbeing.
On exclusions, I stand by the legislation. Those whom our intelligence officers regard as suspicious or undesirable should be excluded. Of course we must be satisfied that the information is valid. There should be no abuse of the system. I prefer to be safe and sure. To detain one man at a port may necessitate a group being detained. He may need to be isolated in detention and interrogated but unfortunately that may cause inconvenience, frustration and anger to the innocent. During the course of a year, many hundreds of Irish people from the Republic and the Province of Northern Ireland pour into this country. There are football matches, boxing, rugby, horseracing and other untold means by which terrorists can slip through the net, and they do. That is why there must be no relaxation of exclusions and of the Act. A tightening of the noose at ports and airports is constantly necessary.
We rely upon intelligence and especially "mug shots" of suspected terrorists. Information and evidence often cannot be revealed. That too may cause an outcry, but there must be no relaxation of the measures. If a suspect is dispatched, perhaps back to Northern Ireland, he will continue to be under surveillance. He is therefore neutralised. He may go over the Border to the Republic where most of his ilk go for rest, recreation and training. We must hope that if his "mug shot" has been passed to the Garda, it too will watch out for him. Constant surveillance, based on good intelligence and backed by sound policing, can prove effective.
Regarding the Irish Republic, it is evident to all who take an interest as observers of terrorist activity, that the Republic has been used for the import of arms and explosives; that it is being used as a haven by Irish terrorists; that safe houses are more readily available; that arms and explosives are more easily stored; and that young terrorists are recruited and trained. Northern Ireland Border raids and killings emanate from the South. I ask what the Republic has offered Her Majesty's Government within the Anglo-Irish agreement. Has it offered anything to neutralise and curb those activities? There should be some response from them and from the Leader of the House when he replies.
What are the prospects of British security agents working with Irish intelligence officers in a joint anti-terrorist operation to track suspected terrorists as they move over the Border to Northern Ireland and to the mainland or via the Continent to Britain? Is not that something that can be further developed with the Republic within the spirit of the Anglo-Irish agreement?

1349
The harassment of suspected terrorists pays off. There should be more. There should be periodic swoops on known men and women in the Provisional IRA, INLA and the UVF. They should be picked up and detained, as provided for by the Act, for three days, or seven if necessary. That would be within the law, and would frustrate their plans to take part in terrorist activity within the Province. It would enable intelligence officers and security officers to check on those who flee over the Border in fear of being picked up. The security forces can wait until they return and then register the suspects.
I believe in a higher public security profile; short periods of detention; the use of the UDR at weekends on the Border; more manoeuvres and increased patrols with the RUC so that the terrorists are not allowed to rest. I believe in increased harassment of the terrorist fraternity. The people of Northern Ireland would welcome that. It would give them succour and encourage them to believe that terrorists are being tackled. I accept of course that the civil liberties lobby would protest.
The time has come for Her Majesty's Government to consider a national identity card scheme. Almost everyone working in this country has an identity card of some kind. Most firms and industries have an ID system or are introducing one. No one cries out any longer about ID cards being a curb on civil liberties. If we want seriously to tackle terrorism from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or other terrorist groups from the Continent and elsewhere, we must face the fact that that system of recognition would aid our police and security forces considerably.
The British people, in the wake of the Victoria bombing, are being conditioned to the acceptance of an ID card. I ask the Government to give it serious consideration. We should use all the tools available to tackle terrorism. We should now have publicly established and nationally known (in the fight against the Provisional IRA operating in this country) a scheme of payment for information about suspected terrorist activity—an anti-terrorist hotline and payment for results. Too many terrorists too easily find safe houses, storage places for arms and ammunition, and garages for vans and stolen cars for their operations. In large cities such as London it is virtually impossible for the police to vet every street, cul de sac and back yard, but the people can. Among the community there are many people who see and suspect people in the vicinity, especially new Irish lodgers. They may see a garage being used more than usual, and so on. People should be called upon to telephone a central operations room in a public spirited fashion with information on suspected activities. All fruitful messages should be rewarded. Of course, for a while the operations room may be swamped, but computer equipment, computer records and intelligence sifting may well pay off.
I believe that extra means and methods still have to be sought to beat the Irish terrorist menace in our midst. I hope that some of my ideas will reach fruition, although. I recognise that they may tend to curtail some of our freedoms and liberties.
1350
I conclude by reminding the House of my stated views on the issue of these annual renewals of the past two years. In 1988 I said:
"To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available and that is what I urge my party and this House to do".—[Official Report, 16/2/88; col. 573.]
Therefore I backed it then and I backed it again last year:
"Some liberty must be sacrificed in the defence of liberty, insidious though that may be. It is the price that must be paid in defence of our democracy… Nothing gives the IRA more joy and some encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction". —[Official Report, 13/2/89; cols. 33–34.]
When I was in office, we had a bipartisan policy. The late Airey Neave and I worked closely together. All our policies, all our plans and my speeches we jointly agreed. We tackled terrorism together and we made an impact. All parties worked together in respect of the Gulf, and there is no reason why all parties should not now be joined together in harmony in the fight against the Provos. If we were, we should have a better chance of defeating them.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Richard, recalls 15th August 1969 when he was in the television studio in London and I was in the television studio in Belfast. We were discussing the onset of the present troubles. On that night five people were killed in Northern Ireland: the first five to be killed in the present troubles. Since then, that figure has been added to by nearly 3,000. In 1972, 458 people were slaughtered in Northern Ireland: the vast majority by the IRA. Other organisations such as the UDF and the UDA also murdered people.
Now after all these years we are still faced with that awful problem. There were times when I was a Member of Parliament and went into the Lobbies with a small number of people to vote against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. People in Northern Ireland have thought about this many times. We remember that it was the Birmingham bombing which prompted that Act. Some people would say that in Northern Ireland the hundreds upon hundreds of people killed did not bring about such an Act.
At that time, when I went into the Lobbies with this small number of people, the Labour Party were engaged in a bipartisan policy with the Government. First it was their Government and then the Conservative Government. It is sad, to say the least, that the Labour Party should adopt an attitude against the continuation of this Act. I say that with a good deal of regret because there were times when I voted against it. If it were possible to amend the order, I should still vote against the exclusion orders and the detention orders. There are imperfections in the order, not every facet is totally acceptable, but I believe that as it stands it is necessary at present in Britain.

1351
Before I came here today I took a few notes from my papers. On 4th March 1972 I was in Belfast and my wife and children had gone downtown. I heard this awful explosion and immediately began to make telephone inquiries. It was what we knew as the Abercorn restaurant where the IRA had planted one of their early bombs. It caused devastation with 130 people seriously injured. Two young girls who went to school with my daughters had their arms and legs blown off.
After all these years during which I have lived in London, on 18th February I heard another explosion at Victoria Station. I made inquiries. If anything could make me support the retention of this Act it is that the next day our newspapers carried the story of a young girl brutally injured in that explosion at Victoria. She was taken into Westminster Hospital saying, "Save my legs, I'm getting married in June". Such issues that affect me emotionally and in every other way make me believe that it is necessary for the Act to continue.
We think of the terrible tragedies that have been caused by the IRA and the so-called Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries; only 48 hours ago four Catholics were murdered in County Tyrone. In the Irish newspapers this morning there is great emotional upset and demands that the security forces should do something to apprehend those guilty of this foul crime. However, the human memory is short in relation to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Only two or three months ago, in November, four Protestants were murdered by the IRA in Lurgan, County Armagh. The human mind can easily forget all the terrible atrocities that have happened; but I am ever mindful of Westminster Hospital and St. Thomas' Hospital today with all those people who were brutally injured in that one explosion at Victoria Station. The world has forgotten about them, except for their relations who have to visit them.
I heard the sickening apology by the IRA that they had given adequate warning and that the security forces did not act in the right way to prevent injuries. When these atrocities take place in Britain the IRA issues its statements from Dublin, either admitting that it was its fault or disclaiming responsibility. Representations should be made to the Irish Government because it must be sickening to the vast majority of people in these islands—it was sickening to me, and I am an Irishman—that the IRA can issue a statement from the capital of Ireland, either denying or accepting responsibility for these tragedies.
I read an even more sickening report in relation to the bombing at Victoria Station. I have tried my best to find out which newspaper contained it. An IRA apologist used the awful language of the Gulf that we have begun to know. He said that Victoria Station could be regarded as collateral damage. Blowing the legs and arms off innocent civilians and killing them is collateral damage. I suppose that the next time that Catholics or nationals are killed in Northern Ireland by an IRA bomb we shall be told that they were killed by friendly fire—to use the language of the Gulf once again.
1352
In the legislation we are discussing today, we try to grapple with a problem that has been with us for many years and perhaps will be with us for many years to come. I have read the report of the debate which took place yesterday in another place. One of the Members who spoke said that it had descended into party politics. All recent debates in relation to Northern Ireland have been about party politics. If you are elected as a nationalist MP to represent nationalists in Northern Ireland you must vote against the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The IRA is a member of the tribe which elects you to Parliament. If you disregard the wishes of your tribe in relation to this legislation you could easily be removed at the next election.
When I was a Member of Parliament I took a view which was totally opposed to terrorism. I made no concessions to terrorists whatever. Nor did I make any concessions to the electorate which supported the action, even though they may have been only a minority. However, as I made no concessions to the electorate which supported, half supported, or supported that action with certain reservations—that is, the but, on-the-other-hand, nevertheless, notwithstanding brigade—I no longer represent a constituency in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, Unionist MPs must vote in accordance with the wishes of their electorate, many of whom support the so-called loyalist paramilitary organisations. Therefore, party politics is very much to the fore in relation to events in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Government will take into account the genuine reservations held by people such as me in relation to the exclusion orders. I still believe that they are most unfair. However, I am ever mindful of the fact that the IRA also has exclusion orders which it uses in a devastating way. For example, a man living in a flat in Derry heard noises in the adjoining flat. Fearing that something might happen to his neighbour he rang the police and the security forces. He was unaware that the IRA was in the adjoining flat holding the family hostage. After the gang had been apprehended the IRA sent some of its gunmen to find the gentleman who had made the telephone call believing that he was helping his neighbour. The gentleman was told to get out of the country. He was excluded by the IRA and I understand that the police have him living in this part of the United Kingdom. If he were ever to return to Northern Ireland he would meet certain death from the IRA. Therefore, the terrorists also have exclusion orders.
One of the Members who spoke in yesterday's debate voiced his opposition to the Act and asked how it must affect the Irish-Americans. He said that the Irish-Americans would be most annoyed. I suggest to this House that the time has come to stop being concerned about what the Irish-Americans think. They do not have to contend with stations being blown up and other atrocities that we in these islands have had to put up with. No matter what we do in legislation the Irish-American will still hold a hatred of Britain. That hatred has been born and bred into the blood of the Irish-American since the famine in

1353
Ireland in 1847. Therefore, whatever legislation we pass will not meet with the approval of the Irish-Americans.
I cannot agree with all the provisions in the order, but if there is a Division—and I hope that there is not—I shall go into the Lobby in support of its retention. I shall be driven into the Lobby by the cries of the young girl as she was carried into the hospital: "Please save my legs; I am getting married in June".
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we have heard tremendous oratory from the previous two speakers. I shall take only one minute to ask a question. I have never been able to discover the argument against the Act. Are we not confronted with a situation in which we know that an effort is being made to encourage people to perform terrorist actions in this country? Do we not know that the border provided by the Irish Channel is one of the places at which they can be checked?
Do we really resent the inconvenience to one or two innocent citizens who are delayed in their journey for three or four hours, and at the most for one day? Do we put that forward as a civil liberty more important than keeping a bomber out of this country? I believe that to be a wrong-headed decision. Although I have been asking that question of my friends in the Labour Party since 1982, I have never understood how they can value such civil liberties which are tiny when compared with the enormous risk to the public.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the order because it is still necessary. I hope that we can discuss it in a dispassionate way in spite of the atrocities from which we have all suffered in varying degrees. However, a number of subsidiary points arise which cannot be glossed over. I shall mention only two.
The first is the manner of operation of the port controls; particularly the training that is given, or should be given but which may not be universal, to those who must operate those controls. We must try to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent travellers. I should be perfectly happy if it became obligatory for all citizens of Britain and Northern Ireland to carry identity cards. If that measure is thought to be too sweeping or complicated I should also be happy for photographs of passengers to be taken when they begin their journeys. But let us take the necessary steps to avoid the harassment of innocent people which creates great ill-will and bad feeling among the component parts of the United Kingdom.
My second point concerns detention for up to seven days in respect of which we have had to make a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights. Why, in the Government's view, is it not possible for detained suspects to be brought before a magistrate after 48 hours? If they do not believe that magistrates are suitable, why not bring suspects before a judge in chambers? If there are insufficient judges, or if they are thought not to have the right experience of such issues, why cannot detained people be brought before the three wise men who examine cases of detention and possible expulsion from this country?
5.58 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did not like the second part of my speech. I did not expect him to like it nor did I intend that he should like it. There are times when within the conventions of this House, where I know that one should be particularly polite, one should tell a few home truths. I hope that if my comments did not make the noble Lord, Lord Richard, feel a little embarrassed, at least what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, with his great wealth of experience, made the noble Lord feel embarrassed.
The Labour Party ought to feel embarrassed. It is shirking its responsibilities. So long as I have any responsibilities in this matter, I shall shout from the housetops the fact that the Labour Party is shirking its responsibilities to the people of this country. It cannot produce a case and has not produced a case today for now refusing to support a measure which when it was in government it knew was necessary for the protection of the people of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned five points. Before we come to his five points, I have to say this. In justification of his position, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he had reservations about some of the provisions of the Act. It all sounds so reasonable. But if you have some reservations about some of the provisions of an Act, you do not throw the whole Act out of the window. A responsible person does not reject the Act lock, stock and barrel. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made that point only a few moments ago. However, that was the rather feeble justification put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his stance.
I turn now to the noble Lord's five points. He said that we should accept the conclusion of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that there should be a judicial tribunal. That is not quite what my noble friend said in his report. My noble friend said in his report:
"Is it now, perhaps, irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers"
of detention. That is slightly different. He recognised that the Government are faced with something of a dilemma as a result of the Brogan case and our decision to derogate under Article 15 of the convention.
There is a genuine difficulty here. I say that in reply to the remarks made a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. How, within our framework of law, can we bring somebody before a court or other judicial authority—to use the words of the convention —without telling the person or his adviser what is known about him and why it is that the police wish to detain him for a period of days? They may find ways of getting round that on the Continent. However, our judges would be very loath indeed to intervene in such cases when the responsibility was to be placed on their backs to authorise detention on the basis of information given to them by the police and they could not communicate to the defendant the information on which they were to make the decision to detain that person for a further five days. It is no use pretending that there is not a difficulty here; there is a

1355
very real difficulty. It is right that we should try to find a solution to it, but it is not an easy matter. It is foolish to pretend that it is.
The second point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was that we should abandon the exclusion orders. I know that my noble friend Lord Colville in an earlier report said that he did not like exclusion orders. However, nobody denies that at times they have frustrated the activities of terrorists. My noble friend Lord Colville was brave enough and sensible enough to say that one would have to replace the exclusion orders with something. If my memory serves me correctly, he suggested that the mischief which exclusion orders are designed to address would have to be dealt with by surveillance of individuals who would otherwise be excluded under the exclusion orders.
The argument that was advanced in reply to my noble friend Lord Colville was that that would be extraordinarily expensive in terms of resources. It is extremely doubtful whether one could perform such surveillance of all those against whom it has been found proper over the years to make exclusion orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, then said that the provisions on finances should be made tougher. I shall not quarrel with him on that point. Clearly we ought to be reviewing and are reviewing the operation of the provisions to see whether they can be improved.
The noble Lord called for a national agency. The Metropolitan Police Special Branch has national responsibility for the collection of intelligence about the IRA throughout Great Britain. The head of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorism Branch has been appointed national co-ordinator of Provisional IRA investigations by ACPO. The Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations leads a group composed of himself and three chief constables of forces outside London to enhance co-ordination between the Metropolitan Police and provincial forces. So it is not as if there has not been the most careful assessment of the position and careful steps have not been taken to bring about that national co-ordination which everybody recognises as necessary.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the video recording of interviews. He might have given us credit for the steps that have been taken with the introduction of tape recording of interviews. Perhaps we shall eventually have video recording, but that is extremely expensive in terms of resources. If the Labour Party is suggesting that, I hope it will tell us how much it is prepared to spend so that we can put it on the list of the various undertakings for additional expenditure which the party has given over the months. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, meant what he said, and that if by some misfortune the Labour Party were to become the Government tomorrow there would be video recording of interviews throughout the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rightly pointed to the Colville Report should anybody now
1356
question the efficacy of the powers. If noble Lords look at paragraph 1.6 of the Colville Report they will find that he refers to an instance which shows the efficacy of the powers. In that paragraph he refers to the use of the powers in Scotland. He says:
"In the latter case I have every reason to believe that the detention led to substantial disruption of terrorist activities".
That is what it is all about.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me about penalties for bomb hoaxers. He said that three months' imprisonment imposed by the magistrates' court was not enough. My right honourable friend Mr. Patten in another place said that he proposed to review the penalties in the magistrates' court. However, we should not forget that that is an either way offence and it is open to the magistrates, if they consider it a very serious offence, to commit to the Crown Court. On indictment the penalty is not three months but five years. There has been one case recently in which somebody received three years' imprisonment for that offence. I hope that that is made well known throughout the land so that those who are minded to commit such offences are deterred from so doing.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for what he had to say. I agree wholeheartedly that it would be absurdly irresponsible to allow these powers to lapse at this time.
I referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mason. I thank him for his sturdy support for the legislation, given against the background of his great experience. It is not a question of cost cutting on security although I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that it is very necessary that people should recognise that security should be afforded to individuals on the basis of a proper threat assessment by those who are capable of making an informed judgment about those matters.
The noble Lord asked me: what are the prospects of Irish intelligence officers working with ours? Obviously greater co-operation between the security forces in the Republic and in the United Kingdom was one of the aims of the Anglo-Irish agreement. We must continue to try to get that co-operation. He said that he supported a national identity card scheme. When I was Home Secretary, I found that the police took the view that it might provide some marginal benefit but they were not widely excited about identity cards. They did not feel that it was top of the priorities. It would be quite a costly exercise. I imagine that identity cards would be fairly easy to forge. The possession of an identity card certainly would not obviate the necessity in certain cases for questioning at the ports. That comes back to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
One does not want harassment at the ports, but it could never be sufficient for a person to produce a document which claimed that he had a particular identity. Often the purpose of questioning at the ports is to see whether a person might be connected with a terrorist activity. He might be connected with a terrorist activity when everybody knows perfectly well

1357
who he is when he appears at the port and there is no need at all for him to produce any document to show that he is of that name.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, recommended an anti-terrorist hotline. There is nothing to prevent the police from carrying out that kind of exercise and nothing to prevent them from deciding in a particular case that it might be useful to encourage affording information by the offer of a reward. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for saying from the depth of his experience that this order is necessary. So it is. Once again, I recommend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a very short, technical Bill designed to correct an inadequacy in the current law, as set out in Section 29 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
That section provides for the reimbursement to returning officers of the many and varied expenses incurred in running parliamentary elections. These include the personal fees of returning officers, presiding officers and poll clerks; the travelling and subsistence expenses of all officials; the cost of printing and issuing ballot papers and poll cards; and many other items. Section 29 also provides that the Treasury shall set out in regulations the maximum amount which returning officers may be reimbursed for each particular item of expenditure.
It is that requirement to set a maximum amount which has caused difficulties in the implementation of Section 29. Quite simply, the problem is that the amounts that returning officers need to spend on certain items of expenditure on running elections vary considerably across the country. Examples are travel and subsistence expenses and the cost of printing and providing ballot papers and poll cards. What is fair and reasonable in one constituency may not be so in another. In these circumstances maximum charges applicable in all constituencies are inappropriate for certain items.
For many years this difficulty was resolved by providing in the returning officers' expenses regulations that returning officers would be entitled to receive their "actual and necessary costs" for certain items of expenditure. But we were advised in 1987 by Speaker's Counsel that that was ultra vires. We accept that that advice was right, and we are taking steps to correct the inadequacies in Section 29 of the 1983 Act via the Representation of the People Bill.
In advance of this Bill, and to overcome the difficulties, since 1987 we have ensured that returning officers would be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses by referring in the regulations to an "authorised maximum" up to which expenses could be reimbursed. That is calculated on a formula reflecting
1358
expenditure in each constituency in the previous relevant election, updated to take account of increases in costs.
The device will break down at the next general election when the Milton Keynes constituency is divided into two. Even were it possible to draft round these difficulties at that time, the authorised maximum approach would break down altogether at the time of the next general revision of parliamentary boundaries.
One further difficulty exists with Section 29 of the 1983 Act. Returning officers may, in practice, incur expenses which exceed the statutory maxima but do so for perfectly good reasons. In such circumstances extrastatutory payments have been made. They have tended to be small. But there is a doubt about whether it is right to pay them, given the wording of Section 29. In the circumstances it is highly desirable to amend the law to allow for such eventualities.
The Bill solves these problems by amending Section 29 of the 1983 Act. It does so in two ways.
It provides for returning officers to be entitled to their actual expenses, reasonably incurred, in circumstances where it is not possible to specify a maximum charge for a particular item applicable to all constituencies. And where maximum charges are specified, the Treasury may authorise payments above the maximum, provided that the expenses have been reasonably incurred.
These changes are technical and, I believe, uncontentious. But they are also essential if returning officers are to be reimbursed their reasonable expenses when organising parliamentary elections. I very much hope that all noble Lords will welcome this Bill and give it a Second Reading accordingly.
I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the provisions of this Bill. As he says it is a very small Bill. I agree with him that it is a very necessary and sensible Bill, amending Section 29 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
The noble Earl referred to the difference in expenses that would be incurred by different constituencies. I readily accept that. However, I was able to read the reports of the Second Reading and the Standing Committee of the other place. They make very interesting reading. Some discussion arose over a number of amendments tabled by my honourable colleague, Dr. John Marek, Member of Parliament for Wrexham. The reports are very interesting. One understands that there are differences between constituencies but some astonishing comparisons of costs in various constituencies were given to the committee by the Minister.
I have two questions to put to the noble Earl. I appreciate that this Bill deals with parliamentary elections and I recognise that we are dealing with the reimbursement of expenses to returning officers. I also recognise that the returning officer for a local election

1359
is appointed by the local authority concerned and that the local authority is responsible for the cost of the election. However, is there any provision for any maximum for items of expenditure which may be incurred in local elections, such as this Bill provides for, to be carried over for parliamentary elections?
My second question is a technical one. I have given notice of it to the Minister. I might even find myself in some difficulty explaining the technicality to the House but I feel that the House deserves to understand it. Under subsection (1) of Section 29, for parliamentary elections the returning officer is appointed by the sheriff, council chairman, mayor, or similar official as the case may be. It is also made quite clear that the responsibility of the returning officer is extremely limited. Subsection (1) states that no payment shall be made for those rather limited duties.
We understand from Section 28 of the 1983 Act that the duties in a parliamentary election may be discharged by an acting returning officer. The acting returning officer shall be the same person who acts as registration officer. The registration officer is appointed by the local authority concerned and need not be the chief executive, although it is customary for that person to hold the office of acting returning officer. In Committee the Minister emphasised that the acting returning officer has exacting duties and is responsible for the organising of an election. Every noble Lord who knows anything about elections appreciates that the duties of the acting returning officer are very exacting.
Reference is made in the minutes to a fee to returning officers of £862. It is made clear that that is paid to the returning officer. Where is the authority for the acting returning officer to have a fee? In Committee in another place the Minister referred to regulations comprising of 92 pages which deal with a maximum number of items of expenditure. He said that he had not read them. I can assure the noble Earl that I too have not read them. I understand that neither has he! The question that I ask may be covered by regulations. Where is such provision? What arrangements are there for an acting returning officer to receive payments which Section 29—even with this amendment—provides for the returning officer to receive?
6.21 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have had an extremely short debate in which the main provisions of the Bill have been explored. Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's two questions in reverse order.
He raised the matter of acting returning officers. In England and Wales the duties of the returning officer —except for those in connection with the receipt of the writ and any duties the returning officer has reserved to himself —are discharged by the acting returning officer. Under Section 28(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 the acting returning officer takes on the duties, the powers, the obligations and the rights and liabilities of the returning officer. In other
1360
words, it means that Section 29 of the Act applies to acting returning officers in the same way that it applies to returning officers. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
He also asked about arrangements for local government elections. They are a matter for the local authorities concerned. Elections are not financed directly by central government. Local authorities make their own rules about the payment of fees and the reimbursement of election expenses. The rules vary from one local authority to another.
I trust that noble Lords will agree that it is not party political legislation, nor is it legislation that effectively breaks new ground. It is a technical Bill designed to make good a flaw in existing legislation identified by Speaker's Counsel in 1987. The main purpose of the Bill is essentially to put the clock back to where we thought it was some years ago.
However, even if it is a technical Bill, it is nevertheless important. Without it there would be uncertainty about the payment to returning officers of election expenses incurred at the next general election. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Wales: the Social Infrastructure
6.23 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the state of the social infrastructure in Wales.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in laying before your Lordships a conspectus of the problems besetting the social infrastructure in Wales, I am obliged to make reference to the somewhat unsavoury subject of sewage, its collection, processing and disposal. Any noble Lords who may be of a nervous disposition should be warned and if necessary switch to another channel.
The term "social infrastructure" was best defined by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in a notable speech in your Lordships' House on 18th January 1984. He said:
"I take infrastructure in its widest definition as covering 'those services regarded as essential in sustaining a modern economy"'.—[Official Report, 18/1/84; col. 1052.]
He went on to indicate areas of communications, roads and railways, together with sewage and drainage, although he did not regard that as an exclusive list.
The 1984 debate was on the infrastructure of the United Kingdom. However, its categories are applicable to Wales and some of the statistics are a fruitful source of telling comparisons. For example, and to return to the noisome topic of sewage, my noble friend pointed out that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology had not long before referred to 5,000 sewer failures a year and 3,500 collapses with repair costs of £100 million. The most recent figures that I have been able to obtain, recorded

1361
on the NRA public registers, list the 10 regional authorities in England and Wales and the number of sewage treatment works that failed their consent conditions in the period from September 1989 to September 1990. Welsh Water is the third worst and Severn Trent the fourth worst out of 10. Between them they account for 27 per cent. of the total failed works. If we recall that the population of the United Kingdom is about 20 times that of Wales, it suggests that the sewers of Wales are in no better condition than they were seven years ago, and probably rather worse.
Noble Lords may not be robustly reassured when they read in the prospectus of Severn Trent Water words that are presumably meant to bring us comfort and conviction. The prospectus states:
"Severn Trent Water has adopted a standard specification for sewer records. The process of compiling all records to this specification commenced prior to 1983, and approximately 60 per cent. of these records have been completed. The Directors believe the exercise will be finished by 1997, in advance of the requirement imposed by the Water Act to complete mapping of sewers by 1st September, 1999. Until this exercise is completed, the Directors will not be able to establish accurately the total length of sewers in the Sewerage Region".
When that exercise is completed, and the directors at last know what they are responsible for, we can at least be sure that the record will bear none of the stigmata of a rushed job. Meanwhile, the people in that part of Wales will have to possess their souls in patience and keep their fingers crossed.
What confidence can we have in the providers of our water supply when, as recently as 8th February the Guardian hilariously reported that,
"Severn Trent Water admitted yesterday that it has put extra chlorine into its drinking water to 'safeguard' against Iraqi terrorism".
Ann Taylor, Labour's spokeswoman for environmental protection, said that she suspected the water company had used terrorism as an excuse to cover up an outbreak of cryptosporidia. "Not so", said Mr. Vic Cocker, Severn Trent's managing director. He admitted, however, that the chlorine was,
"to safeguard water supplies to our customers, especially in the light of the situation in the Gulf".
Now that the war is over, perhaps we may permit ourselves to speculate. In what beleaguered bunker beneath Baghdad did Mr. Cocker think this dastardly plan was hatched? In whose fevered imagination was this plan of defeat by diarrhoea, or conquest by constipation, first engendered? Does Mr. Cocker really believe that someone said, "Brothers, let us put cryptosporidia in Severn Trent's water supplies. That will bring Britain to its knees"? What confidence can we in Wales have when our water supplies are administered amid such fantasy?
I often think that a sewage system ought to be like life itself: you get out of it what you put into it. Unfortunately, that is not so. The problems of breakdown, flooding and pollution mean that what ends up in the inshore waters of Cardigan Bay or on the beaches of Wales is very often no better than it ought to be. In a Principality heavily dependent on the tourist industry, beach pollution is a money matter.
1362
The issue was reviewed in 1984–85 by the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee which found a pattern of some 260 outfalls around the Welsh coast, 112 of them coastal and 148 estuarine. They discharge 56 per cent. of the wastes from the population directly to the sea. In 1985 only 30 per cent. of the outfalls complied with the then DoE guidelines that solids should not be deposited on the foreshore and that discolouration and foaming should not be visible from the shore. Many of the outfalls are short outfalls—that is, they do not reach the low water mark—and the wastes receive no treatment whatsoever. That, to put it politely, is an aesthetic problem. And it is probably a public health problem as well.
Welsh Water and the Welsh regional NRA are committed to bringing Welsh beaches to EC standards by the year 2000. That is a full 15 years after the review by the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee. In 1990 Wales had 15 "fail" category beaches and 36 "pass" beaches: not one reached the blue flag category of excellence. I hope that the Minister in her reply may be able to give some facts. How many, for example, of the 260 outfalls are now modern, long sea outfalls? What is the expected completion date of engineering works? Is there any plan to ensure at least one blue flag beach in Wales? And just how dangerous are these befouled beaches to public health? Some time ago the Western Mail ran the headline, "Welsh beaches revolting but safe, MPs told". Is that still the case?
When we turn from the literal infrastructure of waste and water to the breezier realms of communication and transport we find the problems peculiar to Wales no less acute. In particular, despite bus deregulation and privatisation, the difficulties of rural areas remain unsolved and their services unimproved. The report commissioned by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory from Professor Cloke at St. David's University College, Lampeter—and I here declare an interest as principal of that lovely little college—concludes that there have been,
"very few changes in the Powys/Clwyd study area in the post-deregulation phase. Perhaps of all the TRRL's study areas, this has been the quietest in terms of innovations, service changes, and other impacts which might be traced directly or indirectly to deregulation."
The report adds that,
"no new operators emerged as major forces in running tendered or commercial services in the more rural zones."
and that,
"the local authorities by national standards have not made significant net savings on their tendering procedures."
It goes on to say that,
"bus services in rural mid-Wales have suffered significant historical decline"
and that the,
"service levels prior to deregulation in many cases represented a minimal network of routes and journeys."
Now, regardless of the contempt in which the population seems to be held, one thing is certain. Inward investment will not be attracted while such

1363
primitive communications—the result of the failure of the government policy of deregulation—continue to be tolerated.
But the complacent tranquillity of rural bus services is but an unwelcome echo of the deep silence on the rural railway lines, the few which remain after Beeching's axe. Those who care for that delightful little survivor, the Heart of Wales line, are deeply concerned over the cuts to the public service obligation grant which funds the provincial railway services. In 1989–90 the grant had a target of £422 million. In 1992–93 the target is only £345 million, and this takes no account of inflation. The Heart of Wales line has already made cuts in its winter timetable evening services from Monday to Thursday and more will unquestionably follow. This is no way to attract passengers. It is no way to attract tourists. It is no way to run a railway. Can the Minister explain the need for a cut which is as costly as it is trivial?
On the larger scale, where rail services are surely meant to facilitate the work of commerce and industry, there are again constant complaints and unanswered questions. The Council of Welsh Districts has recently articulated some of them. They urgently need answers, and I bring forward just a few. First, in 1989 British Rail published a number of proposals for international passenger transport from Wales via the Channel Tunnel, which included a direct rail link between South Wales and Waterloo with timetabled connections to the first international passenger trains; night-time passenger trains from South Wales to Brussels and Paris; and timetabled connections at Crewe and Wolverhampton for passengers from North Wales and mid-Wales seeking international trains. Have any of these proposals been modified? Or are they now firm intentions?
Secondly, in 1989 British Rail published a proposal to site an international freight terminal in South Wales. Is that still a firm intention? If so, when will it be in place? Thirdly, the Minister of Transport recently told the Welsh local authority associations that he would consider the question of "additionality" if and when European funds could be attracted to investment into the North Wales main line, implying that there is no fixed government policy on the issue. What government policies regarding "additionality" would be required for British Rail to take advantage of European funding?
Fourthly, what is the latest position on the implementation of the recommendations in the Steer Davies Gleave Report published last year on, "Mid-Wales Railways—A Strategy for the Nineties"? Satisfactory answers to these and many other questions about British Rail's intentions and government policies and funding would mitigate the sheer bewilderment of many people in Wales who wonder about the state of rail transport. I realise that the noble Baroness is unlikely to be able to provide answers to the many questions I have asked—which are of a detailed nature—off the cuff and on the hoof, and I hereby absolve her of any necessity to do so.
1364
However, I would be grateful if, in the fullness of time, she could let me know the answers to as many as she can manage.
A similar lack of clarity and decisiveness emerges when we look at housing in Wales. Government statistics, given in a parliamentary reply in May 1990, suggest a crude surplus of some 80,000 dwellings. But that figure is significantly reduced if we exclude dwellings not in use (about 7 per cent.), and unfit dwellings (probably about 6 per cent. at present). The Wales branch of the Institute of Housing calculated recently that there is currently a shortfall of nearly 100,000 dwellings in Wales. But as Gareth Hughes points out in the Welsh Housing Quarterly:
"Any debate about statistics seems to me to centre on whether the situation is disastrous or merely diabolical. However, what is not in doubt is that we have a serious housing problem. Shelter currently estimate that there are about 40,000 people in Wales who are homeless. Homelessness, according to Professor John Greve, has doubled during the 1980s."
The social infrastructure of Wales is quite clearly not, at present, sustaining a modern economy. Manufacturers and local authorities striving to attract inward investment cry out for better transport, more good housing, better communications, safer water, better drains, and a less polluted environment. But the very sign and symbol, the icon, of the ramshackle state of the infrastructure in Wales is that profoundly unsatisfactory edifice, the Severn Bridge.
Since it was opened in 1966 the bridge has been almost perpetually under repair. At the moment traffic is frequently down to one lane in each direction. When there are two lanes they are so narrow that cars and vast lorries are only inches apart, threading and twisting their way through a wilderness of little red cones for the privilege of paying a toll which went up from 20 pence to £1 in 1989, an increase of 500 per cent.
Queues are routine and commonplace at any peak period. Yesterday, I queued for one and a quarter hours merely to get on to the wretched thing. And the bridge is closed to all traffic as soon as there is anything much stronger than a stiff breeze. Vehicles are then serenely diverted via the M.5 to enjoy bracing prospects of Gloucester, which can add hours to journeys and, of far more significance, thousands of pounds to transport costs. Yet this fate-stricken structure, the Severn Bridge, is the gateway to Wales. We desperately need a second crossing, whether it is provided from public or private funds.
Shelly said,
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world"
and the Welsh poet, Harri Webb, was a prophet in his own country when in 1966 in his "Ode on the Severn Bridge," which I beg leave to recite to your Lordships in full, he wrote:
"Two lands at last connected
Across the waters wide
And all the tolls collected
On the English side."
6.40 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, those of us who come from the Principality are indebted to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris for tabling this

1365
Question, to which the reply had originally been expected last week on the eve of St. David's Day, but other business intervened. I have looked at various aspects of our social structure in Wales, though not in the same direction as my noble friend. Incidentally, 2½ hours this morning in Select Committee on the European Community sewerage was sufficient.
But there are many aspects of our social infrastructure. For example, only last night I received the comments of the director of the Welsh Council for the Disabled on the recent Welsh Office report on social services in Wales for disabled adults. The comments were critical:
"There has been little … investment in any means of finding out how many disabled people need services, so plans can not be based on real need."
There are no clear allocation policies.
"Assessment … is rarely provided on the basis of need. What counts is the articulacy"—
most of us in Wales are articulate—
"and persistence of the applicant. Relationships between social services and housing authorities are virtually non-existent",
and so on.
I could go on with this and bring in many other aspects of our social fabric in Wales; but on reflection I concluded that by far the most important element of our social infrastructure in Wales is the Welsh Office itself: how it is run, how effective it is, whether it has the most appropriate conglomeration of responsibilities and various other factors or characteristics.
The sphere of influence and authority of the Welsh Office has expanded greatly since the days when I was a Minister of State under my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and also, rather more briefly, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. Whether the resources of money and manpower have kept pace with the additional duties which have been added in the intervening years could be a very interesting subject to pursue; but it is not suitable for a brief discussion following an Unstarred Question. So I propose to confine my comments to the relevance and relationship of the Welsh Office to our duties as Members of your Lordships' House.
We are fortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is a most notable Welshman. Our Deputy Leader is also from Wales. We have a former Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Callaghan, who had a Welsh seat in the other place for several decades. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, are notable in the legal profession in Wales and there are other noble Lords on this side of the House with Welsh connections.
There are notable Welsh figures on the other side of the House, including two former Secretaries of State for Wales; and I am delighted that we have the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, with us tonight, whether or not he takes part in our debate. I am not quite clear whether he is to speak. In any case it is most appropriate that he should be here, even though our other former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is, as I hope, by now back in the Principality.
1366
On the Government side, there are a number of former departmental Ministers who hail from the Principality, including the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who succeeded me at the Welsh Office. But on the Government Front Bench, while the Scots are generously represented with the Lord Advocate, a junior Minister at the Scottish Office and several noble Lords of distinguished Scottish lineage, since the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, retired from office there has been no one on that Bench opposite who has a recognisable Welsh background.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that what I am about to say is not in any way intended to criticise or in any degree to disparage the efforts of the two official ministerial spokesmen on Welsh affairs who are now sitting upon the Government Front Bench. We all hold the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in very high regard. No one could be more assiduous in her devotion to duty and she has won our warm affection, if I may be permitted to say so, by her cheerfulness and good humour, sometimes in difficult circumstances. I was delighted to learn of her recent visit to Wales, to Aberystwyth, with which I have close connections, and elsewhere. She is most welcome and I hope that she will come again.
I must confess, with suitable apologies, that until last week I had not realised that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was a Government spokesman for Wales. But I then learnt that he had been so listed since last October. As he has since then intervened most effectively in his other areas of responsibility, which are listed as home affairs, foreign affairs and defence, but has had the opportunity to reply to just one Welsh Question during that period, I hope that my ignorance may be excused.
As a Scottish Peer, he is expected to answer for Wales. The fact that the noble Lord's title goes back to 1628; that he is the Chief of the Clan Mackay; that he holds a Dutch title, too, and has a second home in Holland—all these are most admirable adjuncts—but, with the greatest respect, they do not qualify him to understand the intricacies and nuances of Welsh affairs.
The position might be slightly more tolerable if in this House we could put what one might call "targeted" questions of Ministers, as can be done in another place. Here our questions are normally addressed to Her Majesty's Government without any specific attribution.
The result is not always satisfactory. I touched on one subject, derelict land reclamation, some days ago, on 25th February to be precise, because an original ministerial answer had not mentioned Wales at all, but only England. There seems to be no rule about this, nor is it clear how exactly the Welsh Office and the office of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, or the staff of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in that case, co-ordinate their efforts where Wales is concerned.
I have picked out at random several recent examples of relevant parliamentary Written Answers. On 24th January, there was the roll call of

1367
departmental Ministers who now have specific responsibility for environmental matters, a move for which the Government took considerable credit. There were 19 in all which, rather surprisingly, included the Treasury and the Department of Social Security. It listed the Scottish Office but not the Welsh Office, although the Welsh Office has major environmental responsibilities.
On 27th February, there were the organisations listed for consultation about land compensation and compulsory purchase legislation, including English Heritage, but not CADW; and the National Farmers' Union, the NFU, but not the Farmers' Union of Wales, the FUW—a separate organisation.
However, on the same page the Secretary of State for Wales was included in a reply on planning appeals, and on the next day we had the happy conjunction of a joint DoE and Welsh Office document on integrated pollution control which I am sure encouraged my noble friend considerably. Those are minor matters. However, there are major problems in Wales. If the noble Baroness were responsible for taking account of only Welsh aspects of agriculture, fisheries and food, we should be content. In any case, we should give her a welcome in the hillsides. However, it cannot be satisfactory to expect her to stimulate the Welsh Office into providing what I call alert information on the whole range of Welsh Office responsibilities.
Nor is it satisfactory simply to read briefs, however carefully prepared they may be. One needs understanding and experience behind them in order to have satisfactory discussions on major problems in our country of Wales. Of course, we can understand some of the Government's difficulties. However, to my mind it is not fair or satisfactory to expect too much from a very busy Minister, particularly a Minister of State of a department like MAFF, which has a very difficult role at present. I listen to "Farming Today" nearly every morning so that I know some of the problems which require attention. Surely such a responsible Minister has enough to do as it is.
Therefore, in this short debate on the Welsh social infrastructure I feel compelled to thank the noble Baroness most sincerely and genuinely for her attention to Welsh matters. I express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, may find time to visit the Principality. However, at the same time one must indicate that, in order to have adequate discussion on Welsh affairs in your Lordships' House, that is not enough.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene in this fascinating and valuable debate. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to me, I feel impelled to say a few words.
First, I was very disappointed that she concentrated almost the whole of her speech on a rather petty matter. As I understand it, she is saying that the interests of Wales are not sufficiently looked after in this debate because my noble friend Lady Trumpington has no Welsh background. My noble
1368
friend is a Minister. The noble Baroness knows very well that in this House not every department of state is represented by a Minister. Frequently, junior Ministers from other departments reply to debates or answer Questions of another department.
My noble friend speaks with the authority of the Welsh Office this evening, as well as having the authority of her own department behind her. I believe that this House would accept that she is sensitive to any point put forward and I have no doubt that she will try to consider every possible point raised in this debate. She will do just as well as any Welshman who might have been appointed to sit in her place.
Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to consider an Act of Parliament—the Race Relations Act. She may find that she has contravened the whole purpose of that Act and in that respect she has been slightly racist. She is a person for whom I have had a great deal of time over the years. We have known each other for many years and I have great respect for her. However, her concentration on that one petty matter this evening was not worthy of her.
Incidentally, I believe she said that we have no one who has any qualification to understand the intricacies of Welsh affairs. However, perhaps she does not appreciate that my noble friend was a landlady with Lloyd George. Therefore, in those circumstances if anybody is able to understand the intricacies of Welsh affairs, she is.
Baroness White: My Lords, as I understand it the noble Baroness was a landgirl on Lloyd George's estate. That does not qualify her to have a full knowledge of contemporary Wales. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I am not referring to this debate in particular. I am referring to the general position of Welsh affairs in your Lordships' House.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, when the noble Baroness came to the House of Commons, followed shortly afterwards by myself, there was the first Minister for Welsh Affairs—David Maxwell Fife. He was known affectionately throughout Wales as "Dai Bananas". Nobody would ever suggest that that Scotsman was other than deeply concerned with all the intricacies, which the noble Baroness mentioned, of Welsh affairs. He was an enormously popular Minister for Welsh Affairs and will be remembered as someone who understood the many problems which we have.
Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on initiating this debate. It is interesting that he refers to:
"the state of the social infrastructure in Wales".
That is a wonderful title because it opens up everything. I was intrigued to know what he would talk about. He referred to water, sewage, rural areas, railways, communications and nearly every matter. The only matter to which he did not refer—and this surprised me—is the Welsh language. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, may refer to that.
Not very long ago we had a debate about rural matters in Wales and the preservation of the Welsh

1369
language. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend about one matter which may be of interest. The Welsh Language Board has produced a report and it has also produced a draft Bill. I was interested in that because in 1964 when we had just become the Opposition party, I initiated a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the Hughes-Parry Report. The Labour Government followed the view which I expressed, although they did not carry out in full the recommendations of that report. I ask my noble friend to consider this new report and draft Bill. I do not believe that one should consider it too quickly. It is very intricate—I use a word used by the noble Baroness—and involves many matters which must be considered very carefully. However, that is of interest and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say that it will be considered very carefully by Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to ask about only one other matter. I am afraid I am a little remote from detail these days. I believe that there has been an increase in the Welsh language grants—which are of great importance—that are given to local authorities and other educational bodies. I shall be grateful to my noble friend for any information that she is able to supply on that point.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on an extremely interesting opening speech. My intention was not to make a speech; it was to be here to listen and to learn. I believe I have learnt a little from the noble Lord's opening and certainly support him on two matters. I should like strong consideration to be given as soon as possible to a national freight terminal in South Wales. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that there should be a second Severn crossing.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I am grateful for his remarks. But does he not agree that discussion on the Welsh language would be inappropriate in this debate because it is not part of the infrastructure of Wales? It is part of the heart and soul of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I cannot possibly join issue with the noble Lord on that emotional and proper point.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for provoking the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, into intervening in the debate. We are delighted to hear him. He was always a very good defence advocate and obviously felt that a little defence advocacy was necessary. However, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not speak a little more extensively on the social infrastructure. Like himself, I was puzzled when I saw the words,
"the state of the social infrastructure in Wales".
They sounded like buzz words to me. I am puzzled to know what are their limits. Where does social infrastructure begin and end? I presumed, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that the debate could cover virtually everything.
1370
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on putting the Unstarred Question, and on his speech. I particularly enjoyed his ending with the quotation of Harri Webb, that the tolls were always collected on the English side. Regrettably, that is a bad habit that has existed for over a millennium. I do not suppose that we shall change it; the tolls will always be collected there.
We should all be concerned with the social well-being of the communities that live in Wales. I emphasise the word "communities". In my view it is not right to encourage a free-for-all approach based almost entirely on materialistic values and economic short-termism. That approach excludes concern for the community as a community, having regard to its traditions, values, linguistic patterns and so forth. The Welsh liberal approach and tradition, which I have always been proud to share, acknowledges the value of free enterprise, personal endeavour and individual responsibility in creating a prosperous and contented society. However, we do not believe and never have believed that those forces should be uncontrolled to the extent that they are allowed to wreak havoc on whole communities and their way of life. To think otherwise is to condone a form of economic colonialism whereby naked economic forces are allowed to dominate and change existing societies willy-nilly.
In my view Wales is not England with a different accent. It is the home territory of a nation; of a distinct and complicated society with subtly different values, traditions and approach to life. That should be reflected in the approach of government to the problems of Wales, including its social infrastructure.
I want to dwell shortly on three matters which, in different ways, are part of that social infrastructure. The first concerns housing. In many areas of Wales, particularly in rural Wales, numbers of the native population, especially among the young, are unable to afford a roof over their heads. That situation is totally unacceptable. We have gone back decades in some facets of social development, and housing is such a facet. In 1945, at the end of the war, we would never have contemplated such a situation. I always thought it was a great mistake—disagreeing with the dominant views in my party and the Labour and Conservative parties—to sell council houses. Possibly we should have stopped building more council houses and encouraged private enterprise to build homes for the young, and encouraged home ownership. But we should have kept and improved the existing council housing estates for those people who are young, old or infirm; who are so uncertain in their economic future and circumstances that they cannot afford the responsibility of home ownership and wish to rent at a reasonable and acceptable level. At the very least the local housing authorities should have had the option.
It is time that the Government and the Secretary of State for Wales rid themselves of their total and unjustified prejudice against district councils as housing authorities. The Government's attitude appears to have been cast in concrete and set by an over-reaction to a few large housing authorities in

1371
England which were irresponsible. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Prys-Davies, know from their respective parties that there are many responsible councillors of all parties on district councils. The Government do not need any more housing associations, Tai Cymru or anything else. They should allow the district councils in Wales, particularly in rural Wales, to build houses to let for their own local people. Moreover, those new houses should not be subject to sale.
Last week there was a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee in another place. It transpired from the figures quoted that a large number of people in Powys, Dyfed, Clwyd and Brent in particular are in the earning bracket of £100 to £130 per week. That is the lowest end of the earnings range in the United Kingdom. How can those people afford to buy houses and pay mortgages on them? Is not there a responsibility owed to those young people—and I know a number of them—who cannot afford to buy homes or pay economic rents. They are surely entitled to have a roof over their heads. That should be a top priority for the Government.
I shall turn to transport. I have no comment on the road programme or the Severn crossing. I am concerned with the deplorable state of public transport, particularly in rural Wales. The people on the lowest average weekly wage in the UK—except possibly parts of Northern Ireland and Western Scotland—need a motor vehicle of their own, with all its costs, simply to travel to work or to give their families any chance of getting out of their village. Our taxation system, with its allowances for company cars for business and professional use, is totally tilted in favour of the better-off and against the interests of the worse-off. It is an impossible situation that should not be allowed to continue. With the lack of buses children, old people and youngsters cannot leave their villages to share the life of the community at large.
When I was the Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire years ago, I pressed in my early days for post buses on the lines of the Swiss. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was the Secretary of State at the time. We had the first post bus provided between Llanidloes and Llangurig. That post bus still runs today. But how many more post buses have been run in Wales? Why were they not extended? We need urgent action to provide and subsidise decent rural bus services. We should look again at the question of providing rural post buses throughout Wales otherwise our villages will continue their present path of becoming mere dormitories providing retirement homes and second homes for the better off in our community, with the local population largely excluded.
As regards railways, the Welsh Rural Development Board has rightly been trying to encourage more industry into Mid-Wales, emphasising the benefits of developing industry there. Yet at the same time organisations like British Rail have been positively discouraging development in Mid-Wales. I have travelled regularly between there and London. I live in
1372
Mid-Wales and I have travelled to London for the past 30 years virtually weekly. Today the journey by train is far more hazardous and unacceptable than it was 30 years ago despite all the protests of British Rail to the contrary. The service has become worse so far as concerns comfort, reliability, facilities and services. The posters of the Welsh Rural Development Board say that Mid-Wales is a place for development and that communications are good and steadily improving.
I have in my hand the latest timetable for the trains between Aberystwyth on the west coast of Wales and Shrewsbury which is the railhead for London. One cannot leave Aberystwyth now, even on a Monday morning, before 7.8 a.m. The journey to Shrewsbury on that train takes over two hours. It is the only train from Mid-Wales which has a connection with the through train from Shrewsbury. There are a number of through trains from Shrewsbury to Euston, but British Rail make sure that the Mid-Wales trains do not connect with them. The train reaches London at 12.31 p.m. The only return train which one can catch as a through train as far as Shrewsbury is at 3.40 in the afternoon. That is the only through train connection during the day. That is infinitely worse than the service has ever been in the time I have used it. It is an absolute disgrace that we have to put up with this situation in Wales.
I wish to turn to a totally unconnected subject and that is the Welsh language. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, raised the subject. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will also refer to it. In particular, I wish to refer to the grave shortage of teachers of the Welsh language at all levels in Wales. That includes nursery, primary, secondary and adult levels of education. There is a very great demand for such teachers. The Government need to give special encouragement to the subject. We should concentrate also on improving the teaching of Welsh as a second language through the use of first-class modern videos, and so on. There should be a concentrated effort here because there is a genuine demand in Wales.
My forebears moved into Wales about 200 years ago and became absorbed and assimilated into Welsh life. Many people moving into Wales now similarly want to be absorbed and assimilated. These days that is much more difficult because of the modern media, and so forth. There should be a concentrated and genuine effort to provide first-class Welsh videos for adult and school education. I have seen a number of videos, but I have seen no videos or films teaching Welsh that compare in quality, interest and presentation skills with those presented by BBC 2 for the teaching of French, Italian, Spanish as second languages. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is here and listening to this point as he is the principal of one of the constituent colleges of the University of Wales. The University of Wales has a great deal to answer for because of its failure to attract Welsh students to the university. That has been particularly true because of its efforts in the 1960s to become just another redbrick university.

1373
That was a very mistaken policy in going for numbers while being encouraged by the Government at the time.
It is a matter of grave concern in Wales that relatively few of the students from the sixth form in Welsh secondary schools go to the University of Wales. In the 1960s in particular the university turned its back on the precepts and guiding principles of its founding fathers and ceased to try seriously to attract Welsh students. It preferred competing with the redbrick universities in the scramble of those days. It is high time that this trend was changed. There is a very heavy onus on the university to see to this matter and to liaise more effectively with the schools.
I am a firm believer in Wales being a bi-lingual society. Wales is a series of communities. There should be ample opportunity for all children who want to have their education in Welsh to go to a Welsh school where English is taught as a second language, and those who want to go to a school where the teaching is in English should be able to do so and have Welsh taught as a second language. In that way we shall become a much more tolerant and bi-lingual society.
It is high time that the Government declare themselves on the Welsh language issue. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. The Welsh language Bill in its draft form needs careful and critical consideration. Nevertheless, the Government have had time to consider a number of drafts including that prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is time that they declared themselves. The danger of the Government's approach is this. Over the centuries Wales and the Welsh language have survived direct attempts to kill it. They have survived hostility, and so on. What is much more difficult for them to survive is half-hearted support. It is half-hearted support when people pay lip service to saving the language and allowing it to have equal validity, but not actually putting their backs into making sure that there is an effective policy. That is where the Government are found lacking at the present time. It is high time that they declared themselves on the Welsh language issue.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Morris for introducing this subject and giving the House the opportunity to discuss Welsh affairs. Those who have been privileged to know the Welsh poet, Harri Webb will appreciate that he would have listened with a wry smile to hearing his ode recited in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, it is fitting that his message should be heard in this environment.
At the outset I want to pay tribute to the South Wales miners and the South Wales Miners Federation. A week ago the South Wales section of the National Union of Mineworkers, the successor in title to the South Wales Miners Federation, sadly announced that its president, Mr. Les Dutfield, was surrendering the union's presidency due to the sharp and severe decline in the coal industry. That was an announcement unprecedented in the history of the
1374
South Wales miners. So an amazing chapter in the history of modern Wales has drawn to its close. If one wants to capture a glimpse of that chapter one can read the book of the late Dr. Thomas Jones, the father of my noble friend Lady White. It seems to me that in discussing the Welsh social structure of today one must recall that it was the South Wales Miners Federation which established in South Wales more than 200 miners welfare halls and libraries. It also established many medical aid societies, from which Aneurin Bevan drew his inspiration, and built at least a dozen hospitals.
In Cardiff dockland there stands the Corn Exchange; the erstwhile palace of the coal merchants. In that great hall there is a stained glass window which depicts two small medieval ships—two cogs, the "Morgannwg" and the "Taf" —blazing the challenge, "The Old Order Changeth". That has been the history of Wales. We are today as usual still engaged in the endless task of rebuilding and reshaping our industry, our roads, our homes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, our communities. This emerges very clearly in the moving speeches in another place last week of the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and the Member for Llanelli.
Probably the greatest problem facing Wales at the moment is the 100,000 who are unemployed. In some communities unemployment is entrenched, not just in the industrial valleys of South Wales but also in the rural areas of Wales. It is probably no more than a sad coincidence that that is the number of jobs lost from the mines during the past three decades. The job now is to go all out to fill the cleared sites with thriving workshops and factories. Coal brought iron and steel, roads and railways, sewers and brand new docks so that Wales could export to the whole world. Today the local authorities are pressing the Welsh Office to argue their case with British Rail for an international freight terminal in South Wales to facilitate the direct movement of traffic from South Wales through the Channel Tunnel to the central European markets. Many of us have seen the letter which the Council of Welsh Districts sent to the Secretary of State for Wales on 14th February. It was one of the letters referred to by my noble friend Lord Morris. I wonder whether the Welsh Office is prepared to give support for that particular project.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which is doing a splendid job of work under the chairmanship of Gareth Wardell suggested in its report on inward investment that there is an urgent need to develop higher education so that Wales can meet the fast changing needs of modern industry. In the course of its investigations the committee stumbled across the disturbing evidence that overseas industrialists are complaining of the inadequacy of the education system, though it seems to me that the complaint was not explored in any depth. We are all proud of the Welsh concern about education and its achievements, but that should not make us complacent. Nevertheless, it seems to many of us quite wrong for the Secretary of State to take over, as and from April next year, the local authority colleges of higher education at Cardiff, Gwent, Bangor and West

1375
Glamorgan. I am sure the Minister will know that this decision was severely criticised by The Times Higher Education Supplement on 8th February. This criticism was foreshadowed by an article in the THES last June. This paper firmly condemned the decision as being "the worst possible decision". It is only fair to those who are employed in those colleges and to students and potential students that the Welsh Office should produce a clear and convincing reply to that criticism, if it is able to do so.
Meanwhile, I have just three questions on that issue for the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. First, was this specific proposal fully tested by independent consultants? Was it further tested in the light of widespread discussion in the Principality? Secondly, how many additional staff will have to be recruited by the Welsh Office education department to meet the new demands to be created by the takeover? Thirdly, what is the formula for compensating the local authorities for the loss of their capital assets? The local authorities will be interested in the Minister's answer to that question.
I now turn to housing; an issue which has been touched upon in the debate. One hundred years ago, or thereabouts, Wales was experiencing immigration on a scale probably unsurpassed outside the United States of America. It is therefore not surprising that today the housing stock in Wales is older than the UK average. Of course, we acknowledge that houses have been improved, repaired and replaced by the thousand, by successive governments. Yet the Government's own housing condition survey acknowledges that a quarter of the housing stock in Wales is in poor condition and almost 80,000 houses are deemed unfit. There is a real substance to the demand voiced in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for new or renovated houses to be available at a price or rent which is affordable by people whose weekly salary is well below the UK average. We have been told that Shelter has assessed that 40,000 people are homeless. That figure includes families with very young dependent children. Does the Welsh Office accept that assessment? What does the Welsh Office propose to do about it? It would be absurd for the Welsh Office to argue that it cannot come forward with a programme to meet this need. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House about how the Welsh Office intends to meet the need within the coming year.
I am mindful that there are also special housing requirements in rural Wales. These were illustrated in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and we touched on the subject in a debate two years ago about rural Wales. I would accept that the current housing policy undertaken by Tai Cymru may well be along the right lines, except that the district authorities should be in the lead. But even if the policy is along the right lines, the funding is totally inadequate. I understand that Tai Cymru's allocation will enable it to build only 180 homes. That is a drop in the ocean.
Before I leave rural Wales, I should mention that I read with great interest the case for setting up a Welsh rural forum, broadly similar to the Scottish Rural
1376
Forum. By promoting improved co-ordination between the voluntary and statutory bodies in rural Wales, the potential contribution of both sectors would be fully exploited. The steering committee under the wise and experienced chairmanship of Sir Goronwy Daniel has drawn up a practical scheme, the running costs of which would be very modest. As I understand it, the scheme is being considered by the Welsh Office. Although it would not be a dramatic development, we very much hope that the department can help in the matter.
I move on now to consider health. One is struck by the fact that the number of the elderly will continue to increase throughout the decade. More could be done by the health authorities to redeploy their resources so that they can offer the elderly more actual treatment and at an earlier stage. That is an issue to which we shall return on another occasion. I was especially glad that my noble friend Lady White spoke about the inadequacy of the services for the disabled.
The quality of life for the vast majority of people depends upon jobs, housing, health and education. Those are the vital social areas which need to be strengthened and reinforced. However, we are today asking questions about the environment—and rightly so—which were not being asked in the golden days of the Coal Exchange and the South Wales Miners Federation. As the removal of the tips which have been scarring the face of South Wales for so long is moving apace, there is also a growing determination that modern industry which is coming to the area, and into Wales as a whole, should not pollute our streets and rivers and fill our worked-out quarries with industrial waste which can endanger health and harm the environment.
Like my noble friend Lord Morris, I too read in the Western Mail reports about the growing anxiety as regards the health of the semi-enclosed Irish Sea. I should be most grateful if the Minister can confirm whether Welsh Office officials are involved in discussions with the independent Liverpool University based Irish Sea Study Group. That would ensure that the department is always aware of the sensitive coastal areas in Wales which need protection.
Notwithstanding the intention of my noble friend Lord Morris to the contrary, I wish to say something about the Welsh language. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and Lord Hooson, anticipated what I wish to say about the subject. It is true that throughout the centuries the order has been changing, but up until now the Welsh language has survived. Wales is a small nation, but the national language is still spoken by about half a million people. I fully support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that further support must be made available for the teaching institutions. We want teachers to have access to modern teaching methods and technology. All those factors are important.
However, I very much hope that the Government will not under-estimate the power of legislative action to strengthen the Welsh language. A campaign has been underway since 1983 for a new Welsh language Act which would strengthen its status. Moreover, I have addressed many meetings throughout Wales in

1377
support of legislation. Five years ago two private Bills were published and 16 months ago the Welsh Language Board, which is the Government's standing advisory body on the Welsh language, forwarded to the Welsh Office a draft Bill which it had composed. Further, last December the board submitted a much improved draft to the Welsh Office which is now being considered by the department.
I am wondering whether the Minister can help us a little this evening. For example, can she enlighten us as to what steps the Welsh Office has already taken to examine that draft Bill in conjunction with Whitehall departments? I accept the fact that it will have to be discussed in consultation with such departments. However, I should be interested to know whether an inter-departmental group of officials has been established. If that is not the case, is it the intention to do so? Further, has this been the subject of discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department and with other relevant departments? It would be much appreciated by many people in Wales if the Minister could give us an approximate indication of when the Government anticipate being in a position to make a public statement about their intentions, bearing in mind the fact that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, racing against the clock. I should stress that the Welsh language is an issue upon which the Welsh Office can take the lead. Of course, I do not know whether it has been adequately consulted by other departments on the matter. But here is an area of policy where the Welsh Office must never be seen to be subordinate to Whitehall.
In conclusion, I must say that I listened with great interest and concern to the noted speech of my noble friend Lady White. I believe that she raised significant issues which will not go away.
7.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, noble Lords will know by now that I have only recently become the spokesman in your Lordships' House for Wales. Although I fear that pronunciation of the Welsh language will always be my stumbling block—those noble Lords who heard me try to wish the House a merry Christmas in Welsh, certainly did not understand what I said; I shall therefore not do so again—I am delighted to have been appointed. I am taking every opportunity I can to familiarise myself with Wales and all things Welsh. I am also delighted to have this opportunity to reply to the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and to other noble Lords who have spoken through whose comments and observations my own knowledge has been deepened.
I listened with interest to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I should first express my gratitude to her for promising me a future welcome in the hills. It is for the Prime Minister to decide who is appointed to represent departments in this Chamber. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said in his kind speech, not all departments have Ministers in this House. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that Wales is fully represented by Welsh
1378
constituency Members in another place. We cannot all have the privilege of being born Welsh, or even half Welsh as I believe is the case with the noble Baroness, Lady White.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this point, but did I understand the Minister to say that I was half Welsh? If so, I should point out to her that I have one Somersetshire great grandmother, and that is the only English blood that I have.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I stand corrected. But good-on the one Somerset great grandmother!
However, to return to my theme, the fact that not all of us had the privilege of being born Welsh does not mean that those of us who have the honour to represent Wales on this side of the House do not spend a great deal of time briefing ourselves on all things Welsh. My noble friend Lord Reay will be answering a Question on Wales next week. Both he and I tackle these duties with a great deal of vigour, as if we were Welsh.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that I have already renamed myself Jean, Jean, the slurry queen, and so his words hold absolutely no fears for me. The words "social infrastructure" caused my mind to boggle when I read them. All was clarified by the noble Lord in his witty speech about sewage. It has become evident from what he said that he is concerned about those aspects of the subject which relate to communications in their broadest sense, utilities and other similar infrastructure.
Strengths and weaknesses in transport and communications can so easily affect economic success and social conditions. In Wales, the Government's policy for roads is set out in Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s which was issued in April 1989 and updated in a supplement published last month.
Motorways and trunk roads are the direct responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of Wales. They make up 5 per cent. of the total network and carry two-thirds of heavy goods traffic and 50 per cent. of light vehicle traffic using motorways, trunk roads and other primary routes. Local roads—95 per cent. of the network —are the responsibility of the local highway authorities (the county councils).
The specific objectives of the Welsh programme in the immediate future include: completion of the dualling of the A.55 in North Wales; completion of the Baglan-Lonlas section of the M.4 by 1995; selective improvements to the M.4, A.48 and A.40 in South Wales to deal with growing traffic congestion; and selective improvements on other routes, notably the A.470 and A.483 to give better North-South access.
Fifty per cent. central government assistance is given under the transport grant arrangements for major local authority improvement schemes. A total of 23 schemes is being supported in the current year, involving expenditure of £72 million. Indeed we expect to spend a further £183 million on our motorway and trunk road programme in the present financial year.

1379
Since 1979 total expenditure on Welsh roads has exceeded £3 billion, with more than half of that on local authority roads. More is being spent on Welsh roads than at any time in the past. Over the next three years expenditure will continue at a high level and is planned to exceed £550 million. With regard to the second Severn Bridge crossing, which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned, as he will be aware proposals for a second Severn Bridge crossing are well advanced. The Bill seeking the necessary powers for its construction had a successful Second Reading in another place on 14th January and will proceed shortly to Committee. Subject to parliamentary approval, work could start by 1992 and the new crossing could be in use by about the end of 1995.
On the wider public transport infrastructure, Her Majesty's Government's view is that for the most part services should be provided on a fully commercial basis and without public support. Her Majesty's Government accept, however, that there are situations when that objective cannot be fully achieved. The Government subsidise the regional rail network through the public service obligation grant.
For their part, county councils are required to devise public transport policies for their areas and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may care to note that they can secure services to satisfy local needs where those are not met by commercial services. District councils also have the power to buy in bus services where they see the need for them. At the moment about three-quarters of the bus services in Wales are provided commercially.
The rail network in Wales is being considerably improved. Already South and South-West Wales enjoy a fast and frequent InterCity service with Paddington. In order to enhance the rail network, British Rail is planning to modernise the rolling stock serving Mid- and West Wales.
The noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Prys-Davies, asked me whether it is the intention of the Welsh Office to discuss with British Rail the possibility of Wales as a location for a major international freight terminal. They will be interested to know that the Welsh Office took an active role in the wide-ranging consultations leading to development of the plans identifying South Wales in that connection.
The Minister of State for Wales participated in a seminar organised by the Standing Conference on Regional Policy for South Wales designed to alert the business community to the opportunities for freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel. However, development of a terminal is entirely a matter for British Rail to decide in the light of the needs of its potential customers. I know that the Welsh Development Agency is actively considering how to interest private developers in the possibility of a rail freight terminal for South Wales, and I urge the business community in South Wales to give careful consideration to that matter and to the opportunities
1380
which could be lost by inaction now. A decision on the location of a terminal to service South Wales and the South-West will be made in about three months.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke about the Mid-Wales rail service. He absolved me from the need to provide an immediate answer to his detailed points. I shall write to him about them. Suffice it to say that British Rail is concerned about the service, and plans to introduce more modern rolling stock on its service in the rural areas of Mid- and West Wales are in hand.
The present condition of the utilities in Wales is also clearly a matter of concern to the noble Lord. Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water), the main water and sewerage undertaker in Wales, has recently begun an unprecedented 10-year investment programme during which it will, as agreed before privatisation, invest £1.8 billion—£500,000 a day, every day for 10 years. The programme will, among other things, ensure that our drinking water meets the stringent standards that the Government have set down. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, may care to know that I enjoyed a glass of bottled Welsh water in the Peers' Guest Room before entering the Chamber this evening.
In the first five years the emphasis will be on improving water treatment works, investing £200 million to bring works up to standard and meeting the undertakings that Welsh Water has given to the Secretary of State for Wales. A further £320 million will be spent on improving sewage treatment works and the sewerage network; and £70 million will be spent in this period on improvements to sea and estuarial outfalls. In the second five years the emphasis will shift from expenditure on treatment works to expenditure on the distribution system; £400 million will be spent on the water network; and a further £200 million on sewage.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked me for statistics on the state of outfalls. Rather than go into the details on the state of individual outfalls sought by the noble Lord, I trust that he will have been satisfied by my remarks on the scale of investment that Welsh Water proposes for that activity.
I turn to some of the other utilities. British Gas which no one mentioned—why bother!—has 820,000 customers, served by almost 12,700 kilometres of pipeline. It is expanding its customer base by some 20,000 to 25,000 customers every year. That is an important point. Modern technology and increased efficiency are enabling the natural gas supply network to be extended to a significant number of new communities in Wales every year.
Turning to questions that I have been asked by your Lordships, I begin with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, whose kindness in giving me prior warning is greatly appreciated. His words about the South Wales Miners Federation were moving and one felt very much what he felt about the end of an era.
The first of his questions concerned education. The English polytechnics and colleges were incorporated on 1st April 1989 and there is evidence that this independent status has improved their ability to respond quickly to new opportunities and strengthen their links with employers. The Secretary of State

1381
wants the Welsh institutions to compete on equal terms with their counterparts in England. After wide consultations on the recommendations of independent consultants concerning the future of the Polytechnic of Wales he has concluded that all the major Welsh institutions of higher education will be better able to meet the challenges of the future if they become independent bodies funded by the Welsh Office.
Under the present arrangements, local authority higher education is planned and detailed advice on the distribution of its funding is given by the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education. The small staff, numbering three full-time and one part-time personnel, are employed by the local authorities. Discussions are in train with a view to transferring these staff into the Welsh Office to continue and develop the work on which they are engaged. It is not anticipated that any further staff will need to be recruited.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir asked me about the Welsh language legislation. All noble Lords were concerned about the Welsh language in one way or another. I understand that the Welsh Language Board published its report on the Welsh language on 11th February. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he will consider the board's proposals very carefully. For the time being its proposals are being considered by officials within the Welsh Office, though they will consult other government departments as appropriate.
The board's proposals have considerable implications for all branches of government and it is therefore too soon to say when the Government will be in a position to respond to them. No decision has been taken as to whether further consultation on the board's proposals will be required, but I understand that it consulted a wide range of organisations during the course of last year.
My noble friend Lord Thomas asked me about Welsh language education grants. This reply may also serve to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that £1.7 million will be available as a Welsh language specific grant to local education authorities in 1991–92. A further £2.4 million in Welsh language grants will be available for other educational bodies in 1991–92. This figure represents an increase of almost 18 per cent. over this year's grant and will be used to support a number of initiatives such as teams of area teachers around the counties and the programme of translating textbooks to assist the introduction of the national curriculum in Welsh medium schools.
A further £2.7 million is being made available to voluntary organisations which provide additional assistance to the language. Therefore, total direct grant support for the language next year will be a record £6.8 million, an increase of 16.8 per cent. on this year.
Turning to financial support for the proposed Welsh rural forum, Ministers are aware of the proposals to set up this new organisation. I
1382
understand however that it has not yet been established and Ministers have received no request for financial support.
With regard to the needs of the homeless and the target for the provision of low cost housing, in accepting people as homeless it is impossible for local authorities to secure homes on the basis of people's individual aspirations. However, there is real progress both in the management of the 230,000 council properties in Wales and in the Government's determination to increase the housing association stock by over one-third by 1993–94.
Central government fully play their part by increasing resources available to deal with homelessness, seeking value for money on expenditure and providing guidance on best practice. This commitment can best be demonstrated by the fact that in 1990–91, eight Welsh authorities have been given supplementary credit approvals of over £2 million in total specifically for homelessness.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke about discrimination against district councils in terms of housing. I am not certain what he had in mind so perhaps he will tell me afterwards. He implied that the Government had a sense of discrimination against district councils in terms of housing. District councils are the tier of local authority which has been vested with responsibilities. In this sphere, resources are directed to those authorities by central government, and they continue to be regarded as an important channel for providing and maintaining the housing stock.
On low-cost home ownership, it is very much a matter for individual local authorities to decide to use low-cost home ownership initiatives which are specifically targeted at first time buyers, including those in council accommodation and on waiting lists. Those who do so have found them to be successful.
Some authorities are developing schemes of their own which enable the subsidy to be passed on. My department is keen to assist local authorities which have recognised the need to undertake innovative schemes through the brokering of good practice and the development of new ideas. Special arrangements exist in Wales for authorities to use 100 per cent. of the capital receipts realised from such schemes, enabling them to recycle receipts for other low-cost home ownership schemes if they wish. On 20th February, the Secretary of State announced an additional £3 million which has been made available to rural authorities, much of which will be used for low-cost home ownership schemes.
Finally I turn to the Irish Sea and the subject of pollution. The Irish Sea Study Group was initiated in 1985 by the Royal Society of Arts to report on the environmental health of the Irish Sea. The group was co-ordinated by the University of Liverpool, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, knows.
After an initial survey, four specialist groups were set up, including one on pollution. Each group produced a report and the reports were considered at a conference held in the Isle of Man last October at which the Welsh Office's chief planner was one of the

1383
speakers. Both this Government, through the Department of the Environment, and the Irish Government have helped fund the study group. The Irish Sea is an important component of the Welsh environment and the department will wish to develop as many links as it can with all those who contribute to its knowledge.
A great deal more could be said. I have done my best to answer all noble Lords' questions, but I shall carefully read through what has been said. Should I need to write to any noble Lords, they can be assured
1384
that I shall do so. In the meantime, tremendous advances have been made and will continue to be made with the infrastructure in Wales.

Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.