Sitting of 10 May 1984

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon 17 May.
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] By
  Order
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon 17 May.
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By
  Order)
  DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (By
  Order)
  Orders for Second Reading, read.
  To be read a Second time upon 17 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Debt Rescheduling
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with other Finance Ministers regarding countries rescheduling of debt; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I attended the meeting of the IMF interim committee on April 12, where international debt problems were among the matters discussed. It is likely that this is one of the subjects we shall be discussing at the London economic summit next month.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that, in view of the recent rise in interest rates, especially in the United States, and mirrored over here, the rescheduling debt of those countries could be increased by as much as $3.5 billion for every 1 per cent. rise? Will he also confirm that at the economic summit there is likely to be discussion of a proposal for two-tier interest rates, so that the bankers can save their own skins? If the bankers and Governments together are prepared to distort market forces to look after themselves, why can we not have lower interest rates on a two-tier basis for worthy causes at home, to reduce the dole queue?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is not altogether accurate when he says that the rise in American interest rates has been mirrored over here. There has been a rise in this country, but it has been very much less. Since 14 March, when the base rate went down to 8 1/2 per cent. in this country, United States interest rates have risen by 1 1/2 per cent.; here they have risen by between 1/2 and 3/4 per cent. Our interest rates are well below American interest rates for the first time ever. Nevertheless, it is an unwelcome increase, small as it is.
    As for the two-tier system, I have read rumours in the newspapers about it, but I know of no such proposals being made at the London summit or elsewhere. Finally, and here the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, the high level of American interest rates is a very real problem for the debtor countries.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept, with regard to the Argentine debts, that the Americans may have been seeking to preserve the future of the international banking system and perhaps also to reflect on the emergent democracy in Buenos Aires, or does he think that these debts ought to be marked by the commercial banks as non-performing in default?
    Mr. Lawson: I think that what the Americans had in mind, among other things, was to try to coax the Argentines into an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. It is most important that there should be an agreement and I am afraid there is no sign of one at present. The British Government are clear that Argentina will have to abide by the rules which other debtor countries have had to abide by if it wishes to receive assistance from the Western countries.

    Merchant Seamen (Tax Concessions)
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effect of the withdrawal of overseas earnings tax concessions on British merchant seamen.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I have met representatives of the General Council of British Shipping and the seamen's unions. I and my colleagues have received some 300 letters from seafarers and their families.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the withdrawal of the overseas tax concessions will result in a net reduction in the incomes of many merchant seamen? In view of the acceleration that this may give to the already alarming decline in the size of our Merchant Navy, will he consider trying to find some way of extending to merchant seamen the concessions enjoyed by British overseas residents, who have to be abroad for only 302 days to qualify for full relief?
    Mr. Moore: I am aware of the difficulties facing our shipping industry. We all have respect and sympathy for seafarers, but I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be difficult to ask the tax system—that means taxpayers—specifically to seek to help a particular work force. To that extent, we must get the figures in perspective. We are talking about 3+ per cent. of the total wage costs of the shipping industry, which is about half of 1 per cent. of the industry's total costs. We must get that figure in perspective. It does impact negatively on seafarers.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the Chancellor's avowed intention to reduce tax levels, is not it inconsistent that an able-bodied seaman in the next tax year may lose £10 per week of income? That figure will rise to £35-£40 for senior masters. Is the Minister aware that that will put us at a disadvantage with our competitors in other merchant navies? Can the Chancellor at least make an increase in the fixed allowance to take into account the fact that these men are away from home most of the year and lack the social and educational advantages that other members of the community enjoy?
    Mr. Moore: I shall not try to answer all those points, but I remind the House that the combined effects of the Budget in 1984–85 on a married rating who is on average pay and is spending 200 qualifying days away, will result in an increase of £1.10 per week. I recognise the difficulties, but the reliefs were the product of high marginal tax rates which were sought to be relieved in this way. No one in the House wants to see reliefs of this sort, as opposed to people being paid properly by employers.
    Mr. Cormack: Why cannot members of the Merchant Navy be treated in the same way as members of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that members of the Royal Navy do not benefit in any way from these reliefs. In fact, the reliefs affect only 45,000 of the 65,000 members of the merchant marine.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Financial Secretary aware that one of my young constituents—a seaman—will lose more than £500 a year because of the proposals? Is it not disgraceful that seaman—men who work abroad to earn their living—are bracketed with the idle rich who spend half their time on world cruises or in their villas abroad?
    Mr. Moore: Nobody is seeking in any way to deny the respect that we all have for the seafarers of our country. However, the reliefs were introduced at a time of high marginal rates, to help the export drive in 1977. The abolition of those high marginal rates has associated with it the removal of reliefs that are not now regarded as necessary. I remind the House of the figures in relation to an average able seaman, who is earning £155 per week. The combined effects of the Budget will mean a difference to him of £1.10 per week.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of the representations that have been made from all quarters of the House, and the undesirability of the work of our merchant seamen passing into the hands of merchant seamen of other countries over whose conditions of employment we have so little influence, will the Minister undertake to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, to treat merchant seamen as a special category?
    Mr. Moore: The House has spent a long time trying to remove special categories from the tax system. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that whether our seamen work for foreign or United Kingdom flags the tax system relates to their residency, and equal tax systems apply.

    House Extensions (VAT)
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the consequences
    1068
    of his decision to bring the construction of house extensions within the scope of value added tax on the level of the black economy.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Detailed estimates cannot be made.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is likely that the Government could lose a considerable amount of revenue because a number of cowboy builders may take advantage of the new circumstances? Ought he not to consider detailed estimates, because the measure may mean that the Government will lose, rather than raise, revenue?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The fears that have been expressed, as I understand them, are very exaggerated. For example, home extension work is unlikely to go to the black economy, and the Budget changes made by my right hon. Friend will end the evasion of tax by the misdescription of repairs—which were, and still are, standard-rated—as alterations, which are zero-rated. Those misdescriptions must have cost the Revenue considerable amounts in the past, and that sort of evasion will, I hope, not now take place at all.
    Mr. Maxton: How many extra Customs and Excise staff will be employed to collect this duty? How does this compare with the reduction in the number of Customs and Excise staff over the past five years, and in particular, of the staff who have been employed to ensure that hard drugs are not imported?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The number of Customs and Excise staff involved in this change will be very small. What it will mean is that the staff already concerned with these matters will be able to spend more of their time on VAT control, rather than in sorting out some of the very difficult marginal cases between repairs and alterations.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Would it not be fair to exempt from this tax at least those householders who signed contracts for the work to be done before 1 June and who have, unfortunately, not been able to get the work done before that date?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As my hon. Friend may know, this matter was debated in the House during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on 30 April, and I gave an indication then that my right hon. Friend, myself and others will be considering the points made in the debate. I made it clear that I said that without any commitment to any change in taxation arrangements.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does not the initial answer that no detailed estimate can be made mean that the Government have no idea of the real consequences of the tax? Can the Government tell us, for instance, how many small business men they anticipate will be made bankrupt? Can they tell us whether they share the view of the industry that it will result in at least 35,000 unemployed men and women who were previously working in the industry?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The fact that one cannot make a detailed estimate of tax evasion should not come as something strange to the right hon. Gentleman, who has had some experience of government. If one knew precisely where all the tax evasion was going on, of course the resources of the Customs, and of the Revenue department, would be deployed against that evasion. What I do know, from the careful judgments that we have made, is that overall one

    1069
    would expect this not to increase evasion because we are removing the difficult dividing line between repairs and alterations.

    Economic Forecasts
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use he makes of forecasts by other economic forecasters.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): The Treasury monitors a wide range of outside forecasts.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that of the 19 forecasters who have recently published their findings in the Financial Times, only four forecast a reduction in inflation in 1985, and that one of those was the Treasury itself and another its sycophantic supporters at Liverpool university? Why do the Government not take more notice of Professor Wynne Godley and the Cambridge school, because they, every year since 1978, have been absolutely right in their predictions about the level of unemployment and the reduction in manufacturing output? Why do Government supporters laugh when they know that that is the truth?
    Mr. Rees: As the hon. GentLeman has singled out one forecaster, I am bound to say that Professor Wynne Godley's forecasts do not compare favourably with those of the Treasury and that in fact most outside forecasts since the autumn statement have been moving closer to that of the Treasury. The Treasury was a little over-pessimistic about the reduction of inflation last year. Other outside forecasters were a good deal more pessimistic. The Treasury has been proved more right than them.
    Sir William Clark: While talking about forecasts, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to refute the forecast that the Government have any intention of altering the tax arrangements for pensions during the passage of the Finance Bill through Standing Committee?
    Mr. Rees: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Treasury study these forecasts in respect of the effect on the British economy of the movement of the pound sterling on the various foreign exchanges and, if so, will the Treasury now make more plain the Government's exchange rate policy so that business confidence here is not shattered by sudden and erratic movements in exchange rates?
    Mr. Rees: I and my right hon. Friends have made the Government's policy on exchange rates very clear.
    Mr. Latham: Did not the economic forecast on the rate of inflation made at the last general election by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), leave a good deal to be desired?
    Mr. Rees: That is certainly a forecast to which we did not pay a great deal of attention, but, in case the right hon. Gentleman would prefer the House to forget it, I remind the House that he forecast that if a Conservative Government were returned inflation would double by the end of 1983.
    Mr. Gould: What changes in the Treasury forecast will have to be made as a result of the rise in interest rates?
    Mr. Rees: That depends on how long that change persists. It may be a temporary fluctuation.

    Company Cars
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since the Budget on the increase in tax on company cars.
    Mr. Moore: Since Budget day my right hon. Friend has received 40 letters and representations on this subject.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister understand the widespread resentment among salesmen and managers over the special tax treatment of a tool of their trade as a perk, especially when so many other perks go untaxed, such as coal for miners and travel concessions? Will he therefore examine the possibility either of introducing a staged tax relating to the number of miles of business use, or of putting an upper limit on this seemingly unending increase in taxation?
    Mr. Moore: I am always ready to consider points made by my hon. Friend, who has a tremendous interest in and commitment to the car industry. However, the benefits concerned are quite obviously seen in advertisements as being attractive. For example, today a basic rate taxpayer receiving from his firm a 1600 Sierra would pay tax of £144 a year on that benefit, which does not seem to be the real value. We are seeking to move towards realistic levels of all benefits as regards their tax equality with ordinary cash remuneration.
    Mr. Park: When will the Government stop using the car industry as a milch cow? The Government continue to allow adverse tariffs against our exports, a to apply a special tax only to cars and motor bikes, and to tax customers who, in the main, buy British cars. When will the Government change their policy?
    Mr. Moore: In so far as the question relates to the taxation of perks on cars, I have covered the relatively low taxation in relation to the value of the perk. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join us in welcoming the enormous current success of our car industry and, like him, I would encourage people to buy British cars. Car production in 1983 was over 1 million for the first time since 1979. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that, as well as the successful launch of the Metro, Maestro and Montego, and the fact that BL's productivity is now comparable, again, with the best in Europe.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that these tax changes bear heavily on middle management, who are so vital to our industrial recovery? Does he accept that this increased burden would be much more readily acceptable if the Treasury was even-handed in its taxation of perks? Is there not particular resentment that coal miners' free coal is not taxed? May we assume from his earlier reply that my hon. Friend is considering taxing those other perks in future Budgets?
    Mr. Moore: The Government's policy is quite clear. Let me remind my hon. Friend of what I said a few moments ago. Our policy is to move gradually towards realistic taxation of perks to ensure that all benefits in kind are taxed equally with cash remuneration.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor whether he will receive a delegation from

    1071
    the United Commercial Travellers Association section of ASTMS, which regards the representative's company car as a tool of the trade and believes that a vigorous, hardworking section will be severely handicapped if the tax is increased?
    Mr. Moore: I have acknowledged the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), and I recognise the aspect of the question to which the hon. Member has addressed himself. If approached by delegations, I shall certainly consider what is obviously an important topic to those who regard company cars as a vital tool of their trade.

    Inflation
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest forecast for the rate of inflation over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Lawson: The latest forecast suggests retail price inflation will fall to around 4 per cent. by this time next year.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we must keep the present low and stable rate of inflation if industry is to have the confidence to invest and provide jobs? Is it not disturbing, therefore, that material costs to industry have increased by over 8 per cent. in the last year, and is that not a timely reminder that we simply cannot relax our efforts in the fight against rising prices?
    Mr. Lawson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's last point. That is indeed a central plank of the Government's economic policy. The increase in input prices to which he referred is largely a reflection of the rise in the value of the dollar, which means that certain commodities that manufacturers have had to import, particularly oil, have cost more. However, unit labour costs have risen very little, because of the large increase in the productivity of British industry generally and manufacturing industry in particular. Of course, considerable restraint must be imposed on pay increases, because the unit labour costs of some of our major competitors have actually fallen.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What will be the cause of this 4 per cent. inflation? Will it have anything to do with money supply?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes.
    Mr. Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he is to achieve his inflation forecast for the coming year it is vital to continue public sector pay restraint, especially in central and local government?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, that is indeed the case. The Government are anxious to keep a firm grip on public expenditure, of which public sector pay is an important part.
    Mr. Ashton: Would not a massive cut in electricity prices bring down inflation even faster, keep jobs open in the coal industry and help industry in general? Should we not stop talking nonsense about coal industry support putting 1p on income tax when electricity is making massive profits? Does not any business man with surplus stocks cut the price to get rid of them? The Government should stop taxing electricity, when miners are being pushed out of work.
    Mr. Lawson: Subsidies are no route to bringing down inflation. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that low-cost energy is important, and that means low-cost coal in particular.
    Mr. Maples: Is my right hon. Friend concerned that the recent rise in interest rates, the continued strength of the dollar and the high level of private sector lending may have adverse consequences for inflation, or is he still confident about his forecast?
    Mr. Lawson: I am never wholly confident about any forecast, although, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has pointed out, the Treasury's track record is considerably better than those of most, if not all, outside forecasting bodies. To that extent, I am confident about the forecast. The money supply—both broad and narrow—is well within the target range. There is no cause for concern on that score. Focusing exclusively on bank lending, which is only one component of the money supply, is likely to lead to a mistaken conclusion.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the importance attached to the level of interest rates by the Chancellor and by this Administration, is not the point raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) a bitter blow to the Government's strategy? Will not the forecast of higher interest rates lead to lower investment and higher prices, and what does the Chancellor intend to do about it?
    Mr. Lawson: I have made no forecast of higher interest rates to come. Of course the recent increase in base rates is unwelcome, but it is not a bitter blow. There will always be fluctuations in interest rates if the Government are concerned, as this Government are, to maintain control of monetary conditions, especially in the light of what has been happening in the United States. We have been able to keep our interest rates well below those of the United States, but we cannot be wholly immune to what has been happening there. The hon. Gentleman asked about the prospect for investment. I was very glad to see that the most recent CBI forecast suggested that there would be a 7 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment this year.

    Economic Progress
    Mr. Dormandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lawson: The combination of steady growth and low inflation that we are currently enjoying has not been seen since the 1960s.
    Mr. Dormand: Is it not a fact that the economy is already being affected by the dispute in the coal mining industry and that that is likely to cause a rapid deterioration before long? Does the Chancellor not agree that it would therefore be financially and economically advantageous at least to consider, if not to meet, the present demands of the miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—especially as the other coal-producing countries in the EC receive greater subsidies? Will the right hon. Gentleman make the strongest possible representations to the Prime Minister on this aspect of the economy?
    Mr. Lawson: The effects on the economy are very slight and will continue to be very slight, largely because of the substantial stocks of coal at the power stations. The

    1073
    treatment of the miners by the National Coal Board has been very fair—some would even say generous. The levels of pay are high, the increase offered is very generous, and the redundancy terms for those made redundant as a result of pit closures are extremely generous.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to coal industries overseas. No other country in Europe is investing anything like as much in its coal industry as we are, and that is important for the future. However, at the same time as investment for the future there must inevitably be closures of aging and grossly uneconomical pits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows the industry very well, knows in his heart that that is true.
    Mr. Higgins: As movements in the United Kingdom monetary aggregates are satisfactory, and as my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear in his evidence to the Select Committee that he has no target for the exchange rate and no intention of acting to protect it against external factors, why does he think interest rates are rising, and what effect does he think this it will have on the economy?
    Mr. Lawson: As I said, we, any more than any other country, cannot be wholly immune to what is happening to interest rates in the United States if we are concerned to maintain proper control of monetary conditions. I was interested to read that Herr Karl Otto Pùhl; of the German Bundesbank had made a similar remark in London yesterday. As I said in my evidence to the very eminent Select Committee that my right hon. Friend chairs, although we do not have a target for the exchange rate, we take it into account in pursuing our monetary policy.
    Mr. James Callaghan: While thanking the Chancellor for his tribute to my Chancellorship in the 1960s when there was steady growth, high investment and a much higher sterling rate than there is today, may I ask him to take into account the fact that at that time unemployment was at record low levels? Will he accept that he cannot take credit for his Chancellorship until he can do something about the present disastrous unemployment figures?
    Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment at present is appallingly high, but he is a fair man and knows full well that the rise in unemployment over the past 20 years has occurred throughout the world and not simply in this country. He was referring to the 1960s which was 20 years ago. [Interruption.] I do not know whether Opposition Members can count or not, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, can, because he had to for that job.
    The rise in unemployment has been worldwide. However, there are signs of an improvement in the labour market and I draw attention, in particular, to the fact that between March and December last year—the most recent period for which figures are available—the numbers in work increased by some 200,000.
    Mr. Eggar: In view of the importance of the United States interest rates to the level of our base rates, what action will my right hon. Friend take in conjunction with other European countries, to try to persuade the United States to reduce its deficit?
    Mr. Lawson: There have been a number of discussions with the United States authorities about that. There is some
    1074
    sign of a welcome change in the attitude of the American Government towards their deficit. As my hon. Friend will know, they have now decided to make what they call a downpayment, a $150 billion reduction in the deficit over three years. Their description of it as a downpayment leads to the inference that further reductions are yet to come. The matter may well be discussed at the London summit next month.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when considering the exchange rate policy which he announced earlier, not ensure that the exchange rates took some of the strain, rather than allowing interest rates to rise, to the disadvantage of industry in general?
    Mr. Lawson: I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were ever again a Treasury Minister he would indeed have the satisfaction — to him — of seeing a substantial devaluation of the pound. I should have thought that his experience as a Treasury Minister would have taught him that there is no satisfaction through that route.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that there has never been a Labour Government who have succeeded in bringing about a reduction in unemployment? Does he agree that it therefore must he a source of considerable comfort to those looking for work that a Conservative Government are in power?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Moreover, there has not been a Labour Government who have not had an average rate of inflation during their term of office higher than the rate of inflation of the preceding Government. This Government have broken that trend. Inflation has come down. The economy is recovering and the employment picture is now gradually improving, although I readily agree that it has a lot further to go.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Chancellor aware that industralists do not share his complacency about the rise in interest rates and that yesterday the chairman of the CBI said that the rise in interest rates could shatter the fragile recovery—as he described it—which is taking place this year? When will the Chancellor accept real responsibility for the control of this country's economy? When, instead of constantly blaming America, will he start to control interest rates himself and bring them down so that industry may continue to recover?
    Mr. Lawson: I could be interested to learn how the hon. Lady imagines that she can precisely control interest rates and, indeed, what she thinks the consequences of that would be. The more considered verdict of British industry was that contained in the CBI April survey, which showed the most widespread improvement in manufacturing orders and output for seven years.

    Stamp Duty
    8. Mr. Thurnhamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated income from stamp duty during the year 1983–84 (a) from property and (b) from other sources.
    Mr. Peter Rees:£550 million from transactions in real property; and £590 million from other types of transactions.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measures in the Budget will improve

    1075
    the workings of the property market and that many thousands of home buyers will benefit, especially first—time buyers?
    Mr. Rees: I am happy to confirm my hon. Friend's comments on the measure. In fact, about 600,000 home buyers should benefit from the measure during the next year, and about 90 per cent. of them should be first—time home buyers.

    Employee Share-owning Schemes
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms were operating employee share—owning schemes in 1974, 1979, and at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moore: By the end of April the number of employee share schemes approved by the Revenue for the purposes of tax relief had increased from 30—the comparable figure in 1979—to 689. Most of these schemes relate to a group of companies and the number of participating companies is estimated at well over 6,000— benefiting around 500,000 employees.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that I warmly welcome the increasing spread of wealth that is indicated by his reply? The figures are excellent. Does he agree that employee share—owning schemes are a much better way of increasing the distribution of wealth than Socialist state monopoly and nationalisation, which bring only higher taxes for each of us and which are advocated by the Labour party?
    Mr. Moore: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The ways in which 500,000 employees are now not only benefiting financially but have a much better relationship and commitment to their place of work should be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the Minister agree that the biggest single handicap to the development of employee share schemes will be the restrictive guidelines issued by pension funds, life assurance companies and other institutional investors through the investment protection committee, which are so restrictive as severely to limit the extent to which companies can develop employee share schemes? Will the Minister make it clear to those institutions that that is against the public interest?
    Mr. Moore: Without further details, I should not want to dictate to the IPC its role. I shall examine any points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he will welcome, as all hon. Members should, the extension beyond the original 1·5 million shareholders of the additional 500,000 shareholders through employee share schemes in the past four years.

    Falkland Islands
    10. Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent payments have been made out of the Contingency Fund in relation to health services in the Falklands.
    Mr. Peter Rees: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Treasury's estimated replacement cost of the Falklands hospital—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the estimate in his brief—over £10 million?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's eyesight has obviously improved in the past week. He is not reading from my brief. I must tell the House that it is too soon to say what the cost of replacing the hospital will be. An architect is now in the Falklands to advise the Falkland Islands Government if the options available to them. The question of funding is still under consideration.

    Taxation
    11. Mr. Pikeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of earnings is now paid by the average wage earner (a) in direct taxation and (b) in indirect taxation; and how this compares with 1978–79.
    Mr. Hayhoe: For a married man on average earnings with two children the percentage of earnings taken in income tax and national insurance contributions less child benefit is expected to be 21·7 per cent. in 1984–85, compared to 21·2 per cent. in 1978–79. Assuming that he has the consumption pattern of a typical family man at average earnings, he will pay 12·2 per cent. of his gross earnings in indirect taxes, excluding local authority rates, this year compared to 10·8 per cent. in 1978–79.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that the majority of those on average or lower than average wages, and certainly those who are not earning, are now paying more in taxes as a result of the Government's change in policies on direct taxation since they were elected? Will he accept that it is time for a change of direction to benefit the lower-paid and average—paid rather than retaining the present Government policy, which benefits those earning well above the average?
    Mr. Hayhoe: By concentrating the income tax changes on raising the basic allowance, my right hon. Friend has helped the lower paid. Moreover, it must be remembered that the real rise in earnings that has been taking place means that all those whose earnings have risen in line with the national average have real take—home pay now that is 8 per cent. higher than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will not assist the wage earner and the entrepreneur if the Chancellor decides to take into tax private pension schemes, which will discriminate against those who want to protect their families and, furthermore, not allow them to be a burden on the state? Moreover, will my hon. Friend deny the rumours that he intends to do that?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary gave a categorical assurance on the matter earlier this afternoon.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister say when he expects the tax burden, either indirectly or directly, measured in either real terms or as a proportion, to get back to what it was in 1978–79?
    Mr. Hayhoe: No. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that estimate, but I can give him the clear prophecy that if ever a labour Government are returned there will be higher taxes, higher borrowing and higher interest rates.

    European Community (Lending)
    12. Mr. Marlowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist for lending money to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Peter Rees: The Commission has no general powers to borrow. It has, however, been empowered by the Council to borrow in the markets on behalf of the Community in order to on—lend for certain specific projects.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a simple and clear undertaking to the House today that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government consider or agree to a loan to the European Community to pay this year's financial over run, because if he does not give such an undertaking today people will assume that we would be prepared to consider such a loan?
    Mr. Rees: No such assumption should be made. As, in the present circumstances, it has not been demonstrated that savings could not be made, it is far too early, in the Government's view, to consider such a loan.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend, at this critical time in the coal industry dispute, reiterate her confidence in and commitment to the long—term future of the coal industry? Does she agree that customers, not subsidies, will guarantee success?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. This Government want a prosperous coal industry. To that end, we believe that the pay offer that has been made, amounting to wages of 25 per cent. above average industrial wages, the excellent investment record, amounting to £2 million a day in good new coal mines, and the good voluntary redundancy payments are the best ever and offer very good prospects for the future of the coal industry if people will go to work and cut the coal to meet the orders that have recently been obtained.
    Mr. Steel: Is not the Prime Minister not troubled by the growing violence this week at Ravenscraig and Hunterston between pickets and the police, and by the warnings from the British Steel chairman about the long—term threat to the steel industry if the disruption goes on? Does she accept that Ministers have a responsibility in this deteriorating climate to try to bring the parties together, rather than to act as idle spectators at a tug—of—war in which the British economy is the rope?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must wholly and utterly condemn violence and its use to further industrial ends. We hope that it will be reduced. We must also congratulate the police on the way in which they have carried out their duty of seeing that those who wish to get to their place of work shall be able to get there. The way ahead is to condemn the violence and to see that those who practise it cease to do so.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that applications by industry for the coal conversion
    1078
    scheme have fallen from about 20 a month before the troubles to just three a month now? Is it not just another proof that if our coal industry is to have a secure future it is essential that markets be first won and then secured?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have macte available a subsidy for industries which wish to turn to coal as a means of providing the energy that they require. Clearly, industries which turn to coal must have the guarantee of security of supply or they will not make the change. Indeed, ICI has deferred until the end of the strike a decision on whether to use coal. Should that company agree to use coal, it will mean another 1,000 jobs in coalpits in Durham—exactly where the jobs are needed. It is another instance of an order waiting to be picked up, if those in the coal industry will only do so.
    Mr. Benn: When will the Prime Minister realise that she will never starve the miners into accepting a programme of mass pit closures that will deny the nation the coal that it needs for the prosperity of our industry?
    The Prime Minister: During 11 years the Labour Government closed 300 pits. The Conservative Government have closed only 92. Is the right hon. Gentleman disowning previous Labour Governments? Many miners, fortunately, are exercising their right to go to work and are producing coal. If others exercise their right to work, we shall have a good, prosperous industry. Apart from that, those who are not working have so far lost about £220 million in wages, and I hope that they will soon return to work.
    Mr. Maddenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Prime Minister confirm that police experts have now identified one of the guns found at the Libyan People's Bureau as the weapon used in the killing of a Libyan in this country some time ago? In those circumstances, will she establish an independent inquiry into the activities of diplomats at the bureau and the circumstances which led to the siege? In the same context, will she cancel her meeting with the Prime Minister of South Africa in protest at the unacceptable activities of South African diplomats, because the vast majority of people in this country are repelled by the evils of apartheid?
    The Prime Minister: The answer with regard to both the independent inquiry and South Africa is no in each case.
    Mr. John Carlisle: After another night of mindless violence on the Continent—this time in Brussels—will my right hon. Friend send a message of apology to the Belgian Government? Will she also send a message to the Belgian magistrates that, when these thugs come up before them, they should show no mercy towards them and that, if they consider it necessary, they should keep these thugs in custody for yet another football season, as that would certainly please the British people?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we are all deeply concerned about the violence displayed in Brussels last night and wholly and utterly condemn it. There have been a number of cases of violence. This time it was not in the

    1079
    stadium, but took place both before and after the match. A special committee was set up after previous examples of violence in Luxembourg. It will report shortly. I am happy to take my hon. Friend's invitation and condemn the violence. It was a disgrace to Britain and we deeply apologise for it.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a line in a well—known prayer, which she recited to the nation in 1979,
    "grant that I may seek … to understand rather than to be understood"
    still guides her in her duties? If so, will she now intervene in the miners dispute as the only possible way of breaking the deadlock? Will she cease to play the role of Pontius Pilate by washing her hands of the dispute? Is that not the way to seek greater understanding?
    The Prime Minister: I seek both to understand and to be understood. I hope that I do not have great difficulty in either. I believe that the way to end the coal dispute is by taking advantage of the consultation procedures which exist and which are being attended by some of the miners unions.
    Mr. Richard Body: In the course of today, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the answer to the written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) regarding the vast quantities of surpluses still being exported to Soviet Russia? In particular, will she consider the vast quantities of wine sold at only 2½p a pint? So long as wine is sent to Russia at 2½p a pint on such a vast scale, can we say that there is any reason for an increase in the own resources of the EEC?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, decisions on the export of surplus foodstuffs and wine in Europe are taken by a management committee. Those decisions are taken by a majority. Although we vote against them, we are not able to stop exports at highly subsidised prices. We disagree with those decisions and hope eventually to persuade others likewise. In the meantime, what my hon. Friend says reinforces the Government's present attitude and approach. This time, as part of the budget settlement, we must have strict financial guidelines on expenditure for ensuing years, including for agricultural expenditure.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the Government have had the report and recommendations of the independent review body on nurses pay since early April, will the Prime Minister say why she is making the nurses wait for several more weeks before telling them whether she will honour the report's recommendations?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the time taken to decide on review bodies' reports in general is in keeping with what happened previously. Obviously, we like to consider them all together.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those who report on review bodies do not have the duty of Governments who have to examine not only the amount recommended but how the money will be found.
    Mr. Kinnock: But that still does not explain why it will be two months or more between the time of the submission of the report and when the Prime Minister says she may make an announcement. Does the right hon. Lady not understand that nurses deserve a higher pay rise—one well above the current rate of inflation—and that she has no plausible reason whatever for denying that or continuing the delay? Why does the Prime Minister not announce now that she will honour the report and the figure recommended in it?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard my reply. We now have all the reports of the top salary review body and the special review bodies. We like to consider them together and to ensure that we know where the money will come from to meet whatever recommendations are made. That is a sound financial principle.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since we came to office nurses' pay increased by over 80 per cent., which is ahead of both average earnings and prices. In addition, nurses have benefited from a reduced working week. This Government have a very good record on nurses' pay.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister would agree that nurses are worth everything that they can get. In her answer, was the Prime Minister suggesting that nurses' pay is in any way dependent on the allocations which she may choose to make to people on some of the highest salaries in the land? If so, things are much worse than we thought. It really is time that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that no other considerations about top salaries can inhibit the proper pay settlement which nurses deserve.
    The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman attempts to put words in my mouth, but he will not succeed. I merely suggest that we shall examine all the review bodies' reports together. Before we make a pronouncement, we shall know exactly where the resources will come from.
    Of course, a Labour Government would not consider where the money would come from. They would only try to pay it out and jolly soon they would go back to the IMF. Indeed, we are now paying back money which they borrowed.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm her support for the refusal of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to intervene in the recent dispute between the owner and editor of The Observer, despite the urgings of the Opposition, whose noisy clamour on that contrasts deafeningly with their silence on the current issue of freedom of the press at the Daily Express in the light of the SOGAT issue?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that I wholly agree with the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the matter relating to The Observer. We stand four square behind the freedom of the press. That freedom would soon be lost if threats to production succeeded in obtaining space in a newspaper for the propagation of particular points of view.
    Mr. McCrindle: In view of recent press speculation, will my right hon. Friend tell me what respective importance she places on fiscal neutrality and the continuing encouragement to the self—employed and others to make provision for their own retirement through tax relief on their contributions?
    The Prime Minister: The two are not mutually exclusive and can be accommodated together.
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: In the light of recent announcements by the Soviet Union, Algeria and Bulgaria, and in view of the bad example that the Prime Minister set the world with her
    1082
    own botched—up attempt at an Olympic boycott in 1980, will she now give Government support to the setting up of a permanent Olympic site in Greece, perhaps with United Nations status?
    The Prime Minister: Conditions for the Olympics were different in 1980. The hon. Gentleman may recall that they took place soon after the Soviet Union had entered Afghanistan, which it still occupies. That is different from the conditions under which the Olympics are to be held this year in Los Angeles. We greatly regret the apparent decision by the Soviet national Olympics committee not to participate in the Olympics. We hope that it will reconsider it.
    The question whether there should be a permanent place in which to hold the Olympics is a matter for the Olympics committee, not Her Majesty's Government.

Business of the House
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 MAY—Progress on Report stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Motion relating to the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations.
TUESDAY 15 MAY—Completion of Report stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Motions on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 16 MAY—Until about seven o'clock, Third Reading of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Afterwards a debate on Hong Kong, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
THURSDAY 17 MAY—Until about seven o'clock, Report stage of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill. Motion for the Spring Adjournment.
Second Reading of the County Courts Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
FRIDAY 18 MAY—Second Reading of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Foreign Limitation Periods Bill [Lords], the Somerset House Bill [Lords], and the Fosdyke Bridge Bill [Lords].
MONDAY 21 MAY — Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Afterwards, Third Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
Motion on EEC documents on fisheries. The relevant numbers will appear in the Official Report.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 25 May until Monday 4 June. [Fisheries Debate on 21 May.
Documents:

a. Total Allowable Catches for 1984 Document No. 11209/83 and Document No. 11209/83 Amendment 1.

b. North Sea Herring: Norway Document No. 4969/84.

c. Total Allowable Catches for 1984 (Amendment): Document No. 5390/84.

d. North Sea Herring: Interim—.

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

a. HC 78-xii (1983-84) paragraph 4.

b. HC 78-xvi (1983-84) paragraph 4.

c. HC 78-xx (1983-84) paragraph 5.

d. HC 78-xii (1983-84) paragraph 5.]

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist the House by ensuring that next Wednesday's debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House is extended until midnight so that all hon. Members who wish to hear the debate will be able to do so?
1084
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding to my request that the spring Adjournment motion debate be held at a reasonable hour, and express the hope that this will become normal practice.
Can the Leader of the House arrange for an Opposition Supply day during the week after next, as that will be the last opportunity to use Opposition time on a subject that we wish to bring before the House before the spring recess.
In view of the disturbing evidence being submitted to the inquest on the late WPC Yvonne Fletcher, may I renew my request for a public inquiry specifically into the Government's response to the information reaching them before the tragic events at the former Libyan people's bureau? Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Prime Minister to make a full statement to the House on these aspects of the matter as soon as the inquest is completed?
Mr. Biffen: The Government's view about a public inquiry on matters relating to the death of WPC Fletcher has already been made clear. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the right hon. Gentleman's renewed request and to his request for a statement following the completion of the inquest.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about the timing of the Adjournment motion debate. I have as much a vested interest in that as anyone else has, and I am glad to know that I travel in such distinguished company.
As for an Opposition day within the time span mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, we should like to examine that through the usual channels.
I noted the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the plans for a debate on Hong Kong. I am sure that he is right in saying that there is widespread interest in the House on that topic, and I believe that it would be appropriate to arrange for the debate to be extended until midnight.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in our constituencies at the frequent failure of the Post Office to deliver the mails on time or even at all? Should not there be a statement by the Government and perhaps a debate on that important matter?
Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend's view, which is widely held in the House.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Ravenscraig is by no means a little local difficulty? The situation has grave implications for steel production and the whole country. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is important to find time for a debate on it? During the nine weeks of the miners' strike, the House has had no chance to debate the coal industry.
Mr. Biffen: I must take account of the fact that the programme of business which I have just announced makes it clear that there is no possibility of a debate on Ravenscraig in Government time next week. However, whether the subject will feature in a statement will be under constant review.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend consult the usual channels to see whether

1085
there is some means by which the House could briefly but appropriately recognise the great achievements of D—day, 6 June 1944?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, I shall certainly do that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House find time, if not next week the following week, for a coal industry debate, in view of the fact that the strike has lasted for nine weeks? Some of us would like the opportunity to point out that if the Government can find £1,000 million to subsidise agriculture, at £20,000 per farmer, and provide a loan to the bankrupt Common Market—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.
Mr. Skinner: If they can find the money to bail out the bankers because of the debts in foreign countries with two—tier interest rates, surely they can find the money to ensure that pits and the coal beneath the ground in Britain are used to the fullest possible extent.
Mr. Biffen: It is clear from the business announcement that I have made no provision for such a debate, but of course I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The Leader of the Opposition is interested in having an Opposition day between now and the recess. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to use his charm and advocacy on the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend arrange, before the House goes into recess and after the Treasury has been consulted and given its sanction, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement about compensation for those milk producers driven out of business and, in the case of tenants, left without a roof over their heads by the new quota arrangements?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of my hon. Friend's point, which I know will find a widespread echo in the House. It is quite likely that an affirmative resolution under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act will be required to implement the policy to which he referred. We may be able to have a debate arising on that.
Mr. Tony Benn: Reverting to the argument for a debate on the coal industry, will the Leader of the House take into account that today's estimates suggest that the cost to public funds of the dispute is now £1,350 million, that coal stocks have fallen to dangerous levels, and that there is serious hardship in areas where miners and their wives are fighting to maintain the pits? Could not the Government arrange a day's debate to tell us why they have decided to do nothing whatever to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the Government's handling of the dispute has been admirable. They have avoided the highly charged political comment that characterised that contribution from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). As to a debate, I can go no further than I went in response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend follows closely events in the EEC and he will know that we have agreed to an agricultural settlement that means that the Community will run out of funds this year
1086
and is seeking a loan. When I asked my right hon. Friend before how that loan would be dealt with, he said that he had not had time to address the matter. Obviously he has addressed it since then. Can he tell me now or in a written reply how the House will deal with a request from the EEC for a loan?
Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury responded to my hon. Friend with all the measured judgment that one would expect from a Treasury Minister. I can add nothing now, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House be making arrangements for the Prime Minister either to substantiate or to withdraw the statement that she made on "The World this Weekend" about an unnamed Member of the House in regard to intelligence al the beginning of the Falklands war? If nothing happens, will he move a motion to suspend her for five days?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can helpfully acid to what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, nor can I helpfully comment on the hon. Gentleman's final question.
Mr. Roger Gale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Straw and Stubble Burning (Control and Licensing) Bill introduced by Lord Alport has completed all its stages in another place? As there are now two such Bills before the House, will my right hon . Friend find time for a Second Reading of that Bill?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot hold out very much hope for my hon. Friend, but, being charitable by disposition, I shall certainly look into the matter.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House say when he expects the order to be laid before the House for the repeal of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Richard Body: On behalf of several thousand constituents, may I thank my right hon. Friend for expediting the passage of that most admirable measure the Fosdyke Bridge Bill next week?
Mr. Biffen: It is a profound element in any Government's economic and social policy.
Mr. James Hamilton: As the Leader of the House is not receptive to the idea of holding a debate on the coal industry, will he ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement next week about the coal supplies that are reputed to be in power stations and all other coal supplies in the country?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind, when he is asked by Opposition Members to make time for a debate on the coal industry, that they are not seriously pursuing their requests because that would oblige the Leader of the Opposition to say whether he supported the miners' efforts to starve the steel workers into submission?
Mr. Biffen: I think that I should have a wise detachment in these matters, and I could not follow the rhetoric of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Has the Government held internal discussions on setting aside time for a full—scale debate on the recently published report of the New Ireland Forum?
Mr. Biffen: No. I said last week that the House would probably wish to return to the matter in due course, but there are no immediate plans for such a debate.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have been pleased to learn that concessions have been made by the Government in another place on measures being considered there, following pressure in this House for those concessions? Would it not be a good idea for Ministers to make concessions on amendments tabled in this House rather than wait until they reached the other place.
Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting proposition. It could be either prudent or revolutionary. I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Why, instead of spending three days next week extending police powers, does not the Leader of the House provide time to discuss the 1,300 arrests on trumped—up charges that have been made during the coal dispute, including one last week in Coventry of a miner visiting his cousin to pick up some leeks for the garden, who was arrested for obstructing a police officer when he insisted that that was the only reason why he was travelling through the police road block?
Why cannot we have time to debate the destruction of one fifth of manufacturing industry, which has more to do with the economy of the coalfield than the Prime Minister's bleating about miners' productivity?
Mr. Biffen: The reason why we are having two and a half days next week to ensure that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill takes a major step towards becoming law is that we believe it to be a significant piece of legislation relating to the protective role of the police, without which society cannot properly function. We are delighted that time should be spent to that end rather than on harassing and attacking the police.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend note that one subject frequently figuring among the top three in public opinion is law and order? Will he consider holding a full debate soon on the whole subject of law and order, not specifically related to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill but to matters concerning the public at large?
Mr. Biffen: We live in a less than perfect world. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss law and order, he is never likely to have so good an opportunity as he will on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Notwithstanding the comments of the Leader of the House on law and order, will he prevail on the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House on the relationship between law and order and respect for the police that is implied in the fact that constituents of mine, travelling yesterday from Fife to a peaceful demonstration in Glasgow, were apprehended several times by the
1088
police? It is true that those travelling on the bus who contacted me were miners, but their wives and children, going on a peaceful demonstration, were apprehended. How in heaven's name can that help law and order or good relations with the police?
Mr. Biffen: I am in no position to comment on the events described by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall, of course, refer to my right hon. Friend his request for a statement upon them by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about the selection of Janice Smale as the test-tube mother and of the tremendous amount of money spent on the development of her quadruplets? May we have a debate on the National Health Service to consider that growing concern and the selection of prospective mothers?
Mr. Biffen: I must confess that I was not aware of the strength of the sentiment to which my hon. Friend refers. I suggest that, if he wishes to have the matter considered by the House during the coming week, he tries to secure a slot in the debate on the motion for the spring Adjournment.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the North—east electricity board is threatening to cut off the electricity from the homes of valiant miners battling to keep jobs to protect their families? Does he recall that last week I asked him whether we could debate the reason why £15 is being deducted from such people's social security payments when the Government know well that they are not receiving £15 and that, therefore, the electricity board is setting a target too high for the miners to pay? By not allowing a debate on that topic, the Government are in effect allowing young children in my constituency to be directly attacked.
Mr. Biffen: No arrangements have been made for that topic to be debated next week — certainly not in Government time — but the hon. Gentleman may wish through his own initiative to try to have it debated outside Government time.
Mr. John Carlisle: In view of the impending visit to this country of Mr. P. W. Botha, the South African Prime Minister, and of the brave initiative shown by our Prime Minister in inviting him, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on southern Africa — a subject of great interest to many hon. Members — which will at least give Conservative Members the opportunity of knowing whether the leaders of the Labour party and the Liberal party view with the same enthusiasm the visit of this international leader as they do their talks with leaders in Moscow?
Mr. Biffen: There is no prospect of a debate on southern Africa in Government time next week or, I suspect, immediately thereafter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will try again, on his own account, to have the matter raised.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why should Members of the House of Commons have to put up with what have now been three cover—ups—one on the Belgrano, the second on the issue of Oman and the third on what happened over the Libyan embassy siege? In the

1089
light of what was said at the inquest yesterday, is there not a duty on the Government to carry out the fullest possible inquiries, since it was said at that inquest that the police were informed in advance that violence was to be used? Surely Parliament must now demand and get an investigation from the Government.
Mr. Biffen: I do not for one moment accept the description that the hon. Gentleman gives to the topics to which he referred, but I note his discontent on them which I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Leader of the House noticed that early day motion 714 is gathering increasing strength from both sides of the Chamber? [That this House recognises that the refusal to admit Mrs Jill Allen, M.B.E., with her guide dog Brandy to the Strangers' Gallery on Friday 27th April 1984 represented a disgraceful affront to all blind people; acknowledges that it is seen as an act of discrimination against blind people whose dogs can become ill if kept apart from their owners for even a short period of time; believes that the time has come to emulate the other place and provide access for blind persons with guide dogs; believes further that it cannot be beyond the wit of the Services Committee, having taken evidence from organisations of the disabled, to recommend suitable arrangements to ensure that discrimination against any disabled persons seeking to exercise their democratic right to hear their public representatives in debate is eradicated; and calls for a thorough review of the whole situation.]
Does he not regard it as repugnant that blind persons with guide dogs are still excluded from the Strangers' Gallery? Does he not realise that this is against the reputation of the House of Commons and in contrast to what happens in the other place? What action will he take to ensure that the House of Commons is dragged, albeit screaming, into the 20th century?
Mr. Biffen: The matter is currently under consideration by a Sub—committee of the Services Committee, and in due course the Services Committee will consider it.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government (Interim Provisions)
  Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 9 May]
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

  Local Government (Interim Provisions)
    Clause 2

      SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF, COUNCILLORS
      Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
      No. 21, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 10 and add
      `in appointing Councillors to serve on the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils pursuant to section 2(4)(a) the constituent councils shall appoint in accordance with the following procedure—

      (a) the principal minority party having the required percentage of seats on that council as set out below shall nominate a candidate of its choice.

      (b) the relevant percentages for the purpose of paragraph(a) above shall be as follows:—

      For constituent councils with two councillors if the minority parties together have at least 40 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate a candidate for one of the two seats;

      For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 33 per cent. of the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for one of the three seats;

      For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the three seats;

      For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 25 per cent. of the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for the four or more seats;

      For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, the two largest parties shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the four seats.'.

      No. 112, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 10 and add
      'in appointing Councillors to serve on the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils pursuant to section 2(4)(a) the constituent councils shall appoint in accordance with the following procedure—

      (a) the principal minority party having the required percentage of seats on that council as set out below shall nominate a candidate of its choice.

      (b) the relevant percentages for the purpose of paragraph (a) above shall be as follows:—

      For constituent councils with two councillors if the minority parties together have at least 40 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate a candidate for one of the two seats;

      For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 33 per cent. of

      1091
      the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for one of the three seats;

      For constituent councils with three councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, they shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the three seats;

      For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 25 per cent. of the council seats, the larger minority party shall be entitled to nominate one candidate for the four or more seats;

      For constituent councils with four or more councillors, if the minority parties together have at least 51 per cent. of the council seats, the two largest parties shall be entitled to nominate two candidates for two of the four seats;

      For constituent councils where the party composition of council seats cannot be related to the above formula the council shall appoint councillors by simple majority voting.'.

      No. 22, in page 3, line 6, leave out from first 'in' to end of line 10 and add
      'in Greater London or (as the case may be) the relevant metropolitan county is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council or of that metropolitan county council'.
      No. 74, in page 3, line 10, at end add—
      '(5A) Any question which may arise under subsection (5) above as to whether in any case the balance of parties has been reflected shall be determined by the Secretary of State'.
      No. 23, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert
      'provided that this power may be exercised only if and so far as may be necessary for the purpose of ensuring that the persons who are for the time being members of the relevant metropolitan county council and for whose appointment the constituent council is responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that metropolitan county'.
      No. 27, in clause 5, page 5, line 5, at end insert
      '(2A) A constituent council in making or terminating appointments under this Part of this Act shall appoint the nominees of minority parties as provided for in section 2 of this Act.'.
      Dr. Cunningham: I think that it is true to say that no part of the Bill has caused more offence or greater reaction than clause 2(5) which, if implemented, will change the political control of the Greater London council and, had it not been for the significant gains by the Labour party in last week's local elections in other metropolitan county areas, may well have brought into question Labour control in one or two of the metropolitan counties as well.
      This group of amendments seeks to prevent that from happening, because Opposition Members do not accept that it should be possible or that it should be a consequence of an Act of Parliament that democratically elected political control of an authority should be changed. That is our fundamental dispute with the Government over this matter, and I believe that this issue is widely recognised, not only in Parliament but outside the House, as one on which the Government have little, if any, real support.
      The truth is that it is an unprecedented step to take by any Government of any political persuasion and has clearly caused not only offence but deep concern among active politicians in all political parties, not least—to their credit—among many members of the Secretary of State's own party inside and outside the House, as I shall demonstrate. Amendment No. 20 seeks to delete subsection (5) and allay that concern.
      Not content with abolishing the elections in 1985 and substituting nominated borough councillors for directly
      1092
      elected county councillors, the Bill seeks to introduce a measure to ensure the balance of parties. But it does not ensure the balance of parties—quite the reverse. The provision will change the balance of parties in the GLC and it is only because of Labour gains in last week's elections that it will be prevented from changing the balance of parties elsewhere. Futhermore, the longstanding outcome of elections when the candidates with the most votes are declared the winners and the party with the majority of successful candidates takes control is being changed by the Bill.
      The Government have laid themselves wide open to accusations of gerrymandering the situation in the capital city. It is a clear case of gerrymandering—perhaps one of the most odious of all political accusations. They are fiddling the outcome of elections.
      We do not have the Official Report and I do not want to misquote or to misrepresent what the Secretary of State had to say on this issue in our debates in the early hours of the morning, but I believe that he said that this was an accident. He said that it was an unfortunate outcome of the Bill. [Interruption.] I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but that was the impression he created. If he wants to correct me, I shall happily give way, but I believe that I am right in saying that he said that it was an accident of the Bill.
      Does that make it any more acceptable? Does it mean that in a democracy we can legislate and take no notice of the consequences of accidents of provisions in legislation? Is the Secretary of State asking the House to accept that? If he is, I must tell him that we fundamentally reject it, and I am in no doubt that if the Secretary of State were standing where I am standing he would reject it, too.
      It is difficult to conceive that an experienced and senior Cabinet Minister, as the right hon. Gentleman is, and a man who has held long and honourable public office, not only in the House but elsewhere, too, can convince himself that Parliament and the local authority members involved—my colleagues and even his own colleagues in the GLC—will accept that, because he has thought that this is an unfortunate accident, that makes it acceptable. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot believe that people will accept that.
      What is worse in a way is that when the right hon. Gentleman's proposals went to the Prime Minister, as we now know because of leaked documents, she herself, at least in the beginning, said, "I have grave reservations about it—aren't we changing political control? We had better have another look at it." But suddenly, for some reason, the right hon. Lady's opposition and reservations evaporated and the proposal was allowed to proceed. It is an appalling stain on the record of the right hon. Gentleman who, as I have said, has hitherto had an honourable one in holding public office, that he should come to the House knowing of this consequence, and say, "This accident is just part of the consequences and it has to be accepted."
      4 pm
      I ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the outset, to think again about this consequence of the Bill, and, more importantly, if it is allowed to proceed, about the consequences of the provision. It is anathema to the Opposition that this change should be made in this way. If they cannot accept these amendments as they stand, I do not mind if the Government say that they will look at

      1093
      the provision again. That would be good enough for me in the circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say, even at this stage, that he is prepared to look at the matter again. He must know, not only of the deep disquiet, distaste and offence with which this part of his Bill has been received here, but how concerned his right hon. and hon. Friends and his colleagues in the Conservative party, are about the consequences of this course of action.
      The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was the first of many to make that point on Second Reading. He said:
      "Worst of all—and my right hon. Friend did not seem to realise this—is the imposition by parliamentary diktat of a change of responsible party in London government. There cannot be any justification for that. It immediately lays the Conservative party open to the charge of the greatest gerrymandering in the last 150 years of British history. That is what we, as a party, are being exposed to."— [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 425.]
      That is a serious statement. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman make a charge of gerrymandering; he went further. He said that that it was "the greatest gerrymandering" that he, and no doubt his researchers, could unearth in 150 years.
      I have said this many times before about aspects of the Government's legislation: if the Labour party were taking such actions and such powers, we would be described as eastern European, as totalitarian. We would be abused in the media as well as in the House. Our good faith would be called into question, as it has already, all too often, in the past. The apparent complacency on the Treasury Bench about the deep and far-reaching implications of what is to take place is quite staggering.
      The people of London have every right to be doubly aggrieved and offended—first, because their votes in elections next year are being taken away. They are being prevented from electing the council of their choice through the ballot box. Secondly, they are being told that by an Act of Parliament the council that they have elected, and the political control that they have chosen democratically, is to be changed. There can be no greater offence to a voter in a democracy than to have not one such insult, but two, thrown in his face in the same measure at the same time by the same Government.
      I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends that the Opposition will not let the voters of this country or the Conservative party forget, overlook or obscure what is being proposed in this part of the Bill because it is monstrous in its intentions and repugnant to us. I can imagine how I or my hon. Friends would be received if we went to Sussex or Surrey and announced that we intended to legislate in the House of Commons —I see the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pricks up his ears — and told them, "Never mind that you have consistently elected a Conservative county council, we shall legislate to change all that and there will be Socialist administration in Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire or Kent." There would be an outcry, and rightly so. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends are nodding their heads. It would be a disgrace if any Government were to do that, but the present Government intend to do exactly that to the capital city of this country and to the electors of London.
      Yesterday, a Conservative councillor from the City of Westminster wrote to The Guardian on this issue. That council is well known for its desire to be rid of the GLC
      1094
      and, in particular, to be rid of Mr. Livingstone. I deplore the way in which many of these arguments have become personalised and people have been made excuses for proposals rather than policies. However, Councillor Stephen Govier wrote:
      "Many have an almost paranoid desire to be rid of Ken Livingstone by any possible means. Others—at least 18 MPs among them—"
      he is talking about the Conservative party—
      "hold firm to a fundamental belief in democracy and the constitution."
      He went on:
      "Few Bills threaten to debase the constitution, but this most surely does."
      He then said:
      "The Prime Minister may well be hell bent on rolling back the frontiers of society, but at the same time her Government is acting like a bull in society's china shop of checks and balances."
      That is not a letter from some renegade in the Conservative party. He goes on to say that he supports the economic policies of the Government but denounces that particular aspect of the Bill. It is to his credit that he does so. Amendments associated with amendment No. 20 seek to prevent this from happening and express our view of what should happen.
      I reiterate that our principal view is that next year's elections should take place. There is no good reason why they should not. Expense has been advanced as an excuse, but even if the major Bill to follow this tawdry little measure were carried by the House it would be far more sensible and acceptable if the remaining time available to the GLC were presided over by councillors who had been democratically elected. There can be no better solution than that in a democratic society. If that is not to be the case, every democrat should accept that any interim administration should be on the basis of the outcome of the latest expression of will by the electors. I defy anyone, in the House or outside it, to contest those two propositions.
      There are other amendments in this group, some of which are in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he is concerned about the matter. However, I am not sure that his amendments would resolve the dilemma that I am posing, and about which I am asking the Secretary of State to think again.
      What is clear is that the Bill as it stands offers no safeguards for the representation of minority parties. Clause 2 admits of more than one fair answer in many respects, as is shown by the tables published in the appendices. But, according to the assumptions in those tables, a possible outcome of the change would be 48 Conservative seats on the interim body, 29 Labour seats and two alliance seats. That is a graphic measure of the turnaround that would result from the implementation of this part of the Bill—a Labour majority, albeit small; turned at a stroke into a Conservative majority of 19. without a single vote being cast. That is astonishing.
      I reiterate that it is extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this is somehow an accident. It is difficult to envisage the scene. A civil servant comes to the Secretary of State and says, "Here are the draft proposals, Minister. By the way, we think that we should draw your attention to the consequences. One of those consequences—we think that you ought to know this, Minister, because it is important—is a change in the political control of the capital of this country."

      1095
      Did the Secretary of State really respond, "Oh, do not bother about that; it is an accident"? Does he expect us to believe that? Did the civil servant then say, "But perhaps, Secretary of State, we ought to write to the Prime Minister about it"? What really went on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when those considerations were first put before him? Did he not envisage the reaction to this "accident" in Parliament and in the country?
      The Prime Minister did not call it an accident when General Jaruzelski started taking action against Solidarity in Poland. The Parliamentary Under—secretary mutters and shakes his head. I do not want to go into every dot, comma and quotation of what was said by the right hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends, but they said some very strong things about freedom, democracy, choice and rights. Have they forgotten all that, or do those arguments apply only in other countries? Do they no longer apply to the people of London?
      Mr. David Winnick: Of course not.
      Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. Apparently, they do not. By an accident—a mere stroke or slip of the pen in a little paving Bill—all those things are to be changed. What a footnote to the right hon. Gentleman's political history! Does he really want it set beside the rest of his record? I hesitate to believe he does.
      Mr. Winnick: I do not want to cause you to accuse us of digressing, Mr. Walker, but is it not interesting to note that at the very moment when we are debating a measure to abolish elections for London, with all that that entails, the Prime Minister has invited the head of the most vile and hated of regimes to this country?
      4.15 pm
      Dr. Cunningham: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I had better not allow myself to be deflected. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I do not wish to speak for much longer.
      Let me continue with my remarks about the change, based on the figures in the tables in the appendices to the Bill. It can easily be shown that a further five seat—in addition to the ones that I have already cited—could end up being divided between the Conservatives, the alliance and the Labour party. But even with those remaining uncertainties, the table represents only one possible method of calculating the outcome. On an assumption of the worst outcome for the Labour party in each borough the figures could end up as 56 for the Conservative party, 26 for Labour and two for the alliance. That would be a Conservative majority of 30 over the Labour party compared with the status quo following the last elections.
      I understand that the view of the Secretary of State is that if disputes arise they can be settled by the courts. Would not an appeal to the Secretary of State be the most appropriate way in which to resolve a dilemma? Should not the Secretary of State make the final decision? Do the Government really want disputes about political control to be dragged interminably through the courts? I cannot believe that that would be an acceptable or sensible way in which to proceed.
      As I have said already, the best course would be to ensure that such disputes did not arise in the first place.
      1096
      The Government should say, "This is an error, and we intend to correct it because we want no part in the fiddling of the democratic process. We want to maintain our record, hitherto a good one, of accepting the will of those who vote in elections."
      That would be the most honourable course for Ministers to take this afternoon because, whatever else happens, if the Bill is enacted, they will have a tag attached to them throughout their political careers as the people who perpetrated what is, in the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sicup and others, the worst and most offensive political gerrymander in this country's history of democratic elections.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish to address my remarks to amendment No. 112, which stands in my name. This debate is one of the most important so far in the proceedings on the Bill. I listened carefully to the case that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made for amendment No. 20, which would remove from the Bill the entire mechanism whereby the constituent councils could make or terminate the appointments the nominated authority. If the amendment were carried, it would wreck the Bill as it stands. That is a perfectly reasonable aim for the Opposition and the amendment has been moved in a perfectly reasonable manner.
      The amendment to which I wish to speak this afternoon deals with circumstances that would arise if amendment No. 20 is unsuccessful and subsection (5) is retained in the Bill. I am concerned about the political composition of the nominated authority that will come into being when the Bill is enacted. There was much criticism from both sides of the Committee on this issue during the long hours when we debated the Bill. The Opposition pointed out, quite fairly, that there would be a change of political control because the nominated councillors would, in the case of Greater London, reflect the existing balance of the London borough councils. I hope that I will be forgiven if I concentrate some of my initial remarks on Greater London, with which I am particularly familiar. Doubtless similar considerations apply in a number of the metropolitan county councils.
      Much of the argument and counter-argument about the need for elections next May depends on the prospects of one political party or another winning a majority at those elections. The existing GLC was elected in 1981. The London borough councils were elected two years ago: they are halfway through their present term. If we are to have a nominated authority, it would be preferable for the nominated authority at least to reflect the most recent local government elections in the Greater London area—the London borough council elections in 1981. The only alternative to that would be to have a nominated authority that reflected the general election results of 1983.I can well understand that Opposition Members may not find that a particularly attractive proposition.
      I have therefore confined my amendment to attempting to reflect the composition of the constituent councils as they were elected by the people for local government purposes two years ago. It is to that aspect of the matter that I wish to direct the main thrust of my remarks.
      Early this morning I attempted to persuade the Front Bench to accept my amendment No. 18 which would have enabled the present GLC councillors or the metropolitan county councillors to qualify to serve on the new

      1097
      nominated authority. I believe that that is extremely important because those councillors have a great deal of experience. A sprinkling of them, together with councillors from the constituent authorities, would have made for a much better nominated authority—if we are to have one—than an authority composed entirely of London borough councillors, when at present only eight sitting members have any experience of serving on the GLC.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in rejecting my amendment said that the introduction of existing GLC councillors into the new nominated assembly would not provide the essential link with the lower tier authority. That is a totally unsatisfactory reply. The existing GLC councillors and doubtless metropolitan county councillors too, together with Members of Parliament, London borough councillors and councillors for authorities outside London, have the closest possible relationship. Normally we work as a team. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contention that if we had introduced them it would have broken the link with the lower tier authority.
      I turn now to the detail of my amendment. It is designed to do something that I regard as one of Parliament's primary duties, to protect the interests of minorities. It sets out a formula whereby each constituent authority would nominate councillors to serve on the GLC in relation to the political balance prevailing on each of the constituent authorities. The hon. Member for Copeland suggested that that would lead to a Conservative majority of about 12 or 16. I do not disagree with his figures.
      However, if there is to be a nominated authority and there is a change of political control, it would be far better if the new nominated Greater London council, and other authorities too, reflected the existing balance of the borough councils, even if that resulted in a change of political control, because at least that would ensure that the parties as they are composed on the constituent councils now would have their strength reflected.
      It would also mean that the minorities— I am referring to all the major political parties, certainly the Conservative party, Labour party and Liberal/SDP alliance—would be represented on the new nominated authority. For an authority such as the London borough of Lambeth, about which we have heard a certain amount in the House in recent years, where the existing party strengths are Conservative 27, Labour 34 and SDP/Liberal alliance three, the application of my formula would mean that two Labour nominated councillor, and one Conservative nominated councillor would be representing the London borough of Lambeth on the new, nominated GLC.
      Sir Kenneth Lewis: While my hon. Friend is referring to the London borough of Lambeth, can he tell me how he would see it if Labour councillors from the London borough of Lambeth and some other Labour-controlled councils decided that they would not serve on the interim body? The Conservatives would be left with a nominated body in which only they were involved.
      Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I can best reply by drawing his attention to my subsequent amendment No. 27 which states:
      1098
      "A constituent council in making or terminating appointments under this Part of this Act shall appoint the nominees of minority parties as provided for in section 2 of this Act."
      My hon. Friend asked what would happen if the minority parties refused to nominate. That would be entirely a matter for them. However, the minority parties would have had the opportunity provided by statute, if they so wished, to nominate a councillor from the authorities of their choice. If they chose not to take that opportunity, I do not believe that that would differ from what happens when a political party chooses not to contest one of the council seats in a local authority area. Moreover, that happens frequently in many wards throughout the country because for one reason or another parties simply do not think it is worth their while to contest a seat.
      So, if I may return to my formula, for Lambeth there would be two Labour councillors and one Conservative. In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, for example, where I understand there are 30 Labour councillors, 19 SDP/Liberal alliance councillors and one other, use of my formula would result in there being one Liberal/SDP alliance councillor and one Labour councillor. Of course, as often happens, there is a joker in the pack, which on this occasion is the London borough of Waltham Forest, where the composition of the council is Conservative 25. Labour 25 and Liberal/SDP alliance one.
      Therefore, in amendment No. 112, I have included in the final paragraph the words:
      "For constituent councils where the party composition of council seats cannot be related to the above formula the council shall appoint councillors by simple majority voting."
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman go through the figures for Waltham Forest again?
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Shersby: Certainly. I understand that the party strengths on the London borough of Waltham Forest are Conservative 25, Labour 25 and Liberal/SDP alliance one. I hope that those figures are correct. Local government council seats change hands in by—elections. But that is my understanding.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that the strength of the Liberal—sDP alliance in Waltham Forest is more than one. I think it is six.
      Mr. Shersby: Even if the alliance had won a few seats there would still be no difficulty. If my right hon. Friend will refer to my formula, he will see that there is a minimum percentage whereby it is necessary for the minority parties together to have
      "at least 33 per cent. of the council seats"
      to have the statutory right to nominate a councillor.
      The purpose of my amernndment is to deal with the situation that will arise if amendment No. 20, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Copeland is unsuccessful. In my view, it would be infinitely preferable to have a nominated Greater. London council, nominated in accordance with a formula that would protect the interests of minorities. All of us—as representatives of our different political parties—are in the minority in various authorities. It would do much to take the curse off the proposed new nominated authority and to meet some of the criticism that we have heard in Committee about the change of political control that would result.
      I very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are present today, particularly my right hon. Friend

      1099
      the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues, who I know have studied this amendment with great care, will be prepared to give it the most positive consideration, and be prepared, if necessary, to introduce an amendment in another place. Unless we can protect the rights of minorities and ensure that the new nominated authority at least reflects the political balance on the borough councils, as at the last date when local councillors were elected, that authority will be the subject of continuing criticisms.
      I hope, too, that the Opposition will look carefully at my amendment, if their amendment No. 20 is unsuccessful, because from their point of view, and that of the many responsible members of Opposition parties who serve both in this House and in local government, it is an extremely important amendment. It would enable all the major political parties to play a proper and responsible part in the orderly transfer of responsibilities from the GLC and the metropolitan counties to the lower—tier authorities.
      I cannot believe that responsible members of the Labour party or of the Liberal/SDP alliance would wish, despite their understandable objection to the proposals in this paving Bill, to opt out entirely. After all, they, too, have a political future in local government. They have an important interest in the running of borough councils in Greater London and in parts of the country outside London, and I do not imagine that they would wish to be excluded from the transfer discussions that will take place during the coming 11 months, however great their disappointment may be about my right hon. Friend's proposals in the Bill.
      I hope, therefore, that the formula that I have proposed will attract support from all parts of the Committee. That would at least show that Parliament is concerned to uphold its ancient duty of protecting minorities.
      Mr. Winnick: With respect to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I do not see how his amendment would improve the situation— certainly not from the point of view of democracy. On reflection, he will understand, I think, that we are not likely to support his amendment, whether or not our amendment is successful.
      Last night, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made what I think we would all agree was a very powerful speech. We listened to it with much attention. He prefaced his remarks, however, by accusing the Opposition of not doing their job. Perhaps understandably, as the bulk of his remarks was critical of the Government, he felt it necessary to start by criticising the Opposition.
      It would have been better if more of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends who are not in the Government had been persuaded by the powerful argument which he advocated last night and on Second Reading. It is rather unfortunate that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends were not persuaded on an issue of such importance and which has such repercussions for democracy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to be convinced of the democratic repercussions, as he made all these points himself on Second Reading and again last night. It would have been good if his right hon. and hon. Friends had been persuaded by him and voted as he did.
      1100
      The criticism should not be directed at the Opposition. We are rightly fighting against the Bill. The criticism should be directed to those Conservative Members who have yet to be persuaded of the importance of these matters and the need to support the Opposition's amendments.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the Conservatives. Surely he, in turn, will agree that it is distinctly disappointing from the Opposition's point of view that so very few Members of the Liberal/SDP alliance voted.
      Mr. Winnick: The importance is in waging an opposition by Labour Members. I am not impressed by the argument sometimes used in connection with televising the House that attendance is thin. It is votes that count, not attendance. As one of those who had doubts about the setting up of Select Committees, I am not surprised at the thin attendance as Select Committees and many other committees preoccupy the attention of many hon. Members when they could be in the Chamber.
      Mr. Richard Tracey: Did the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that the Leader of the Opposition did not support the amendments tabled by his party? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where was the Prime Minister?"]
      Mr. Winnick: Apart from the fact that the Prime Minister was not present, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition supported the amendments completely. I am sure that even a new hon. Member, such as the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), is aware that the Leader of the Opposition has many commitments and no one in his right mind would say that it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition always to be present.
      Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I saw the Prime Minister voting in that Division.
      The Chairman: That is not a point of order. We are considering today's amendments and not yesterday's.
      Mr. Winnick: Some cynics have tended to argue that, whatever malpractices might be carried out, it would not matter in the end because the general public are not concerned with political battles. It is said that they could not care less. They are indifferent. Political battles may preoccupy hon. Members. There may be heated discussions and debates in the House, and we vote accordingly, but the general public shows little interest.
      I would not be surprised if the Government had worked on that cynical assumption. But they have come unstuck. Opinion polls have shown that the Bill is not popular. People in Greater London and other metropolitan areas want elected authorities. I think that people suspect what the Government are up to.
      At the last election, the Labour party was accused of wanting to undermine democracy. The familiar accusation was that we were intent on setting up a kind of eastern European state. The Government, having been re—elected and having introduced other measures of an antidemocratic nature, are now intent upon abolishing the metropolitan authorities that have a Labour majority. However, as Opposition Members have pointed out, no legislation has been introduced to deal with shire counties. The reason is simple enough. Most shire county councils have an inbuilt Tory majority. Therefore, all the arguments directed against the GLC and the metropolitan

      1101
      county councils could well be directed against the shire counties; however, for the reasons I stated, no measures are being introduced to abolish them.
      If the measure goes through, it will abolish the elections due next year. If the Government believed that next year's elections would result in a Conservative majority on the GLC and the other six authorities, can anyone doubt—how many Conservative Members present today would doubt—that they would have allowed the elections to go ahead? Of course they would. But the Government do not believe that. They know full well that if the 1985 elections took place the Labour party would probably do even better than it did in the previous elections for the GLC and the metropolitan authorities.
      Mr. Harry Cowans: The Government are frightened of the ballot box.
      Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) said, the Government are frightened of the ballot box—as are dictatorships.
      We are discussing changing the political balance of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said—it is the reason for the amendment—the abolition of the elections and the setting up of nominated bodies will in some instances change the political balance. Therefore, instead of a democratically elected Labour majority, there will be a different majority—a non elected one. If that is not an eastern European practice, I should like to know what is.
      Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to comment on the change of political balance. In many of the counties—especially in west Yorkshire — it is known that changing the political balance also changes the attitude to services and how they are administered in the counties. Will my hon. Friend agree that there is more to the measure than merely changing the political balance? Is it a Tory Government move to change how services will be administered in those areas until the changeover? Quangos will come in and perhaps continue to reduce the services that have been built up over the years by Labour administrations.? Will my hon. Friend take that on board?
      Mr. Winnick: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly a change in political balance would be significant, as he said. Plainly the Government would hope that the new nominated bodies—in so far as there is a change in the political majority—will pursue policies different from those pursued by elected authorities. No one can doubt that.
      Suppose that a Labour Government carried out such a measure and used our majority against Conservative—controlled authorities to abolish elections, and, say, set up nominated bodies in Surrey, Sussex and Kent. There would be denunciations by those very right hon. and hon. Members who support this measure. No doubt the Secretary of State would strenuously oppose the measure, saying that it was the road to dictatorship, and so on. Not only would Conservative Members denounce the measure—the honourable exceptions from all this are those who oppose what their Government are now doing—but the press would be screaming. I can just imagine the headlines of those newspapers that are so silent now— the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun—and that show such
      1102
      indifference to what is happening to democracy. They would have banner headlines—not once, but day after day—saying that the proposal was the Socialist road to dictatorship, serfdom, and so on. They would ask what would happen to parliamentary elections. That would be the attitude of the Tory press if a Labour Government carried out such measures.
      4.45 pm
      I do not wish to praise the Secretary of State and perhaps cause him damage. However, although we do not doubt that he is a wholly committed Conservative, in our eyes the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat different from some of his colleagues—for example, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As I said, I hope that my words will not cause the Secretary of State difficulties from his colleagues. However, we expect somewhat different from him than we do from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We expect him to understand and appreciate our arguments about this important matter. I cannot help but conclude that in many respects the right hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be almost an errand boy for the Prime Minister.
      I see the Bill as part of the political spite against the GLC.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I shall not be able to reply to the debate because, as I explained to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I have an important engagement outside the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State will reply. However, I cannot let the hon. Gentleman's suggestion pass. As the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was at pains to impress on the House yesterday, I was the one who argued, for perfectly good democratic reasons, that nominating members from elected councils was better than having members live on beyond their time by parliamentary fiat. That was my argument. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thought the idea novel and asked whether we should look at it again. In the end, when confronted with all the arguments, the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends were convinced, after our debate last night, that that was the right answer. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has stood completely on their head my conclusions and those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said in effect that the whole idea of the Bill originated from the Prime Minister, out of spite and loathing for these Labour—controlled authorities. Instead of having faith and confidence in the ballot box on the basis that if some people do not like what is being done they should try to change it by democratic means, she decided to use her majority in the House of Commons to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan authorities. I asked earlier why the shire counties were not being similarly dealt with. The explanation is the one I gave earlier.
      I have said that the right hon. Gentleman acts almost as an errand boy for the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), states in his recently published book—an interesting book in some respects because it deals with his time as a member of this Government—that the Prime

      1103
      Minister expects Ministers to be her agents. If the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to do her bidding and argued against this Bill, I wonder how long he would last in the Government. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford did not last long, nor did the former Foreign Secretary. The same applies, unfortunately from his point of view, to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
      The Chairman: Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is going wide of the amendments. I hope that he will return to them.
      Mr. Winnick: I shall return to them entirely, Mr. Walker.
      I say only that one would have expected the right hon. Gentleman, instead of being a party to what is now happening and allowing democracy to be replaced by nominated bodies—and in some cases clearly allowing a situation to develop in which the authorities have a nominated majority, which is quite different from an elected majority—to realise what was involved, as did the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and certain of his right hon. and hon. Friends, and to resign from the Government if necessary. May I also say to him. although perhaps he does not mind one way or the other, that he would have had far more credibility in the House as a whole by doing that than by allowing himself to be part of this miserable measure that is aimed at the democratic process itself. I hope that even at this late stage the right hon. Gentleman will realise the injury that he is doing to democracy.
      Mr. Francis Pym: This Bill is of such a character that in my view it is incapable of being made acceptable by means of amendment. On the other hand, it has a few especially unacceptable features that I think it right to tackle by way of amendment. That is why my name is associated with amendment No. 20.
      I object to the replacement of an elected body by a nominated body in any case, and even more strongly to the imposed change in political complexion that will take place after the establishment of the proposed incoming body that will be nominated to execute the responsibilities of the Greater London council. That is not fair or reasonable, and I do not believe that anyone believes that it is. It does not accord with the British sense of justice.
      I can just about understand my right hon. Friend's thinking on the issue. He believes that an appointed body is acceptable, and the fact that it will have a different political complexion is a coincidence—an accident—and not particularly important. What is more, he probably thinks that it is administratively convenient and a very neat way of preparing the ground for the larger reform which he want to undertake next year. I do not perceive matters in that way and nor do many others. We see it as an unwarranted interference with the democratic process. I do not believe that there is any precedent for the procedure—at any rate, I have not been able to find one. It is not only dangerous to manipulate the democratic process in this way, but unacceptable. I believe that my right hon. Friend will find that it also has an unacceptable political price attached to it.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: I respect greatly the reputation, knowledge and views on this
      1104
      subject of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym). But is not the position slightly different from the historical examples mentioned by hon. Gentlemen? Effectively, for an 11-month period there will be a rump authority, which will not be looking to the future or able to embark on certain political directions and take political decisions. In other words, it will not be a political authority but one which, for 11 months, will be taken to pieces bit by bit and developed into new authorities—the district authorities that already exist. Therefore, do not the Government have a case for giving the power over that period to those who will take on the responsibility and who have a vested interest in the future and in success, rather than to those who happen to be in place at the time?
      Mr. Pym: I disagree with my hon. Friend, but he is right to this extent: there are differences about the proposed reform. However, he must remember that we do not yet know the details of that, nor has the House had any chance to debate it. In any case, my hon. Friend's argument does not invalidate the principle which I am adumbrating—that it is a great mistake to upset the democratic process. The simple solution, which I argued yesterday—I know that it was unsuccessful in the Lobby—is to extend the period of office of the properly and legitimately elected councillors for a further 11 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) prefers the political complexion of the boroughs, on the ground that their elections were more recent than the GLC's. He feels that the borough elections of 1982 are somehow more relevant to the business of the GLC than its elections in 1981 are. But I do not believe that it would be wise to follow that principle or to pursue that line of thought.
      Mr. Shersby: The point that I was trying to make is this. If amendment No. 20 is not carried and we are faced with a nominated authority—however disagreeable that may be to my right hon. Friend and others—surely it would be better to have an authority which at least reflects the political balance of the local authorities as determined at the most recent date.
      Mr. Pym: I am grateful for that; I was going on to say that my hon. Friend's amendment is clearly very constructive, assuming that we shall not manage to knock out clause 2(5). It is certainly worthy of the Secretary of State's consideration, which I hope will be given. However, it does not dispose of my objection to the fact that we shall still be faced with an imposed change of political control.
      There is also an unfortunate political result. Not long ago, Mr. Livingstone was rather an asset to my party; there are other characters in our country who are also assets to my party. But now, through the mishandling of the main reform of local government that my right hon. Friend has in mind, the Government have been clever enough to turn Mr. Livingsone into something much more like a genuine menace to them. He used to be only an apparent menace. He has now been handed an ace or two, which he certainly does not deserve and which he will certainly play.
      We have put ourselves in a very vulnerable position that is of the Government's own making. Amendment No. 20 will not solve that, but it would help if subsection (5) were withdrawn and another method devised. It all points to what I said before. There has been too much haste in trying

      1105
      to rush ahead with this reform, and too little preparation. I urge the Government to think again about their interim measures. We have not yet reached the main proposals. The interim measures have received considerable criticism from the Conservative Benches, as well as from the Opposition Benches. The Government should listen to some of the voices on both sides of the Committee and consider that they might conceivably be wrong. They should then come back with a better method of proceeding.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: May I first raise a point of order, Mr. Walker. I respect your discretion in making the selection, but you did not select amendment No. 54 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It proposed that the formula for deciding the composition of the interim authority should be based on the votes cast in the borough and district council elections held before the interim authority comes into existence. Does that fall within the Bill's long title?
      The Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, but it is not a point of order. The Chair is not required to give any reasons why an amendment has or has not been selected. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that very careful consideration was given to every amendment on the Amendment Paper beore the selection was made.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Walker. I understand and respect your reasons for making the selection. However, the debate is about the way in which we seek to resolve the enormous muddle that the Government's proposals have caused. The Government have decided that next year there shall be no Greater London council or metropolitan county council election, that those councils will continue for a year, and that they must have a composition made up elsewhere. The amendments suggest various formulae for making up those councils during that year.
      The Liberal party find the whole idea that the Government seek to implement appalling and disgraceful. I speak on behalf of pople who at one time or another will find themselves in a political minority against the tyranny that what we call our constitution gives to the party that wins the most seats in this place. Last June the Conservative party won about 42 per cent. of the vote in the general election.
      The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can anticipate the road that the hon. Gentleman will take and try to divert him on to a different one. The Bill is about local government and not about Westminster.
      Mr. Hughes: I shall move very quickly from this place to the local authorities. I think that you will accept, Mr. Walker, that the point is valid. The Government, like any Government elected by a minority of voters, have taken it upon themselves to decide for the local areas of our country. In so doing they claim the constitutional right that the House apparently gives them, which is that Parliament is sovereign. I have been in the House for a year and three months. I believe that we have almost no constitution and the people in the Strangers' Gallery are conned if they think that we have an unwritten constitution.
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I must draw the hon. Member's attention to our procedures, which do not recognise those people to whom he seeks to refer.
      Mr. Hughes: If that is the case, I am even more amazed. The public ought to know that few parts of our constitution can survive the bulldozer of tyrannical government. All that survive are the facts that the monarch is the head of state and that Parliament is sovereign.
      5 pm
      It is appalling that the Government—whichever party is in the majority, and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym) and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), have been honourable enough to recognise this—can decide that this place can determine a political change in the control of the largest local authority in Europe, the Greater London council, that converts it without an election from an elected council, producing a Labour majority under a system that we find unacceptable but for the time being have to accept, into a new council with a large Conservative majority. I would say that that was appalling, no matter which party was in power, and I hope that Back Bench Members of the major parties would say so, too.
      The amendments seek to get round the problem posed by the Government seeking to make out of borough councils a composition for the Greater London council and out of the district councils in the six metropolitan counties a composition for the metropolitan county councils that will exist next year without elections. They are seeking to contrive a formula for doing so.
      The amendments present several possible ways of doing that. Amendment No. 20 would delete subsection (5), which would mean that there would be no obligation on the constituent councils of London boroughs and of districts outside London to make their appointees for a year to their county authorities reflect any political balance. I am prepared to go down that road if it means that the Government will have to start again and come up with an acceptable proposal.
      Amendment No. 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), would provide for a reflection—contrived, as he will accept—of the composition of those councils as at the time that they were last elected. In each case, that would be an unsatisfactory outcome. In the last borough council elections in London, in 1982, four authorities found themselves with no party in overall control—Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth and Waltham Forest. At last week's district council elections in the metropolitan counties even more authorities were left without one—party control: Bradford, Rochdale, Stockport, Walsall and Calderdale. There may be others.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: But not Liverpool.
      Mr. Hughes: No, not Liverpool, even though in Liverpool the Labour vote went down and the Liberal vote went up.
      Mr. Wareing: We have experienced Liberal rule in Liverpool. That is why.
      Mr. Hughes: Although that is a distraction, Mr. Walker, the hon. Gentleman knows well that the only reason why there was Liberal government in Liverpool was that the Labour party refused, though it was the largest party, to take office.
      Mr. Wareing: The Liberals allied with the Tories.
      Mr. Hughes: There was no alliance with the Tories. I shall not be drawn further down that road, because both the larger parties often argue that it is the third party that keeps the other in office, whereas often they keep each other in office because they prefer the two-party Box and Cox of this place, to the detriment of what you, Mr. Walker, tell me that I cannot describe as the people up there.
      We sincerely hope that the Government will accept the fundamental constitutional principle that one cannot change the composition of an authority and have as a result a change in political control, because that contravenes all the conventions and precedents and is wholly antidemocratic. If the Government believe that they will carry through this place and the other place, later this year or next year, a Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties and to replace them by other authorities, then, when the time comes, the services that the people want to receive—education, highways, social services, housing—will be governed and run by people who are, at least in part, elected for that purpose. But, for the time being, they must be governed and run in accordance with the most recently expressed views of the electors. No other decisions are appropriate.
      When the electors sent us here last June, they did not send us here to run the local councils, the Greater London or metropolitan counties, or to decide that their composition should be changed. The Minister and the Secretary of State know well that nowhere in the Tory programme last June did it say that elections would be overruled and the political balance of any authority changed. It did say that the metropolitan counties and the GLC would be abolished, but it said no more, and it certainly did not presage this ridiculous and appalling elaboration upon that theme.
      The amendments would at least make the Government think again. I await with interest and amazement to see how it can be claimed—and until recently the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State for the Environment had a good reputation for political integrity and for understanding something about political philosophy—that what the Government are advocating is consistent with that integrity and honesty. They are not doing their duty by their electors. As Government Back Benchers have said, the Government will probably do their party's local government reputation a great disservice. More important, they are breaching the constitutional convention that the political colour of local councils is not determined by other than the electoral process.
      Even though Opposition Members think that the whole system is a sham and ought to be abolished, I thought that at least we believed in elections in this country. The tragedy is that it appears that the Government now do not even want to advocate elections. Any of the amendments would at least improve that position. I urge the Government to say that they will think again, because that is the least they can do to retain any semblance of decency before the country and the House.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I support the amendment. I shall say no more about the gerrymander involved in the clause, not only because I think that enough has been said and it is generally agreed to be so, but because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for reasons that we well understand, cannot be here. I shall only say that I thought, in the small hours of the morning, that there was a slight
      1108
      tinge of "1984" in what he said, but that may have been because of the late hour. It seems to me that the lack of political scruple being shown is, at best, stupid.
      I support the amendment because of the wording of subsection (5), which the amendment proposes to delete. The first part of that subsection says:
      "Each constituent council shall, so far as practicable, exercise its power to make or terminate appointments under this Part of this Act so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing … is reflected".
      That, to my mind, is the sort of meaningless nonsense which should not be put forward by a Government or passed by the House. What does "the balance of parties" mean?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in a most persuasive speech, talked about the situation in Waltham Forest and I ventured to interrupt him. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary has kindly confirmed that what I said was right and that the figures for Waltham Forest are, roughly, 25 Conservatives, 26 Labour and six Liberal — SDP alliance. What, for that council, does
      "the balance of parties for the time being"
      mean? On that basis the nominations could be one Conservative and two Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal, or, depending on how it was voted, two Liberal and one Conservative. There is no way in which the clause can take effect; there is no way in which the balance of parties can be achieved.
      An even more fundamental point is this. Schedule 1 gives the names of a number of councils which will nominate two councillors to the GLC. They are Westminster, Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Barking, Sutton, Merton, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond, Hounslow, Harrow and Haringey. When a council can nominate only two councillors, assuming that we do not have a one—party system, how can a balance of parties possibly be achieved? If two councillors are nominated from the same party and there is not a one—party council, that is not a balance. If a councillor is nominated from each party and parties are not equally represented, that is not a balance. The situation is even more absurd if there are three parties.
      I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State replies to this group of amendments he will attach some meaning to the subsection, because at the moment it has none. It is entirely wrong that the Government should be enjoining councils to do something that it is impossible for them to do. So far, I have heard nothing from the Government that gives it a meaning. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the subsection seeks to give spurious respectability to an obvious gerrymander, but the unfortunate thing is that it fails to do so.
      Mr. Marlow: I know how properly my right hon. Friend is committed to local democracy, but will it not be possible for each authority on its own to make its own decision as to how the clause should be applied? Is not that the solution?
      Sir Ian Gilmour: In that case, what is the point of the clause? If that is what the Government intended, the subsection should read, "each council will behave in a way that seems fair to it". But that is not what subsection (5) says— perhaps my hon. Friend has not read it. If he

      1109
      does, he will see that his interpretation is not reasonable. It is a course that is reasonable in itself but it is not a meaning that can be attached to the subsection.
      Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State tell us how councils should behave? They, and we, ought to know. It would be quite wrong for the House to pass a Bill that contains a subsection that is completely meaningless and impracticable. For that reason, if for no other, the subsection should not be approved by the House.
      Mr. Wareing: The clause that we seek to amend is further evidence of the motives behind the Government's decision to forge ahead with the legislation. The real aim has been revealed again; it is simply a matter of pressing the Government's party political prejudice to the point where they seek to demolish all their opponents, not by force of argument but by attempting to abolish them.
      Indeed, there could be no finer monument erected outside county hall to the memory of governor Elbridge Gerry than that of the Secretary of State who is promoting the Bill. [Interruption.] I hope that I have managed to educate even one or two hon. Members on my own side, although they require little education. Elbridge Gerry was the governor who first introduced the gerrymander in the United States. It seems that we are encouraging yet another bad American habit.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have some experience of these matters myself. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend, through you, Mr. Walker, whether he would be erecting the monument as a tribute to the Secretary of State, the Parliamentary Under—secretary, the Prime Minister, or, indeed, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for his opposition to the provision. I think that the Committee needs to know the details of my hon. Friend's proposal.
      Mr. Wareing: I do not want to put the GLC to too much expense, and therefore I do not want to make too large a monument. The Bill is in itself a monument, a monument of failure to any political party that argues that it is still adhering to the principles of freedom and democracy in this country.
      5.15 pm
      I should like to repeat something that I mentioned yesterday. Although I believe that the Government's aim in the clause is to change the party political balance on the transitional councils from the present state of the parties on the existing councils of the metropolitan councils and the GLC, with the one glowing exception of the GLC, they have failed. There is no doubt in my mind that, as a result of the borough and district council elections in Merseyside last Thursday the composition of the transitional councils will now carry Labour majorities.
      As long as the Government pursue policies of restricting the powers of local authorities, whether by presenting them with arbitrary targets, or with GREs which are meaningless in social terms to the people living in different areas, or by rate capping, they will raise the consciousness of voters in working class areas, such as Merseyside. People on the streets of Liverpool are discussing local government in a way that they were not discussing it only a few months ago. They are talking of GREs and of Government targets. They really understand what the Government are doing, unlike, I think the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym).
      1110
      I am sure that he is an honourable man and has honourable intentions of supporting the amendments which I hope that the House will support tonight—amendment No. 20 and the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. But the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east is quite wrong.
      The motives of this Conservative Government are quite different from the motives of previous Conservative Governments. I am sure that there are Conservative Members who wish to rebel against what is happening, but this Conservative Government are trying to stifle opposition—as they have tried with the Trade Union Bill. Their suggestion there—it was not carried through to the nth degree — was that they would control the political levy and the finances of their major opponents in the House.
      This legislation is all of a piece. Clause 2, which we now seek to amend, is aimed in the same direction. It is aimed at stifling opposition. It will not succeed, because the electors of this country are far more awake than the Prime Minister and her minions — they are all her minions these days—in the Government.
      The transitional council on Merseyside will be Labour controlled, but we shall come to discuss the joint boards which will be enshrined in the Bill that we are threatened with next Session. I am afraid that even with the massive electoral swing to the Labour party in Merseyside the joint board will be faced by a hung council and with a balance of power problem, and if anyone wants to recommend a hung council or a hung joint board to this House, let him look at the 10 years' history of the city of Liverpool between 1973 and 1983. That is no advertisement for hung councils, but it is the sort of council that would be perpetuated if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) were put on the statute book.
      There would be a transitional council made up of councillors, some of whom were elected in 1981, some in 1982 and some in 1983. During at least two of those three years the electorate was rather more favourably disposed to the Conservative party than it was in last Thursday's elections. There is something to be said for recognising the most recent councillors as the ones who have a mandate — if there is such a thing — from the voters. Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 would ensure that no drastic change in the balance would be brought about by a nondemocratic system of nominating councillors to serve rather than electing them.
      I again make the point that we are talking about replacing existing county councillors not with even the same number of nominated district councillors, but with only half the number, with all that that will mean to councillors who have heavy burdens in areas of great social deprivation such as the one that I represent.
      With my experience of Liberal hegemony in a city council, I am not likely to quote Liberals, but I shall quote a former Liberal Prime Minister. Sir Henry Campbell—bannerman once said that self—government was always better than good government. No matter what the Tory Front Bench believes to be the rights and the wrongs of the political strategy of Ken Livingstone in London or of Ke va Coombes in Merseyside, those people have been elected by the democratic votes of the people and it is far better that people make their own mistakes than that mistakes should be imposed on them by autocratic Governments such as the one inflicted, albeit by the electorate, on the

      1111
      country at present. I would rather see an elected Conservative council on Merseyside than a nominated Labour one. That is the difference between me and other democrats. Those imposing this clause and this Bill on the country are really autocrats at heart and their democracy is no more than skin deep.
      No doubt we shall again lose the vote on the amendment, although we shall have won the argument as we have on so many occasions since 9 June last year, and although there will be honourable exceptions on the Tory Benches who will try to save their party from the headlong leap that it is now taking in the direction of non—democratic politics. But no matter what happens in the Division Lobbies later, in the long run the will of a free people will not be thwarted even by the present Government because those people cannot be dragged through the Division Lobbies. People in Liverpool have been able to discuss local government in a way that they have never been able to discuss it before because democratic rights are threatened by the Government and I believe that in the nottoo—distant future the people of this country will rise in their millions and ensure that the present Government are swept from power not by nomination but by a democratic election.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I realise why our debate has ranged somewhat wide of the amendments under discussion. Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and refute some of the criticisms of the way that the part of the Bill to which subsection (5) is an addition deals with minority representation.
      I do not think that the Government can be accused of being anti—democratic in trying to remove the upper tier of councils, where they exist in conurbations. Let me put a counter—point to the hon. Gentleman. We shall be giving more power and authority and wider functions to elected councils in the lower tier, some of which are even more profoundly opposed to the Government in certain respects than is the upper tier. Liverpool council itself is a beneficiary of the devolution of some of the powers conferred by our two Bills. The hon. Gentleman's accusation is not really fair. The two Bills—this Bill, and the main Bill which will come forward in the autumn —are part of a process of moving, in one part of the country at least, to more powerful unitary authorities, and there is nothing anti—democratic about that.
      There is, of course, a much narrower point about the consequences of our decision not to follow the precedent set by previous reorganisations, when the terms of sitting councillors were prolonged. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east (Mr. Pym) rightly pointed out that the new position is unprecedented. A whole section of local government is being taken away without being replaced at the same level. Some of the choppy water through which we are going probably derives from the absence of a precedent.
      The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, quite fairly, in his winding—up speech on Second Reading that he understood why we did not go ahead and hold elections for the lame—duck council next year. The argument is about whether we should prolong the terms of sitting councillors or, as we have proposed, allow the
      1112
      appointment of elected councillors from the lower tier—who will be the inheritors of the service — to sit as councillors in the upper tier, and to preside over the passing down of functions to the lower tier. I hope that we can return to the rather narrower point represented by that undoubtedly controversial decision, which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends consider wrong.
      The amendments address themselves to a part of the Bill which makes provision for minority representation. In principle, I found little to disagree with in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who welcomed the Bill's attempt to make provision for minorities. His criticism was that we had not done that clearly enough, and had left ourselves with problems. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also recognised that, once this step had been taken, it was sensible to try to make provision for minorities.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South—east seemed to be asking us to delete subsection (5) and come back with wider proposals. But simply deleting the subsection would not affect the change in control of the GLC. The GLC would still go Conservative without minority representation, so that point is not directly material.
      Perhaps it is worth recalling why we consider minority representation important on the councils. We need not have taken that step. Appointments under subsection (5) are to full councils, not sub—committees or anything else. It should not be forgotten that the appointments are being made not to new bodies, but to existing upper tier full councils, as opposed to appointed committees. The GLC and the MCCs will, of course, continue to exist during the transitional period, even if for 11 months they are indirectly rather than directly elected. Therefore, it is right and proper that they should include minority representation as if they had been directly elected.
      5.30 pm
      Both the alternatives on offer to us—the prolongation or the appointment of lower tier authorities — were bound to be unsatisfactory in some respects. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made it clear that the prolongation of the councils would be so unsatisfactory — the councils would have no mandate and would therefore be bogus — that he would recommend his friends not to serve. That is why the Bill provides, so far as is practicable, for constituent councils to reflect party balance when making appointments to the GLC and the MCCs.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Bearing in mind the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) about the freedom of the boroughts to decide on their nomination methods and so on, may I ask what will happen if the Labour boroughs refuse to participate and the Labour party nationally decides on a policy of non—participation? It looks to me as though that is what will happen, given the present mood of Labour councillors, including the councillors in the Labour minority in Hillingdon whom I consulted. Would not such a policy result in a wholesale shambles?
      Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge answered that point in his reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford

      1113
      and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis). There is a duty on the councils to nominate members, but if Labour councillors choose not to serve, they choose not to serve. I hope that they would not take such an irresponsible attitude.
      I realise that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) carry weight. Having once decided that the full councils should include minority representation, I concede that it is impossible to produce a clear and simple formula that will give a satisfactory answer in every case. I shall come back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on this matter.
      Mr. Jack Strawrose——
      Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps I may finish my argument before the hon. Gentleman shoots it down. We believe that in the majority of cases the arrangements will be perfectly straightforward and there will be a pretty obvious way of making proportional membership fit in with the shape of a lower tier council. In some cases, there will be two or three different ways of proceeding, and one method may be as good as another.
      All that we have laid on the lower tier authorities is the duty to behave reasonably. If they do not, they may be taken to court. In such cases the court would have to decide not who the members should be, but whether the council had behaved in a reasonable manner or whether it had produced an absurd outcome.
      Having said that, I accept my right hon. Friend's fair criticism that different results may be produced in two councils with a similar balance in the lower tier because if both the decisions were reasonable the court might say, "It is six of one and half a dozen of the other."
      Mr. Straw: I entirely share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the inadvisability of prolonging councils. We have stated clearly that we believe that there should be elections. May I ask the Under—secretary why, having decided against prolongation and against new elections, he believes that this proposal is the only way of securing representation from the boroughs? Why would it not have been possible to require the boroughs to nominate representatives in such a way as to ensure representation that reflected their existing composition? If, for example, there were three GLC members in its area—two Tory and one Labour—a borough council would nominate two Tory councillors and one Labour councillor from its own ranks. That would have avoided completely the gerrymander criticism. Why has the Under—secretary not followed through that scheme?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I make two points. First, without trying to embarrass him I should point out that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) took a different view on Second Reading. He said that he quite understood why we had taken the decision that we did and he then said that he thought that it was the wrong one. I think that he has since had his back stiffened slightly by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
      The formula which the hon. Member for Blackburn offers us would be a recipe for complete confusion. We have two choices. One is to continue with the present upper tier council, the second is to move to the only other democratically accountable, legitimate power base
      1114
      available which is the lower tier councils. To use the lower—tier councils to try to recreate the upper tier would be a dog's breakfast: it would be much simpler to prolong the upper tier councils. Of the options on offer so far I do not find that offered by the hon. Member for Blackburn particularly attractive.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend has not yet dealt with the most crucial point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), which is that the terms of schedule I render it absolutely impossible for the local councils to comply with the directions under subsection (5). One cannot possibly make a proper attempt at representing the balance on the councils when there are three parties on the councils and only two members with whom to make that attempt.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I tried to make it clear in my response to my right hon. Friend that the duty laid on the lower tier council is to get as near as it can: there will be circumstances where it will not be able to achieve it. I am quite willing to admit that. That is one of the costs of trying to produce the minority representation which we want:. We have to accept that there will be some imperfect situations. It is no good trying to disguise that.
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for drawing attention to views I expressed earlier. I should like it to be made absolutely clear—perhaps the Minister would care to comment on this—that I and a number of my hon. Friends such as my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North—west (Mr. Banks) and Leyton (Mr. Cohen) are completely opposed to the idea of extension in office by appointment. We want it reiterated that we believe that people should hold public office only through election and that public office should not be in the Government's gift.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs my help in self—advertisement. His views are well known and, indeed, are displayed in a number of surprising places about his anatomy.
      I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge . He says that while what is being attempted is clear, not enough detail has been provided, and that it would be better to write in detailed instructions for the lower tier councils. I expect that he has found that considerable difficulties are involved in attempting to produce a satisfactory detailed manual. There is the difficulty of defining individual political parties. for example, and that of defining majority and minority. Indeed, my hon. Friend's amendment itself to some extent illustrates my point.
      Amendment No. 21 begins by referring to the "principal minority party" and then tries to define what happens to that party's representation, but nowhere do the definitions refer again to the principal minority party. Instead, reference is made to "the minority parties together" or to the "larger minority party". It would be difficult to try to decide whether "larger" meant "principal" and so on.
      It is unfair to criticise an amendment when the point of it is clear. I do so only because we have tried to produce similar amendments and repeatedly have encountered the fact that by trying to put such a provision in the Bill even more anomalies and oddities potentially are produced. However, if a council has a duty only to make a reasonable

      1115
      and sensible attempt, and that attempt is challenged, a court will often decide that, taking everything into account, the people involved have tried to fulfil their duty.
      We have tried to wrestle with such a provision as that proposed by my hon. Friend. We cannot consider accepting an amendment along the lines that he has proposed, but we will consider whether we can produce a document of illustration or guidance to which the Bill might refer, and we shall consider amendments to the Bill that would refer to that document. Therefore, there would be advice on hand for councils which genuinely were trying to do it right. Those who want to cause trouble and make a fool of the legislation can always do so. The courts will have to stop that. However, there might be genuine cases of doubt. We might be able to produce a document to help and guide in such instances.
      Mr. Shersby: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a code of practice or a similar document. I presume that such guidance or code of practice would not have statutory force. One worrying aspect of the nominated authority is that the interests of the minorities should be protected by statute. It is one thing for us to express in the House the hope that all local authorities will act reasonably and sensibly and another to place that requirement upon them. But we cannot be sure that they will act reasonably and sensibly.
      Furthermore, I am anxious about the position of the aggrieved minority if it had to pursue the matter to court. The cost would be substantial. Presumably, the parties involved would not have access to legal aid or to financial aid provided by the local authority. Therefore, it would be difficult for an aggrieved minority to pursue its grievance to the courts.
      I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of expert parliamentary draftsmen—I am certainly not one of them—to produce a watertight formula. I urge my hon. Friend to attempt to do that and at the same time build it into the statute so that it is not an extraneous form of guidance or code of practice, but has statutory force and has been approved by the House.
      The Chairman: Order. Interventions should be brief.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Although I shall of course consult again on whether the details could be given statutory force, I am not optimistic that such a solution will be feasible. I have mapped out the route of giving some kind of guidance note. It would not be the kind of detailed code that would cause the same problems as if the provisions were written in statute, but would be illustrative and helpful. Moreover, it could be taken into consideration in court when deciding whether the council had been acting reasonably. For example, had the council looked at the code and had it tried to do what it could to meet the requirements of the duty set upon it? I believe that that is a more helpful route to travel.
      As for the principal point of the protection of minorities, which this provision is entirely designed to achieve, the duty to make a reasonable attempt at the representation of the minorities still lies firmly on the council. We are arguing about whether it is possible in the multifarious and differing situations of individual councils to write it all out in black and white in a way that does not
      1116
      land us in more trouble. In our view, it is impossible to do that. We have to leave it, therefore, to the definition of reasonableness, which I believe will work reasonably well.
      5.45 pm
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but the matter is vital to this subsection. In the GLC there will be 15 councils which have only two representatives on the new body. What would my hon. Friend say to one of those councils if there were a majority of, say, 30 to 20 Conservative to Labour? Should it represent the balance by appointing both Conservative, which gives a majority, or should it appoint one Labour and one Conservative, which does not reflect the majority?
      Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps the best answer I could give would be to produce the guidance note that I have described. I do not want to disguise the fact that two or more answers would satisfy the test of reasonableness. We could give helpful guidance.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: My hon. Friend is missing the point. If the seats are 30:20 between the two parties, there is no guidance note in the world that would fairly represent the balance of the parties. With two representatives for a borough, there are only two possibilities—two to one party and none to the other, or one each. Neither of those possibilities fairly represents the spectrum of numbers from 0 to 100. It is logically impossible.
      Mr. Waldegrave: With respect to my hon. Friend, I entirely understand the point. I am saying that in some situations the party balance cannot be effectively represented.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Might I suggest that this could, in part, be met by an increase in the representation to allow a different solution to be found?
      Mr. Waldegrave: Of course. The bigger the council, the easier it is to fine tune, but one then faces other difficulties as a result of having an unwieldy council. We have already been rightly told that there is a limit to the number of councillors in the lower tiers who will have the time and experience to do these jobs. So there is a danger in going too far down that road.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: Surely the basis of my hon. Friend's case is that these interim provisions will last only for 11 months anyhow. As the Bill is now drafted, the implication is that there will be the equivalent of one representative in the quango for every two representatives that there are currently in the GLC. Surely it would therefore be more sensible for my hon. Friend to agree to leave out subsection (5), think about it again, and come back with more constructive proposals to meet the points.
      Mr. Waldegrave: There are several different points. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has not noticed that the Bill says, at the beginning of subsection (5), "as far as practicable". Those words would not be there if we had not realised that it would not be practicable in some cases.
      Two principal issues have emerged from this debate. The first is whether we could have more detail in terms of the division of numbers. I suspect that if we tried to write that in detail in statute it would land us in more trouble, but we shall certainly have another look at that possibility.

      1117
      I imagine that the guidance note is more sensible. The other possibility, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is so keen, is for us to make the council bigger. We shall have another look at that, but there is the danger of getting an unwieldy transitional council, as well as the difficulties that I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge..
      Mr. Straw: Will not the Under—secretary admit for once that his endeavour to secure a political balance simply defies the laws of arithmetic and is impossible.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is getting overexcited. I have freely admitted to my hon. Friends that there is no perfect way of doing it. We can produce in these councils a perfectly defensible and reasonable—that is the legal word that will lie at the heart of the matter—minority representation.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The words in the clause do not refer to reasonableness. They impose an absolute duty "so far as practicable". If those words are left in, reasonableness cannot apply. In no fewer than eight councils in London, there are more than two parties. Therefore, any formula that has a preponderance of only two representatives is bound to fail. Therefore, the wording, "balance of parties" has to go if the clause is to make any sense.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman shot himself in the foot then because he said that the clause is absolute and added, "so far as practicable". Perhaps he shot himself in both feet, as suggested by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans).
      I do not wish to disguise that in the attempt to find a formula we shall not find an exact and perfect solution for every situation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, it is worth trying to provide for a minority voice on these short—lived councils.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The Bill is an utter shambles. It is a major constitutional cock—up. I almost feel sorry for the Parliamentary Under—secretary when he was being assailed from all sides. He seems a decent sort. Given his function as the all—dancing, all—singing Parliamentary Under—secretary, he has an impossible job. It would assist us if he were to admit that. We might all then have more sympathy for him.
      The Government Front Bench team is led by the political equivalent of the Vicar of Bray who has now slipped away. The Secretary of State has not the stomach to see what is going on. As well as the all—dancing and all-singing Parliamentary Under—secretary, there is the acceptable face of Tory extremism in the lengthy shape of the Minister of State. They know that they do not have a case. I really wish that they would come clean, be honest and admit it. They should realise that we are in a terrible mess. The provision is badly thought out—if it has been thought out at all. We are getting more and more into the mire.
      It is often said that history repeats itself—the first time as tragedy and then as a farce. This is the farce, but it is a dangerous farce. It is an undemocratic farce. With all the criticisms made by senior and respected Conservative Members, I should have thought that the Government Front Bench would have begun to rethink the provision radically. Surely London and the rest of the country cannot be left with this constitutional restructure.
      1118
      What would the Tory gutter press such as the Daily Mail and The Sun and the Daily Express say if a Labour Government introduced such a measure? I hope that we would never introduce such a shambles. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made it clear that his hon. Friends will be putting the boot in with great enthusiasm.
      Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such problems are not unknown in the House when Committees are being formed? I refer to the bottom tier, which the hon. Gentleman is describing. That problem also relates to Committees being formed in the House. He will recall the problems at the beginning of the Session.
      Mr. Banks: I accept that, but we are inflicting those problems on ourselves. The Bill is inflicting problems on somebody else. Enough hon. Members have tried to sort out the mess by asking what would happen in their councils and boroughs in which their constituencies are located.
      What would we read in the Tory gutter press if a Labour Government had proposed such a measure—what, for example, would we read in the Daily Express? We know what it would be —that we are all in the pay of Moscow. I know that several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen believe that anyway. Those papers would say that the Labour Government were dragging the country towards east European totalitarianism.
      This morning I received a delegation from the German Democratic Republic and I tried to explain to them what was happening. It is difficult enough to explain it to my constituents, but to do so to visitors from the GDR. was nigh on impossible—a late night in the House did not make my task any easier. When I told those visitors about the proposal, they marvelled at the Prime Minister' s and the Government's authority and power. I cited the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who referred to an elective dictatorship. That is what we now have; there is an arrogance of power which defies and beggars adequate description.
      I console myself with the fact that the measure is destroying the Government's credibility. That is worthwhile from our point of view. If that is the price which the GLC pays for its own demise, that would be a fair exchange—the end of the GLC for the end of the Government's credibility. Surely Conservative Members realise that the measure is doing the Government's image outside the House a great deal of damage. I for one am very glad of that.
      The Bill refers to political parties. It is, I understand, the first time that such a reference has appeared in an English Bill, and no doubt the Opposition will make much of that.
      We are discussing political balance and changing, at a stroke, the political control of an authority — in this instance, the GLC. I refer again to the widely leaked document on local government policies which the Vicar of Bray — or, rather, the Secretary of State for the Environment — circulated as a briefing to Cabinet Ministers. The Secretary of State was trying to help his colleagues over some difficult obstacles. One question in the brief is:
      "How will political balance be enforced?"
      The answer was:

      1119
      It will be a statutory requirement. Obviously it won't be possible to reflect political balance exactly in nominations.
      Well, he can say that again. The answer continues:
      Individual authorities will have to work out their own method of complying with the statutory requirement. In case of dispute the matter would have to go to the courts.
      What does that mean for a chief executive in a local authority when he tries to work through the Bill's provisions?
      The Parliamentary Under—secretary keeps referring to the statutory requirement. At some time, that requirement must be interpreted. It will be no good the court reading our proceedings. First, it is not allowed to have regard to what we say and, secondly, it would not assist the court one jot if it read about our proceedings in the Official Report. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary knows that the proposal is a mess. He has no answer to it and everyone in Committee today knows that the Government have set themselves an unattainable objective.
      Perhaps we may now consider how the political balance will be achieved in some of the authorities. The composition of Havering borough council is 59 per cent. Conservative, 19 per cent. Labour, 8 per cent. Liberal/SDP and 14 per cent. other. Clearly two of the three seats would go to the Conservative party. Where would the third one go? Would it go to the Labour party which comprises 19 per cent. of the council's seats, to the Liberal/SDP alliance which has 8 per cent., or to the other which has 14 per cent?
      That brings us up against another obstacle. What is a political party, as mentioned in the Bill? Who will define such a party? Are the Havering ratepayers association and the Havering independent and ratepayers group political parties, and are they so recognised? If they are, and if they do a deal with the SDP/Liberal alliance, they will end up with 22 per cent. of the seats, which will give them 3 per cent. more than Labour, and appear to make them eligible.
      6 pm
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about my local authority, I thank him for that suggestion, which I shall be happy to pass on to the ratepayers.
      Mr. Banks: I should be interested to see whether they would be prepared to deal with the SDP/Liberal alliance or with Labour. I always thought that independents and ratepayers were Tories anyway.
      I have illustrated what takes place throughout the boroughs. Chief executives will have to advise their members. Whether or not the Labour party on the different London councils decides to participate is irrelevant at this stage. Chief executives will have to give information to members so that a decision can be made.
      I asked the Secretary of State to say what advice was being given to borough councils by the Department of the Environment. The answer is very little indeed. I was told that an informal meeting is taking place with borough representatives. I do not know which boroughs' representatives they are, what was said at the meetings, or who the people were. I understand that one borough did not attend the informal discussions. I asked who went, what was said and which borough was excluded. I received a holding answer from the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State that he would write to me as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving the information because much
      1120
      will hang on it. Given his track record, I doubt whether he will be able to clear up the total confusion into which he is pushing London local government.
      None of this lends itself to any form of rational decision making. The Government are giving impossible tasks to local authorities in London by placing a statutory obligation on them that someone will have to untangle and interpret, and it appears that they will get no help or advice from the Government. One can imagine the sort of confusion that will arise with the GLC being dragged through the courts. No doubt there will be many legal challenges during the interim council's time and we can imagine the expense, the problems, the confusion and indeed the anarchy in local government because of what is being forced upon us. It is an utter disgrace, and it is time that the Minister accepted that.
      Mr. Edward Heath: I strongly support what has been said by my right hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour); I share their views.
      Because of views that I shall express on other matters, may I say that I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for having to handle this matter at this time? This is the most criticised aspect of the whole Bill. Even the London press, which is favourable to our party, has condemned it strongly. I therefore feel that, whatever his other responsibilities, the Secretary of State should have handled this in the Committee and taken full responsibility for it. I express regret that my hon. Friend has been placed in a most invidious position. His speech made clear that he is in that position. He said that the whole course is unsatisfactory, but that having embarked upon it the Government are going ahead with it. It is indeed unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friend said, although at somewhat greater length.
      The Bill mentions 32 London boroughs, 15 of which have only two representatives to be put forward as nominated representatives for a new body. It is therefore practically impossible to meet the balance of parties. There are three others which, because of the problem of defining a party—even assuming that one can define a party, which we have never before had to do—will not be able to find a practical solution. Therefore, for more than half the cases with which we have to deal the clause is nonsense. It is not "so far as practicable" in any way possible. To suggest that guidelines should be issued on something that is clearly impossible assumes a divine ability with which I suspect not even my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is endowed.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, the late Dick Sharples—who, sadly, was killed in the Caribbean—was a Minister of State at the Home Office. However, Dick was not a Minister at the time when we at the Home Office had the bright idea of defining political parties in legislation that was to be put before the House to enable the name of the political party to be put on ballot papers. Dick, in his delightful way, said to me, "I must tell you this. The Conservative party doesn't exist! There is no such party, and it will cause us the greatest difficulty if the Government attempt to define it." There was a bit of badinage, which I shall not go into now, but Dick was right. That is why we set about making the definition in a different way.
      Mr. Heath: I share with the right hon. Gentleman the view that the issue of what a political party is has not been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary; that is a basic objection to the clause.
      Then there is the matter of referring any cases of doubt to the courts. If a clause is physically impossible to carry through, how can a court give a decision on whether a council is carrying out its obligation? Clearly that is impossible. The Bill is laying an obligation on the courts which they are incapable of carrying out; it must therefore be bad legislation and should not be passed by the House. The problem for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary is that all the difficulties flow from the original decision, which was wrong. Surely he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when they saw the difficulties, should have realised that the Bill was unsuitable as part of the process of change which they want to bring about. My hon. Friend did not deal with this issue. The process, if it could be carried out, would mean a transfer of power in London from the Labour party to the Conservative party by edict of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend believe that that is morally or politically justifiable? I cannot believe that he will say that it is.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—I am sorry that he is not here at present — made an intervention in which we heard the true voice of authoritarianism. He said that there would be a rump council, but who will cause that? It will be this Government and Parliament. Phrases such as, "They will be there for only a short time" are the sort of phrases whichwe heard in the 1930s. The attitude then was "Ah well, it's temporary and doesn't matter because important decisions will not be taken. Matters can be left to Parliament." Again, that was the true voice of authoritarianism. The process must be stopped.
      I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now here. I put the same question to him: does he believe that it is morally or politically justifiable to change the political control of the authority in the capital city by edict of Parliament? Whatever is said about the difficulties involved, that is what my right hon. Friend is asking the House to do. If the clause is passed, it is bound to happen. I believe that the proposal is completely immoral and should never be sanctioned by the Conservative party.
      I ask the House to consider carefully a quotation. I ask the Labour Opposition to consider it also even though it does not mention them:
      Conservatives, like Liberals, should greatly fear the present tyranny of the House of Commons. Unchecked, in other than trivial senses, by the House of Lords or the Monarch; dominating the courts and the traditions of common law with an ever—increasing volume of statute—law … brandishing the theory of the detailed mandate in the face of reasoned argument, the legal power of a majority in the present British House of Commons has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished … it is possible at present for an administration with a majority, if it has for the time being defeated civil service opposition, or if the issue is one with which the civil service is not concerned, to be revolutionary in the most frivolous possible way. With analysis of the consequences of the most intellectually shoddy kind, governments may nationalise great industries, impose laws on Trade Unions, threaten the freedom of the press, or destroy the housing market. Fashions arise, in legislation as in anything else —for the floating of the pound, or statutory incomes policy, or the reorganisation of local government—the object may be worthy, but the plan can be carried through far too easily.
      Those are the words of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State for the Environment in "Binding
      1122
      Leviathan". What has brought about this change? He stands at the Dispatch Box using arguments which cannot be intellectually justified and which contradict everything that he so rightly wrote in his own book. He went on:
      In reality, of course, such power is limited by the fact that a democratically elected body is much averse to enforcing anything, at least against anyone who can make a fuss and cause Ministerial unpopularity.
      I thought at first that there were grounds for hope—if we can make Ministers unpopular enough, we may get a proper solution. But it does not appear to be so.
      Finally, my hon. Friend asks why a Government should be bound by every clause in their first edition of a Bill. Of course they should not be. They should listen to reasoned arguments. This debate has shown, above everything, that this clause is completely unsustainable. It will lead to a completely immoral, unpolitical and impractical position. The House of Commons should not tolerate that for a moment.
      Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and everyone outside must have been aghast at the deafening silence in response to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman of his own colleagues, not once, but twice. We must therefore draw our own conclusion when they refuse to answer a perfectly legitimate question, sincerely and honestly asked. I hope, even at this late stage, that a Minister will intervene in my speech to answer that question. It goes right to the root of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North—west (Mr. Banks) is a remarkable man. He said that he had explained the Bill to a group of visiting Germans, yet the Minister of State spent 15 minutes trying unsuccessfully to convince his own party. My hon. Friend is a walking genius. Perhaps he should take the Government Front Bench Members outside and explain it to them. In replying to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State had the audacity to say that if any of those councils tried to make a foot of the Bill he would deal with them. I have news for him. It is impossible to make a fool of something that is already foolish. He needs no help from those councils. He is doing a magnificent job. It took him 15 minutes—I have four children, three of whom are at school — and a BSc degree to work out that three into two would not go. That revelation will be greeted right across the country.
      6.15 pm
      This is a Bill of absolute utter nonsense. I felt very sorry for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. [HON.MEMBERS: "Why?"] He had no case. He strove manfully to make a case out of nothing.
      Mr. Walter Harrison: He is nodding.
      Mr. Cowans: Of course. He knows that he has no case. I sat thinking, "Quit when you're ahead," but at no stage could he quit because he was never there. It was disastrous to place him in that situation, but we can help him. Indeed, he can help himself. In the amendment, we are suggesting the deletion of subsection 5—that subsection of rubbish which even the Minister's hon. Friends have now told him is unworkable. Clearly we should like to see the whole Bill deleted, but if subsection (5) is deleted at least some sense will be made of what at present is nonsense.
      The Minister of State inadvertently misled the Committee. If subsection (5) is removed, the nominations

      1123
      part of the clause remains. That will allow the local authorities to decide whom and how they will nominate. They know—they have known for a considerable time —that three into two will not go, and they will make a sensible decision. That is the whole basis of the amendment. No one is saying that the amendment is perfect, but we all know that the Bill is nonsense, so we are trying to make a little common sense out of it. If the Minister agreed to that, the local authorities would have the right to nominate whom they wanted to serve them on the interim body until the main legislation was passed.
      It is bad enough to take away the people's right to vote, but then to impose on them the order, "Thou shalt pick only those whom I tell you to pick" is even worse. That, fundamentally, is what is happening.
      Much play has been made with the political control and balance of the existing districts. Not a word has been said about the existing political control of the GLC. If it is valid in one context, surely it must be valid in another. Although the Government do not like it, political control of the GLC was gained through the ballot box. The Conservative Government are trying to achieve, in the GLC—I shall come to the other metropolitan councils in a moment—what they could not achieve by the will of the people. If that is not sleight of hand and gerrymandering, I do not know what is.
      In the metropolitan councils, the Government are achieving by this method more seats for their party than they ever achieved through the ballot box. In my council of Tyne and Wear, they have never achieved as many seats as they have allocated to themselves—not through the will of the people but by gerrymandering and rigging; there is no other name for it.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not here. If what he said was not naive, I do not know what is. He explained away all that concerned his own party by saying, "Why, it is only temporary," as if he were talking about putting in a bunch of caretakers for a short time. The interim body may well have to determine a rate. If that is not political, what is? At the same time, it will be representing people and running services vital to those people, so it is not as if it was some temporary measure which will go away. People—if there is any reason for this debate, this is it—must realise how easy it is for democracy to be taken away from them if they sit idly by. It takes an afternoon or a day in this Parliament to do away with the rights of 18 million people to vote. I give them this warning. They had better be careful, or this Government may stay in permanently, because general elections could be next.
      Our case was made very well by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who is sincerely trying to do something here. Obviously I disagree with it and I shall come to that in a minute. One of the premises he mentioned in favour of his amendment was that the borough elections were more recent than the GLC elections. I shall give him an answer to that: hold the elections for the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and we cannot get any more recent than that. If that is the argument, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to be in the Lobby to vote against the Bill, so that the elections can go ahead. There can be no more recent decision than that.
      1124
      But, again, the political complexion of the existing authority is not taken account of, so, by deviousness, the GLC goes Tory—not by the will of the people via the ballot box but by the will of this Government. If that is not deplored inside and outside the Chamber, we are in deep trouble.
      There are many inconsistencies in amendment No. 21. If we are really seeking political balance, how can we say that, when the minority parties have at least 33 per cent., only the larger minority party has the seats? The two statements are inconsistent. Later the amendment says that, where the minority parties have 25 per cent., only the larger minority party gets seats. Therefore, it is not a spread of political bias across the board but a method of putting more Tories on the GLC. Although I do not think that he drafted the amendment with that intention, that would be the outcome.
      However, I have no news for the hon. Gentleman. There is one way, and one way only, that he could persuade me to support amendment No. 21. If every Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, resigned his or her seat tonight and we applied the hon. Gentleman's criteria and let the local government people come in according to them, we would probably get a Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that, there is a good chance that I will support him, because that is exactly what the Government are doing to the local authorities. They are not worrying about the ballot box. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a few seconds to stand up and say that he will do that. Then we can all resign and go home tonight. If he will apply his criteria for local authorities to Members of the House, he has a good chance of getting my support.
      Apart from that, in no way does the amendment make the Bill better. In my humble opinion, it makes it worse. To honour their manifesto commitment to give freedom to local government — apparently "freedom" means abolishing it — the Government must accept our amendment deleting subsection (5) and allow the local authorities to get on with the job which it is patently obvious neither the Secretary of State nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary can do. That has been demonstrated today.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: I share the sympathy that has been expressed by others for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State because of the impossible task with which he has been landed. It seems odd to me that the group of amendments involves issues on which the Government could reasonably make concessions without a major loss of face.
      Subsection (5) has been adequately dissected by several right hon. and hon. Members and it has been clearly demonstrated to the Committee that, as it stands, it is nonsense. Given that it is nonsense, surely it is not beyond the Government to accept that it is nonsense and to come forward with an amendment to cope with the points that have been so well put by hon. Members.
      My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—I think that I quote him correctly— said that councils will wish to do the right thing. I am sure that if the Bill as drafted becomes law, councils will genuinely wish to do the right thing, but it will be utterly impossible for them to do so, given the existence of subsection (5) and schedule 1. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about the amendments.

      1125
      The Government's difficulties stem from the fact that they maintain that there is no precedent for the present situation, in which they seek to abolish one type of local authority and, instead of transferring the powers to a new set of local authorities, transfer them to existing local authorities. The Government are correct in saying that, but there are plenty of adequate precedents that can be invoked to take account of the present situation. By treating it as though it is wholly unprecedented and by using wholly unprecedented solutions, the Government are trying to legislate in a way that is entirely unacceptable to a large number of hon. Members.
      I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench again whether they would legislate as they propose to do if the situation were reversed. In the past there has been a Conservative majority on the GLC when collectively there were Labour majorities in the London boroughs which would have ensured that on the type of quango proposed there would have been a Labour majority. Would my right hon. Friend have legislated then as he is now? Of course he would not, and he knows it full well.
      To remove the powers of an elected majority of one party and pass those powers to an unelected majority of another in a temporary quango is just as unacceptable to me now as it was when the Bill was first debated on Second Reading.
      6.30 pm
      There is an honourable tradition of gerrymandering against itself in the Conservative party. It happened in the course of the London Government Bill when the then Conservative Government did not accept the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commission — to their own disadvantage. It happened during the passage of the Local Government Act 1972 when, again, amendments were made in respect of the boundaries of some of the metropolitan counties, which ensured that there was disadvantage to the Conservative party. It would be highly regrettable if this excellent, tradition were now breached, and this Conservative Government were to gerrymander—as would be claimed for ever after—for themselves.
      The fact that the interim provisions are to last for only 11 months does not make the proposals any more acceptable. They remain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) said yesterday, constitutionally unacceptable. Whatever logical arguments the Government may put forward in support of their Bill—the arguments seem to me pretty thin — constitutionally and politically it remains unacceptable. If amendment No. 20 is not accepted by the Government, the Government will leave the Conservative party open to accusations of malpractice for many years to come, so I hope that the Government will think again.
      Mr. Straw: With the solitary and wholly isolated exception of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), no right hon. or hon. Member who has intervened or spoken in the debate, other than from the Treasury Bench, has said a word other than of the deepest opposition to the proposals that we are debating this afternoon.
      The Government may win the vote, since many Conservative Members who have not been listening to the debate and have not appreciated the total intellectual and arithmetical bankruptcy of the Government's case will be marched into the Lobby by the Whips.
      1126
      I hope that the Secretary of State will take no comfort from his so-called victory if that is so. He ought to listens not only to Opposition Members, but to his right hon. and hon. Friends. They are pleading with him, not to save the Labour party, but to save what they regard as important principles for the Conservative party. We know—I say this without disingenuity — that both the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under—secretary are honourable men who command the respect of the Committee. But I must say to them both that there is no spectacle so demeaning as seeing honourable men performing dishonourable deeds, and closing their ears to the arguments and their eyes to the consequences of those deeds.
      What the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are proposing this afternoon is dishonourable and disreputable, both to the Committee and to the traditions of the Conservative party. They are proposing to gerrymander, to fix the results of an election which will not take place , and to change political control not through the ballot box but through the edict of the House.
      The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) asked the Parliamentary Under—secretary whether he thought it was morally or politically justified to gerrymander in this way. He would have asked the Secretary of State if he had been present. The Parliamentary Under—secretary was silent. I again offer him a chance to answer that question. Does he personally believe that it is morally or politically justified to change political control in this way without an election?
      Mr. Waldegrave: That was the debate that we had last night. Today's debate is on the much narrower point of the representation of minority interests. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put out last night at considerable length and with great force the arguments in favour of the course we are taking on the membership of the transitional councils.
      Mr. Straw: All right hon. and hon. Members have heard that answer.
      Mr. Bidwell: It was not an answer.
      Mr. Straw: It was not an answer. It speaks volumes about the true opinions of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He knows that this course of action is not justified morally, politically or intellectually. If the Secretary of State, who is responsible for pushing the policy through even the considerable barrier of the Prime Minister's instincts, wishes to come to the Dispatch Box to answer the question which is on the lips of every right hon. and hon. Member—that is, whether this is morally or politically justified—I would be happy to give way. Perhaps at the same time he would answer his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) who asked whether the Government would have gone down this road had the GLC been Conservative—controlled and had there been a majority among the representatives from the boroughs. Of course they would not. This is a crude political manoeuvre and the Secretary of State and the Conservative party ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it, It is not too late for them to redeem themselves.
      The situation is even more appalling because, not only is the measure morally and politically unjustified; it is also wholly impractical. In no sense is it a piece of good government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge

      1127
      (Mr. Cowans) put the point with his customary wit when he said that the Conservative party has suddenly discovered that three into two does not go. It certainly does not go.
      This provision will drag parliamentary legislation and the courts into disrepute and it will place a burden on the courts to interpret a piece of legislation that is plainly nonsense, not in terms of the normal cut and thrust across the Floor of the House, but in arithmetical terms. It is a piece of impossibilism that cannot be fulfilled and it will produce the most capricious, arbitrary and unfair results. It will not be possible to achieve a political balance.
      There is only one solution to the problems that the Secretary of State is now trying to force upon the Committee and that is for the Government to reconsider the whole clause and recognise what they have so far failed to recognise, that the real alternative to this can of worms lies in following precedents. Those caused political arguments but they did not bring Parliament into disrepute or give rise to justified allegations that the Government were gerrymandering political control of particular authorities. That solution would be to allow elections to take place as normal in 1985. If it were then the will of the House, substantive legislation should contain any necessary transitional procedures.
      At the very least, it is in the interests of the Secretary of State and his party to accept amendment No. 20 and to remove any possibility of subsection (5) becoming law. I urge my hon. Friends to support amendment No. 20.
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: In view of the course of the debate this afternoon, I must add my words of concern to those already expressed by many of my hon. Friends.
      Yesterday and today we have had a peculiar and depressing debate about a Government acting not from principle or practicality, but from expediency. The Parliamentary Under—secretary made that only too clear. I fear that that expediency has been sadly tinged with a desire for political manipulation as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). The point was brought home to me very clearly when the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke of the possible ramifications of such an action if applied, for instance, to the restructuring of East Sussex county council. I hate to think of the uproar that that would cause in the Conservative heartland of the south.
      The Bill changes the balance of parties in the GLC rather than maintaining it. As others have pointed out, it would have changed it elsewhere had it not been for the Labour gains in the recent borough elections. Far better that the present GLC had its time extended, only for 11 months, with additional financial controls applied if necessary, while plans were prepared, reviewed and eventually executed for the repositioning of its current responsibilities.
      Whatever route the Government take, I plead with them —as others have pleaded already—to review their plans in clause 2. Clause 2 is crucial. It makes a point that is both practical and philosophical with which the House must always be particularly concerned, because it is about power: not only who has it, but also that no one should have too much of it. Power, when it is unrepresentative
      1128
      and unanswerable, is a bad thing. Yet the Bill seems to want to establish just such a power, and it is undemocratic of the Government to aim in that direction.
      If the Government do not accept this amendment, I beg them to consider a similar one when the Bill goes to another place. At present, it is a paving Bill that is sadly cracked.
      Sir Kenneth Lewis: Early this morning, when replying to the debate on amendment No. 14, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he had considered the options open to him, including extending the life of the present GLC, and that he had decided against that for practical reasons. I think that he will find, if he looks in Hansard, that he used those words.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin indicated assent.
      Sir Kenneth Lewis: Having been present for most of the debate, I think that the most fascinating part was the Parliamentary Under—secretary trying to explain how the councils would nominate their members to the new body that would take the place of the old GLC for 11 months. It was clear that he was finding it very difficult to explain. None of us could be sure exactly how the arithmetic would work out, and what would be the solution to the problems of the many councils which would have to decide whether they had one member from each party, or two members from one party and one member from another. He said that he would give us a code of practice or guidelines, but was clearly uncertain how he would be able to provide such guidance.
      6.45 pm
      If my right hon. Friend has really decided on such action, for "practical reasons" when he reads Hansard tomorrow he must see that the way he has chosen cannot be the most practical. On his own arguments, he really ought to think again.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 271.

      Division No. 289]

      [6.45 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Clwyd, Ms Ann

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cohen, Harry

      Ashton, Joe

      Conlan, Bernard

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Corbett, Robin

      Barnett, Guy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Cowans, Harry

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Bell, Stuart

      Craigen, J. M.

      Benn, Tony

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Benyon, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'!)

      Blair, Anthony

      Deakins, Eric

      Boyes, Roland

      Dewar, Donald

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dormand, Jack

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Douglas, Dick

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Buchan, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell—savours, Dale

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Carter—jones, Lewis

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fisher, Mark

      Clarke, Thomas

      Flannery, Martin

      Clay, Robert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      1129

      Forrester, John

      Michie, William

      Foster, Derek

      Mikardo, lan

      Fraser, J.(Norwood)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Freud, Clement

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      George, Bruce

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      O'Brien, William

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Golding, John

      Park, George

      Ground, Patrick

      Parry, Robert

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Patchett, Terry

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Pendry, Tom

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Penhaligon, David

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Pike, Peter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prescott, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Radice, Giles

      Home Robertson, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Redmond, M

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Robertson, George

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Rooker, J. W

      John, Brynmor

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilroy—silk, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Knox, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lamond, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

      Litherland, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Snape, Peter

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Loyden, Edward

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stott, Roger

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Straw, Jack

      McKelvey, William

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Torney, Tom

      Maclennan, Robert

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wainwright, R.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Madden, Max

      Wareing, Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Weetch, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Winnick, David

      Martin, Michael

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Maxton, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Meacher, Michael

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Mr. Allen McKay

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Alexander, Richard

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brandon—bravo, Martin

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Amess, David

      Brinton, Tim

      Arnold, Tom

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Browne, John

      Baker, Nicholas

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Butterfill, John

      Best, Keith

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cash, William

      Body, Richard

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bottomley, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Churchill, W. S.

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      1130

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cockeram, Eric

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Colvin, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Coombs, Simon

      Key, Robert

      Cope, John

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Corrie, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Couchman, James

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knowles, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lamont, Norman

      Douglas—hamilton, Lord J.

      Latham, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dunn, Robert

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lennox—boyd, Hon Mark

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Evennett, David

      Lilley, Peter

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Farr, Jhon

      LyeIl, Nicholas

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacGregor, John

      Forman, Nigel

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Madel, David

      Fox, Marcus

      Major, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Galley, Roy

      Marlow, Antony

      Gardiner, George(Reigate)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Garel—jones, Tristan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Gloodhart, Sir Philip

      Mellor, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Merchant, Piers

      Gow lan

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Greenway, Harry

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Griffiths, Peter (Porstm'th N)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Grist, lan

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Needham, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Newton, Tony

      Hannam,John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Norris, Steven

      Harris, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Harvey, Roberte

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hayes,J.

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Parris, Matthew

      Heathcoat—amory, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Heddle, John

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hickmet, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Porter, Barry

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Holland, Sir Philip(Gedling)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Holt, Richard

      Powley, John

      Hooson, Tom

      Price, Sir David

      Hordern, Peter

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Howard, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

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

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter(Dover)

      Hubbard—miles, Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      lrving, Charles

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Jackson, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Johnson—smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      1131

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Ryder, Richard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      St. John—stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Thornton, Malcolm Thurnham, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tracey, Richard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Silvester, Fred

      Viggers, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Waddington, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Walden, George

      Soames, Hon Nicholas Speller, Tony

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      Spencer, Derek

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Watson, John

      Squire, Robin

      Watts, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stanley, John

      Wheeler, John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitfield, John

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham),

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Woodcock, Michael Yeo, Tim

      Stokes, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Sumberg, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Temple—morris, Peter

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 270, Noes 166.

      Division No. 290]

      [6.56 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Amess, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Tom

      Chope, Christopher

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Churchill, W. S.

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Coombs, Simon

      Best, Keith

      Cope, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Corrie, John

      Biggs—davison, Sir John

      Couchman, James

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Body, Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dunn, Robert

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Eggar, Tim

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Evennett, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Brandon—bravo, Martin

      Fallon, Michael

      Brinton, Tim

      Farr, John

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Favell, Anthony

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Browne, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fox, Marcus

      Butterfill, John

      Franks, Cecil

      1132

      Freeman Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Antony

      Galley, Roy

      Mather, Carol

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mellor, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Merchant, Piers

      Gow, Ian

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Greenway, Harry

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Grist, Ian

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Needham, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Newton, Tony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hannam, John

      Norris, Steven

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Onslow, Cranley

      Harris, David

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Harvey, Robert

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hayes, J.

      Parris, Matthew

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Heathcoat—amory, David

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Heddle, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Hickmet, Richard

      Porter, Barry

      Hind, Kenneth

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Powley, John

      Holt, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Hooson, Tom

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hordern, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Howard, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd—on—a)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Renton, Tim

      Hubbard—miles, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Wyn (Convey)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Irving, Charles

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Jackson, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Johnson—smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Kellett—bowman, Mrs Elaine

      St. John—stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Key, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Scott, Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lamont, Norman

      Silvester, Fred

      Latham, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Skeet, T. H. H

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Lennox—boyd, Hon Mark

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Speller, Tony

      Lilley, Peter

      Spencer, Derek

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      LyeIl, Nicholas

      Squire, Robin

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      MacGregor, John

      Stanley, John

      MacKay, Andrew(Berkshire)

      Stern, Michael

      Maclean, David John

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Madel, David

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Major, John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Maples, John

      Stokes, John

      1133

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sumberg, David

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Walden, George

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Waller, Gary

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Watson, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wheeler, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Whitfield, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Tracey, Richard

      Wood, Timothy

      Trippier, David

      Woodcock, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Yeo, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Michael Neubert and

      Waddington, David

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Fisher, Mark

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Forrester, John

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Foster, Derek

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Foulkes, George

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Barnett, Guy

      Freud, Clement

      Barron, Kevin

      George, Bruce

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bell, Stuart

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Benn, Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Golding, John

      Benyon, William

      Ground, Patrick

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Blair, Anthony

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Boyes, Roland

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle—u—tyne E)

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Campbell—savours, Dale

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Carter—jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Clarke, Thomas

      John, Brynmor

      Clay, Robert

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clwyd, Ms Ann

      Kilroy—silk, Robert

      Cocks, Rt Hon M.(Bristol S.)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cohen, Harry

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Conlan, Bernard

      Knox, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Lamond, James

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Corbett, Robin

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Litherland, Robert

      Cowans, Harry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Craigen, J. M.

      Loyden, Edward

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      McKelvey, William

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Deakins, Eric

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dixon, Donald

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dormand, Jack

      Madden, Max

      Douglas, Dick

      Marek, Dr John

      Dubs, Alfred

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Martin, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maxton, John

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meacher, Michael

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      1134

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Michie, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

      O'Brien, William

      Skinner, Dennis

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Snape, Peter

      Park, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Parry, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Patchett, Terry

      Stott, Roger

      Pendry, Tom

      Straw, Jack

      Penhaligon, David

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Pike, Peter

      Torney, Tom

      Prescott, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Wainwright, R.

      Radice, Giles

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Randall, Stuart

      Wareing, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Weetch, Ken

      Redmond, M.

      Winnick, David

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, George

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Rooker, J. W.

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      REPLACEMENT OF COUNCILLORS
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 3, line 11, after 'time', insert
      from a date three months after an appointment.
      [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take amendment No. 94, in page 3, line 14, at end insert
      provided that no more than one appointment shall he so terminated in a three month period.
      Mr. Straw: Clause 3 gives power to a constituent council— a district or a London borough council—'to terminate the appointment of a representative on an interim board at any time. We believe that such a power should be constrained in two ways. First, it should not be possible to terminate the appointment within three months of the original appointment. Secondly, it should not be possible for a constituent authority to terminate more than one appointment within a three—month period.
      While I understand why the Government have introduced a power to terminate appointments, I do not necessarily agree with them. It is most important that, as far as possible, there should be some permanence for these people. In any event, they will be there only for 11 months. It would be wrong to have a constant merry—go—round of people having their appointments terminated if, say, they do something which does not meet the will, for the time being, of the constituent council.
      I am perhaps one of the few in the Committee who has served as an indirect member of an authority. I was Islington council's representative on ILEA. It is a difficult position to be in. Those performing the function proposed in the Bill will be in even greater difficulties; they should not necessarily face the continual possibility of having their appointments terminated, as could happen under clause 3. Moreover, the attraction of termination should be constrained by providing that not more than one termination is possible within three months.
      Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I understand the arguments for continuity put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I assure him that the Government do not envisage the constant merry—go—round that he mentioned. I know about the problems of indirectly elected members—not because I was one, but my wife was an indirectly elected member of ILEA. Therefore, I understand the problems of twin loyalties to two bodies.
      The provisions are needed to ensure that party balance is maintained throughout the transitional period. That is necessary in case of changes in the political complexion of the constituent councils. Perhaps I may look back for a moment to clause 2(5) which expressly refers to making and terminating appointments to reflect the party balance. Clause 3 is therefore necessary to give effect to the party balance requirement in clause 2. Clause 3 will also help to ensure that appointees remain directly answerable for their actions to the council that appointed them and, through it, to the electorate.
      Amendment No. 93 would guarantee that each appointee would serve for at least three months. The impact would be that, if the party balance in a constituent council changed, it could be up to three months before that was reflected in the transitional council.
      Amendment No. 94 is even worse. In effect, it limits to three the maximum number of replacements which each constituent council could make in the entire 11 months of the transitional council. That would not allow a party balance to be maintained and, I suggest, would weaken accountability. Suppose that a party took control of a borough council and was entitled to more members on the transitional council; it could be caught by the three-months rule—or the ruling in amendment No. 94—and thereby be precluded from nominating additional members from its own party to the transitional council.
      The hon. Gentleman's fears will not be realised. The amendments would frustrate the main purposes of the clause and so I must ask the Committee to reject them.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: I support my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary. Plainly, the Government are trying to ensure that during the short, winding—down period the views of local authorities—the district and borough councils—are correctly reflected in the membership of the GLC and the other six authorities. If we interfere with the rights of councils, the political complexion of which might change, we should completely reverse the Government's objective.
      If I might be allowed to appear in a white sheet, so to speak, a week or two ago, in a debate on the topic, I said that none of the authorities to be abolished would have a change of political complexion as a result of elected members being replaced by borough representatives who will take over the majority of their powers.
      I may have been wrong about the GLC. I can hear derisive laughter, but I think that I should endure the shame of having made a mistake and confess that it appears—no one is more upset than the Government about this, if the truth be known—that there is likely to be a change of political representation at county hall, although not in the other six authorities.
      7.15 pm
      It is precisely because of the Government's desire to ensure that in the winding-down period the boroughs' and districts' views are fairly reflected, and that there is not
      1136
      even the appearance of imposing other views, that it is essential that this degree of flexibility be applied. Therefore, I oppose the amendments.
      Mr. Straw: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      FILLING OF VACANCIES
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 42, leave out
      `not later than one month'
      and insert 'at its first meeting'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to determine the period after which the borough councils in London, and the district councils in the metropolitan county areas, would take decisions to replace people needed to fill vacancies on the county authorities. It was tabled for reasons of practicability. The fact that we had to table it suggests that yet again the Government do not understand or appreciate or have not reflected upon the practical day—to—day workings of local authorities.
      It is usual practice in local authorities for there to be a six—week cycle of council meetings. It will therefore by impossible for the authorities to comply with the provisions of subsection (3). If what the Government intend happens, unless they can point us to some ancillary provision that we have not noticed, if a vacancy occurs at the relevant date as defined in subsection (4)—
      "the date on which the person in question ceased to be a member of the constituent council and,"—
      in certain cases—
      "the date on which notice of the vacancy is given to the constituent council"—
      an appointment has to be made within a month.
      What happens if a local authority has just had its cycle council meeting? It would not normally meet again for about another five weeks. Without calling a special meeting of the council. It might be impossible to have such a meeting. The implication is that either a special meeting of the council would have to be called—which costs money because the town hall would have to be opened up and lighting and other things paid for, and there is also the inconvenience to councillors — or councils do not do what the Government are clearly determined that they should do, that is, ensure that the decision is made by the whole council.
      Now that it has been clearly stated by the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and the Labour party that, in their view, the Bill is a total muddle—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Prime Minister, called it "a dog's breakfast" in the early hours of the morning—we do not want the powers to replace people when vacancies arise to be handed out of the control of the full council to a sub—committee or majority group or other less democratic and visibly accountable body.
      If vacancies arise — I regret that the amendments were not proceeded with because we need to ensure that appointing authorities cannot pull people out after one meeting—they have to be filled by the council, and the convenient time to do that is at the council's first meeting after "the relevant date". I hope that the Government will

      1137
      accept the strength of that argument on practical grounds today and accept our amendment or bring forward their own amendment so that the Bill can proceed in a more practical way.
      Sir George Young: No one is more aware of the mechanics of local government than myself, having served on a London borough council and the GLC. I am also aware of the time scales. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance which he sought towards the end of his remarks. In a nutshell, the debate is between speed — the necessity to replace people and fill vacancies when they occur—and convenience, and to a small extent cost, if special meetings of the council have to be called to fill a vacancy. We do not envisage great use of the powers. They are necessary to replace someone who, for whatever reason, can no longer serve on a transitional council. But, as I said in reply to the previous debate, we do not envisage a merry—go—round or a constant changing of members of the transitional councils.
      The point of putting a one—month time limit on the filling of casual vacancies is merely to ensure that they are filled, notified and commenced as soon as possible after they occur. The transitional councils have only 11 months to run and there will be quite a lot of work to be done in that period. Waiting for the next scheduled council meeting might mean a delay of six or seven weeks, or more, and several weeks' valuable experience for an appointee could be lost. I believe that one month will be ample time for a council to make an appointment. Indeed, I hope that most casual vacancies will be filled in considerably less time than that.
      Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. We place a greater priority on speed and filling a vacancy than on the arguments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand why the Government resist the amendment, but I do not find their argument convincing. It is part of the package which adds to the administrative muddle which local councils will have to cope with. Although speed is vital, I had hoped that the Government would accept the amendment and therefore do something about limiting the number of times that vacancies will occur. However, having heard that about half an hour ago members of the other place defeated the Government on the Housing and Building Control Bill for a second time, I still have some hope the Government might be affected by the risk of being defeated again on this and many other matters. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Dr. David Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
      Amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
      Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 11, at end insert —
      1138
      'Provided that any quorum so prescribed for a metropolitan county council shall include a stipulation that there shall be at least one person present from each constituent council'.
      Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 13, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 14 and insert
      'and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      Amendment No. 95, in page 5, line 31, at end add—
      '(7) A quorum of the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council as the case may be shall include at least one elected representative from each of the constituent councils in its area and the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above and the provisions of paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the principal Act shall have effect subject to the requirement of this subsection.'.
      Dr. Clark: The amendments are admittedly specialised and highly technical. Nevertheless, they are fundamentally important to the functions and working of good local government, which is what the Opposition are trying to achieve through the aegis of this Committee. To try to make good local government out of this Bill is somewhat difficult, but we are doing our best. When we see imperfections in the Bill we attempt to correct them. Nowhere is that more so than in clause 5 and in connection with the quorums of the transitional boards. At first sight, a discussion about a quorum might seem rather esoteric or academic. But we maintain that an important principle is at stake.
      The point of having a quorum is an essential characteristic, or criterion, to protect minority—groups even majority—groups. It is possible to imagine that without a reasonable quorum small groups could, through various scenarios, exercise power in the name of the larger body. That is vital, and it has been recognised traditionally and conventionally in local government legislation.
      As the Secretary of State knows, it is laid down in the principal Act that there must be a quorum. Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 to that Act prescribes that the quorum for meetings of principal councils should be one quarter. That is all well and good and we do not disagree with it. However, under clause 5(3) and (4) the Secretary of State can reduce by order the prescribed quorum of a metropolitan county council when he considers — I emphasise "he"—that to be necessary for the transaction of business. No limitation is placed on the power of the Secretary of State. There is no prescribed minimum below which he cannot make an order. He has no need to consult the council and there are no prescribed criteria to which he must adhere in order to determine the quorum. That will give the Secretary of State tremendous powers. They are far too great. One of our main criticisms of the Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State those tremendous powers.
      We are very worried about the need to ensure that there is an adequate quorum, which is what we seek to do in this group of amendments. Amendment No. 29 goes a stage further and suggests that the quorum should include at least one representative from each metropolitan district. That is a useful protection and particularly important as much of the work of the transitional body will be—I nearly said stripping of assets—the dispersal of assets. That will involve a vast amount of money. I understand that the GLC capital fund will be about £1,000 million. it is vital that all the respective metropolitan districts feel that they are getting a fair share and that they have a quorum of sufficient size to protect their interests. It would be very

      1139
      unsatisfactory if the Secretary of State decided to reduce the quorum to, say, 15, as he could easily do under the clause.
      We are trying to protect the democratic freedoms of what may be a minority group. It would be a travesty if, because London is to be Conservative—controlled, a Labour borough such as Barking did not get a fair share. If one representative from each metropolitan district were necessary to make a quorum, they would have at least one sanction to prevent any unsatisfactory or unfair distribution of assets.
      We may appear to be uncharitable or too critical of the Secretary of State's new power. I am sure that he will tell us that he hopes not to have to operate it. He will probably say that he hopes to operate under the present system. But the Government's record on democracy is far from happy. There has been a train of events in the past 12 months. I shall not go into them because they would be outside the scope of the amendment, but they show the drift away from the fundamental democratic values that the House has traditionally held. That is why right hon. Members from the Secretary of State's own party have told him that he is acting in an anti—democratic way and operating the biggest gerrymander in history.
      We are critical and suspicious of the Secretary of State. If he can, at a stroke, change a Labour—controlled London into a Conservative—controlled London, we must protect in every way possible the functioning of any subsequent interim arrangements.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: There are circumstances, as is already known, in which we shall seek to press amendment No. 57 to a Division. It is a fall-back position that, if the amendment eloquently moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) should fall, in the last resort we should at least establish the fact that the Government can use these unfortunate powers only by an affirmative resolution of the House, and not by the mere negative procedure which the Government, like all Governments in my experience, are trying to get away with.
      7.30 pm
      As outlined by the hon. Member for South Shields, the power of the Secretary of State to reduce the quorum, as he would do, presumably, if he finds that there is a boycott by some political party, of the nominated councils, is degrading, and illustrates the ultimate mess in which the Government now arrive, having started on this crazy road. This is the destination of people who have set off in the wrong direction in the wrong manner, and who are thus reduced to such squalid devices.
      I should like to illustrate the consequences of subsection (3), if the amendment is unfortunately not agreed to, for the metropolitan county council of west Yorkshire, in which my constituency is situated. The provisions of the Bill will already have reduced the interim west Yorkshire county council to half its traditional strength, that is, to 45 nominated members. When the plaque of county hall, which has been hoisted in Wakefield for 100 years, is hauled down, and guango hall is put up in its place, it will already be a mere half of its present size with a quorum of 11. A quorum of 11 to deal with a metropolitan county the size of west Yorkshire seems a dubiously low figure.
      1140
      If there were to be a boycott by one or two larger parties, although the Liberal members have no intention of taking the matter to the lengths of boycott, strongly though they feel, the Secretary of State might have to declare— and this is difficult to believe, but it is the truth — that the administration of the county of west Yorkshire could be carried on by a meeting with a quorum of only five. The title of "quango hall" would no longer be appropriate. It would have to be hauled down, and some such title as "cosy corner" or "the nook" would have to hoisted to show that the whole of west Yorkshire was to be governed for local purposes by a mere huddle of five stooges—five nominated people, under this system.
      Mr. George Park: Subsection (3) imposes no limit, and it could be one person, if so declared.
      Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for carrying my argument further. I was endeavouring not to make the position even more fantastic that I consider a quorum of five would be, when one considers the great resources and responsibilities which that tiny huddle of nominated people would have. The inequity and inefficiency of a quorum of five speak for themselves, and I do not wish to labour what is manifest.
      I deal next with a most important aspect of any form of government which is its image with the public, and the amount of respect and obedience that such a body commands. We have it on the authority of our great constitutional writers, and especially the great Bagehot, that it is essential for any major organ of government to have an image that makes people want to respect and to obey it. Bagehot's term was "the ceremonial part of Parliament", which in the age of television succeeds in making most citizens feel that Parliament ought to be obeyed. This is equally important in the government of a large county.
      It is sometimes forgotten, when people dwell upon the fact that London is unfortunately to lose its county government, that the same is true of people in west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire. Anybody who has been brought up in the former West Riding of Yorkshire, like his forebears for nearly 100 years, has been accustomed to county government on a majestic scale.
      When I was first elected a Member of Parliament, the West Riding county council, which was then the operative body, extended from the hinterland of Morecambe bay in the west to the mouth of the Humber in the east. Because of its enormous resources, and because it had rich farming country in the north, and coalmines—indeed, the centre of the British coal industry—in the south, with much manufacturing in between, it was able to recruit the most distinguished public servants. One of my great pleasures in earlier years here was to go to various Departments of state with the almost omnipotent clerk, as he was then called, of the West Riding county council, accompanied by three party leaders, all of great experience and knowledge. Those people, in my humble presence, terrified Ministers, who were changing office every year or so, and permanent secretaries alike. I felt a tremendous thrill, not to be playing any great part, but to be present when the people from my part of the country were inspiring awe and respect in the bureaucracy of Whitehall.
      The West Riding went, and I shall not dwell upon that unhappy fact. In most of its place came the new counties

      1141
      of west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire. They had a difficult start, but in recent years they too have built up respect, if not always agreement. West Yorkshire council, which is the one that I know better, is regarded as a body that should be listened to, and that can be helpful in knitting together the parochial manufacturing cities and towns of west Yorkshire.
      In place of that respectable and acceptable form of government, for an interim period we are to have a body which could be reduced to five, four or three people, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers contained in subsection (3). Such a procedure is unacceptable to thinking people in west Yorkshire. Conservatives as much as anybody else would be offended if the county council in which they had played a considerable part over the years were reduced to such a squalid huddle.
      We therefore support amendment No. 56 to leave out subsection (3). If unfortunately we do not prevail, we will want to test the opinion of the Committee on the fall-back position that, at least, there should be an affirmative resolution, provided for by our amendment No. 57.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: As we move towards the conclusion of the Committee stage of this Bill, it is sad that Opposition Members should be yapping and snapping at the heels of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, trying to find areas in which to criticise points of detail. It cannot be said that the procedure of a negative resolution of the House is a squalid device. It is a time-honoured device and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was in favour of maintaining time-honoured institutions.
      The hon. Gentleman tells us that in the ancient days of Alderman Foodbotham and others — who will be remembered by those who have read Beachcomber, of blessed memory — the great members of Yorkshire county council could terrify Ministers in London. The hon. Gentleman wished that that was still the case. Unfortunately, times have changed in local government. Labour Members will be quick to endorse the fact that ceremonial procedures may not always remain appropriate. It is nonsense to talk as though we shall end up with a cosy nook, or whatever.
      It will not be the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if the hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not trouble to turn up to perform their public duties. No Conservative Member is suggesting that we do not want those who have been appointed to the 11-month transitional bodies to turn up. Hon. Members talk as if we were laying the foundations for some form of local government that is to last for a thousand years. But we are talking about an interim procedure for 11 months. We do not want no one to turn up and we do not want small numbers to turn up. There will be a great deal of work to do. Many of those involved will be those who will be responsible at the end of the 11-month period. To suggest that it is the Government's purpose to reduce the active membership of those temporary authorities to four or five people is absurd. One needs only to put it into words to realise that the hon. Gentleman is talking out of a part of his person that you would not allow me, Mr. Armstrong, to name.
      Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman implied that the Liberal party might choose to boycott the interim councils. I think that he will acknowledge that I was
      1142
      careful to point out that, at any rate, as far as west and south Yorkshire were concerned, Liberal members did not have the slightest intention of boycotting those interim councils, distasteful though they are.
      Mr. Stevens: I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly as he made that point in his speech. I certainly did not intend to suggest anything to the contrary.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is it not an honourable part of this country's political tradition that if someone violently disagrees with a course of action, it is perfectly reasonable for him to boycott a body that is established to destroy the institutions that we seek to defend?
      Mr. Stevens: That is a vulgar process that has been seen more frequently of late, and it is greatly to be deprecated. All I said was that it was not the intent ion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that those nominated by their local authorities to serve on the transitional bodies should boycott them. Indeed, if they boycott them, it will not be my right hon. Friend's fault, but their own—deleted expletive—fault.
      The amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seeks to ensure that any quorum of the transitional bodies should have at least one representative from each of the constituent councils. If the Committee accepted it, there, indeed, would be a ready-made lever of destruction. One would need only to hold the members of one of the constituent councils at home to bring the whole work of the transitional authority grinding to a halt. Parliament would be very foolish to give such powers to the constituent councils that nominated members of the transitional authorities. I very much hope that we shall not be so foolish as to be ensnared by that trap.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) alluded to the fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had described the Bill as a dog's breakfast. My colleagues will find it interesting that there seems to be no real constraint on Liberal Members supporting that dog's breakfast.
      Mr. Corbyn: With a bit of luck, they will eat it.
      Mr. Bidwell: It seems that Liberal Members at least want to sup at the devil's table, because they have enthusiastically supported the Bill being described as a shambles. We hope that it will never see the light of day, and that is will be mangled in the other place, or by the people.
      I cannot say exactly what the Labour party may wish to do. We are debating paving legislation, and the way in which it is presented reminds me of trying to build a pavement before one knows the size of the road. That is the difficulty that we are faced with. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) observed, 11 months is a short time, but it could also be a very damaging period. As he said, those involved will have an enormous amount of work to do and will have to try to decide how to transfer many of the GLC's existing powers to the boroughs.
      Although I do not know what the Labour party's position will be on this issue, it is elementary that there must be a quorum. The Government should have no hesitation in conceding that, as they may end up with a bit of a shambles in the balance of political representation that they achieve.

      1143
      I should point out to my hon. Friends that I have always been a bit shy when advising members of local authorities—whether they be members of the GLC or of borough, district or parish councils—what they should do in such critical situations. However, as an old shop steward in industry, I can say that if I were back there and were a councillor, I would have nothing to do with it. I would take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Those involved may have to hold a special conference to decide whether they should participate. As I observed during an earlier intervention, the bodies cannot work unless there is full hearted participation by the Labour movement and the Labour party, which is the second biggest political party in terms of numerical support. People will have different views about participation.
      Incidentally, I have known the Secretary of State for many years, and knew him even before he became a Member of Parliament. He may, of course, surprise us by conceding the logic of our point. The question of whether Labour councillors and Labour-controlled boroughs will decide to participate must lay heavily on his mind. Traditionally, the Labour party has participated in any opportunity to represent the people. However, it may be decided that there has been a historic change and that extraordinary measures must be taken to defeat, in turn, the Government's extraordinary measures which are entirely undemocratic and a thorough disgrace.
      Another matter that I want to get off my chest relates to participation and the logic of having a stated quorum. Labour councillors tell me that carrots are being dangled so that they will participate. I think of the issue in relation to the road ahead and the Bill which will abolish the GLC.
      Have the Government already started to encourage borough officials to make overtures to various people to see whether they are interested ultimately in serving on one of the new bodies? I understand that 70 per cent. of existing GLC expenditure relates to duties which cannot be passed to the boroughs. I do not know whether that figure is correct and it may change with the circumstances.
      I understand that borough officials are saying to some Labour people, "Would you be interested in serving on a quango to keep the Labour party's end up?" Since serving on a quango will be a full-time occupation a salary must be paid. Perhaps it will be settled at the level of an MP's salary. Is there any validity in what I say, or is it gossip? Some people may be attracted to participating because of the advantage that it might bring them. Such will be the heavy nature of duties when serving on a quango that it will have to be regarded as a full-time occupation.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: There is no substance in the suggestion that the Government are making such approaches. It is reasonable to assume that officers and others have read the Bill and the White Paper and may well be doing some advance planning. There is no suggestion in anything said by any Minister that we are talking of altering the remuneration or expense arrangements for councillors, whether they serve on borough councils, on the joint boards or on the interim bodies. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) finds that reassuring.
      Mr. Bidwell: That is an important statement because we are talking about a period of revolutionary change.
      1144
      That is why the Tory party's elder statesmen are opposed to the measure and have stated their case. At a time of such revolutionary change there will be gossip and talk about what comes next. That is why many bolder councillors will not participate. That is why there must be a stated quorum before business can be done.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said that we were snapping at the Secretary of State's heels. We have not been snapping at his heels; we have been eating him for breakfast at regular intervals. His own hon. Friends have also eaten him for breakfast on so many occasions that we have lost count. If the hon. Member for Fulham seems to think that the power that the Secretary of State is trying to assume for himself is immaterial, irrelevant, superficial and unimportant, he understands nothing about local government and how it operates.
      The quorum is all-important in local government. By way of a backhanded compliment I must say that whoever at Marsham street thought of including a quorum has clearly learnt something from Machiavelli. That civil servant was anticipating what might happen when the interim councils come into play. That person obviously thought that the prospects for anyone serving on one of the new bodies would be so unattractive that they would not want to have anything to do with it. I am sure that that applies to members of my party. It is therefore necessary to alter the quorum so that business can continue. It is not a question of the Secretary of State trying to win by the quality of his argument. He will always have to use manipulation to achieve results.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: Much has been said by Opposition Members about the importance of democracy. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and his hon. Friends have said that it is possible that their party will boycott the new bodies. How can they argue that that is democratic? It seems to be the opposite of democracy for people to refuse to serve on lawfully established public bodies. If Labour councillors intend to boycott the transitional bodies, what alternative has my right hon. Friend but to take the steps that he is taking in relation to the quorum?
      Mr. Banks: The answer is simple. Democracy gives people the right not to do something as well as to do something. It is up to the Government to make their case and to make the prospect so attractive that there will be no question of people not wishing to participate. Let us face it—the proposition being put before the Committee is an inadequate substitute for real democracy at the ballot box. It is a substitute for elections.
      It is no good the hon. Member for Fulham suggesting that people who do not want to go along with these wholly undemocratic proposals are being undemocratic by refusing to co-operate. Democracy gives us the right not to go along with profoundly undemocratic measures. If the Secretary of State had seen fit to accept amendments moved by his own hon. Friends, or if he had not introduced this bastardisation of local government, we should not have had to argue this case tonight, and we should not need to fall out over the quorum.
      The quorum is all-important. It is not just a question of Labour Members refusing to co-operate. I believe that out

      1145
      in the real world a number of Conservative Members of local authorities will not like what they will be asked to do and will not wish to take part in the process.
      The Secretary of State must tell us how small a quorum is. Where does it begin and where does it stop? One can imagine the squalid little deals that will be done to secure local government business. I have been closely involved in local government for 14 years and what is going on in the Committee now makes me sick. I am sick to death of the way that local democracy is being butchered by the Secretary of State and the Conservative party.
      8 pm
      The sheer hypocrisy of the talk of democracy by Conservative Members is an insult to all decent hon. Members. Local democracy is being butchered by the Government. I do not see the point of trying to argue rationally with the Secretary of State. He is not the slightest bit interested in anything that will enhance local democracy. All he is interested in is getting this squalid little Bill through to serve his political mistress.
      Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us just how small the quorum will be. Will it be so small that it ends up just being the Secretary of State himself? That could happen. When that happens we will have reached the dictatorship that the Bill is taking us towards.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not want to follow the violence of the language of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I can deal fairly briefly with the substance of the amendments moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because the case for the Bill and the case against the amendments was made with great clarity by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), and by the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of the hon. Member for Southall. He said that he would have nothing to do with it. Although it is not a matter for him to decide how local Labour parties will operate in the interim period, whether in London or anywhere else, his advice would be that they should not participate at all.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) has rightly said that that is the situation for which the Government properly have to provide. As was said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West last night, if we had chosen, as a number of my hon. Friends urged, to allow existing councils to run on, he would not serve, nor would many of his friends who are members of the GLC. Therefore, precisely the same problem would arise.
      Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 prescribes that the quorum will be one quarter of the principal council. In these circumstances, if a large number of the nominees of a distict or borough council were to decline not just to serve but not to turn up, the conduct of business by the transitional councils would be wholly frustrated.
      It has been argued that the arrangements we are making for the transitional period will leave matters in the hands of bodies that have been described in a variety of derogatory phrases. Reference has been made to temporary quangos. These will not be quangos because they will be composed of elected councillors nominated by elected councils. Opposition Members say that these bodies will be inferior creatures carrying out important functions. That is the burden of their case. Yet when faced with the responsibility of carrying out these important
      1146
      functions, it is suggested that nominated councillors will not serve or will not turn up, or that councils may be obliged by law to make the appointments. I find that a contradictory argument.
      If these functions are important, as they allege, to the people of the area covered by the upper tier council, surely it follows that it must be important that those who are asked to perform the functions should feel a strong sense of duty. Of course, the vast majority will. I acknowledge at once that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that at least in Yorkshire he would envisage that no member of his party who was nominated by a council to serve on one of the interim bodies would do anything other than turn up and perform the duties to the best of his ability. I am sure that that will be the experience in the vast majority of cases. There may be a few people who will want to cut off their nose to spite their face and do a political stunt.
      Mr. Corbyn: Stunt?
      Mr. Jenkin: Yes, it would be a stunt; it would be a sort of static demonstration. They would do a political stunt by absenting themselves from public duties which they have been asked to do. I do not believe that the vast majority of people who participate in local government would do that. Therefore, I hope the powers in these subsections of clause 5 will never have to be used.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to answer plainly, simply and clearly the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about why he is not prepared to allow elections to take place for all these authorities and why he is denying nearly one third of the population the right to vote for those who should administer their local services?
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman sat through a good deal of the debate yesterday and, therefore, will have heard the speeches made from the Dispatch Box by myself and others on the earlier clauses. If he wants the answer to be repeated, it is simply that it would be absurd and not in accordance with precedent to hold elections in the course of a local government reorganisation for authorities that are shortly to disappear. That is clear. Even those of my hon. Friends who feel that we may have made the wrong choice of how to deal with the matter acknowledge that.
      We have passed that and have reached the point where we are dealing with the machinery for the transitional councils. Many statements have been made in public in the press and on radio and television by councillors who have indicated that if they were called upon to serve they would not wish to do so. The hon. Member for South Shields used the word Machiavellian. That is perhaps unkind. The draftsman of the Bill has with foresight included a provision to ensure that the business of the transitional councils shall be carried on even if enough of the members refuse to serve or to turn up to ensure that there is not a statutory quorum under paragraph 6 of schedule 12 of the 1972 Act.
      Mr. Tony Banksrose——
      Mr. Jenkin: May I develop the argument because it is important that the Committee should follow this?
      The amendment suggests that the quorum should be 25 per cent. Given the threat that has been amply reinforced by the hon. Member for Southall, by the hon. Member for

      1147
      Newham, North-West and by the hon. Member for Islington, North, all of whom have indicated that there is at least a possiblity that councillors will not turn up, the business of the interim councillors could be completely frustrated. No business could be transacted. The Government have taken the view that provision should be made to protect the public from that sort of folly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham was right when he said that the blame would lie fairly and squarely upon those who were boycotting the councils. What we are inviting the Committee to do in these paragraphs is to give the Government power to deal with this. I shall come to the point about amendment No. 57 in a moment. Subject to parliamentary safeguards, we think that the Government should have power to reduce the quorum so that the business may continue to be transacted.
      Dr. David Clark: The Secretary of State is not confident of obtaining 25 per cent. support among councillors. As each council will include a number of Conservative members, that shows a lack of confidence in the legislation.
      I wish to raise a serious point. The role of a Committee is to attempt to clarify the position. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it may be necessary to compel councillors by law to attend meetings. In south Yorkshire, opposition councillors will probably comprise less than one fifth of the new interim bodies. I emphasise that no decision has been taken yet, but if those Labour councillors decided not to take their place on the interim body, what would the Minister's approach be and on how small a quorum would he insist? Would he reduce the number to, say, six out of 60 to make it work?
      Mr. Jenkin: If a majority of councillors refuse to participate and to operate legislation passed by the House, and given the necessity that the business of the transitional council must be carried on and that the decisions requiring affirmative support must be made, it would be necessary to lay an order to reduce the quorum to a level that would allow those who were prepared to participate to carry on the business.
      Mr. Bidwell: One.
      Mr. Jenkin: In theory, it could be as low as one, but in practice it would be a substantially higher figure. Through the negative resolution procedure provided in the Bill, the House can demand that the Government justify their decision on a certain figure. I emphasise that those refusing to serve would be deliberately setting out to frustrate legislation passed by the House. I do not believe that more than a tiny minority would wish to exercise their protest by making public affairs unworkable.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that subsections (2) and (5) mean that councils have a duty, enforceable by law — we heard that phrase earlier—to ensure that, for the time being, the balance of parties prevailing must, as far as practical, be reflected? If one party boycotted the body, it would be possible without either legislation or order for those councils to be represented by members of other parties. We do not need to go to court or to come to the House to get county councils to carry out their business. We can use the quorum rules.
      Mr. Jenkin: As we discussed earlier, when a council makes its nominations it must have regard to the party balance. It is the duty of a council to nominate and, having been nominated, if councillors refuse to serve the conduct of business could be frustrated. The Government have received signs from a number of people, reinforced by no fewer than three Opposition Members, that such a threat has substance. Therefore, we would have been seriously failing in our duty if we did not include in the Bill a measure that would enable the Committee to approve arrangements to continue the conduct of business. I recommend the Committee to reject those amendments.
      The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about amendment No. 29, which would provide for a minimum of one person to be present from each constituent council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham rightly said, that would give each and every constituent council an absolute veto on the conduct of business by the interim transitional council. That could not conceivably be right. The hon. Gentleman asked how the interests of the residents of the London borough of Tower Hamlets could be safeguarded unless we were sure that a quorum consisted of at least one representative from that borough. That is exactly the position with any council in relation to any ward. A councillor does not have to be present, but if he wishes to protect the interests of those he represents he should be present, ready to speak and to vote.
      If, as a matter of political protest, that person decides to stay away, it does not lie in his mouth to complain that the interests of his constituents are being neglected. If he stays away as a political stunt, he lays himself open, quite rightly, to the severest condemnation by those whose interests he was supposed to represent on the council.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting round to the real argument. The way in which such a councillor or councillors would receive their retribution from the people that they were supposed to represent would be through the ballot box, because they would not be voted in again. Because the elections are being removed, the right hon. Gentleman has superimposed himself where the ballot box used to be. He will visit retribution on the councillors by reducing the quorum. He now sees himself as a walking ballot box.
      Mr. Jenkin: Of course, the hon. Gentleman serves as a member of the GLC, and he may not have too much time for the London boroughs. I am talking about councillors who have been elected to London boroughs and who will be nominated to serve, for instance, on the GLC. If those councillors are nominated but refuse to serve, they will let down their electorate. They know that retribution would usually be taken at the next election. In the meantime, the business of the transitional council must continue. There is no alternative but to provide the Secretary of State with the power to reduce the quorum to ensure that such action cannot frustrate the conduct of business.
      Mr. Wainwright: Rather than have the unenviable power to impose derisory quotas for those huge units of government, did the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibility of dealing with a boycott by requiring councils to make a fresh nomination?
      Mr. Jenkin: We considered that, but we are faced with only an 11-months transitional period. If a council wants its nominee to attend the body and vote, and he refuses to

      1149
      do so, under the Bill it has the right to substitute another person. If we left the matter merely on the basis of a legal duty enforceable in the courts, that would be a long process. The simple step for such a short transitional period is to ensure that the body continues with its business with a smaller quorum.
      I come to the question whether this should be governed by the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. We have the affirmative resolution procedure for the repeal order under clause 1 because, as we discussed yesterday, it contains provision for altering Acts of Parliament; and until the circumstances arise, one cannot know what they are and it seems proper to have the additional safeguard of the affirmative procedure.
      This is an order which would implement a power which, by definition, would recently have been given to the Government by an Act of Parliament. In those circumstances, the negative procedure is appropriate. It would add to the time problems and complications if the position were otherwise. An order subject to the negative procedure takes effect at once. Under the affirmative resolution procedure, time is required because what is proposed cannot happen until the affirmative resolution has been passed. That might lead to delay and, therefore, delay in the conduct of the business of the upper tier authority. For practical reasons, and on the relative merits of the order-making power, we are right to have the negative order procedure.
      Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the emphasis that he is placing on the need for speed in summarily despatching these matters is putting us more in the situation of Iran than the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is lapsing into unaccustomed hyperbole.
      Mr. Wainwright: Because of unaccustomed acts by the Government.
      Mr. Jenkin: The measures that we have taken in clause 5 to make sure that the conduct of the business can be carried on and to provide a safeguard against those who might, as a matter of political protest, refuse to participate are sensible and reasonable. The amendment would frustrate that intention, and I cannot commend it to the Committee.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 258.

      Division No. 291]

      [8.21 pm

      AYES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Buchan, Norman

      Ashton, Joe

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnett, Guy

      Clarke, Thomas

      Barron, Kevin

      Clay, Robert

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Clwyd, Ms Ann

      Bell, Stuart

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Benn, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Blair, Anthony

      Corbett, Robin

      Boyes, Roland

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cowans, Harry

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      1150

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Deakins, Eric

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dewar, Donald

      Martin, Michael

      Dormand, Jack

      Maxton, John

      Douglas, Dick

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Dubs, Alfred

      Meacher, Michael

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Michie, William

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Brien, William

      Forrester, John

      Park, George

      Foster, Derek

      Parry, Robert

      Foulkes, George

      Patchett, Terry

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Pendry, Tom

      George, Bruce

      Pike, Peter

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Prescott, John

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Randall, Stuart

      Golding, John

      Redmond, M.

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Robertson, George

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      John, Brynmor

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Stott, Roger

      Lamond, James

      Straw, Jack

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Litherland, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wainwright, R.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Loyden, Edward

      Wareing, Robert

      McCartney, Hugh

      Weetch, Ken

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Winnick, David

      McKelvey, William

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McNamara, Kevin

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      McTaggart, Robert

      Mr. Don Dixon

      Madden, Max

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Alexander, Richard

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Amess, David

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Butterfill, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cash, William

      Bendall, Vivian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Best, Keith

      Churchill, W. S.

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Body, Richard

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cockeram, Eric

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Coombs, Simon

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cope, John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Corrie, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Couchman, James

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Brinton, Tim

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Dover, Den

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Browne, John

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      1151

      Evennett, David

      Madel, David

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Major, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Farr, John

      Maples, John

      Favell, Anthony

      Marlow, Antony

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Forth, Eric

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Franks, Cecil

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      Merchant, Piers

      Gale, Roger

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Galley, Roy

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moate, Roger

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Gow, Ian

      Moore, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Needham, Richard

      Grist, Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Newton, Tony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Norris, Steven

      Hannam, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Harris, David

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Harvey, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Parris, Matthew

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hayes, J.

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pawsey, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Heddle, John

      Porter, Barry

      Hickmet, Richard

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Powley, John

      Hooson, Tom

      Price, Sir David

      Hordern, Peter

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Howard, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

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

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Irving, Charles

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Jackson, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Key, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Scott, Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lamont, Norman

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Latham, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Silvester, Fred

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Speller, Tony

      Lilley, Peter

      Spencer, Derek

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Squire, Robin

      MacGregor, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Stanley, John

      Maclean, David John

      Stern, Michael

      1152

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Waddington, David

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Walden, George

      Stokes, John

      Waller, Gary

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Sumberg, David

      Watson, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Watts, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Whitfield, John

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Trippier, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Trotter, Neville

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Mr. Donald Thompson and

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Viggers, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 57, in clause 5, page 5, line 13, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 14 and insert
      `and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Wainwright.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 251.

      Division No. 292]

      [8.34pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald

      Dixon, Donald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dormand, Jack

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Douglas, Dick

      Ashton, Joe

      Dubs, Alfred

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Evans, John (St. Helens)

      Barnett, Guy

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barron, Kevin

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Flannery, Martin

      Benn, Tony

      Forrester, John

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Foster, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foulkes, George

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Blair, Anthony

      George, Bruce

      Boyes, Roland

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Golding, John

      Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Buchan, Norman

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Home Robertson, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Clarke, Thomas

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Clay, Robert

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Clwyd, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Cohen, Harry

      John, Brynmor

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Lamond, James

      Corbett, Robin

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Litherland, Robert

      Cowans, Harry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Loyden, Edward

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Deakins, Eric

      McKay, Allen

      Dewar, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      1153

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Robertson, George

      McTaggart, Robert

      Rooker, J. W.

      Madden, Max

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Marek, Dr John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Martin, Michael

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maxton, John

      Short, Ms Clare(Ladywood)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Meacher, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, William

      Snape, Peter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Stott, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Torney, Tom

      O'Brien, William

      Wainwright, R.

      Park, George

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Parry, Robert

      Wareing, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Weetch, Ken

      Pendry, Tom

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Pike, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dunn, Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Arnold, Tom

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fallon, Michael

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Farr, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Favell, Anthony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Best, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Marcus

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Franks, Cecil

      Body, Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Galley, Roy

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'tp.'n)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Gow, Ian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gregory, Conal

      Brinton, Tim

      Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Grist, Ian

      Browne, John

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hannam, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Butcher, John

      Harris, David

      Butterfill, John

      Harvey, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Cash, William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hayes, J.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Heddle, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hind, Kenneth

      Colvin, Michael

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Coombs, Simon

      Hooson, Tom

      Cope, John

      Howard, Michael

      Corrie, John

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

      Couchman, James

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Dover, Den

      Hunter, Andrew

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      1154

      Jackson, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Convey)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Robinson, Mark (N'oon' W)

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Rost, Peter

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Knowles, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lamont, Norman

      Scott, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Shelton, William (Streatharm)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Silvester, Fred

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      LyelI, Nicholas

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speller, Tony

      MacGregor, John

      Spencer, Derek

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Maclean, David John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, David

      Squire, Robin

      Major, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stanley, John

      Maples, John

      Stern, Michael

      Marlow, Antony

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertcdshire)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stokes, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sumberg, David

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Merchant, Piers

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moore, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Needham, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trippier, David

      Newton, Tony

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steven

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Viggers, Peter

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Waddington, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Parris, Matthew

      Walden, George

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Waller, Gary

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Watson, John

      Pawsey, James

      Watts, John

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Porter, Barry

      Wheeler, John

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Whitfield, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Powley, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Price, Sir David

      Wood, Timothy

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Woodcock, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Yeo, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Renton, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. Donald Thompson and

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSION.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Stan Crowther): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
      No. 81, in page 6, line 10, leave out from 'commission' to end of line 13.
      No. 80, in page 6, line 14, leave out
      'and of a relevant authority'
      No. 84, in page 6, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2B) No direction under subsection (2) above may be given by the Secretary of State until he has consulted the commission or a relevant authority or bodies representative of staff employed by a relevant authority as the case may be, as to its proposed terms.'.
      Mr. Fraser: Clause 6 superficially, like other local government legislation, recognises the upheavals that are likely to be experienced by local government staff because of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the reallocation of functions. When the Government finally make a judgment about their plans and bring legislation before the House to map out the detail of their proposals, I suspect that there will be more upheavals than usual. This is a more fundamental matter than other forms of organisation, and there will be many more bodies than usual to which local authority staff will be assigned if they find a job in the successor authorities. There will be no savings because of that. If anyone asserted confidently that there would be savings, that would be defamatory of NALGO, to say the very least.
      The Government properly provide for a staff commission to look at the problems of those who will face a considerable upheaval when the full legislation is passed. I understand that the Government intend, almost immediately, to set up a staff advisory committee, in advance of the passage of this legislation. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary were willing to announce the name of the chairman and the first appointees of the advisory committee.
      The precedent that is found in other legislation for having a staff commission is only apparent, because in all other legislation authorities have not been abolished. Elections have not previously been abolished; they have merely been deferred. This is the first time that the reorganisation of local government has involved a paving Bill which is being used to set up a staff commission. In every other case, there has been full-blown legislation. It is proper in those circumstances to have a staff commission working hand in hand with a programme for reorganisation. There is no precedent for having a staff commission, as provided in the terms of clause 6, in advance of the House approving any detailed plans — the House has never approved the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities" —and in advance of any detailed legislation providing for the allocation of functions of the abolished GLC and metropolitan counties.
      The trouble with much of the Bill is that it is putting the cart before the horse. A more appropriate expression might be that it is putting the guillotine before the tumbrel.
      1156
      We object to the terms of the establishment of the staff commission because it anticipates legislation that the House has not seen and certainly has not approved.
      We should examine the proposed establishment of the staff commission in the context of cuts that the Government intend to achieve. Clause 6 talks about safeguarding the interests of the staff and arrangements for the recruitment of staff. The words are misleading in the context of what the Government must intend. Whether they achieve it or not is another matter.
      Behind the Government's proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties — apart from the malice and the opposition to authorities which have largely been controlled by Labour—lies the Government's intention to sack people. I doubt whether the Government will achieve their intention. There is little point in the allegations of savings, efficiencies and economies being propounded by the Government and their supporters unless behind that allegation of a saving of money are mass sackings and redundancies. There is no way in which the Government will save money on the abolition of the authorities and the reallocation of functions unless the functions are reduced, staff are sacked and people are put on the dole.
      Clause 6 is not about safeguarding staff. It is about the establishment of a staff commission which is a preliminary guillotine for thousands of people who have devoted their lives to local government. That is the intention behind the clause.
      If the Secretary of State is to save any money, he will have to put men and women out of work when the constraints on the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts will, under ratecapping, be greater than ever. We shall strongly oppose that and we do not believe that the intention will succeed. I am sure that the Government intend the same ruthless decimation of local government manpower that they brought about in private industry.
      What lies behind the Bill in terms of staff is a disreputable and discreditable formula. The intention is to do to municipalities what has been done to private industry.
      I shall deal with the details of the amendments. Amendment No. 79 would remove, in its entirety, subsection (2). It allows the Secretary of State to give directions, not just to the staff commission which is his creation, but to "any relevant authority". "Any relevant authority" for these purposes is not just the local authorities that are to be abolished—the GLC and the six metropolitan counties; it is any statutory board set up and, for the purpose of giving directions on the advice of the staff commission, comprises all the London boroughs and all the metropolitan districts within the area of the present metropolitan counties.
      Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to give a direction, for instance, to a London borough. He could go along to the London borough of Lambeth and say, "On the advice of my staff commission which I have appointed, staffed and made up, I am compelling you to stop all recruitment of staff in anticipation of the transfer of staff from the GLC". That is within the remit of subsection (2). The Secretary of State could also require the metropolitan countries and the GLC to cease their staff recruitment. He could alter the way in which their establishments are founded. Those are all within the power of the Secretary of State once subsection (2) is passed. That is why in amendment No. 79 we seek to delete it.

      1157
      It might be possible to stop programmes if, for instance, the GLC or the London boroughs continued with their equal opportunity programmes in respect of black minorities and women in London, which involve the recruitment or the deployment of staff in a way that might seem to the staff commission inconsistent with their subsequent transfer to the London boroughs.
      I admire the GLC for many things, but if there is one thing in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that has shone through about the practices at country hall, it is the confidence that the council has given to the black minority of London. Through its employment policies for blacks, ethnic minorities and women, the GLC has asserted not just by word but by practice that this is an equal opportunity capital.
      There are powers — I am not suggesting that they would not be used simply to block an equal opportunity programme—which could be used to interfere with the judgment of the GLC or any other relevant authority, if the Minister thought, on the advice of the staff commission, that those programmes were inconsistent with his future, but so far unpublished, plans for the reallocation of staff to other relevant authorities. Amendment No. 79 prevents the Secretary of State giving that kind of direction, which I think is a monstrous power to have in anticipation of any published plans.
      Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are more restricted. They seek to put the whole of the cost of the staff commission on to central Government, and no part of it on to a relevant local authority. How can the Minister justify coming to the House of Commons with a Bill that abolishes elections, and provides for a staff commission that will largely supervise—if he has his way—redundancies, and puts the cost of that Government lunacy upon the backs of the ratepayers of London and the metropolitan districts? If he wants to have a staff commission and to anticipate the main legislation, let the Department of the Environment bear the cost and put its money where its mouth is, when there will be a more stringent control of local government expenditure than ever before.
      Amendment No. 84 deals with another part of subsection (2) which, as drafted, will give the Secretary of State a power of direction which is unqualified by the need to seek any advice from local government interests before issuing such a direction. There is in effect an unfettered power to order a local authority to comply with staff commission requests and advice. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult local authority associations and trade unions before issuing any such direction. We believe that that is only a refinement of clause 6. The establishment of a staff commission, in the context of a proposed or asserted manpower saving of, I think, a minimum calculation by the Government of about 9,000 staff, is an unacceptable prejudgment and assumption of power by the Secretary of State in the absence of the full Bill and any approval of the plans by the House of Commons. We shall vote to reject that tonight.
      Mr. Corbyn: I strongly support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has said. I speak as an hon. Member who is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. I have spent seven years as an organiser for that union within the GLC and ILEA. For some of that time I was secretary of the trade
      1158
      union joint negotiating committee for manual workers, which represented some 20,000 manual workers in those authorities.
      The fact that there is only one Conservative Member present now shows either that all their supporters have deserted the Government's sinking ship or their contempt for the people whose jobs they are about to destroy by this disgraceful, tawdry Bill that they are forcing through the House. The relationship of reorganisation of local government to the aspirations of thousands of people who have given many years of dedicated service to the community at all levels and grades deserves the fullest consideration of the Committee, but it is not getting it from Conservative Members if the attendance is anything to go by.
      The employment of people in local government spans all ages and all types of jobs and is not just confined to white collar workers in offices, who are the people who normally get lambasted by the gutter press day in. day out, about their inefficiencies or otherwise. The employment also includes a large number of part-time workers, for the most part women, who undertake cleaning and catering duties, who work in parks, gardens, recreational facilities and all such places. They will be looking closely at what is proposed by the Bill because they believe, and I am sure that they are right, that if the GLC is abolished, as is the Government's intention, their jobs will be at stake., and they have a great deal to be worried about. That is why these amendments are particularly important.
      9 pm
      Amendment No. 79 is perhaps the most important. It deletes the powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to direct a staff commission as to its policy. to direct local councils to furnish information to the commission and a number of other powers. I have had experience of staff commissions in previous incarnations, for example when the housing facilities of the GLC were transferred to the boroughs. I do not pretend that the operation of that particular staff commission was a satisfactory arrangement. It was not, and there were many objections to it. However, there is something fundamentally different about the staff commission proposed in this clause because it does not have the role of overseeing the smooth transfer of employment and the guaranteeing of jobs or working conditions, or preserving employment — it does the opposite. The Bill sets up a staff commission that can be nothing more than a toy in the hands of the Secretary of State, and it is to that aspect that I shall refer.
      Through this clause, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct the staff commission. If he has this power, what guarantees have employees of any of the MCCs or of the GLC for their jobs? We know that the Government have an obsession with privatising employment that knows no tomorrow, and an obsession with market forces. Market forces for the lowest paid manual workers in local government mean the annual sale of wages to the lowest bidder. We have seen what has happened to health services when this has been introduced, and we have seen what happened in Wandsworth council when privatisation came in. There have been reduced wages, worsened working conditions and jobs lost. That is what is at stake with this mealy-mouthed clause. There is a sinister intention of a massive destruction of staff while there is no elected authority to which trade unions can go to seek protection for their members.
      Mr. Cowans: Will my hon. Friend direct his attention to a particular point? We have heard ad nauseam about the alleged savings that will be made, although we have had no evidence. Even without this clause, the Secretary of State has direct control over the staff commission. Is this how he will justify the saving of money, with the loss of people's jobs and the slashing of services? The staff commission cannot do any good unless it is entirely independent. Perhaps my hon. Friend will dwell on this because it is of vital importance to the people.
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Government can save money by the introduction of the Bill and later the abolition of the MCCs and the GLC, through the cancelling of the elections, and we have been told how much it costs to print ballot papers. Money will be saved by not printing them and therefore by taking away people's right to vote.
      However, the Government have not told us how many people will be forced on to the dole queue by the legislation, people who are today working in the GLC parks, who work providing meals at county hall staff restaurants, who are working in staff nurseries, are cleaning buildings, working in refuse transfer stations, at the Thames barrier, on the Woolwich ferry—working in so many valuable ways to make London a better and safer place to live. How many of those people in six months' time will be queueing up for the miserable handouts at the dole queue? That is what the Government have in mind for them.
      Mr. Eric Deakins: There is another way in which the Government could save money when the staff commission is set up. They could increase pressure on local authorities in the GLC area and the metropolitan countries to privatise as fast as possible local authority services. That may force down wage rates and conditions and terms of employment in local authority departments that are trying to compete to save jobs. The Minister would then direct the staff commission to tell its staff that if they do not accept the jobs available at worse terms and conditions than at present, they will not merely be made redundant, but will lose any claim to redundancy pay because they have refused the offer of alternative jobs.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the Committee's attention to another aspect of the multi-faceted, sinister purpose of the clause.
      The previous staff commission, which dealt with the transfer of housing department staff from the GLC to the borough councils, was specific about protecting wages, continuity of service and conditions of employment to those who were formerly employed by the GLC and had been transferred to the London borough councils. Those conditions were protected even against the attitudes of the Westminster and the Kensington and Chelsea councils, which sought to diminish wages. It will be easy for the Government to say that if staff who were transferred to a different employer do not accept the new conditions or the offer of a job with a private contracting firm, they will lose their rights to redundancy payments, appearances at industrial tribunals and continuity of service. They will lose all that and yet be asked to accept a reduction in wages.
      I could draw many parallels on the effects of privatisation on working conditions. There is at present an issue in the Health Service, which has been debated in the
      1160
      House and which I shall continue to mention until justice is done. Crothalls is a contract cleaning company and has a contract at the Barking general hospital. It employed its workers at National Health Service rates of pay. This year Crothalls again won the contract to clean the hospitals, but the workers were asked to accept a 41 per cent. cut in wages.
      The Chairman: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman believes that the point is relevant to the amendment, but it does not seem relevant to me. The debate is about local government, and I do not see how a Health Service issue has any bearing on the amendment.
      Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that some people may think that I am straying from the point, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for drawing my attention to that. However, I was not. Crothalls is a subsidiary of a larger firm that has contracts with Wandsworth council and seeks to gain contracts with the GLC and other councils. Workers employed by the GLC and the metropolitan counties can ask their employers through their trade unions for a guarantee that their jobs are secure, and will not be subject to the annual sale to the bidder who pays the lowest wages. Instead, they have a guarantee of continuity of employment. When the elections are abolished and a Conservative-controlled quango takes over the employment of the 20,000 people now employed by the GLC, what protection will they have? What will happen to the guarantees of collective bargaining and of all those conditions that were successfully negotiated with the GLC and metropolitan councils? That is what is serious about this part of this nasty Bill.
      I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell the House that the terms of reference of the staff commission will guarantee continuity of employment and present conditions of employment, and that they will not open the door to privatisation merchants to enter and pillage the working conditions of many people, who have given many years of loyal service to the GLC and metropolitan counties.
      The power of direction that the Secretary of State is taking upon himself is very serious. Employees must know who their employer is. If and when the transfer takes place and a quango is established to run the affairs of the GLC and the metropolitan countries, and it decides that it does not like the existing staff code or the purple or buff books—all the products of collective bargaining—to whom can the trade unions appeal? Do they appeal to the quango appointed by the Minister or to the Minister? Will the Minister become their employer? If so, what will be his attitude towards staffing policies?
      I raise these matters not because I wish to indulge in scaremongering — quite the opposite — but because thousands of local authority employees work loyally and suffer much abuse from Ministers, Conservative Members and the press, yet they continue to provide a good service. They must know who their future employer will be. Many people in London are worried about the future of the services that they presently receive from the GLC. What about the staff? Is this an unsubtle way of handing a great deal of public money, after a couple of votes in the House, through the hands of a quango straight into the pockets and bank accounts of the private enterprise merchants? Are not the Government trying to hand over profits to Pritchards,

      1161
      Grandmet and all the contract cleaning companies which day by day are demanding a bigger slice of the cake but are giving lower wages to their employees?
      Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an element of political corruption in this, since many of the companies to which he referred and which stand to gain from such contracts donate funds directly to the Conservative party?
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to deal with that matter, because I believe that there must be the highest probity in public life. I am proud to stand here and say that I am a Member sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. I make no effort to hide it because I am proud of my union. However, many hon. Members have experience of private contract cleaning companies, hold directorships in them and seek to promote their interests. We need to know whether the Government intend to make life a little easier for the contract cleaning companies, especially those which donated so heavily to last year's Conservative election campaign. We must know the truth tonight.
      Democracy means that people have a right to elect members of a public authority. It also means that the people employed by those authorities must know what their future is and who their employers will be as changes occur. I hope that the Committee will support our amendment in recognition of the valuable work done by local authority employees and in recognition of the fact that such employees often receive low wages, work in difficult conditions and are some of the most vulnerable people in society. They are often part-time women workers. The majority of the lowest paid come from ethnic minority communities. They will be thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment as the privateers move in and try to take over the services. That is what makes the clause so serious, and I urge the Committee to support the amendment.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The most recent figure of the number of people who are affected by clause 6 is that given by the Government in the White Paper of 120,000 full-time employees. In addition to that, a further 70,000 people are engaged in police forces and in public transport in the metropolitan counties who could well be affected by proposals of the staff commission. Again, that figure is more or less accurate and is, I think, accepted on both sides of the Committee.
      We share the objection outlined by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in moving the amendment, which we clearly and positively support. Our fundamental objection is that here we have yet again an example of the cart coming before the horse—a proposal that gives the Secretary of State power to do something which, as I understand it, is not even constrained by the substantive Bill, which we have not yet seen, which will contain all the details.
      Not only are we proceeding in the wrong order but we are giving the Secretary of State the power to tell the metropolitan counties, the GLC and the other authorities, which will in part be responsible for taking on employees, exactly what they may do. It is another open-ended commitment that is not circumscribed by the Bill and
      1162
      which allows unparalleled interference by Government in the staffing and the plans for future staffing of local government. I can think of no similar example.
      It must be clear that the Government intend to lay people off. There will not be natural wastage. That is made clear in the White Paper, which has that phenomenally indicative title "Streamlining the Cities". It immediately points to the fact that in streamlining the six areas of Britain that we are talking about we shall be shedding what the Government regard as surplus employees. Chapter 4 says:
      "the Government are determined to ensure that reorganisation should result in greater value for money and reduced pressure on ratepayers."
      It goes on to say that the Government
      "recognise that the possibility of compulsory redundancy cannot be ruled out."
      We have always taken the view that some local authorities may well be over-staffed and some may be under-staffed. But clearly it should be for electors to decide. That is the theme running through every amendment to the Bill. The electorate should decide how much of their money should be spent on the staffing of the bodies that provide the services that they use day by day.
      When there is a transition—that is what clause 6 is talking about—the amendments seek to limit the way in which the Government can interfere with that process. I have no doubt that, left to themselves, the borough authorities and district councils, the GLC and metropolitan countries — not all of which are Labour-controlled, because in some of them no party has overall control, or else the Conservatives or the alliance have control—would, in the event of their having to have a smaller work force, seek to do that by way of natural wastage, not compulsory redundancies.
      If clause 6 is not amended we shall be giving the Secretary of State the power to take unilateral action to issue directions saying, "You will act in this way". That is completely unsatisfactory.
      The Government have presided over the phenomenal unemployment that we have. Many people have their own certainty of work in the public services, for which we are all grateful and for which all of us regularly have a considerable need. They provide transport to and from work and services around where we live. It should be left to an independent staff commission to stand up to the Government and issue independent proposals.
      If passed, the amendments would succeed in at least giving one body the opportunity to speak with an independent voice and to produce the sort of independent evidence that hon. Members have been seeking from the Government as to costs and savings by the setting up of a Royal Commission or some other body—a proposal that was defeated at about 11 o'clock last night. That is the sort of independence that the commission should have. The Bill will circumscribe that independence.
      The tragedy is that the Government seem determined to interfere at every possible level. They should reconsider that. The officials in the Departments of state are already grossly overworked in trying to take on responsibility for local government. Parliament too is overworked, the Government having given it responsibility for interfering in local government, which is not why we were elected. The power of Government Ministers should not be untrammelled.

      1163
      We object to the unamended clause. Full support is given by the Liberal Benches for the guarantee that a commission will be able to stand up for the interests of those now employed in the public service. We believe that the proposals to plan for the handing over of employment and jobs to boards and other authorities need more time for consideration. We cannot suddenly shift people, as the Government seem determined to do, from one service to another if a high level of service is to be sustained.
      On behalf of the large number of electors employed in the public service in London and in the six metropolitan areas who sent us to Parliament, we ask the Government to lay off, and to allow the authorities to negotiate between themselves, with the advice of the commission, the best way to provide for the future employment of those people in public service.
      We therefore ask the Committee to reject the Government's clause, or to accept it only if it is amended as suggested by Labour Members.
      Mr. Park: I have listened to considerable parts of the debate, and I suppose that, within the crazy logic of the Bill, these consequential proposals make some sense. Having enacted previous legislation to control councils, and to take away the rights of councillors, and of the people whom they represent, the Government now seek almost dictatorial powers to make the cost savings which are said to be one of the main aims of abolishing the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. To say that the intention is to safeguard the interests of staff is but one more hypocrisy along the road to destroying local democracy, and putting more people on the dole. In the process, the Secretary of State has displayed a considerable contempt for Parliament, and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) was even more prophetic than he knew.
      Mr. Waldegrave: There has been widespread support for the early establishment of a staff commission. In describing the role that we foresee for it, I hope that I can allay some of the worries expressed in the debate.
      If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was not scaremongering, I should like to see him when he is mongering a good scare, because I thought that he was trying to raise a number of bogey-men about which it is not necessary to worry. That is not to deny that one objective of the measure which divides the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that there are savings in the superstructure of local authorities in particular. This is the other side of the argument put forward on earlier parts of the Bill in which it was said that no savings were to be found. If no savings were to be found, some of the worries expressed by hon. Members would not be real. However, we do seek savings of manpower by the change. However, the staff commission is not the instrument through which that objective can be met.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Although there is no very substantial evidence for it, the figure of 9,000 for the number of jobs saved has been bandied around. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that adding 9,000 people to the dole queue would cost the Exchequer about —45 million per annum, through, for example, unemployment benefit, social security payments and lost tax? Is the hon.
      1164
      Gentleman balancing those staff savings against the net cost to the Exchequer? If so, I frankly do not know how he has come up with a saving.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman seeks to widen the debate. Of course, he has made several assumptions about people not obtaining other jobs, the level of benefits and so on. Not even the Labour party, or the hon. Gentleman's wing of it, believes that governmental institutions should be kept in existence simply to provide jobs. They should be kept in existence to provide services at the right cost. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would argue against ways of carrying out services more adequately and efficiently.
      I shall try to describe how we see the role of the staff commission and why we have proposed it being set up earlier than the main Bill. If we had left it until the main Bill, it could not have been set up as a statutory body until, I suppose, the summer or autumn of 1985. That would be too late to begin effectively to protect the interests of the staff. We therefore intend, by convention, to set it up as an advisory committee as soon as possible after the Second Reading of the Bill. It will be formally constituted as a statutory body after enactment of the Bill, but I do not think that that prejudges the principle of abolition, as the staff commission will not begin its work in earnest until Parliament has settled the principle on Second Reading of the main Bill. Until then, the commission will make its plans, will make contact with authorities and staff representatives, and will ensure that no one tries to jump the gun.
      The staff commission will have similar responsibilities to the staff commissions set up to deal with earlier reorganisations, especially the 1965 London reorganisation and the 1974 local government reorganisation. It will look after the interests of staff affected by abolition and will see that no successor authorities try to corner the market in the best staff. It will oversee the recruiting activities of the successor authorities.
      Mr. Corbyn: Within the staff commission's terms of reference, first in its advisory capacity and then in its full capacity, will its priority be the protection of the existing levels of payment and conditions of service?
      Mr. Waldegrave: No, I cannot guarantee that. Those are matters for the staff commission to advise on. It would obviously be quite wrong for me to give such a commitment. However, I can give the commitment that it will operate a ring-fencing system to ensure that the GLC and metropolitan county council staff have the first opportunity to apply for jobs with the successor bodies. Such ring-fencing has applied in earlier reorganisations. It is an arrangement to restrict the range of staff to whom a job or groups of jobs can, in the first instance, be advertised. In this exercise it means giving the GLC and metropolitan county council staff the first opportunity to apply for new posts with the successor bodies. It does not require the successor authorities to take on particular staff, but it means that the valuable knowledge and expertise of many GLC and metropolitan county council staff will not be lost unnecessarily. The staff commission will advise on the extent and nature of the ring fence.
      Mr. John Fraser: A moment ago I thought that the Minister said that he would announce the names of those

      1165
      appointed to the advisory committee after Second Reading. I may have misheard him, but we have had the Second Reading of this Bill, so can we have the names?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I did not say that. I did not say anything about announcing the names. We cannot announce the names tonight, but we shall want to do so soon. Those involved will obviously have to be people of the same sort of stature and independence as those who have served on previous staff commissions.
      The amendments all seek, in various ways and to various extents, to remove or disable the Secretary of State's power to make directions under clause 6(2). It may be of help if I make clear the reasons for including such a power. This provision follows exactly the precedent set in earlier reorganisations.
      9.30 pm
      I hope and expect that the commission will work largely by laying down general principles, and then, by influence and persuasion, that it will secure the free acceptance of these principles by the parties concerned. However, some degree of enforcement may be needed, and the choice lies between giving a power of direction to the commission and reserving such a power to the Secretary of State to use on the recommendation of the commission. We do not wish to jeopardise the commission's essential role as an advisory body working by encouragement and persuasion. The subsection therefore reserves the power to the Secretary of State.
      We see the exercise of this power as something of a last resort. Nevertheless, it is necessary if the interests of staff are to be fully safeguarded. Amendment No. 79 removes the power altogether. Amendment No. 80 has virtually the same effect by removing the duty on relevant authorities to comply with any such direction. The net result would be a tiger with no teeth: without that threat of a power of direction, authorities would be free to accept or ignore the commission's advice as it suited them. That cannot be in the interests of the staff.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the staff commission, as envisaged by the Minister, respect free collective bargaining and the rights of organised labour and trade unions? In the event of a dispute between a trade union representing its members and the staff commission, what appellate body will be able to hear and resolve that dispute?
      Mr. Waldegrave: The commission will be not a negotiating or employing body, but an advisory body. The precedents exist. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has experience of local government and he will know how the staff commissions worked on the two previous occasions.
      Mr. Corbyn: Who will be the employers?
      Mr. Waldegrave: The employers will be the employers. The staff commission will not be an employer but an adviser and persuader which will see that the reasonable interests of the staff are safeguarded.
      Mr. Corbyn: When elections to the metropolitan counties and the GLC cease to be held and an interim administration is established the staff commission will seek to guide and advise on the transfer of staff to other places. At that stage who will be the employer? Will each employee be given guaranteed continuity of service
      1166
      between their employment with the met counties or the GLC and the quango or future authority which might employ them?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot say that any employee will have guaranteed continuity of service. The ring-fencing will ensure that any staff laid off because an authority ceases to exist will have the first shot at comparable jobs available elsewhere. I cannot give the guarantee for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the employment be continuous?
      Mr. Waldegrave: That is exactly the type of issue on which the commission will advise us and about which discussions must take place with the trade unions and others. For those reasons we need the staff commission in place as soon as possible. It must comprise people of weight, distinction and expertise who can bring to us their advice soon enough to help the staff.
      Amendment No. 84 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with relevant authorities on the proposed terms of any direction before he could make it. But since a direction would normally be necessary only because the relevant body had refused to be co-operative or reasonable, one cannot help but wonder what point there would be in such consultations — unless it was a deliberate attempt to delay and frustrate the commission's efforts on behalf of staff. There is of course nothing in the subsection as it stands to prevent such consultation should it seem worthwhile.
      Amendment No. 81 removes a perfectly fair provision. The Bill, under subsection (3) of clause 6, provides for the Exchequer to bear the whole of the cost of the commission's main activities. Subsection (2), again in accordance with precedent, merely empowers the Secretary of State—the power is discretionary—to give directions to the abolition councils and lower tier councils about the payment of any expenses incurred by the commission as a result of special activities or extra work undertaken at the request of these authorities. This is entirely equitable and would ensure that the commission was not inundated with spurious or ill—conceived requests to undertake work which would merely delay its main tasks.
      There is nothing new in subsection (2) of clause 6. It is a tried and tested formula. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
      Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has confirmed two things that the Bill will not do: it is not about providing public services and it is not about adding to the efficiency of local government. It is about unemployment, sacking and redundancy and it follows the pedigree of measures to deal with National Health Service workers and private workers——
      Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to come once more to the Dispatch Box to tell us the estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost in each of the metropolitan counties and in the GLC, what grade of jobs the Government seek to destroy and whether or not there is an intention to promote privatisation of local authority services during the interim period when the quangos are in operation and are controlling staff interests? The Minister has failed to answer these points.
      Fraser: One must admire the frankness of the Minister in saying that this is about saving money on jobs; that is how he put it to us. He should answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who has considerable experience in these matters, both as a trade union official and as a councillor. The Minister should tell us whether the Government propose, before any substantive legislation is brought before us, to direct local authorities to engage in privatisation schemes or in tendering, which is inevitably a form of privatisation, in anticipation of the main legislation. The points made by my hon. Friend are extremely important and the Minister should answer them.
      It has been made abundantly clear that to achieve their objectives the Government will have no hesitation in giving directions not just to the staff commission but to the local authorities. If they set up a staff commission to be the midwife of their redundancy programme, I can understand that their appointees would be subject to direction from the Department of the Environment. I do not agree with it but I can understand that there is a certain logic that they should be able to instruct the assistant executioner about how to go about the business. What I find wholly objectionable is including in the Bill a power to give a direction not just to the commission but to the local authorities as well about freezing staff, keeping posts vacant and so on at a time when there will be other constraints upon what local authorities can do.
      All our worst fears have been confirmed by what the Minister has said. I am sure that my hon. Friends and perhaps even a few Tory Members will want to divide on the amendment to show their disgust at the proposals contained in the clause.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 259.

      Division No. 293]

      [9.37pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Barnett, Guy

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

      Barron, Kevin

      Deakins, Eric

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Dewar, Donald

      Bell, Stuart

      Dixon, Donald

      Benn, Tony

      Dormand, Jack

      Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

      Douglas, Dick

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dubs, Alfred

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Blair, Anthony

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Boyes, Roland

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Gordon (DTmline E)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Forrester, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Foster, Derek

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      George, Bruce

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clay, Robert

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Clwyd, Ms Ann

      Golding, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Cohen, Harry

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Heller, Eric S.

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      1168

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, William

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Park, George

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pike, Peter

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Prescott, John

      John, Brynmor

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Randall, Stuart

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Redmond, M.

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Lamond, James

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Litherland, Robert

      Robertson, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Loyden, Edward

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      McKelvey, William

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Snape, Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Stott, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Straw, Jack

      Martin, Michael

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Maxton, John

      Torney, Tom

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wainwright, R.

      Meacher, Michael

      Wareing, Robert

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Mikardo, Ian

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mr. Allen McKay

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Simon

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Corrie, John

      Amess, David

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Tom

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dover, Den

      Bendall, Vivian

      du Cann, Rt Hon

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Dunn, Robert

      Best, Keith

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eggar, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Body, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Farr, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Favell, Anthony

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Forman, Nigel

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forth, Eric

      Brinton, Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Franks, Cecil

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Freeman, Roger

      Browne, John

      Gale, Roger

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Galley, Roy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Butcher, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Butterfill, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Gow, Ian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gregory, Conal

      Carttiss, Michael

      Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Grist, Ian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Ground, Patrick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Colvin, Michael

      Harris, David

      1169

      Harvey, Robert

      MacGregor, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Maclean, David John

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Madel, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Major, John

      Hayes, J.

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Maples, John

      Heddle, John

      Marlow, Antony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Mates, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hooson, Tom

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hordern, Peter

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Howard, Michael

      Mellor, David

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

      Merchant, Piers

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Moore, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Morries, M.(N'thampton, S)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      John, Brynmor

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Needham, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Neubert, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Key, Robert

      Norris, Steven

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Onslow, Cranley

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Knowles, Michael

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Lamont, Norman

      Parris, Matthew

      Latham, Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Pawsey, James

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Porter, Barry

      Lightbown, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

      Lilley, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Powley, John

      Lord, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Raffan, Keith

      1170

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Stokes, John

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Renton, Tim

      Sumberg, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Rost, Peter

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ryder, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Trippier, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Trotter, Neville

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Waddington, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shersby, Michael

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Silvester, Fred

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Waller, Gary

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Watson, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Spencer, Derek

      Wheeler, John

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Whitfield, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Words)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Squire, Robin

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wood, Timothy

      Stanley, John

      Woodcock, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Supplementary Benefit
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 518), dated 9th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th April be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take motion 3 on the Order Paper:
  Mr. Meacher: The Opposition are praying against the regulations for three basic reasons. First, we wish to protest at yet another example of the Government's niggardliness in going out of their way to prevent some of the poorest in our society from receiving just a few more pounds to which the Government's social security commissioners had ruled they were entitled. Secondly, we protest at the Government's high-handed disregard of the Social Security Advisory Committee, an independent appeals system, and all the conventions of parliamentary authority. Thirdly, we wish to protest at the manner in which Ministers are now shown to have misled the House and at the way in which the DHSS can interpret the law as it sees fit and blandly alter the law without redress or compensation when found to have applied the law incorrectly.
  We are not complaining about the substance of the regulations, as I should be the first to agree that it is relatively minor. We are complaining about the flouting of principles in the way in which welfare law is increasingly being administered under the Government.
  A tribunal of commissioners upheld the argument advanced by the Child Poverty Action Group that holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice each had to be taken into account for supplementary benefit purposes from the date that each became payable. The effect of the ruling was that in most instances payments would have to be taken into account concurrently rather than consecutively, thus enabling an unemployed person to qualify for supplementary benefit sooner.
  The Government have introduced an amendment in the regulations to make lawful the DHSS practice of counting holiday pay and pay in lieu consecutively. Their aim is to exclude a person from entitlement to supplementary benefit for longer. Secondly, a social security commissioner confirmed that the Department had acted unlawfully in November 1981 in inserting an amendment in a set of regulations which were laid before the House as merely consolidating regulations. That amendment took away the right of single people to a grant if they were in need of a cooker or heater on moving into new accommodation. The amending regulations will reintroduce that provision.
  The Government's swift action to legalise departmental practice by passing legislation without consultation or debate is exactly the same as shown last November when an earlier victory of the citizens rights office of the Child Poverty Action Group was overturned. We debated that matter. On that occasion, a tribunal of commissioners
  1172
  ruled that a single payment could be made for medical needs, but, within days, the Government passed amendments nullifying the decision.
  Those three cases starkly reveal the length to which the Government will go to stop people on the poverty line from receiving even the few minimal extra payments to which they are legally entitled while at the same time the Government stuff the mouths of the rich with gold.
  Two months ago, in his Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished the unearned income surcharge. That was a tax, as hon. Members know, affecting only those persons with incomes each year of more than £7,100 from stocks and shares or other investment. In other words, I suspect that only those with share capital of over £100,000 were liable to that tax. Probably only the richest 1 per cent. of people in this country were recipients of that massive tax hand-out, worth to each an average of £1,300.
  The same Government who took those measures are determined to rub people's noses in their poverty. Apparently, even when the Government's DHSS appointed bodies and officials grant those people a handful more the Government rush with great alacrity to put a stop to it immediately. If one wanted a symbol of the meanness towards the poor, which is so characteristic of this Administration — far more than previous Tory Administrations—surely these regulations are it.
  The Government have been so determined to take away those minuscule gains — I should be the first to recognise that we are talking about a minuscule gain—that they have trodden on every convention of parliamentary government in their gadarene rush to bring about that result. In both cases, the Government have changed the rules without any normal period of consultation with their own advisory body, the Social Security Advisory Committee. Under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 the normal consultation procedure can be dropped only when the matter is certified by the Minister as being urgent. The only urgency involved in these cases is the Government's desire to avoid giving help to some of the poorest people in our community, as they have, in effect, been ordered to do by the commissioners.
  The Opposition consider this to be an abuse of the rules, betraying an attitude of scant regard and perhaps contempt towards the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is not difficult to see why the Government are doing that. The Social Security Advisory Committee has not turned out to be the malleable and acquiescent body that it was intended to be when the Government abolished the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  The advisory committee's critical attitude to Government policy on benefits is best exemplified by the recent drubbing it gave Ministers on their plans to cut housing benefits. Perhaps that is why the Government set up a completely different body to carry out the review on supplementary benefits, a review chaired, almost without precedent, by Ministers. Presumably this time the Government will take no chances. The She-who-must-beobeyed intolerance of dissent is, regrettably, beginning to find echoes even at the Elephant and Castle.
  The Government are being equally dismissive about the appeals system. Its independence is fast becoming something of a mockery. While Ministers pay lip service to the independence of the social security commissioners, it appears from the evidence of these cases that the commissioners are only allowed to make decisions on supplementary benefit which are favourable to the

  1173
  Department of Health and Social Security. Otherwise, the Department steps in immediately and changes the rules. One wonders why one has an appeals system in those circumstances.
  Another aspect which I find worrying is the speed at which the Government have moved to quash the commissioners' decisions which extend claimants' rights which has to be contrasted with their slowness in overturning commissioners' decisions which diminish claimants' rights.
  In 1981 a commissioner held that people who were licensees rather than full tenants had no right to furniture grants when they moved house. It is now 1984 and the proposals to extend furniture grant to licensees are still, I understand, only in draft. Such behaviour only confirms the suspicions of people who believe that the Government are much more interested in saving money than in promoting the interests of those on benefit.
  It is a serious affront to Parliament that the Government have increasingly frequently during this past year, on receiving a decision from the Social Security Advisory Committee of which they clearly did not approve, laid regulations the next day to invalidate that decision. The Government have then taken the regulation as coming into force the day after without any explicit approval by Parliament. It may be months before Parliament has an opportunity to debate the matter and vote on it.
  We feel so strongly that this is an abuse of Parliament that I have passed a file on this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure with a request that it urgently studies the matter and, if it agrees with us, makes strong recommendations to the House that such circumventory devices shall be straightaway discontinued by the Government.
  Our third complaint against these regulations is the high-handed response of the Government when they were revealed to have misled Parliament. The amendment to the single payments regulations was caused by a ruling of a social security commissioner that the consolidation of those regulations in November 1981 had altered the provisions governing help with furniture. "Altered" is the crucial word. However, on 2 December 1981 the then Minister gave the House the assurance that
  "the consolidated version"—
  of the single payment regulations
  "reflects the law as it was before consolidation."—[Official Report, 2 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 363.]
  That that manifestly was not the case became immediately apparent to claimants and their benefit advisers. Before 23 November 1981, which was the operative date for the regulations to come into force, benefit officers were happy to award grants for cookers and heaters to single unemployed people who had recently moved into new accommodation. From that date, all requests for such aid were refused.
  The crucial point is that local DHSS officers told advisers that they had been told that there had been a change in the law. Local DHSS officers were saying one thing to claimants and advisers and the Minister was saying a completely different thing to the House.
  The Child Poverty Action Group, I think rightly, took a test case on the issue almost immediately the consolidated regulations came into effect. It took over two years for the case to come before the social security commissioner who confirmed that the so-called consolidation regulations were no such thing. There is no doubt that
  1174
  practice in local DHSS offices altered after 23 November 1981 on instructions from above. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are sensitive about the use of certain language when one is making the kind of accusations that I am making, but equally—I say this advisedly—I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Department was in ignorance of the fact that the consolidation of the single payment regulations altered the law.
  There is one other aspect to this whole wretched saga which is seriously worrying and to which I wish to draw attention. It is the ease with which the supplementary benefit regulations can be altered, and that is one of the reasons why they are so sloppily drafted. For the Department it simply does not matter, and that is what is so worrying about this episode.
  If the Department's civil servants draft a regulation that does not quite mean what they meant it to say, they know from what has happened in these two cases that they have at least two years of operating the rule according to the original intention before a claimant—if one can be found—has laboriously gone through the appeal court procedure to persuade a commissioner that the letter of the law is not being followed. Judging by what has happened, all that the civil servants have then to do is correct the error. No attempt is made — this is wrong — to compensate the very poor people who have lost out because the law has not been correctly implemented.
  There is then the problem of the conditions of entitlement regulations. I repeat again that I have no strong feelings either way—this is not why the Opposition are bringing this matter before the House — on whether holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice should be counted concurrently rather than consecutively, although it does make a difference. That is not the point. However, we feel strongly that benefit officers should implement what the law says and not what the Department meant it to say. In this case, a tribunal of commissioners has held that the law has been wrongly applied since November 1980, but no attempt has been made or will be made by the Government to rectify the errors made in the assessments for tens of thousands of claimants.
  For the three reasons of meanness to the poor when the Government have been so indulgent on so many occasions to the rich, bland disregard for an independent appeals system and for the proper acquiring of parliamentary authority, and unwillingness to compensate people or the poverty line when the Government's errors have damaged their interests and when their own Ministers have misled Parliament, we seek the support of the House in throwing out these ill-judged, unnecessary and undesirable regulations.
  10.7 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I am grateful for the opportunity to explain clearly to the House why the Government have found it necessary to introduce the two sets of amendment regulations that we are debating this evening and, in particular, why we have used the "urgency" procedure provided for explicitly in section 10(7) of the Social Security Act 1980 and referred the regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee after, rather than before, they were made.
  In both cases, the need for the amendment regulations has arisen because the social security commissioners have found that the law is other than what the Government had

  1175
  hitherto believed it to be. I must make it absolutely clear at the outset that in both cases all the regulations do is restore the status quo. There is no question of any new policy being surreptitiously introduced. The House should bear that in mind in considering the Opposition motion.
  Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd): Is the Minister telling the House that the Government knew that, for example, their consolidation measure on cookers and heaters was a change in the law only when the social security commissioners so ruled, and that they had no idea before that?
  Dr. Boyson: Yes. The Government believed that the law as it stood was as it is now, after the regulations. The regulations are producing what we thought was the case then. Tonight we are only rectifying two factors, without any change in policy, to introduce what we believed was the policy, which was accepted, despite disagreements with Opposition Members, by the House.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister believed it to be a consolidation measure, why were instructions in local offices changed?
  Dr. Boyson: I am coming to that point. Before 1980–81, when the Government laid down practically the whole of the social security system in regulations, the social security commission regularly changed instructions, and hon. Members did not know that they had been changed. Since we laid down the regulations, hon. Members can examine and disagree with them, and if the regulations are not applied correctly, the House can debate the matter. We made the social security system visible to all — a see-through system. Under the Labour Government the regulations were not brough before the House and changes were made by the social security commissioners without our knowing about them. It is only because we have brought the matter into the open that Opposition Members can debate it tonight.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered the question. How is it that local DHSS offices said to benefit claimants and advisers that the law had been changed when the Minister's predecessor told the House that there had been no change in the law? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that it was recognised that there had been a change and invited the Government to admit it?
  Dr. Boyson: It is simple. The legal advisers told the Government that there had been no change. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) must not get over-excited — we are debating social security and not the National Health Service. Local offices were not sent instructions to say that there had been a change, but an interpretation was sent out. Interpretations are sent out regularly from the national centre to the local offices. To my knowledge nothing was sent out to say that there had been a change. Interpretations were sent out under the Labour Government just as they are sent out under the Conservative Government. This interpretation was sent out in October 1981. In the debate at that time it was said that the legal advice to the Government was that it was a consolidation matter. It did not go to the Social Security Advisory Committee. If
  1176
  previous Labour Governments have never been wrongly advised, they have been flaming well lucky. [Interruption.]
  I am only on page 1 of my brief and there are 10 exciting pages to come. Perhaps it is because Opposition Members fear what is to come that they try to delay me.
  In one case a tribunal of commissioners found that the existing regulations did not support the long-standing policy of successive Governments and the Supplentary Benefits Commission that claimants should be disqualified from supplementary benefit for the consecutive periods covered by earnings, holiday pay and payments in lieu of notice received on termination of employment. It has always been understood that, as against unemployment benefit, supplementary benefit was a benefit of last resort and that any other means of income should come first. The commissioners found that under the regulations then current, the periods covered by such payments should run concurrently rather than consecutively, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was right about the difference.
  I should point out that the chief adjudication officer —I remind the House that he has now taken over the functions of the chief supplementary benefit officer under the new unified system of social security adjudication that came into effect last month—has some doubts about the legal basis of the commissioners' decision, and with the leave of the commissioners he appealed against it to the Court of Appeal. He asked the court for an expedited hearing, and I believe that it will take place in July. Therefore, we have appealed against the interpretation sent out. We are not yet entirely convinced that the advice that we received was correct, and only the Court of Appeal can establish whether our interpretation or that of the commissioners is correct.
  Mr. Walter Harrison: That means the hon. Gentleman is not sure.
  Dr. Boyson: We are not sure. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. We are open-minded and do not have the blind prejudice of Opposition Members. It seemed right to the Goverment to put the legal position beyond doubt as a matter of urgency, rather than to wait for the outcome of the appeal, and that is what the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations do. I shall say something more about the use of the urgency procedure in a moment.
  The other case was rather different. When the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payment) Regulations were consolidated in 1981, the wording of what is now regulation 10(1)(b) was changed. The Government's intention at that time was to clarify the circumstances in which single payments of supplementary benefit for essential furniture and household equipment could be made. It was not our intention to change the effect of the regulation, and on the basis of the advice available to the Government at the time, we did not believe that we were doing so.
  To be perfectly fair, as I have always said, it was argued at the time by the Opposition that the new regulations changed the law. The Government, on the advice that they received, took the other view. A recent decision of a social security commissioner has, however, found that the effect of the regulations in force before 1981 was different from what we believed it to be, and that therefore the 1981

  1177
  regulations substantially changed the law. The commissioner consequently ruled that as the 1981 regulations had been introduced as consolidating regulations, and had not therefore been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, regulation 10(1)(b) was now invalid to the extent of the change.
  The Government accept that the commissioner's decision has now settled the legal issue, and that we had previously come down on the wrong side of a finely balanced argument. Those who have read the report will know that there were 18 pages of closely argued legal discussion before the commissioner gave his decision. He said:
  "The process has involved anxious consideration of complex questions of legal principle."
  This is by no means a simple issue.
  The practical effect of the commissioner's decision would be to make single payments for essential furniture and household equipment, often amounting to several hundred pounds in each case, more widely available than this Government, or any Government, had intended them to be. To take just one example, unemployed teenagers who had a perfectly satisfactory home with their parents but who felt the urge to leave home and set up on their own, would become absolutely entitled—there would be no element of discretion in the matter—to have all the essential items of furniture in their new homes provided immediately at the taxpayers' expense. That is what will happen unless we lay these regulations. We took the view — I should be surprised if it were not shared by the general public—that it would have been irresponsible to leave the law unamended longer than necessary, thus enabling payments to be made contrary to the Government's declared policy intention. Therefore, we decided to amend the regulations as a matter of urgency to restore the original intention, as reflected in the wording of the 1981 consolidating regulations.
  I shall say something more about the actual effect of the single payment amendment regulations in a moment. But first I want to deal with some of the points that have been raised on the procedural aspects of both sets of regulations. Let me at the outset ask the House to consider what sort of debate we might have been having on the detailed supplementary benefit issues under the previous Labour Government. As I have already said, the answer is that we would not be having such a debate. The alterations would have been made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is only through the goodness of the Conservative party that there is a debate tonight. I hope that Labour Members will be gracious enough to give a vote of thanks for that. Let me spell the matter out because I do not think that it is understood by many Labour Members. Before the reforms introduced by the Government in 1980, the detailed rules of supplementary benefit entitlement—the conditions for receiving single payments for furniture, the rules for the treatment of holiday pay, and hundreds of other such things—were all set out in a secret code issued by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. There was no S manual at that time. They were not, as now, set out in published regulations subject to scrutiny by Parliament, the pressure groups, the press and the public. Under the Labour Government it was not even Ministers responsible to Parliament who made the rules. They were settled behind closed doors—I will not say in smoke-filled rooms — in Carey street by that worthy but nevertheless wholly unelected body, the
  1178
  Supplementary Benefits Commission. Labour Members may not like the rules, but at least under this Government they have a chance of discuss them and to vote for or against them in the House. At least one can now see how the system works.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would it not be best to ask claimants what they think about it? I suggest that they preferred the previous system because it was a little more generous than the present one. They resent the fact that each time the regulations unexpectedly work in the claimants' favour the Government change the rules immediately to make things harsher.
  Dr. Boyson: If the hon. Gentleman waits, I shall give an illustration of an opposite case, which happened last summer.
  I always thought that the hon. Gentleman believed in open government. I now find that he does not. He seems to believe that a little discretion is better than a knowledge of the rules. With great respect, I find that surprising. The hon. Gentleman has always been consistent. I have served with him on many Committees when he has raised matters such as the secrecy of school records and so on. We have brought matters out into the open.
  If we compare, case by case, what was spent before 1980, allowing indexation for inflation, I shall be surprised if we are not spending more on social security now within these rules. Everybody knows—certainly all the welfare rights bodies know—what they are entitled to. I have some special figures which I am leaving until the end to show the vast increase that there has been under this terrible Conservative Government compared with under the previous Labour Government.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious, as he assures us he is, to have the fullest possible scrutiny—he has made grand claims on behalf of the Government on that account — why does not he refer the regulations to the SSAC?
  Dr. Boyson: They have been referred to the SSAC. The hon. Lady may rest assured of that. An urgency proposal has been written in. When the Secretary of State considers that something is urgent he has the right to put the regulations into operation while simultaneously sending them to the SSAC. I can reassure the hon. Lady that both regulations have been sent to the SSAC. They are urgent because they would change the whole basis of the way in which supplementary benefit is given. If Labour Members are prepared to leave matters for months, I fear to think what would happen if we ever had another Labour Government.
  So much for the background. Given that we now have a regulated scheme, it has been suggested that it is somehow unconstitutional, or at least unsporting, to amend the law in cases where the independent adjudicating authorities have found that the law does not reflect Government policy. The idea seems to be that in such cases the correct course would be for the Government., as it were, to grin and bear it on the principle that we win some, we lose some. It is a funny way of running a Government to say, "Let's see what is happening outside. It is hard luck that it costs another £2, but we can afford it in the Labour party." However, I must not be distracted.
  I suggest that this view reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between the legislature and the

  1179
  independent adjudicating authorities. Parliament has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State powers to make regulations—subject, I need hardly say, to the normal requirements for parliamentary scrutiny, which we are now observing with regard to the prayer, and I have said that I am grateful for the fact that the prayer was tabled so that we could bring the policy forward. It is the function of the independent adjudicating authorities to decide how those regulations should be applied in individual cases. If, in doing so, the adjudicating authorities find that the law is not what the Government believed it to be, the ball is back in the Government's court. No responsible Government could allow policies to be amended and altered in the way that the Opposition are suggesting without taking action, when it is necessary to do so. I will give an illustration shortly of what was done under the Labour Government at least as fast, if not faster—because we learned how to do it from the Labour Government, and we pay our tribute to them for that.
  The other point that has been raised is on the use of the urgency procedure, and whether it is right to make these regulations without prior reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Again, I am unrepentant. The urgency procedure was provided for in the main legislation for exactly this type of contingency. In cases where there is no question of any new policy being introduced, but where, on the other hand, the legislative basis of existing policy is shown to be invalid, there is often no time for prior consultation with the SSAC. Urgent action may well need to be taken to put matters right, and this could apply just as much in a case where the effect of a commissioner's decision was to pay less benefit as in a case like those which gave rise to the regulations that we are considering tonight where the effect is to pay more. I promise the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that I shall come to a case where, last July, we moved the other way to make sure that claimants did not lose money.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister say what he will do if the social security commissioners suggest that the Government should not invoke the regulations?
  Dr. Boyson: I shall deal with what the social security commissioners say when they arrive. I am not a futurologist. We are studying the history of the last three or four years, and we are also dealing with the present time.
  To illustrate the point that it works both ways, I advise the House of the urgent action that we took last year to include at a very late stage an amendment to the resources regulations shortly before the draft regulations, giving effect to what has become the annual amendment exercise, were laid before the House. Again, last July, following a decision of a tribunal of commissioners, it was necessary to restore the policy intention in relation to the treatment, for supplementary benefit purposes, of sums held in trust, particularly for vaccine damaged children. The tribunal had ruled that a sole beneficiary's interest in the trust fund was an actual resource to be taken into account, contrary to the policy exercised by the present Government and by past Governments. A specific provision was therefore added to the draft regulations to be laid before the House, and we informed the SSAC at the same time of the action that we had taken.
  1180
  All that we wanted then, and all that we want now, is to make sure that the law is what was intended when it was passed by Parliament, by regulation or otherwise. While the annual amendment package provided the opportunity to introduce the amendment quickly, we would in any event have amended the regulations urgently, had that not been the case. Indeed, we put it in the July uprating regulations that were going in, at the same time informing the SSAC what we were doing. This proves the point about which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was concerned. It is doing it not only when it means more Government money being spent, but when less money will be spent if the claimants will lose unfairly.
  Let us go back to cases where the effect of the commissioner's decision was to pay more benefit than under the intended policy. As I reminded the House in the course of a similar debate last year on the amending regulations affecting entitlement to single payments for medical expenses, the Labour Government took exactly the same line as us on a commissioner's decision in 1978 relating to housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension. I referred to it in detail in the debate on 5 December 1983, when I said:
  "The previous Labour Government laid similar regulations when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was Minister. In September 1978, when the Labour Government were in power, the social security commissioners made a decision about entitlement to housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension . . . Within days, regulations were laid, just as we have laid regulations. They were laid before the matter went to the advisory committee. We learned how to proceed from the Labour Government's actions in 1978."— [Official Report, 5 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 118.]
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That was wrong then!
  Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman may have the right to say that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is consistent, but I see an Achilles' heel developing on the question of open government. However, we object to Opposition Members attacking us for what we have done when they did exactly the same. We object to them claiming a monopoly of consistency, because it just is not true. However, I exempt the hon. Gentleman from that. Nevertheless we quite fairly object when Opposition Front Bench Members say that they never did something.
  It is not even as though the SSAC will not have the opportunity in this case of commenting on the regulations and the underlying policies that they reflect. Both sets of regulations have now been referred to it; interested bodies will be consulted, and the SSAC will produce reports on the regulations, copies of which, with my right hon. Friend's response, will be laid before the House.
  Finally, I should like to say something very briefly about the policy underlying the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payment) Amendment Regulations. There has been a lot of criticism of the principle—which those amending regulations put back on to a secure legislative basis—that claimants who are moving home should, in certain circumstances, be entitled to a single payment for furniture only if no suitable alternative furnished accommodation is available in the area. It has been suggested that we should take this opportunity of removing this condition, on the grounds that it is unjust and unworkable.
  I freely admit that the regulation is far from perfect and that the "suitable alternative furnished accommodation" condition presents difficulties in practice. There has been

  1181
  another recent commissioner's decision about this condition and the chief supplementary benefit officer—as he then was—issued guidance to local offices about how it should be interpreted in the light of that decision. But difficulties are likely to remain. The Department has asked the social security policy inspectorate to report on the operation of the regulation governing single payments for furniture, and in particular the effects of the "suitable furnished accommodation" condition. That is the same inspectorate as brought to light the voluntary unemployment deductions that were not put back last summer.
  As I have indicated, my own feeling is that it is at the very least questionable whether substantial assistance should be given, at taxpayers' expense, almost automatically to people who may only be on benefit for a short while, and who may have suitable furnished accommodation available to them, such as with their parents, while no help is given to those with similar incomes who are in full-time work. Thus the poverty trap is also relevant to this regulation.
  We shall need to look at this whole area in the light of the inspectorate report, any views that the SSAC expresses on these amendment regulations and, of course, the current review of the supplementary benefit scheme as a whole. Meanwhile it must be right to ensure that existing policy will be continued.
  I turn to the financial side of the issue. To listen to Opposition Members, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, one would sometimes think that the Government were spending nothing on social security. One might even think that they were not spending more than the Labour Party spent on social security, given the indignation that is heard from time to time. Yet let us look at what is happening. I have a sobering thought for Opposition Members, and they may wish to adjourn the House so that they can think about it. It must strike at the very heart of their philosophy and confidence, and the very worst thing is to destroy someone's confidence, particularly just before the three-day weekend that some may be looking forward to after the events of last night. The House must be aware of what the policy has meant, in terms of numbers, over the past few years.
  Since 1978, the last full year of a Labour Government, the number of single payments for furniture has escalated from about 150,000 to nearly 500,000 a year. That is more than a threefold increase. This terrible Government, who are grinding the faces of the poor into the dust, have trebled such payments in four years. Total expenditure has increased from £5-8 million to £33-2 million—a sixfold increase. I doubt whether even Opposition Members
  1182
  would want payments to be made under certain conditions. The average payment has increased from £39.70 to £67.65.
  I have said this before, but it needs to be repeated. The bare statistics alone are proof that the Opposition's charges about the Government's attitude to social security claimants are completely unjustified, and proof that compassion can be found on Government Benches just as often, if not more often, as on the Opposition benches.
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The Minister has given us statistics showing how much has been spent, but how much would it cost the Exchequer if the Government did not go back and restore the law to what they believe it should be?
  Dr. Boyson: The cost would be millions and millions of pounds.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: Exactly how much?
  Dr. Boyson: I do not know. If the hon. Gentleman knows, he should be backing horses. It is easier to do that than to know how many people would apply for the grant. Anybody could set themselves up elsewhere, having left home or any other furnished accommodation. They could move into an empty flat. There are plenty of empty council flats in inner city areas these days and councils cannot let them. Without the regulations people could claim for £700 or £800 worth of furniture.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: Nonsense.
  Dr. Boyson: They could. The hon. Gentleman lives in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that people will not use the law to their advantage. The costs include heaters, cookers, furniture and so on. I shall try to find the exact figures to bring the reality home to hon. Members. If they could say that 67,453 people, for instance, would apply in the next three weeks I could give the figure. Without the figures I am wasting my time. I should, perhaps, be participating in treasure hunts organised by The Standard. It is impossible.
  We think that it is wrong that people who have accommodation, or live at home with their parents, should be able to move into empty accommodation and claim the cost of furnishing it from the local social services department. I should be amazed if the majority of people did not think the same. We do not know the cost involved. I have no doubt that whatever Government were in power would bring the law back to what was intended originally.
  I hope that I have convinced the House that both sets of regulations are desirable and, indeed essential, and that the House should now accept — sorry, reject — the Opposition prayer without further debate.

  Supplementary Benefit
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd): We have had the usual Lancastrian Max Miller act from the House's favourite Government Front Bench clown who never tries to match up to the seriouness of the subject. It is time he became a Minister of State in his Department instead of treating us to the rather banal comedy act which gets more tedious as we go through debate after debate.
  I intend to concentrate on the regulations dealing with single payments, because in that regard the Government at least owe the House an apology. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, they misled the House in December 1981 when they advised us that we were then passing a correct consolidation measure when in reality we were changing the law. It must be a bitter pill for the Department and its legal advisers to swallow to realise that there was a change in the law.
  I do not say that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) deliberately misled the House on that occasion, but the effect of what she said was to mislead the House into thinking that it was dealing with a consolidation measure, despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I both warned the Government that it was not a true consolidation measure and that it was changing the law. We were brushed aside. The superior departmental wisdom which the Minister of State is still relying upon knew much better than we did about the regulations and we were assured that there was no change in the law.
  It is not good enough for the Minister of State simply to say that everybody always understood that that was the law. The case that was quoted in the debate on 2 December 1981 involved a claimant who was told by the Department that there had been a change in the law. That was brushed aside. We were told that there was no change whatsoever. I invite the Minister of State upon mature reflection at least to do the House the courtesy of apologising for what the Government did. An apology was singularly absent from the Minister's speech tonight.
  The effect of the decision by the social security commissioners that the words complained of in the regulation were changing the law is that for three years claimants who were entitled under the regulations to a cooker and a heater were unlawfully denied those claims. Even if Ministers make knockabout speeches, no Government should be proud of the fact that for three years they have acted completely outside the law. For that, too, we are entitled to an apology. Even more so, the claimants who have been denied help should be traced and offered recompense for the illegal decisions that were made on their claims.
  The matter is even more serious. I intervened deliberately to try to find out what the Minister thought he was saying on behalf of the Department. He said that it was proceeding in a perfectly orderly manner and then along came the decision of the social security commissioners which knocked it for six; at the beginning of April the Department read the 18 pages of legal argument which knocked it absolutely sideways and showed it that its understanding of the law was wrong and, therefore, it had to rush. It did not know how many cases or how much
  1184
  money had been involved, but the matter was urgent. That is a curious way of saying to the House that urgency was justified. I would have thought that he who certifies urgency has a duty to prove it to the House and not the other way round.
  The Minister has a duty to prove the urgency of the case. He misled us even in that. I am sorry to say that of him, but he was so carried away by his knockabout act that he did not measure his words. Although he said yes—a three letter word—the first the Government had heard was when the Commissioner made his decision.
  The case upon which the commissioner decided was that of Neil Paul Cameron, which was first decided by the appeal tribunal in February 1982. On 25 November, a few days before the famous consolidation debate, that man had been granted a cooker. He applied for installation charges, but the Department opposed that. The appeal was heard on 10 February, scarcely two months after we debated the matter. The departmental submission is interesting and points out exactly how the Minister misled the House.
  The chairman's notes of evidence state:
  "Department's officer referred the Tribunal to Reg. 10(1) of the Supp Ben (Single Payments) Regs 1981. He explained that the payment made to the appellant was incorrect and that in view of the new legislation should not have been made."
  The Department, within two months of the debate, was saying something wholly opposed to what we had been assured in December 1981 would be the effect of the consolidation.
  The Minister owes the House an apology for what he said from the Dispatch Box when he opened the Debate. I acquit him of deliberately misleading the House — I think that, in the fervour of the moment—he has many fervours of the moment—he said something that he did not intend. But the effect of what he said, unless it had been checked, would have misled the House.
  The Department did not know for the first time in April 1984 that the law had been changed. Its officers knew within two months of the debate in the House and were making submissions to the tribunals accordingly. It is a reproach to the Government that they have waited so long — if they feel so strongly — before bringing back the regulations. They should say that they made a mistake but the matter is so important that they will amend the regulations.
  Many officers of the Department must have been using exactly the same argument. That is why we have a right to complain tonight about the handling of the matter and also about the way in which the House is treated. The Minister said it would never have happened under a Labour Government. The regulations were codified under a Conservative Government to remove a great deal of discretion that hitherto rested with officers at local level. Having codified them and placed them before the House, the Government have a duty to be honest, frank and correct when they are debated. They should not mislead the House about their effect and then say that we had every chance to scrutinise. We cannot scrutinise an assurance that turns out to be wholly wrong.
  If only because the Government have shown themselves unrepentant about what is, by any standards, disgraceful behaviour, and unrepentant about misleading the House not once, but twice, a Division is necessary.
  The Minister says "We cannot have the law interpreted by the social security commissioners." The House passes many laws which are interpreted by the High Court, and

  1185
  I have yet to see a Government rushing to change legislation on every occasion when a High Court judgment reveals the law to be other than what it was thought to be when it was passed. We must, of course, be careful in choosing what, if any, intervention we make into the affairs of the judicial system.
  I agree with the Minister that the judiciary is totally independent of the Department. In a way, however, it is neutered as well as being neutral if it knows that every time it makes a decision that is unfavourable to the Government, the Government will alter the legislation. I urge the Government to take that step only when really necessary following a High Court decision which is unfavourable or unwelcome to them. Otherwise, all the benefits that will come from the unification of the adjudication procedures and the proper examination of cases will be dissipated because appelants will know that behind every successful appeal may lie what might be called an urgency procedure.
  I fear that a Government who, in a matter of this kind, could, between 24 and 26 April, consider laying and then bring into force these regulations, are not a Government who will encourage a proper system of adjudication. For all the Minister's bluster, the reality is that he and his colleagues have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They had better apologise so that they may remove their hands quickly from the jar.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): I have three points to make, the first being to comment on one of the themes adduced by the Minister, and in doing that I draw a moral for his hon. Friends. In our proceedings tonight, the last Labour Government have appeared like Banquo's ghost. It is easy for me to speak about the record of that Government because I was not an hon. Member of the House at that time and did not have to vote in the Lobby. Looking back on that record, I hope that there are on these Benches some of my hon. Friends who are ashamed of some of the actions for which they voted.
  I hope, too, that Conservative Members see how crippled we are in contributing to this debate because not sufficient hon. Members who supported the Labour Government at the time were prepared to vote for their consciences rather than for the Whips.
  I hope that tonight's speeches from these Benches, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), will persuade many Conservative Members not only to make a stand against the Government —a stand which is right on principle—but to enlarge the freedom which they may need to exercise in future Parliaments. We shall have heard the last of Banquo's ghost when some of the Minister's hon. Friends vote against him, and I hope that that will happen tonight.
  Secondly, we often talk about the importance of a free society, a theme which I hope unites both sides of the House. However, we rarely go on to discuss the web of institutions, values and actions that makes up a free society. Tonight the Government stand condemned for taking a small step—I accept that it is a small one—which will undermine that free society. The Government are asking us to undermine still further two bodies which have been established to check the power of government. If we believe in a free society, we believe in establishing a set of institutions which can check central Government.
  1186
  The Government are slowly undermining the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think that I have more right than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends to speak on the issue because I was the only Labour Member who voted for the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the establishment of the Committee. I was told by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the abolition of the commission would be a terrible blow for the poor and that many of my constituents would be distressed. When I returned to Birkenhead the weekend after Parliament decided to abolish the commission I found that none of my constituents was weeping in the streets. Many of my constituents referred to the commission as the unemployment assistance board, and that is how they refer to the present regime.
  The Social Security Advisory Committee was established by Parliament. It was given independence and the role of advising the Government on policy changes. We are discussing one of a series of instances when the Government, believing that the issue might be slightly difficult to tackle, have decided to take action first and to consult the committee afterwards. In the long run, that is a form of action that will undermine the committee's authority. That in turn must play some part in determining the qualities of the person who the Government are seeking to appoint as chairman. Who will want that appointment when it is likely that the Government will remove from the committee's remit and deliberations most of the important issues that come before it?
  We are beginning to create two tiers of law. The first tier is the main stream of law that comes within the traditional judicial process and the second tier is welfare law. It is rare for High Court decisions to be overturned within days by the House, but sadly that is becoming a regular occurrence in respect of decisions of the equivalent High Court procedure for the poor, which are overturned if they go in their favour.
  I disagree to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He was right to say that we object to the manner in which the Government are taking their decisions, but he suggested that the substance of the decisions was not very important. I agree that that is so in the context of one set of regulations. Few of us could object to the changes that the Government are introducing for holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice. They will merely mean that individuals will spend that money before they go on to benefit. They will be the losers, but they will not suffer any great hardship, That cannot be said of the other regulations on cookers and heating. I beg the Government to reconsider their decision. Many of the poor will suffer and their decision will undermine what they claim to be one of the main planks of Conservative policy, which is to help people stand on their own two feet.
  There are many empty council flats in the constituency in which I live and some individuals on supplementary benefit would choose to move into them. However, it is difficult to move into accommodation without a cooker or a heater, especially a cooker. A person who does not have a cooker will have to spend a disproportionate amount of his benefit buying food in cafes. There comes a point—it is usually after about three weeks — when people become fed up with living on sandwiches. At that stage they start to go to cheaper forms of cafe. If that is done by someone who is in receipt of supplementary benefit, he

  1187
  [Mr. Frank Field]
  will be unable to pay his other bills. That means that he will start to fall into rent arrears and accumulate other debts.
  I hope that the Government will be moved by some of the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends and me on the cooker and heater regulations. That matter is important to the poor. It is an important point in the Government's statements about their long-term strategy of helping people to stand on their own two feet.
  I make a plea to the House to make a stand and to defend and foster those somewhat fragile institutions we are trying to build up against the power of the state. I hope that all of us who are libertarians, rather than Right or Left—wing centralisers, will be in the Lobby. I hope that hon. Members will note the lessons of the last Labour Government that have been endlessly pointed out. Many good things can be said for the last Labour Government. Much of their record was found wanting. We lost an election, so the record could not have been all that good. Conservative Members see how we are crippled when we are trying to argue our corner because hon. Members swallowed hard two Parliaments ago and voted for measures that they perhaps did not believe were right. I hope, because it is important that we have honourable Back Benchers, that many Conservative Members will join the Labour Members in the Lobby.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am sure that it would be appreciated by you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members if I do not rehearse the details of how certain cases arose. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) read the Child Poverty Action Group brief as accurately as anyone could, and I believe that the details were covered.
  I am worried that the Minister relies on putting the worst possible interpretation on what might happen if the matter were not returned to what the Government believe it should have been. It is difficult to accept his point, because he gave no estimate of the cost of letting the present position continue as though the regulations had been interpreted properly in the commissioners' determination. It is difficult to accept that calculations of the cost have not been made in the depths of the DHSS.
  Predictions are made of all sorts of possible cases. The Government's expenditure plans are put before us repeatedly. Figures are shown to be out by substantial amounts. As those hon. Members who have served on the Select Committee on Social Services know, departmental officials must justify those projections under cross-examination.
  Those hon. Members who represent inner city constituencies and areas of high deprivation know only too well the need to give the benefit of the doubt to claimants. The Minister's reliance on principle and his appeal for consistency in these matters would be acceptable only if the resources available to those suffering under the recession and economic crisis were sufficient for people to live on. It is not as though people will make a great killing if the regulations continue to be interpreted as at present. I suspect that the appeal from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose consistency and sincerity on these matters is well known to both sides of the House, will not be heeded by Conservative Members.
  1188
  By and large, Conservative Members do not understand the problems of individuals in need in those parts of the country.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Rubbish.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." There is a vast difference between the needs of people in the pockets of very high unemployment in parts of our cities and elsewhere. Surveys in cities in the north, for example Bradford and Leeds, show that the unemployment figures are 50 per cent. and 60 per cent., not 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. Those facts are not shown up by the global statistics put forward by the DHSS.
  We are dealing with people who are not living on supplementary benefit, but existing on it. The definition of poverty given by the former chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Mr. David Donnison, was that it was the inability to live with dignity in one's own community. The present position does not allow people to live with dignity. At the margin, where there are little ways to assist people, the Government are not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
  A great deal of bitterness is felt in the community over what is seen as the Government's attitude. These changes have been brought about only because organisations, some grant-aided by local government and some by central Government, have pursued their clients' cases assiduously and have managed to prove to the commissioners that previous interpretations were wrong. The organisations therefore obtained benefits for their clients. The Minister said that the regulations have been brought before the House because the amount of discretion has been reduced. The regulations are the quid pro quo for that.
  When the supplementary benefit regulations allowed considerable discretion, those voluntary organisations, underpinned by grant aid, using many volunteers, could argue the case for reasonableness and for supplementary benefit officers having exercised their discretion. That action will not now be open to them. The door has been shut on the ways that the organisations found to assist their clients with the draconian regulations.
  Those of us who have constituency cases are well aware that people have to fight to obtain single payments. That is not money to spend on equipping a house to the standards that the Minister and I would deem acceptable. In most cases they can obtain only second-hand equipment to set up any kind of a home. It is no good saying that teenagers might leave home. We all know of single parents who exist for weeks before they can extract the single payment that they need to survive.
  I noted the Minister's words. He said that the regulations had been brought about because he thought that the commissioners had come down on the wrong side of a finely balanced argument. That seems to illustrate the attitude of a Government who will slam the door shut on any attempt to obtain better conditions for those who find themselves in severe and distressing circumstances.
  Many hon. Members feel that the system is breaking down, and the way that people have to rely on supplementary benefit is not conducive to the stable and secure communities that we wish to see. The amounts involved may not be important, but to those struggling to survive the Government's attitude is the most harmful aspect of the matter.

  1189
  None of us wish to see again what happened in our cities in the summer of 1981. All these matters are cumulative. They seem to show people who have nothing else to live for that they might as well take to the streets and take the matter into their own hands, because they cannot find a legitimate way through the jungle of regulations and statistics to obtain benefits.
  I beg the Minister and Conservative Members to heed the words of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and those of us who are seeking to help people to have better conditions, and accept that it is not a good idea to try and take back the small benefits that have been obtained by recourse to the commissioners.
  11.8 pm
  Dr. Boyson: I shall make a few comments on the points raised by the Opposition.
  I have said that we do not know how much money is involved in the single payments. One does not know how many people would set up on their own if they knew that they could move into unfurnished accommodation when furnished accommodation was available at home, with relatives or elsewhere in a town. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) that only second-hand furniture would generally be obtained. Obviously, the number of claimants will be limited by the amount of the furnished accommodation that is available, and so on. There is no means for giving a figure. All that we know is that considerably more people would move into such accommodation than do now.
  The hon. Gentleman's first point was about the regulations covering whether the benefit periods run concurrently or consecutively. I can tell him—if he will listen to me instead of to his leader, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), he can continue the conversation later—that the figure for the difference between whether the periods run concurrently or consecutively would be at least £8.4 million a year.
  Mr. Frank Field: There will be a saving, then?
  Dr. Boyson: There will not be a saving, because if the commissioner's interpretation stands, £8.4 million will be paid that is not at the moment. There would be a saving only if benefit was paid for some time under the commissioner's interpretation which would then be taken back again.
  I shall make a last point to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, and then I shall leave him in peace—I was making notes, and, as he was the last speaker, his speech is the most fresh in my mind. I take his point that supplementary benefit is not the best standard of living—we all know that—and it is the benefit of last recourse. However, the purchasing power of supplementary benefit compared with when it was introduced in 1948 is double in real terms. It is as well to remember that. We are glad that the purchasing power is twice what it was in 1948.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: Is there not a great difference between 1948 and now, especially the time during which people have to survive on supplementary benefit, which was much shorter then? It is the long—term existence on the benefit that is so debilitating, and that problem is very different from those of 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
  Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the difference between the two, and this is why the long-term supplementary benefit was brought in for those who had been on it for more than a year.
  I grant the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between the laying down of regulations and a system relying on discretion. There are advantages both ways. The staff in the local offices to whom I have talked prefer that there should be regulations governing what is allowed or not allowed. They used to get many calls because different offices would give different figures, and there were sometimes unpleasant scenes, whereas now there is a rule book that can be referred to.
  A number of hon. Members have spoken as though we are undermining the Social Security Advisory Committee, but we in fact established it, and are replacing people who have left. We have just sent it a package of 54 proposals for summer regulations, and we are consulting the committee in full on all of it. Tonight we are dealing with three changes under the urgency provisions—about 5 per cent. of them. Out of fairness to the Government, that should be pointed out.
  Before I sum up I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) about misleading. We do not intend to mislead now, and we did not in 1981. We were given legal advice that we were making a consolidation and not a change. The hon. Member spoke about local offices. Some of them thought that the law had changed — the hon. Member was right to say that. Advice was then issued on what we thought the law meant in October 1981, before the consolidation, and we believed that that is what it meant after the consolidation. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of a long circular covering the single payments regulation, issued in 1981, because it sets out the belief that we were acting on. We were doing what we thought had been done before. and that is why the 1981 change was considered to be consolidation.
  Two points have been made in the debate. One is about whether the benefit is consecutive or concurrent. If supplementary benefit is a benefit of last resort, it should be given only when no other money is available. If a person has enough on which to live for some weeks, to give that person the benefit would take it away from somebody else who needed it. Therefore, it is a matter of honour as much as of finance.
  The Government's actions are right. We are returning to what we believe was the previous position. If people can set up on their own in unfurnished accommodation and immediately get second—hand furniture installed with the aid of supplementary benefit, the family unit would not be encouraged. It would instead encourage people to move away from the family after the slightest argument and it would be costly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may disagree, but I have spent much time with adolescents and know that they have huge arguments with their parents. The hon. Member may not be aware of that—he may have lived in a different society. I have worked in down-town areas as much as any hon. Member, and know that immediately after arguments many adolescents would live on their own if they could, but that after a few days the family unit is re—established.
  It would be entirely wrong if working people who could not afford to buy furniture for unfurnished accommodation

  1191
  [Dr. Boyson]
  discovered that people on supplementary benefit had that privilege. We do not want to create such a gap between working and non-working people.
  The Government, with these regulations, are moving the supplementary benefit system back to where we believed it was, as the Labour Government did with the housewife's non-contributory invalidity pension. I have no doubt that if the Labour party were in office now it would do exactly the same.
  11.17 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We have heard a rather sorry tale told in a rather sorry way. It involves bungling, incompetence and, at best and at worst, illegal action by the Government. Unfortunately, that is not untypical.
  In recent weeks in Committee and on the Floor of the House during Health and Social Security Bill debates we have repeatedly heard of changes that must be made in the law, in regulations and in the schedule because the Government have got it wrong, the law does not do what they thought it did, and must be changed to what they imagined it was. All hon. Members are aware that this is the season for repeats on television, but we did not expect so many during social security debates.
  When the Minister began he might have expected and, indeed, received, some sympathy. All hon. Members know what it is like to defend a poor case, and a decision in which one had no part and which was perhaps made in good faith. However, whatever sympathy he had was dissipated by his attitude. Our sympathy for him was further tempered and ultimately extinguished when we considered how much sympathy the Government have for the claimants affected by the regulations. The Minister is accustomed to busking his way through awkward positions, but some occasions are less suitable than others for that technique, and this is one of them.
  The first set of cases, with which the Minister dealt, are simpler than the rest. It involves a change in policy brought about by the commissioners, who felt that it was a mistaken policy. It is unfortunate that it took two years for the appeal to be heard by the commissioner, but only a few days for the Government to make a change to restore the original position. Many hon. Members asked what the point of the appeal procedure is, but the Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. People who give time to serve on tribunals must wonder tonight why they give that time or, indeed, waste it.
  The Minister said that they have gone to appeal on the matter, and hope to have a decision in July. He did not tell the House why it was not possible to wait until July to lay the regulations. That would be a reasonable length of time, during which the social Social Security Advisory Committee might have been able to comment in advance of the regulations, and perhaps come up with a more reasonable procedure than that which the Government adopted.
  The more complicated matter is that of single payments. The Minister has said on at least three occasions that, in these regulations, the Government are restoring the position to what they believed it to be. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) rightly said, the Government were told on 2 December 1981, not the theory of the effect of these changes which the
  1192
  Government put forward as consolidating regulations, but about the practice that was taking shape. They were given chapter and verse of concrete cases where decisions had been changed even before the debate in the House. Yet the Minister still says that it is news to the Department that the law was not as they had thought.
  The Minister deployed an extraordinary circular argument. He said that the regulations must have been consolidating, and could not have introduced a change in policy, because they were not referred to the SSAC. If there had been a change of policy, they would have had to be referred to the SSAC. But the commissioners tell us that, because the regulations introduced a change in policy and were not a consolidation, they were ultra vires and illegal.
  Tonight the Minister made a great play of the regulations that were introduced in 1981. Perhaps he did so because of the briefing that he was given, but if I were him I would not in future place much reliance on the briefings given by his Department on this matter. He should be aware that the change in policy took place between the 1980 and 1981 regulations. The policy which the Government are seeking to bring into effect tonight, and which we. shall try to stop, is the policy in the regulations ultimately drafted in 1981 and put forward as consolidating regulations. However, it was not the policy of the 1980 regulations, which they were supposed to consolidate. The change to which the commissioners referred took place then.
  The Minister also told the House that the Government have referred to the inspectors the questions of payments for furniture and alternative furnished accommodation. We welcome that to some extent because in the past the inspectors have treated claimants fairly. But I must tell the Minister that his statement about the lack of change in policy is not borne out by what is happening in practice under the regulations on alternative furnished accommodation. The Minister said that the chief supplementary benefit officer has given guidance to other benefit officers about what a claimant must do. We are told, although the Minister did not see fit to mention it, that the guidance states that a claimant must produce—depending on the source to which one goes—either 13 or 15 separate refusals of accommodation to justify their contention that no suitable furnished accommodation is available.
  The Minister talked a good deal about the young unemployed, and gave the impression that the only people who claimed such payments were the frivolous young who might, to use the Minister's words, two days after a quarrel with their parents and after taking substantial payments from the Department, trail back home. But the Minister must know—if he does not, his inspectors will soon tell him—of the long delays suffered by many claimants. One example is of a man who claimed a single payment for furniture and household equipment in March 1982. He claimed some items on the grounds that he had been discharged from hospital and was chronically sick. He had every case that one would wish to make, and there was no question of his being a frivolous teenager with minor, transitory problems. It was three months before the Department's officers visited him to decide whether he was entitled to payment; and some weeks later payment had still not been made. The Minister must know well that these payments are not easy to obtain.
  The Minister also talked about the cost of making this change back to the policy that the Government thought that

  1193
  they were — illegally — pursuing. In February the Minister said that the average limit for payments of social security for bed and breakfast was about £65 a week. A couple of weeks before that the Department of the Environment said that the average payments for a single bedroomed council flat for a single parent was about £16·10 a week. Although we are talking about the amounts involved in single payments, over a period of time there can be little question that not only do the claimants themselves benefit from the independence that they may enjoy but also there may well be substantial savings to the Department.
  Ultimately, the problem that we have faced tonight is two—fold. Either my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) or the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) referred to the Minister as unrepentant. He was not only unrepentant, he was complacent, he was smug and he treated the whole matter as if it were all a bit of a good joke that we could all enjoy together and nobody would really suffer. He must know that that is not the circumstance.
  The Minister did not tell us tonight—I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or myself and publish his reply—what he intends to do about the people who were wrongly denied benefit over the past three years. What does he intend to do to make the payments illegally denied them by the Government, and, in particular, what does he intend to do about those individuals, of whom there must now be some if not many who have outstanding claims for payments of this nature and in respect of whom payment, perhaps even in the last few days and weeks, has illegally been denied? The Minister did not tell us that tonight. He did not give us the apology that at least the claimants, if not the House, might justly have sought. For that reason, if for no other, we shall seek to annul the regulations tonight.
  Question put and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 593), dated 25th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled.—[Mr.Meacher]
  The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 147.

  Division No. 294]

  [11.26 pm

  AYES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bennett, A. (Dent's & Red'sh)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  John, Brynmor

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Loyden, Edward

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Clay, Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cowans, Harry

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Nellist, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Park, George

  Dalyell, Tam

  Parry, Robert

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge I-1'1)

  Patchett, Terry

  Deakins, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Randall, Stuart

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  1194

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Peter Pike.

  NOES

  Stott, Roger

  Hawksley, Warren

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Alexander, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Amess, David

  Hickmet, Richard Hind, Kenneth

  Arnold, Tom

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'rn)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Holt, Richard

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Howard, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Key, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Lamont, Norman

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lightbown, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Lilley, Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Lord, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Cash, William

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  MacGregor, John

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Maclean, David John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Major, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Coombs, Simon

  Mather, Carol

  Cope, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Corrie, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Couchman, James

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Moore, John

  Dunn, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Needham, Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Nelson, Anthony

  Evennett, David

  Newton, Tony

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Forth, Eric

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Pawsey, James

  Fox, Marcus

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Franks, Cecil

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Freeman, Roger

  Powley, John

  Gale, Roger

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Galley, Roy

  Raffan, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Renton, Tim

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Ryder, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ground, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Stern, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Trippier, David

  Hannam, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Waddington, David

  Harris, David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Harvey, Robert

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  1195

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Motion made,
  That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Bernard Conlan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS
  Motion made,
  That Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Roger Sims be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
  11.37pm
  Mr. Roger Freeman (Kettering): I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the business expansion scheme. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister responsible for small firms, is answering the debate, as I wish to deal not with the fiscal terms of the business expansion scheme but with its impact on small business development. The House knows of the great interest that my hon. Friend regularly demonstrates in that.
  Hon. Members may find it useful to be briefly reminded of the background and essential features of the business expansion scheme. It was introduced in the Finance Act 1983 as a successor to the earlier and narrower business start—up scheme, which was launched in 1981. The scheme is, therefore in its infancy. It is far too early to make any judgment on its effect on enterprise and employment in the United Kingdom, but we can examine how it appears to be operating, and draw some preliminary conclusions.
  The scheme runs until April 1987, and enables an individual and spouse to claim tax relief up to the marginal rate on full risk equity investments in qualifying unquoted and unrelated trading businesses up to £40,000 per annum.
  I welcome the exclusion of farming schemes from the business expansion scheme, as announced by the Chancellor in his recent Budget.
  Investments must be held for five years to qualify for full relief. Capital gains, if any, are taxed on an increase upon the original gross, rather than the net figure, after tax investment. Capital losses are not available to offset against other non-business expansion scheme capital gains.
  Response from the City has been good. City firms are forming business expansion scheme funds to pool individual investors' money and so to spread the cost of administration, and the risk. I estimate that nearly £50 million has been raised—although obviously all that has not yet been invested — by over 30 Inland Revenue—approved funds.
  I believe strongly that competition between the funds to raise money is good because that provides the best protection for the individual investor over the level of fees and expenses. I should not like regulations to be introduced. I believe in the principle of free competition in the market place. The investor should be able to make up his own mind where to place his money.
  Many funds will continue to raise amounts this year, and I hope in succeeding years, I hope that the £100 million figure can be reached by the end of this fiscal year in April 1985, despite the welcome reduction in the top marginal tax rate from 75 per cent. to 60 per cent.
  Investments have been made in a whole range of opportunities from management buy—outs, through franchises to venture capital. To the extent that money raised under the business expansion scheme is invested in venture capital projects, it is in direct competition with the more sophisticated and larger institutions such as the pension funds and insurance companies. By venture capital, I mean newly established commercial ventures, often involving high or new technology.

  1197
  However, even the combined weight of investors' money from the business expansion scheme and institutions is modest compared with the amounts raised and invested in venture capital in the United States of America. Annually in the United States of America between $2 billion and $3 billion flows into venture capital partnerships. In the United Kingdom the figure is closer to £100 million from private, but probably mainly institutional, sources. Even allowing for our different gross national product, we have a long way to go in terms of investment flows into unquoted companies, particularly venture capital operations when compared with the United States.
  At a more appropriate time I shall raise with a Treasury Minister certain other matters related to the scheme, particularly the point at which tax relief is given. I believe that greater incentive, simplicity and perhaps ordinance could be achieved by giving relief at the point of subscription to approved business expansion scheme funds rather than at the point of investment. I shall not argue that tonight because it is inappropriate.
  I wish to discuss three areas of concern which fall well within the Department of Trade and Industry's responsibility. First, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister about advice to investors in business expansion scheme funds. On the cover of the offering circular a warning should be given to investors in much bolder and fuller text than that accepted at present by the Department. We should follow the example of the United States, where the Securities and Exchange Commission requires very clear warnings to be given to investors making high risk equity investments.
  When the minimum five—year holding period runs out in 1988–89 I believe that some investors will be disillusioned about the liquidity and perhaps the inherent value of their investments. I am mindful of the great advantages introduced in the last Parliament in provisions enabling companies to buy back their own shares. Clearly that has helped to develop liquidity for equity in unquoted companies. Nevertheless, despite those excellent provisions, it is vitally important that investors are properly forewarned, so as to mitigate any loss of confidence in the business expansion scheme or its successors in later years. Cautious warning noises and, indeed, regulations from the Department are appropriate and are needed now and not later.
  Secondly, in regard to the level of funds raised there is what I would describe as a gap developing in the venture capital market. Most of the money raised so far has been via the City of London, and institutions in the City have been responsible for preparing circulars and raising the money and then identifying investments. Inevitably most of the business expansion scheme funds have tended to consider investments of £100,000 or more. This is primarily for reasons of economy of scale because it costs almost as much to examine an investment proposition of £10,000 as it does for one of £1 million.
  The other reason why City-based funds tend to look at investment propositions greater than £100,000 is the pressure of time to which I have already referred. There is pressure to invest money as quickly as possible because of the tax relief that arises for individual investors. Therefore, there is a gap. Very small unquoted companies, which may need less than £100,000, are finding it difficult to attract the interest and attention of City-based vehicles. It is often the very small businesses which are badly out
  1198
  of gear; that is to say, they are borrowing too much debt in relation to their equity base and they need to raise additional outside equity. Such companies are mostly local in reputation and business activity.
  One way to ensure that small investments are properly catered for is to encourage what I describe as the regionalisation of business expansion schemes so that more moneys are raised and invested locally rather than through the City of London. I should like to see more county-based business expansion scheme propositions, perhaps linked with local enterprise agencies, or initiated by local chambers of commerce or, indeed, by commercial banks.
  Some have started, for example, in south Yorkshire and in Wessex. In my constituency I should like to see, and am working hard to secure the establishment of, a business expansion scheme for the county of Northamptonshire. Any local funds must be based on counties rather than on the relatively small provincial towns. Therefore, I intend to co-operate with my hon. Friends representing other constituencies in Northamptonshire to try to get one launched. My aim is to do that this year.
  Raising money locally could be encouraged by local professional advisers such as solicitors and bankers who deal on a day-to-day basis with the local funds, not only of individuals who might have money to invest, but of local companies that might need equity investment. Often there is still great ignorance about the terms and conditions of business expansion schemes, which I regret. Locally based funds might be smaller but could be properly evaluated by those close to them, the advisers and investors who would know the companies in which they proposed to invest. I would like the Department of Trade and Industry and the clearing banks to take the initiative in promoting the creation of county or provincial town-based enterprise schemes.
  The original intention of the business start-up scheme in 1981, as modified in 1982, was to concentrate the tax relief on venture capital opportunities. What has actually happened during the past year is that the scheme has broadened and, in a sense, has become simpler to understand and administer. However, the bulk of the money raised has gone into established businesses, rather than into venture capital opportunities. That is a great pity. The Department of Trade and Industry, through its excellent small firms advisory service, should offer advice not only to the business expansion scheme funds of the City but to those that, I hope, will spring up locally. It should help them to identify, and certainly evaluate, venture capital opportunities so that consistent rules of analysis and, indeed, of experience, can be spread throughout the country.
  Ultimately, it may be necessary for Government to legislate and say that for business expansion scheme funds that are to be approved in future, tax approval will be granted only if one of the aims is to invest a minimum proportion in genuine venture capital opportunities. Whether that proportion should be 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. I shall not speculate tonight. It is important that, in some senses, we revert to the original intention in 1981–82, which was to offer tax relief and incentives to individuals who wished to invest in genuine start-up operations and businesses.
  Over the longer term, I warmly endorse two ideas for further study. The first is the so—called CBI proposal, although it was originally canvassed by the Wilson

  1199
  [Mr. Roger Freeman]
  committee, of the small firms investment company concept. That is really an extension of the business expansion scheme. The SFIC, which is modelled on the small business investment company as used in the United States, would be a trading public company with similar tax provisions as apply to the business expansion scheme funds. It would be simpler to administer because investors would get tax relief upon subscription to the small firms investment company and not upon individual investment in the underlying companies.
  Investors could sell their shares in the SFIC—one expects readily. This is not so with the business expansion scheme funds. They would, of course, be subject to Inland Revenue restrictions. The SFIC would have both individual and institutional shares—a mix of the two—and invest not only in equity but in debt instruments of companies.
  In parallel with the business expansion scheme, the Government should consider encouraging greater investment in research and development through tax reforms and, specifically, through facilitating and encouraging research and development partnerships, such as exist in the United States. It is vital that we encourage companies in this country with outside finance to invest in research and development. There is a genuine and excellent case for tax relief in that area.
  The business expansion scheme is an excellent innovation. It has been successful so far and a tribute to the Government's determination to encourage the private sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have one or two comments to make on the modest but relevant suggestions that I have made.
  11.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on his initiative in raising the subject of the business expansion scheme. With his customary diligence, he deployed a number of interesting suggestions which are worthy of close examination.
  As my hon. Friend said, this novel and highly imaginative scheme is one year old. Clearly it is too early to say how successful it has been in achieving its aims, and there is obvious merit in giving it more time to settle down before considering any further changes. My hon. Friend said that, and he was right. The introduction of the scheme has been widely welcomed, and indications of take-up are, generally, most encouraging.
  I begin by briefly reminding the House about the underlying aims of the scheme. As my hon. Friend said, the present business expansion scheme replaced the earlier business start-up scheme introduced in 1981. Like its predecessor, the purpose of the present scheme is to encourage individuals to invest on a reasonably long-term basis in new, genuinely additional and full risk equity of unquoted trading companies with which the investor is not otherwise connected.
  The scheme recognises the risky nature of this type of investment. The investor gets relief, up front, at his full marginal rate or rates of income tax. He retains that relief, provided only that he holds on to his investment for at least five years and that the company continues to satisfy the qualifying conditions.
  1200
  The underlying aim of the scheme is to encourage new and expanded activity in the small firms sector. This sector is vitally important as a source of new jobs and prosperity. The aim of the scheme is also, of course, to encourage investment in those high-risk activities to which my hon. Friend referred, where the risks to the investor will be at least to some extent commensurate with the generous level of relief.
  There is the wide range of eligible trades spanning all industrial sectors — manufacturing, services and distribution — but the scheme is not for essentially passive or financial operations, so that certain activities are excluded; for example, dealing in land or commodities, leasing and letting assets on hire, banking, insurance and other financial services.
  I wish to stress that there is no implication intended that these activities are in some sense unworthy. It is simply that activities of this kind do not need the incentive provided by the expansion scheme for their development.
  As the House will know, we are proposing just one change to the scheme in this year's Finance Bill. We propose to exclude farming as a qualifying trade. Again, no implication is intended that this is somehow an unworthy activity. It is simply that the ownership of farmland cannot be said to fall within the kind of high risk areas at which the scheme is directed.
  It will be some time before we have firm figures about amounts invested under the scheme in the first year. This is partly because, for administrative reasons, claims for relief in the first year could not be made until 1 January 1984. But there can also be a long gap between the original investment and the claim for relief in the case of start-up companies. This is because, under the rules, relief cannot be claimed until the company has completed four months' trading, and companies are allowed up to two years from the issue of the shares to start trading. But I can give some figures.
  Under the scheme, an individual can either invest directly in target companies, or via an investment fund approved by the Inland Revenue. In the latter case, the individual—not the fund—is still the beneficial owner of the shares and, like the direct investor, he gets relief only when his money is actually invested in target companies. Whilst many individuals may be prepared to undertake direct investment, it seems probable that the bulk of investment under the scheme will be channelled via the approved funds. My hon. Friend touched on this matter and I agree with him.
  They can offer the investor expertise in the selection of target companies in which to invest, and the opportunity to spread their risk.
  So far, 34 funds have been approved by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 and the Inland Revenue, including six which have been brought forward from the start-up scheme and reapproved. We have firm figures for subscriptions to 29 of these funds, which have actually closed now for subscription. Including about £11 million which has been carried forward by the old start-up funds, the amount so far raised—nearly all of which would have been available for investment in 1983–84—is about £44 million. The remaining five funds which have been approved, but which have not yet closed for subscription, are planning to raise a minimum of £8 million in total, but

  1201
  hope to raise up to £20 million. The money raised by these funds will, of course, be available for investment in 1984–85.
  Not all of the £44 million available to the funds for investment in 1983–84 will actually have been invested in that year. But, whilst we do not yet have firm figures, it seems probable that at least 80 per cent. — say £36 million—will have been invested by 5 April 1984. To this must be added the amounts individuals have invested directly.
  It is also too early to predict now many individual investors and companies have taken advantage of the scheme, or what are the average amounts being invested by each individual and in each company. Like my hon. Friend, I would be very interested in the figures. It seems probable, however, that many different kinds of company have benefited from the scheme. It is the stated intention of many of the approved funds to invest in a mixture of start-up and established companies, and in amounts ranging from as little as £25,000 up to £500,000 and possibly more. The areas covered include manufacturing concerns, a wide variety of service industries, computers, information technology, hotels and shops.
  The BES is of course only a part of the range of policies which the Government have developed over the past five years to help small firms. It is essential for the economy that we have a flourishing small firms sector and we have paid too little attention to this area in the past.
  This is not the time to review everything we have done to redress the balance in favour of the smaller firm. Nor would I claim that everything possible has now been achieved. My postbag keeps me well aware of how much remains to be done. But looking at the question of availability of finance, which is the area of most relevance to this debate, there have been substantial improvements since 1979.
  The BES is an important part of this encouragement and has made a major contribution to the growth of venture capital. It needs to be seen as part of a general policy to ensure that small firms have access to a full range of financial resources, including equity, and are not disadvantaged in relation to larger competitors.
  It is, as I have said, still early days for the scheme. We are still seeing new experiments being set up and I welcome these intitiatives. It is, I believe, fair to say that most use has been made of the scheme by the approved funds for making investments over £100,000, which is a substantial sum. Some smaller investments have been made by funds, and of course there are investments made direct by individuals which are limited to a maximum of £40,000 to be eligible for tax relief, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it remains difficult for a firm to obtain an equity investment of, say between £20,000 and £50,000.
  I hope that further experiment will result in the BES contributing to this smaller scale of investment, although I recognise that there are high costs involved in this type
  1202
  of activity. I know that much thought is being given by a number of people round the country to the ways in which locally based investment funds or clubs or syndicates might operate. I am sure that this will bear fruit in the coming months, and I shall be more than pleased if my hon. Friend can encourage this sort of development in his constituency or county.
  These local initiatives must come from the business community itself, but my hon. Friend is able and obviously, from what he said, very willing to lead in that direction. I am certainly prepared to consider whether it would be appropriate for my Department to issue noties for guidance on setting up a local fund, but I must emphasise that we are at a stage of experiment. I do not want to stifle local initiatives by Government intervention. I cannot comment on what role, if any, the banks might play in these initiatives, although their support for the local enterprise agency movement, which is well known, is welcomed by me and the Department. It is certainly one way in which they can support local initiatives.
  My hon. Friend suggested that my Department should provide specific assistance directed at the evaluation and appraisal of applications for funds from start-ups. Those matters must be left to the commercial judgment of fund managers.
  My hon. Friend raised the question whether, given the nature of the investments made, a stronger health warning —my term, not his—should be included in invitations for subscriptions by BES funds. The whole structure of the existing law on investor protection is, of course, under review following the report by Professor Gower on this subject. I do not feel that it is appropriate to suggest individual changes yet. I should point out that the "health warning" used is set out in the Inland Revenue guidelines to approved funds and must be displayed prominently on the front of the document. The invitation must also refer to the risks involved in investments of this kind and some of the difficulties that may be experienced in selling shares in unquoted companies.
  As I have said, I believe that the business expansion scheme to be an important and innovative measure which reflects the Government's commitment to the encouragement of the small business sector. Naturally, my right: hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry will monitor the BES closely to ensure that it continues to operate effectively, but in doing so it will be essential that the scheme is not made too restrictive. Debates such as these are most helpful to the process of evaluating the BES and considering suggestions about its operation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to this important matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
  Vulcan Bombers
  Vulcan Bombers
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Service Men (Housing Rights)
  Service Men (Housing Rights)
THE ARTS
  National Maritime Museum
  National Maritime Museum
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Policies
  Departmental Policies
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  HMS Conqueror
  HMS Conqueror
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Government Accounting Service
  Government Accounting Service
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Capital Grants
  Capital Grants
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Pesticide Safety
  Pesticide Safety
WALES
  Policy Achievements
  Policy Achievements
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Libyan People's Bureau
  Libyan People's Bureau
  Drunken Behaviour (Statistics)
  Drunken Behaviour (Statistics)
  Libyan Nationals
  Libyan Nationals
  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Passports (France)
  Passports (France)
  Riot Control Equipment
  Riot Control Equipment
  Police Officers (Foreign Visits)
  Police Officers (Foreign Visits)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Scottish Business
  Scottish Business
TRANSPORT
  Airport Development
  Airport Development
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Vehicle Excise Licence (Offences)
  Vehicle Excise Licence (Offences)
  Public Transport
  Public Transport
  Coastguard
  Coastguard
  Al (Hampstead Garden Suburb)
  Al (Hampstead Garden Suburb)
NATIONL FINANCE
  Economic Recovery
  Economic Recovery
  British Citizens (Tax Relief)
  British Citizens (Tax Relief)
  Take-away Food
  Take-away Food
  Nursery Places (Subsidy)
  Nursery Places (Subsidy)
  Disabled People (VAT)
  Disabled People (VAT)
  Budget
  Budget
  Building Alterations (VAT)
  Building Alterations (VAT)
  Listed Buildings (VAT)
  Listed Buildings (VAT)
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Charities (VAT)
  Charities (VAT)
  Customs Service (Manpower)
  Customs Service (Manpower)
  Long-term Financial Assumptions
  Long-term Financial Assumptions
  Industrial Productivity
  Industrial Productivity
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Offshore and Overseas Funds
  Offshore and Overseas Funds
  Imported Goods (VAT)
  Imported Goods (VAT)
  Policy Achievements
  Policy Achievements
  £1 Coin
  £1 Coin
  Economic Recovery
  Economic Recovery
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Heavy Lorries (Taxation)
  Heavy Lorries (Taxation)
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
  Building Society Law Reform (Green Paper)
  Building Society Law Reform (Green Paper)
  EC (Rebates)
  EC (Rebates)
  Taxation
  Taxation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa (Sporting and Cultural Visits)
  South Africa (Sporting and Cultural Visits)
  Passports (France)
  Passports (France)
ENVIRONMENT
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  Walworth and Aylesbury Community Arts Trust
  Walworth and Aylesbury Community Arts Trust
  Loss Management Agreements
  Loss Management Agreements
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  London Boroughs (Discussions)
  London Boroughs (Discussions)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Personal Information (Access)
  Personal Information (Access)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Specialist Health Care (West Cumbria)
  Specialist Health Care (West Cumbria)
  Health Care (Expenditure)
  Health Care (Expenditure)
  Health Charges
  Health Charges
  Widows
  Widows
  Pregnavite Forte F
  Pregnavite Forte F
  Radiation Treatment
  Radiation Treatment
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Member's Correspondence (Optical Services)
  Member's Correspondence (Optical Services)
  Departmental Leaflets (Gaelic)
  Departmental Leaflets (Gaelic)
Social Security (Cold Climate Allowance)
  Amendment Bill
  Amendment Bill
  Fuel Expenditure
  Fuel Expenditure
  Pensions, Prices and Earnings
  Pensions, Prices and Earnings
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  NHS (Property Sales)
  NHS (Property Sales)
  Test Tube Babies
  Test Tube Babies
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Janice Smale (Test Tube Babies)
  Janice Smale (Test Tube Babies)
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  NHS Resources (Private Practice)
  NHS Resources (Private Practice)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
SCOTLAND
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Land Registration
  Land Registration
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Under-achievers
  Under-achievers
  Students (Higher Education)
  Students (Higher Education)
  Universities (Academic Tenure)
  Universities (Academic Tenure)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Confidential Information
  Confidential Information
  "Regional Industrial Development"
  "Regional Industrial Development"
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Rolls-Royce (V2500)
  Rolls-Royce (V2500)
EMPLOYMENT
  Departmental Policies
  Departmental Policies
  Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
  Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
  Women (Pay)
  Women (Pay)
  EC Economic and. Social Committee
  EC Economic and. Social Committee
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Mr. J. Knox
  Mr. J. Knox
ENERGY
  Sleipner Field (Gas Purchases)
  Sleipner Field (Gas Purchases)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Helena
  St. Helena

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Consumer Council Guidelines
The Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of their answer on 2nd February (col. 760) that they are "dealing first with the proposals from the two largest NICC groups, the electricity and gas industries" they will state the progress made on these guidelines which affect consumer councils of nationalised industries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, draft guidelines have been prepared in the light of proposals from the National Gas Consumers Council and the Electricity Consumers Council for consideration by the councils in consultation with the industries concerned.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that reply really is not very satisfactory and that, personally, I hope he may feel the same? Is he aware that in his reply to me on 2nd February he said, at col. 760, that his honourable friend—that is, Mr. Alex Fletcher—is in earnest in getting on with this important matter? Arising from that, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I have very recently made what inquiries are possible among the people concerned and that I am informed that there has been no progress at all, that no discussions at all have taken place, and that one person finally said to me—and I think this would be unfortunate for the Government—that he thinks the Government would like it all just to fade away?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise the noble Baroness's interest in this matter but, with respect to her, there has been a good deal of progress. The fact is that the responses of the nationalised industries' consumers' councils on these guidelines varied a good deal in content and structure between the five main councils, and the aim of the Department of Trade and Industry has been to produce concise drafts with a recognisable common framework. If I can be a little more forthcoming than I was in my original Answer, may I say that I hope the guidelines for the gas and the electricity consumers' councils to discuss with their industries are going to be sent to those councils literally within the next few days.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Is he aware that I believe that in company with me (if he does not mind my saying
1008
that) he wishes to make some progress in this matter? I should like to ask him whether he could let me have a copy of the letter which is to be sent. I have been disturbed at the lack of progress which is reported to me by the people concerned.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, what is much more to the point is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is anxious to get on with this, and on his behalf I will give an undertaking that I will let the noble Baroness know when the communication is sent to those two nationalised industries. So far as the exact content of the papers is concerned, they are still drafts for discussion by the consumers' councils concerned with the two industries, and I think I must ask the department, and Mr. Alex Fletcher in particular, whether he would feel that it was right to show these particular documents in public at the present time. I feel sure that Mr. Fletcher will be as helpful as possible.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask
why there is this extraordinary delay? I had something to do with consumers' councils some years ago, and one was able to push the thing on quite hard. The department responded, and on the whole it worked very well. It seems now that the delays go on and on. Surely it is possible to make the thing work a bit faster.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it took a little time to get the replies back from the nationalised industries' consumers' councils. The last ones were received in October of last year. I repeat that what was found then was that the responses varied a good deal both in their content and in their structure. In order to try to achieve the objective of getting for the five main nationalised industries' consumers' councils guidelines which in the interests of consumers would be more or less in similar form for people to recognise, a good deal of redrafting has had to be done. The purpose of my answers today to the noble Baroness opposite is to give the assurance, which I have done, that in the next few days those guidelines will be going to the electricity and gas consumers' councils.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the House will appreciate the assurances he has been able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Burton? Will he please give us an assurance that he will inform the House as soon as possible as to the progress that is being made in these matters?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I can give an assurance that there will be a Government Statement on this matter. Noble Lords have had their fill of Government Statements in the past few weeks; but I feel sure that in the near future the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will be putting down some form of further probing Question.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in order to show the Minister how very reasonable I am, may I ask him whether he is aware that all that the people concerned are wanting at the moment—in particular, the electricity and gas consumers' councils, never mind the other three he has mentioned—is some discussion and some progress? They are not expecting a decision, but they would like a discussion.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in order to prove how reasonable and understanding I am on behalf of the Government, perhaps I may repeat the assurance that very shortly the basis for that discussion will be in the hands of those consumers' councils.

Retirement Pension
3.13 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government at what level the retirement pension would have stood today if it had been up-rated in line with earnings or prices, whichever has been greater, since 1979.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the retirement pension had been increased in line with prices or average earnings, whichever was the greater, since November 1979, the rate as at November 1983 would be £35.90 for a single person and £57.45 for a married couple.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she recall that last week we were told that the death grant, if it were increased in line with inflation, would be £165 instead of £30? We know from a previous reply that the changes in the age allowance meant that a married couple lost £81 a year in income tax. From a reply given yesterday I learnt that the earnings limit, to keep in line with inflation, should now be £74 instead of £65. Now the noble Baroness tells me that the pension itself should be £57.45 instead of £54. Does it not almost amount to a vendetta against the elderly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I did not say that it "should be", I said that it "would be". The Government are pledged to maintain the value of retirement pensions and associated long-term benefits, and that has been achieved. Between November 1978 and November 1983, prices rose by 68–8 per cent. while pensions rose by 74–6 per cent.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House what was the increase in the retirement pension at its last pegging last May or June, and at the same time what was the inflation rate during the comparable period?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, not without notice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that she is speaking simply about the basic pension and that for those in need there are considerable additional supplementary benefits and also considerable assistance in the form, for example, of National Health treatment and so on?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her question. As my noble friend will know, there is help with heating costs, which in 1983–84 reached a record level. There is
1010
assistance as regards the insulation of hot water tanks. The full implementation of housing benefit from April 1983 benefited over 1 million pensioners with incomes marginally above supplementary pension levels. There are many other points that I could bring to the notice of your Lordships.
Lord Banks: My Lords, if pensions have increased by less than the increase in earnings, as the figures given by the noble Baroness have made clear, does it not mean that pensioners are now receiving a lower percentage of the total paid out in earnings and pensions than they were in 1979?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government have maintained the purchasing power, which is the most important thing from the pensioner's point of view, and they have promised to do better as the economic situation improves.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Baroness accept from me that the increase in pensions over the past year from the last time that they were pegged was less than the increase in the inflation rate during that comparable period? If that is so, how does the noble Baroness justify her claim that the Government have maintained the purchasing power of the pension?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have just given the figure of 68.8 per cent. for price rises and 74.6 per cent. for pension increases. I should have thought that that was clear even to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that the linking of pensions to the retail price index rather distorts the budget of most old-age pensions because many of the items that come into the retail price index are not particularly relevant to elderly people? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government are giving any consideration to this point? While old-age pensioners are linked to an index which includes gin and fur coats we shall not get a very realistic idea.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the retail price index is used because it has been shown time after time to be the most reliable and comprehensive measure of price movements as they affect the generality of households. Other indices have been considered, but all have limitations. Of course, the major part of the retail price index concerns the price of food.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the Government give any consideration to using the family earnings or salary to construct a special cost of living index applicable to pensioners? The answer may turn out to be to the Government's advantage.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that I have understood the noble Lord. The Government's commitment to the interests of pensioners has been demonstrated over and over again, and indeed a special inquiry into the provision for retirement has been set up and is being chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the conclusions reached by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government Actuary that, unless pensioners receive an increase above the rate of inflation, they will start to lag behind the rest of the population?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, the most important aspect for pensioners is that their pensions remain above the price of goods.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, does the noble Baroness share the view that the best definition of poverty is that as perceived by people on the lowest level of incomes; namely, that they should share proportionately in the same increase in the standard of living as the rest of the population, and if they fall behind that, then their sense of poverty is increased? Therefore, is it not the deliberate policy of the Government at the present time to increase the perception of poverty?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that definition of poverty is quite the longest that I, at least, have ever heard in my life?

Adult Education Grants
3.20 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are reducing grants to the Workers' Educational Association and the extra-mural departments of the universities.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, these modest reductions are part of the Government's general strategy to constrain public expenditure. Fees paid by the students concerned average little more than 50 pence per hour and meet only a small proportion of the total costs. With increased fee income from those who can afford to pay and some marginal improvement in cost effectiveness, the adult education programmes of these bodies should not need to be cut back.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is he aware that, although the cuts may not be enormous in financial terms, they mean a great deal to the people involved? These cuts will mean that in particular those living in the rural areas and the disadvantaged—the poorer members of the community—will suffer disproportionately? Fees have already increased by up to 50 per cent. and more and are, therefore, likely to increase and only the affluent middle classes will be able to benefit from these classes.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would disagree with the noble Baroness on that matter. After all, we are talking about fees which average little more than 50 pence per hour. 1 do not think that one could go to the cinema, a football match or anywhere else for that expenditure.
Lord Plant: My Lords, does the noble Earl support what, in similar circumstances, Sir Winston Churchill wrote to the TUC in 1953 when he said:
"There is perhaps no branch of our vast educational system which should more attract within its particular sphere the aid and encouragement of the state than adult education"?
Will the noble Earl also agree that in these troubled times it is unfortunate that this voluntary body, whose aim is to encourage people how to think and not what to think, should face a vicious cut of 8 per cent. on the £2 million grant that it has enjoyed hitherto?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord's final point about the vicious cut. Expenditure on grants to the WEA districts and extra-mural departments in the financial year 1983–84 totalled £7–56 million; at 1983–84 price levels a grant of £7 million is planned for the academic year 1986–87—that is, a reduction averaging less than 2·5 per cent. per year. That can hardly be described as a vicious cut. The Government are extremely concerned about the adult education programme generally, and they have to target limited resources where they consider that they are most needed, and particularly where valuable new developments can result. So the Government are spending more on adult education and they support the WEA. In fact, in a letter last month the department promised to provide additional grant towards the training of tutors and voluntary organisers in the districts, together with a small grant to the WEA HQ for co-ordinating the work. So the Government are still firmly in support of the WEA.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the noble Earl making the case that these savings are as trivial as they are offensive?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would agree that they are trivial. I would not agree that they are offensive.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, speaking as someone who was actually engaged under the auspices of the WEA, may I move slightly outside the WEA but still remain within the confines of adult education, and ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the services supplied by the Open University to prisoners are now being cut by the present Government?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, not only am I delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was engaged in that way, but I am particularly pleased to see him back in our midst after having missed him for so long. The matter of Open University grants is a different question. If the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would like to put down a Question on the Order Paper, I should be delighted to answer it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, although the noble Earl tells the House that the Government are spending more on adult education, can he tell us what standard of comparison he is using? What is it more than?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is more than has been spent in the past.

Cruise Missiles: Firing Control
3.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the United States Government deny the Prime Minister's claim to possess a veto over the firing of American cruise missiles based in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the position is as stated by my right honourble friend the Prime Minister:
"no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/83; col. 435.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that on occasions the Prime Minister has seemed to go further than that and to assert the existence of a British veto? Is he not further aware that no American official has confirmed the existence of such a veto? Indeed, it has been specifically denied on a number of occasions by the Secretary of State's department, by, among others, Mr. Paul Volcker. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister went to the United States of America for the purpose of obtaining a twin-key arrangement, and failed to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, "No". As my right honourable friend has said, as I have said and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the fact is
"no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that in the situation of a declaration of war, where, by decisions made in seconds, millions of lives on one side or the other may be lost, real discussion is impossible and the use of a veto is impossible? Is that not emphasised by the fact that at Greenham Common, where the cruise missiles are based, the supreme command is in American hands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that we had a debate on that matter some months ago, when I described the position there in some detail. The fact remains that none of the nuclear weapons referred to in this country can be fired without the agreement of the British Prime Minister. If that is not a veto, I do not know what is.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord would assist the House greatly if he could say what is the written authority for saying what he has just said. Is he aware that the House knows that he has repeated this on several occasions, and that so has his right honourable friend? Is it the case that he and she are both relying on the 1952 communiqué? If that is the document on which they are relying is he aware that that certainly does not give a firm right of veto?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the 1952 communiqué is certainly one of the documents that set out the facts in this matter, but, as the noble Lord will also recall, the circumstances of this arrangement are reviewed each time a United States President or a British Prime Minister comes into office. That has been done on each of those occasions since 1952. Incidentally, the matter was additionally reviewed at the time of the decision relating to the basing of cruise missiles in this country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said, when he indicated that, as we know, this matter is reviewed by a new President and a new Prime Minister. But have any of the reviews since 1952 changed the situation in any way? Is it not the case that the authority remains the same, if it be an authority: that the wording of 1952 still remains without change? In that case, will he not agree that that does not provide a right of veto?
Lord Trefgarne: On the contrary, my Lords, I believe that the 1952 communique provides proper authority for the matter to which I have referred, which, as I have said, has in addition repeatedly been confirmed since then.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would it not clear matters up if the noble Lord were to quote from some official United States statement which is more recent than 1952 conceding that, in fact, these weapons cannot be fired without the British Prime Minister's consent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I know that the American President confirmed that a year or so ago.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend seriously believe that an obligation to obtain agreement is precisely the same as a veto? If the person agreeing does not have the power to disagree, it can hardly be described as a veto.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister does have the power to disagree.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government given any consideration to the possibly unlikely eventuality that in a stress of excitement which might occur these weapons are fired off without waiting for explicit agreement of the British Prime Minister? What is to happen then?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fertile imagination of noble Lords opposite sometimes leaves me somewhat breathless, but I can assure the noble Lord that the arrangements have been examined very carefully and that the effect of the arrangements and of the undertakings we have is as I described in my original Answer.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the important question is not whether we think we have a veto, but whether the Russians think we have a veto, because if they do not think we have a veto and the matter is left void they will be

1015
tempted, as lies in their immediate capacity, to take out this threat to them on their own initiative? And that taking out is going to be very painful for us.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that, if I may say so, strays rather far from the matter that we have been discussing. But the fact of the matter is that these weapons are of course part of our deterrent posture, and the whole purpose of them is to ensure that nobody seeks to take anybody else out.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord states with increasing confidence that we have the right of veto. Will he give us the American authority and the date of that authoritative statement on which he bases that confidence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have just given that answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when I referred to the original communique and to the various re-examinations of that communique which have been made from time to time.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord is hedging. We are asking about a veto on the firing of cruise missiles. I am asking the noble Lord to give me the American authority, and the date on which that authority assured us that we have the right of veto?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I again said just now, this matter was reviewed at the time of the decision for the basing of these missiles in this country. The arrangements were found then to be satisfactory both to the United States and to the United Kingdom, and the effect of those understandings is as I have already said.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give me the date of that review?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I perhaps conclude this matter by asking the noble Lord whether he is aware that, in the television interview to which he referred, the American President did not in fact confirm the right to veto. What he said was, "That constitutes", referring to the 1952 agreement, "a sort of veto, doesn't it?" He was subsequently told by his own officials that it did not constitute a veto.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I prefer to rely upon the words of the President.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reply—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned for
1016
dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Second Reading of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will be taken. The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 and the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 will be taken at the end of the day's business.

Capital Transfer Tax Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the provisions of Part III of the Finance Act 1975 and other enactments relating to capital transfer tax. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Barclays Bank Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Cardiff City Council Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

London Regional Transport Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the London Regional Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 40,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 41 to 61,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 62 to 66,

Schedules 5 to 7.

—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dentists Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environ-ment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reason be now considered.—(LordBellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
References to the Bill are to Bill (100). The Commons amendments and Reason are printed in italics. The amendment to page 3, line 12, referred to in the Commons Reason as (No. 11) is to be found at Amendment No. 11.]
Amendment No.

LORDS AMENDMENT
1Clause 1, page 2, line 5, after ("or") insert ("save where the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
2Page 83, line 6, leave out ("shared ownership lease") and insert ("lease in pursuance of Part I of this Act").
3Page 83, line 16, leave out ("shared ownership lease") and insert ("lease in pursuance of Part I of this Act").
4Page 83, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) Where, in the case of a tenancy to which this subparagraph applies, the tenant or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy exercises his right to acquire the freehold under Part I of the said Act of 1967, the price payable for the dwelling-house shall be determined in accordance with section 9(1 A) of that Act notwithstanding that the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) above applies to—

(a)a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;

(b)a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967; and

(c)where in any case that Part applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy.").

The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk rose to move:
4A That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof with the following Amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 4:
Line 1, at end insert—
("(3 A) The provisions of Part I of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part 1 of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act, nor to a sub-tenancy derived (whether directly or indirectly) from that tenancy, in any case where the landlord is a registered Housing Association and the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment at the Committee stage and we carried it by a large majority. This amendment was, however, refused by the House of Commons and they put in what I regard as a minor point in that they raised the rate of compensation which might take place. This is a different amendment and a much narrower amendment indeed. First of all, it leaves out the problem of Dulwich altogether. That is to say, the householders in Dulwich can buy their houses under this Bill from the Southwark authority and can afterwards use the 1967 Act for enfranchisement from the freeholder. Dulwich, I understand, are perfectly happy to sell, and I can leave it at that.
When the other place discussed our amendment they said that the position of universities was indeed important and not very easy. What they did, as I said, was simply to raise the compensation of enfranchisement and nothing else; that is to say, it leaves the position substantially unchanged. This is not a problem of compensation; it is a problem of the development of our great universities. That is really the only point which we are considering at the present time.
The Government said that they already had a system which would answer this point. I want to deal with this fairly fully to show that to my mind the system is unsatisfactory. It is highly complicated, bureaucratic, highly centralised, and uncertain in its results, and I hope that I shall show that that is unsatisfactory to everybody concerned. May I explain the process which will be gone through under this Bill. First of all the tenant would exercise his right to buy from the landlord. That remains untouched in this amendment. Thereafter he would enfranchise his lease from the freeholder, which would be one of the universities.
What will inevitably happen, indeed is already happening now—and I believe in a number of cases—is that the freeholder will ask the Secretary of State to give him a covenant on the building, which in fact will be a real obligation; that is, if he sells the building the obligation will indeed continue.
But now we come to the crux of the situation which has never yet happened. How will the Secretary of State fulfil the terms of the covenant? He will take what will inevitably be a wholly arbitrary action. He has to decide whether he will grant the freeholder, or the former freeholder, the right compulsorily to acquire this house or whether he will refuse it. That immediately raises the situation of complete insecurity, both for the freeholder and for the tenant.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to give people security in houses which they own. Immediately under this process that is completely undermined. The freeholder does not know whether he will get his land back and the tenant does not know whether he will be turned out. This is an unsatisfactory situation; it is neither clear nor known. I believe one used to say that equity was as long as the Lord Chancellor's foot. Here the security is just as long as the Secretary of State's foot or any other part of his body. We do not know who the Secretary of State will be. This process will take place in 40 or 50 years' time (it could be more or less) and we have no idea who the Secretary of State will be. We have not the slightest idea what decision he

1019
will make. It will be a very difficult decision for him to make, I appreciate that, but it leaves all the people concerned—a comparatively small number— uncertain as to how they stand.
I should like to explain what this amendment does, what its purpose is and how it will be carried out. I hope I shall be able to explain that it meets the central point, first, of giving security to the tenant and certainty to the freeholder. Secondly, it will enable the Secretary of State to avoid having to use the power of compulsory purchase of a private house. In any circumstances that is a most disagreeable thing to have to do.
I am suggesting in the amendment that the tenant should use the right to buy as laid down in the Bill. That remains unchanged. He would then have what might be termed the landlord's position of a leasehold where probably the rent will be less and he will have assured tenure for a longer period. That is greatly to the advantage of the tenant. The university retains the freehold and everyone then knows exactly where he stands. If there is any rule which is important in land tenure it is to know exactly where one stands, what the liabilities are and how long one is likely to be there.
At present the arrangement made by universities is extremely good: The colleges in certain cases—I cannot speak for every one—went to the local authority to explain that they had land that they would not need for a long period and asked "What socially, and otherwise, is the most desirable use for that land? How should we use it?" An agreement was reached between the local authority, the university and the housing association and it was decided that to build houses was the most useful thing to do. I think most noble Lords would agree with that. It would be the proper thing to do and the land was given for a long tenure which the university could take back and on the grounds that the university could put in one-third of the tenants, the town council one-third and the housing association one-third. This is the arrange-ment, which I am given to understand is working extremely well, and is the system which I am suggesting in this amendment. I believe that in these circumstances that would be very much more satisfactory for all concerned in this arrangement.
I want to add one other word. Any cavalier treatment of charity is extremely dangerous. Charities play an enormous part in this country in the back-up of education, of health services, of what you will. I remember the late Lord Beveridge, perhaps 30 years ago, speaking and writing on this—the value of voluntary service, most of which is charitable work. This is an essential back-up to the whole of the welfare state. I will not go into detail, but we should perhaps consider the situation if some of the great charities today were not playing their part in helping us in the modern society which we have built up.
It is dangerous to disregard or in any way to trample on charities as they stand. We are not considering a large number of houses, but we are talking about houses in an essential and, in many cases, central area of our great university towns. They are therefore of great importance. I am not a Cambridge man, but Cambridge, among others, has been doing its job for
1020
some 700 years. Do they not know better than the Ministry of the Environment how the place should be developed? Is it not better for Cambridge to make the decisions which matter?
I end by saying that this gives greater security to the householder and the freeholder. It avoids having compulsory acquisition laid on them by the Secretary of State at any time. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof with Amendment No. 4A to the Commons Amendment No. 4.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if this Motion is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 4B.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to concentrate particularly on the charitable aspect of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. There will always be 20 to 25 per cent. of people in this country who will require rented accommodation. This is not my view; it is the view of one of our leading building societies, which deals with private property and house sales all the time. This is the level of rented accommo-dation which it feels will always be required.
As the stock of local authority housing is being run down, or certainly reduced, which is perhaps a better word, we shall rely more and more on housing associations and on charitable institutions to provide rented accommodation. Certainly charitable land will become more and more important. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has concentrated particularly on Cambridge. It is true that the charitable land in Cambridge is particularly important for the provision of accommodation in that town, but there are other towns and other charities where the provision of land, and the feeling of the charity that that land is secure in the long term, are extremely important for the supply of accommodation both rented and for sale in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has outlined.
There has always been widespread support for the protection of charities in this House and not only in this House. When the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was under discussion I understand that a large number of Conservatives voted in favour of an amendment to exclude charities at that time. Included among their number was a certain Mrs. Thatcher and a certain Mr. Heseltine. I do not think that many Conservatives will have gone back from that situation.
I should have liked to see the suggestion of the noble Earl go a little further. I should have liked to see an amendment that produced retrospective elements in some of the legislation before us but I appreciate that this is not possible or acceptable. This amendment is a good compromise and from our side of the House we will support it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I think that it will be for the convenience of the House for me to speak now to Amendment No. 4B which stands in my name and which cannot be called if the amendment now before the House is passed.
Amendment No. 4B: That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, that they disagree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendments:
Page 82, line 46, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
("1.—(1) The provisions of Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) shall not apply to a tenancy to which this sub-paragraph applies.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to—

(a)a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;

(b)a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (a) above; and

(c)where in any case Part I of the said Act of 1967 applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy.").

My noble friend's amendment seeks to exclude the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act from long leases where the landlord is a residents' housing association and the ultimate freeholder is a charity. My amendment would seek to exclude the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 from any right-to-buy lease created under this Bill or the 1980 Act. Your Lordships' amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill had one direct object and one indirect effect. The direct object of the amendment was to decline to extend to tenants of public landlords whose ultimate freeholders are charities any right to buy long leases of their homes. The indirect, knock-on, effect with which both amendments are chiefly concerned this afternoon was to preclude the expropriation under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, on any terms, of the ultimate freeholders provided that the freeholders are charities.
I would agree that the direct object of the original amendment was ill-advised because it deprived some public-sector tenants of the right to buy long leases of their homes from their landlords on the altogether irrelevant grounds that their ultimate freeholders were charities. To have insisted on this amendment would have perpetuated and compounded the anomaly between the treatment of one public-sector tenant whose landlord is a freeholder and the treatment of another tenant whose landlord is itself a leasehold tenant by creating the sub-distinction between the case where the freeholder is a charity and the case where it is not. Such anomalies can only cause feelings of unfairness in the tenants affected by them, and in the absence of grounds of principle for retaining them I see every reason in this clause of the Bill to be rid of these anomalies altogether.
This is recognised both in my noble friend's amendment and in my amendment. Neither amendment would deprive a public-sector tenant whose landlord is itself a lessee, of the right to buy a long lease under the Bill. So we both accept the force of the reasoning which led the other place to reject the direct object of the original amendment. It is only when we come to the indirect effect of that amendment and the manner in which the other place propose that it should be dealt with that difficulties arise between me and the Amendment-in-lieu, No. 4, proposed to us by the other place, to which I now turn.
Concern was expressed here, at various stages of the Bill's passage, at the consequential effect of Clause 1 of the Bill. When a lease of a house is created under the right-to-buy provisions of the original Bill, the tenant, after three years' continued residence in the house, will have the right—not under the Bill but under the Leasehold Reform Act—to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of the house. If the tenant chose to acquire the freehold or the extended lease, the price or the rent would be calculated according to a formula which could only be justified as a pragmatic measure introduced to alleviate hardship. This was the 1967 Act and the late 1960s were days of pragmatic measures. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, during the debate on my noble friend's original amendment, reminded us of the miners or miners' widows who were then, in 1967, having to leave their homes because their century-old leases were up. That was the situation of hardship then seen to exist. I venture to doubt that the noble Baroness would hold much of a brief now for the adoption in this Bill of the terms of compensation which freeholders were given in 1967; or that she would see much hardship suffered by right-to-buy tenants. But those are the terms of compensation which would have fallen to the lot of a freeholder under the original provisions of the Bill.
The editors of Woodfall, a respected treatise on the law of landlord and tenant, have this to say about the original 1967 terms of compensation:
"The editors of this and the last previous edition of this book have found it quite impossible to relate"—
what amounts to the 1967 terms of compensation—
"to any principle of valuation or of fair dealing between landlord and tenant known to them, and therefore present this as an arbitrary rule laid down by Parliament for some reason extraneous to the matters considered in this work".
The concern expressed in this House at the unfair terms of compensation was taken up and accepted in the other place; and Amendment No. 4 seeks to provide a fairer price for a freeholder.
However, I have to tell your Lordships that I do not think that the amendment has got it right. The amendment adopts for this Bill a valuation formula which was carried into the 1967 Act by a Conservative Opposition amendment in another place to the Housing Act 1974; and in my view the 1974 amendment did not have it right even then. The 1974 formula would indeed provide fairer terms for compensation for a tenant if he acquired a freehold under the 1967 Act. Unfortunately, the formula can generally be evaded by a well-advised tenant. It happens in this way. The 1967 Act provides two routes by which a long-leaseholder wishing to profit from the Act may benefit and the formula applies to only one of them. That way is when the tenant acquires a freehold. The formula does not apply to the case where the tenant acquires a 50-year extension of his lease at an up-to-date ground rent.
If this Bill goes through, as amended by the other place, any right-to-buy lessee can add 50 years to his lease; the rent for the 50 years would be a rent for the ground alone and nothing for the house built on it. This is because of the old 1967 Act assumption that the lessee owns the house and the landlord owns only the land. This is the valuation basis to which the editors of Woodfall take exception, and so do I. A

1023
freeholder—be it a Cambridge college, or anyone else—if asked for an extended lease would suffer a substantial and unwarranted diminution in the value of his property; and the amendment from the other place does nothing about this at all. I have given my noble friend the Minister notice of my concern on this point, and if he thinks that I have got it hopelessly wrong he will, I feel sure, tell the House so. But if I am right, a coach and horses can be driven around the 1974 formula and Amendment No. 4 is really of not great value. The other place ought to be given another look at this clause. This means that your Lordships ought today to accept one or other of the two amendments now before you.
I come now to my own amendment, about the substance of which I have little to say now. The arguments are well known. But I will say this. You may dress up the contrary argument in any fashion you wish. The fact will remain that, unless the other place are given a chance to reconsider this matter, this will prove to be, as far as I can ascertain, the first occasion on which a Conservative Administration has passed legislation providing for the expropriation of private property by a private lessee of his private landlord. In case any noble Lord feels that I am too concerned with the interests of freeholders, I would say this. The right-to-buy tenant who will lose his right to acquire his freehold if my amendment is passed will not be much worse off financially. The reason for this is that the value of the right-to buy lease to be granted to a public-sector tenant will reflect the fact that the tenant will have no rights under the 1967 Act and the price to be paid for the lease will be that much less. I have great sympathy with my noble friend's amendment. For myself, I see no reason why the patrimony of Oxford and Cambridge colleges should be taken away from them under the Leashold Reform Act. Nevertheless, I am not sure that I can support him. It is not just that I feel that the best is the enemy of the good; but his amendment is, I am afraid, unduly restrictive in its operation even as regards charitable freeholders. I think it will be seen as opaque in the manner in which it sets about achieving its end, and likely to create unfair and anomalous conditions when it comes to finding out exactly who are the freeholders of charities; and who are the tenants whose landlords are not registered housing associations but whose ultimate freeholders are charities. My amendment is wider in its operation than that of my noble friend, but is covers his and it protects colleges in the same way as his does. I hope, therefore, that when my noble friend has listened to the debate and heard all the arguments he will find it possible to withdraw his amendment and allow your Lordships to come to their conclusion on the basis of mine.
To my noble friend the Minister I would say one thing. If he agrees that the other place have not got it right and should have the opportunity to have another look at this one, would he not also agree that if my noble friend does not press his amendment he (the Minister) should not stand in the way of mine?
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I rise to support the infant amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I do so on two grounds, in the hope that
1024
either the Government or this House will adopt the infant, which is a very small and well-deserving one. It is a very small one because it protects only the freehold interests of a charity which has entered into a lease with a housing association: it is deserving because in those cases there will not have been the necessary hard bargaining which would have taken place between two commercial entities.
To give the House an example which I put to the noble Minister and which I hope he will deal with in due course, one of the Cambridge colleges in which I am not uninterested—not in a pecuniary fashion, but only in a sentimental and loyal fashion—entered into negotiations with a housing association and with the City of Cambridge for their joint benefit to develop a site which the college owned. In all those negotiations and valuations regard was had to the fact that the development was intended to help newly-married couples and elderly persons; it was intended to help the college to get nominations for the accommodation they required; and it was intended to help the City of Cambridge, whose housing problems were of course rendered worse by pressure from the university for more and more accommodation. In those negotiations, not only did the college in its valuations not seek to obtain the highest possible price, but, in addition, after negotiations had ended the college supplied money to provide communal facilities in the development which was proposed.
If the Commons amendments are accepted it will undoubtedly mean not only that the college's interests will be bought at a price which does not adequately reflect the value to them of the property or of their interest in it, but it will also destroy the effect of the tripartite arrangements between the college, the city and the housing association. The Minister has very kindly replied to the example I gave him, and he says that the college will now get more compensation as a result of the amendments made by the Commons. That compensation is still inadequate, but, more importantly, this is not merely a question of finance but a question of policy. The college does not wish to see destroyed these beneficial arrangements that it has with the housing association and the City of Cambridge.
The Minister also makes the point that under various provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 the college could obtain a stop on any compulsory purchase if it had plans to develop within 10 years. But, of course, the whole object of this transaction is not limited to 10 years. Charities are bodies which can think in terms of a hundred years ahead. The redevelopment has taken place already, and it is the existing position which the charities wish to safeguard.
I come back to where I began; namely, that this is a very minor amendment and affects only those few cases where a charity has entered into an arrangement with a housing association. There cannot be many such cases; but in every case there was a good reason for the arrangement being made, and in every case there cannot have been the same commercial approach as there would have been between an ordinary freeholder and a commercial leaseholder. On those grounds, I commend the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I have no wish to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, or the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in going back to who said what to whom regarding the Leasehold Reform Bill in 1967 in another place, although in fact I took part in those debates. I speak in your Lordships' House as a member of a party which has not had a recent opportunity of reneging on any manifesto commitments, and to that extent I am perhaps privileged, as against noble Lords opposite and noble Lords who speak for the official Opposition. I rise merely to indicate that my noble friends on these Benches will support the noble Earl's amendment, although we think it right to say that we would have preferred the amendment which was passed so overwhelmingly in your Lordships' House, which went to another place and which has now been bounced back in a somewhat different form. Since we cannot have that, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his amendment, and we will indeed support it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I first explain why the Government recommended the Commons to disagree with the original amendment? The purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to extend the right to buy to tenants who would have the right under the 1980 Act but for the fact that their landlord has a leasehold rather than a freehold interest in the land on which the house or flat is built. Time and the technicalities associated with leasehold tenure prevented provisions of this kind being included in the 1980 Act. We therefore included in our manifesto for the 1983 election a firm pledge to extend the right to buy to tenants in cases where the landlord does not own the freehold.
Let me explain in some depth, because I think it is necessary so to do, why I believe that the arguments advanced against Clause 1 are essentially unjustified, as well as indicating why we have brought forward a compromise proposal. Tenants of houses who obtain the right to buy under Clause 1 will, if they qualify in other respects, be able to buy their freeholds under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, in moving his amendment at Committee stage, relied heavily on the fact that this consequential right to buy the freehold would adversely affect Cambridge colleges which had leased land for building by non-charitable housing associations, and of course the same point is being brought out again today by my noble friend and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and others.
Two arguments have been advanced in the representations by the Cambridge housing associations. The first concerns the future development of the colleges. As my noble friend put it, the colleges would, as a result of some individuals being able to buy the freehold—and I quote from column 1163 of Hansard of the 28th February 1984—
"find themselves with land dotted about with freehold property, and their purpose of building a students' hostel or new laboratories, or of developing the college in some way or another will be entirely frustrated".
The second argument advanced in subsequent discussions with my noble friend Lord Selkirk and with my noble friends Lord Coleraine and Lord Molson was that the terms of enfranchisement under the 1967 Act were not favourable to the freeholder.
1026
On the first of these arguments I referred in Committee to the safeguards for university bodies already in the Act of 1967, but I think it is very important (because this is the kernel of the whole issue) that I should spell them out in more detail. It is clear that exactly the same argument against the Leasehold Reform Act was put forward in 1967 on behalf of university bodies and very substantial provisions were incorporated in response. No doubt noble Lords opposite will agree that these safeguards in their Act are effective and are not lightly to be dismissed.
Section 28 of the Leasehold Reform Act provides that, where a leaseholder applies to purchase the freehold or extend the lease, a university or college may apply to the Secretary of State for Education and Science for a certificate that the property will be required within 10 years—and I shall shall come to the point that the noble and learned Lord made on that a moment ago—for development relevant to the university's educational purposes. The grant of a certificate means that the application for enfranchisement cannot proceed. This applies at any time throughout the currency of the lease.
Alternatively, Section 29 of the Act provides protection of development rights, even if no immediate development is in prospect. University bodies may, with the consent of the Secretary of State for Education, in most cases impose restrictive covenants on enfranchising tenants reserving their rights for possible future development. About 20 to 30 applications to impose such covenants are received each year, almost all from Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and when my noble friend refers to the cavalier treatment of charity, may I tell him—in case he does not know, though I feel he must—that the Secretary of State has never so far refused a consent. That is hardly cavalier treatment and hardly what my noble friend referred to as uncertainty as to the results of applications or the Secretary of State taking arbitrary action.
Having imposed the covenants, university bodies can ask the Secretary of State to act as their agent to reacquire an enfranchised freehold compulsorily, if at any time they want it for development purposes; that is to cover the sort of hostels or laboratories to which my noble friend referred. This is a unique compulsory purchase power available to a private body, and meets, I suggest with great respect, any fears that your Lordships may have about the leasing of land by academic bodies.
I hope your Lordships will agree that these provisions, which already exist and which are being actively pursued by Oxford and Cambridge colleges, entirely dispose of the concern that the prospect of enfranchisement might deter colleges from leasing land to housing associations because it could hinder future development. Indeed, the safeguards are so strong that the individual who buys his freehold with the prospect that it could be reacquired might feel that he has something less than a freehold.
The second argument, as I said, concerns the basis of valuation when a freehold is enfranchised. As your Lordships know—and this is the major point of my noble friend Lord Coleraine—the 1967 Act contains two bases of valuation. The second was incorporated

1027
in 1974 by Section 118 of the Housing Act of that year and applies to the houses of higher rateable value brought into the scope of leasehold reform in 1974. It is generally accepted that this basis produces a higher price, all other things being equal, than the original basis. It was put to us in discussions that if we wished to retain the present scope of Clause 1 of the Bill it would be fairer to freeholders generally, whether charitable or not, to apply the 1974 basis to all cases where enfranchisement came about as a result of the right to buy. We agree that it would be reasonable to provide for this, not least because freeholders would not have been expecting the effect of Clause 1. Hence the new concession which is the effect of Commons Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, proposed in lieu of Amendment No. 1.
I could refer to the views of the British Property Federation, which were referred to during the debate on Clause 1. They are not a charity and they do not represent charities, but we have been having discussions with them about Clause 1 ever since the original Bill was introduced. I saw them after our debates in Committee and I should like to refer to a short passage from a letter which they subsequently sent to me. It reads:
"You were good enough to suggest that it might be more equitable to the freeholder if the provisions of Section 118 of the Housing Act 1974 applied instead of those of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended by the Housing Act 1969, to any enfranchisements resulting from the granting of tenancies under the Housing and Building Control Bill. We have looked at the provisions of the acts very carefully and I write to confirm that we agree that the provisions of the Housing Act 1974 are more equitable, particularly in view of the case of Norfolk v. Trinity College, Cambridge in 1976. We therefore hope that the Government will agree in introducing amended legislation to cover this provision".
I should, in fairness, say that the BPF are still concerned about the situation where the right to buy flats will arise, but that is a somewhat different matter. I hope it will be agreed that the Government have responded to the concern advanced on behalf of freeholders subject to enfranchisement as a result of Clause 1 and that we have done so in a fair and balanced way.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has explained, his amendment would exclude from the enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 any lease granted in pursuance of the exercise of the right to buy, where the landlord is a registered housing association and the freeholder is a charitable body. This is a fundamental change from Amendment No. 1 which my noble friend moved in Committee and I gladly accept that. I am pleased that we both agree. We usually both agree on most things, and I am pleased that we both agree that the House should not insist on that amendment.
Clause 1 of the Bill would allow secure tenants to buy a long lease of their homes. In the case of houses, the tenants could proceed to acquire the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I have already explained that the effect of Amendment Nos. 2 to 4 would be to allow the freeholder to benefit from the higher 1974 basis of compensation in such cases, and I am glad my noble friend agrees with me that the House should agree that those amendments should replace Amendment No. 1.
1028
However, I am afraid that our area of agreement today does not extend to the amendment which he has tabled. That amendment would single out a small group of long leaseholders of houses and deny them the right to acquire the freehold of their homes; those are tenants of registered housing associations where the freeholder is a charitable body. My noble friend is prepared to agree that tenants of local authorities with a charitable freeholder should be able to acquire the freehold. I must say that I see no logic in distinguishing between one right-to-buy landlord and another in the way proposed in the amendment. Exactly the same considerations apply from the freeholder's point of view.
I must remind your Lordships that we are not talking here about charitable housing associations; the right to buy does not arise where the landlord is a charitable association. We are talking about ordinary tenants of non-charitable housing associations, who just happen to have been allocated a house where the freeholder is a charitable body. They may have been nominated by a local authority, and, if the local authority had allocated them a house leased from the same charitable body, then they could go on to acquire the freehold. There is no logic in that distinction.
As regards the point of concern about the Cambridge colleges—almost the major point and, certainly, the one which brought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in to raise this matter—I have explained that here there is a unique and extremely strong protection which exists for their development needs, even if no immediate development is in prospect. They may—and they do, in most cases—impose restrictive covenants on enfranchising tenants. I do not want to go on longer on this point.
May I say this to my noble friend Lord Selkirk? He knows the enormous respect and regard which I have for him, but I really feel that this amendment discriminates against a small group of tenants of non-charitable housing associations for no sustainable reason. I should like to give a simple last example. If a charitable institution had leased one of a pair of semi-detached houses to a housing association and the other to a local authority, the tenant of the association would have the right only to a sub-lease, while the council tenant in the adjoining one could acquire the freehold. That is just not logical, it is not equitable and it is not fair.
May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—who said the Conservative vote to exclude charities in the 1967 Act did not seem to have very much effect—that I am slightly amused, if not cynical, at the now great concern which she and her friends expressed for those same chairities which in 1967 they were not prepared to support in that way. My noble friend Lord Coleraine has also—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the noble Earl's amendment, he mentioned amending legislation. When is that contemplated?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I come to that when I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. My

1029
noble friend Lord Coleraine has also agreed that the House should not insist on Amendment No. 1. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that he cannot support the compromise proposed by the Government on Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 offering a higher basis of compensation for the freeholder in the event of an enfranchisement of a right-to-buy lease. In my earlier remarks I quoted from a letter that I had received from the British Property Federation, who, to use their words, have looked at the provisions of the Act very carefully. Then I went on to say that they had agreed, et cetera. It is the responsiblity of the independent leasehold valuation tribunals and the Lands Tribunal to decide individual cases of dispute between landlords and tenants about the application of this basis to their situation, and the Government should not be seen to be steering them in any particular direction.
Second, as your Lordships will know, there is a case about the principles of the Leasehold Reform Act before the European Commission in Strasbourg involving Her Majesty's Government and the Trustees of the Duke of Westminster. The Government have no wish to influence those proceedings indirectly by making separate pronouncements here on matters which may be in dispute. Nevertheless, the view taken by the British Property Federation cannot be ignored.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine has suggested that there is a flaw in the 1974 valuation basis which, if exploited by a tenant in a position to enfranchise, would produce a lower price than would otherwise be the case. I am somewhat surprised that my noble friend (who urged us to consider the 1974 basis both in the House and in the course of discussions subsequently) should now have turned against it. The Government are not aware that this point has been tested in the Lands Tribunal or in court. If it has not, then there is certainly an arguable case on both sides, and it may well be that there is no flaw at all. If there is a flaw, then its effect on value may only be quite modest. However, I can say that if any serious problem emerges, subject to any wider considerations we will be prepared at a suitable legislative opportunity to clarify the point at issue by confirming that the valuation assumptions are not undermined if the tenant first opts for a long lease before exercising his right to enfranchise. I am sorry to go into a complex matter, but I think in view of my noble friend having raised this point in this way that it is very necessary to put the position on the record.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before my noble friend passes from that, the point which I was making did not concern the acquisition of a freeholding by a lessee who had acquired a long lease. I simply pointed out that an extended lease could be acquired; and I do not think there is any dispute between any of us that that long lease would be on very favourable terms indeed to the tenant when compared with the price which he would have to pay to buy a freehold under the direct acquisition of the freehold terms. I was not concerned with the possibility that the tenant might extend his lease and then try to buy the freehold. I agree that there is room for doubt there.
Lord Bellwin: I thank my noble friend for that. As I said, this is a difficult and complicated matter.
1030
Concerning what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, may I say that I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here. When I spoke of amending legislation I was referring to my noble friend Lord Selkirk's amendment, which is perhaps a somewhat different matter. I do not think that there is much more that I can add. I understand exactly why my noble friend Lord Selkirk brings forward his amendment. We have had many conversations throughout the passage of this Bill at its various stages concerning the problem which he raises.
For the reasons that I have given I feel that there is no problem. It is not happening in that way in practice. There has not been a single instance so far where the colleges have been in any way thwarted or held back at all. Therefore. I do not think we ought to assume that this will be so. Certainly, there is no evidence to suggest that, and I hope that my noble friend will feel, in the light of what I have said, that he would not wish to press his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord described very well the procedure under Sections 28 or 29 of the 1967 Act, but what he utterly failed to do was to tell the House quite frankly that it has never been carried out at any time. What has happened is that the Secretary of State has granted the covenant; but that covenant has never been fulfilled, and all these tenants-cum-freeholders can, according to the noble Lord, at any time be turned out by compulsory purchase. The noble Lord asked why universities should be privileged. He said it is anomalous. They already stand in the 1967 Act, Sections 28 and 29. They are treated quite differently. Therefore, the argument which the noble Lord makes is vacuous and has no weight whatever.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I did not ask why the universities were privileged: I simply stated the fact that in the Act they have what is a unique right to them. I am not questioning whether that right should or should not have been given in 1967.I am saying that it exists, that it has been practised and that it has worked entirely to their advantage. I am not suggesting that that is wrong in any way at all.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I did not suggest that my noble friend was wrong in that way. Where he was wrong was in saying that this procedure had ever been carried out. It has never been carried out, and no one has any evidence of what course the Secretary of State would take. That is the essential part, and it was not mentioned by my noble friend.
I really think there is no alternative but to ask your Lordships to divide. My noble friend has not met the points we have made. They are serious. They are not large; but they are extremely important for them to carry out.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): The question is that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof, and the amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 4 set out on the Order Paper. The Question is that this amendment be agreed

1031
to; that is, Amendment No. 4B. I am sorry, my Lords; it is Amendment No. 4A.
Lord Molson: Could the noble Lord make it quite plain? I am sorry, but I have not quite understood exactly what the issue is that is being put to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the issue that is being put to the House is the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—Amendment No. 4A.
Lord Molson: My Lords, is it my noble friend's amendment which is being put? If so, and if we wish to support it, do we say, "Content"?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the issue which is being put to the House is the amendment being moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, Amendment No. 4A.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Alport, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hayter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Attlee, E.

Henniker, L.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Banks, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Birk, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boothby, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jacques, L,

Brockway, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kagan, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kaldor, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kearton, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kintore, E.

Croft, L.

Leatherland, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Denington, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Diamond, L.

Mais, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milverton, L.

Ennals, L.

Minto, E.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Faithfull, B.

Molloy, L.

Feversham, L.

Molson, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monson, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Munster, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Grimond, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

1032

Porritt, L.

Stamp, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stedman, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Rhodes, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Strauss, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Scanlon, L.

Templeman, L.

Seebohm, L.

Terrington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Vickers, B.

Shackleton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Somers, L.

Winstanley, L.

Spens, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stallard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Loch, L.

Bauer. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Luke. L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Berkeley, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cairns, E.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Carnegy of Lour. B.

Avon. L.

Chelmer, L.

Middleton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mills, V.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Platt of Writtle. B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rodney. L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Erne, E.

St. Davids, V.

Forester, L.

Sandys. L.

Fortescue, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Soames, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gormanston, V.

Gowrie, E.

Strathspey, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint

Teynham, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Henley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Westbury, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kitchener, E.

wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment No. 4A has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4B.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5Clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(" (a) the dwelling-house has had those features since it was constructed, or it is a dwelling-house in which one or more of the following alterations have been carried out by the landlord, or the predecessor in title of the landlord, to meet the needs of a disabled person or persons—

(i) the extension of the dwelling-house by the provision of one or more additional rooms;

(ii) the construction of an additional bathroom with a water closet;

(iii) the removal or relocation of internal walls in conjunction with the relocation of a bathroom, fixed bath or shower or water closet;

(iv) the installation of a fixed vertical passenger lift;

(v) an increase in excess of 7·5 square metres in the floor area of the dwelling-house;

and in this paragraph "constructed" includes the provision of a separate dwelling-house by sub-division of an existing structure and the meaning of "predecessor" is restricted to a local authority, a development corporation, the Commission for the New Towns or a registered housing association;")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
6Page 3, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 4 and insert—
(" For paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"3. The dwelling-house has features which are substan-tially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons.")
7 Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
(" 3A. The landlord or a predecessor of the landlord has carried out, for the purpose of making the dwelling-house suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons, one or more of the following alterations, namely—

(a) the provision of not less than 7·5 square metres of additional floor space;

(b) the provision of an additional bathroom or shower-room;

(c) the installation of a vertical lift. ". ")

The Commons proposed the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement to amendment 5.
8Page 3, line 6, after ("constructed",) insert ("or, where it was provided by means of the conversion of a building, since it was so provided. ")
9Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("dwelling-houses") to ("those") in line 12 and insert ("in order to assist")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
10 Page 3, line 11, leave out ("for the only or main ") and insert ("wholly or partly for the ")
11 Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
(" (2A) For paragraph 4 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
(" 3A. The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons who are suffering or have suffered from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983) and a social service or special facilities are provided in order to assist those persons.
4. The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which are particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by such persons, or for occupation by such persons and
1034
physically disabled persons, and special facilities are provided in order to assist those persons which consist of or include either—
(a) the services of a resident warden; or
the services of a non-resident warden, a system for calling him and the use of a common room in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses.").")
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
12 Line 2, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 4 and insert ("3B")
13 Line 9, leave out ("in order to assist") and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of assisting")
14 Line 16, leave out ("in order to assist") and insert ("wholly or mainly for the purpose of assisting")
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, while discussing Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 32.

LORDS AMENDMENT
32 Page 3, line 19, leave out from ("the") to ("above") in line 20 and insert ("amendments made by subsections (2) and (2A)")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:
Because the decision taken by the Commons on the amendment No. 13 made by the Lords in page 3, line 12, makes it unnecessary.
I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 proposed in lieu thereof.
I shall also be moving that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 proposed in lieu thereof; and that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 to Lords Amendment No. 11. In discussing these amendments it may be convenient, as I have already said, also to speak to Amendment No. 32.
The Bill provides that sheltered housing for the disabled and accommodation which has been purpose built for the disabled shall not be available for purchase. I believe that this is generally agreed. I believe that it is also accepted that disabled tenants should not be prevented from buying as a result of minor adaptations to their homes. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, made that point at Second Reading.
The purpose of the noble Viscount's amendment was to ensure that local authorities can retain for letting purposes those houses which have been substantially adapted at a cost of perhaps several thousands of pounds. The Government's position at the outset was that all adapted dwellings should be brought within the right to buy. I am bound to say that I still believe that this would have been the preferable course. Nevertheless, I have to accept that despite some notable support for the Government's position from my noble friend Lady Masham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, your Lordships' general view was that substantially adapted dwellings should be excluded from the right to buy. The Government have concluded after careful consideration that that change in the Bill's provisions should be accepted. The original list of the adaptations giving rise to exemption which was given by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, is contained in Amendment No. 5.
Essentially, for reasons of clarity and simplicity we felt that some redrafting of this list was necessary and the revised list which was inserted in another place appears as Amendment No. 7. No substantial change in the scope of the exemption is involved. I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government have gone a long way to meet the concern expressed on this matter and that the position we have now reached is a reasonable recognition of the views expressed.
I can deal very briefly with the other amendments in this group. They concern the definition of sheltered housing in the Bill. Upon reflection, we feel that it should be made clearer whether or not the social service or special facilities which have to be provided if a scheme is to qualify as a sheltered scheme, must be provided solely or mainly for the particular scheme in question or can be partly for that purpose and partly for another.
In the case of sheltered housing for the elderly, we consider it right that the facilities provided should be wholly or mainly for the benefit of the particular scheme in question. In other words, the fact that housing for the elderly was, say, within easy reach of a general community centre would not be enough to exclude it from the right to buy. In the case of sheltered housing for the physically and mentally handicapped, however, we accept that facilities which serve others in the community—such as a day centre for the disabled—could also support a nearby sheltered housing scheme, and this is the effect of Amendments Nos. 9 to 14. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 proposed in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Molson: My Lords, I have received a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, saying that owing to a long-standing engagement in Yorkshire he is not able to be here today. He asked me, however, to express his gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have responded almost 100 per cent. to the amendment he moved at Committee stage. I should like to express my gratitude also.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin has carried out in both the spirit and the letter the undertaking he gave to examine this matter again. I hope he will not feel that I am diminishing slightly the cordiality of my thanks if I remind him that it was necessary to inflict a defeat upon the Government before we were able to secure this very welcome concession. I am, however, obliged to draw attention to that painful episode—the first of several—in my recent political life—in order to do the second thing which Lord Ingleby has asked me to do. That is, to express our grateful thanks to noble Lords on all Benches—including some right reverend Prelates and a number of Cross-Benchers—who supported us in that amendment. This is a case where one can say that your Lordships' House has exercised wisely its powers of revision and the case of very much disadvantaged people, which had not been noticed by the elected House, has been taken into account by your Lordships.
1036
I will only add by way of explanation that we cannot expect any expression of thanks from those who will benefit from the amendment. They cannot be identified at the present time. It is those who will at some time in the future be wanting dwellings specially adapted for the disabled who will benefit from the fact that your Lordships had insisted that houses especially suitable for the disabled should not be merged with the general pool of housing in this country.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as I had my name to that amendment, perhaps I might add a few words to those of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and say how delighted we are on these Benches that this amendment was largely accepted, with some minor alterations, by another place.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the views of the Association of District Councils, which is concerned that sub-paragraph (iii) of the amendment passed by this House has more or less been removed from the amendment as it has emerged from another place. Sub-paragraph (iii) dealt with the removal or relocation of internal walls in conjunction with the relocation of a bathroom, fixed bath or shower or water closet. The effect of that removal seems to be that many dwellings with internal but nevertheless substantial adaptations for the disabled would still risk being lost to local authorities for future use by disabled people. This seems to be a pity. I do not know whether anything can still be done to correct that situation; if so, it would be most helpful.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce what my noble friend the Minister said when he expressed his slight disappointment that the disabled section has come through as it has. I want to reinforce also what I said previously; that I considered this to be discrimination against one section of disabled people, and that housing which is adapted for the disabled is not lost to any disabled people provided it is there. I want to put that view on record. It would be wrong to let this pass, because many disabled people feel the same way as I do on this point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 10 to the words so restored to the Bill.
[Amendments printed earlier.]
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 10 to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 to the Lords Amendment No. 11.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 primed earlier.]
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule I to the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"5. The dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and in this paragraph "designed or specially adapted" means accommodation built or adapted in accordance with the principles of advice and guidance on the design of elderly persons' accommodation issued by the Secretary of State and available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation.".").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
16 Page 3, line 16, at beginning insert—
("At the end of that Part of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"6.—(1) The dwelling-house is situated in a National Park, or an area designated under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of outstanding natural beauty, or an area designated under section 19 of this Act as a rural area, and the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house on the ground that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and

(b) was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person).

(2) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within four weeks or, in a case falling within section 5(2) of this Act, eight weeks of the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy." (5).").
17 Page 3, line 16, leave out ("and the provision made by subsection (3) above").
18 Page 3, line 19, leave out ("and").
19 Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("; and the amendment made by subsection (4) above shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy was made before that date unless, at that dale, the period specified in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act had not expired or there was outstanding an application for a determination under that paragraph.
(6) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall be taken as reviving any claim to exercise the right to buy made before the commencement date.
(7) Where the amendment made by subsection (4) above applies in relation to a claim to exercise the right to buy made before the commencement date, that amendment shall have effect as if for the words "the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy" there were substituted the words "the commencement of Part I of the 1984 Act.".").
20 Page 5, line 6, after ("person") insert ("or persons").
21 Page 8, line 29, after ("age") insert ("or a physically disabled person ").
22 Page 8, line 39, leave out ("section 8(3A) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (2A) below").
23 Page 9, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) A relevant disposal is exempted by this subsection if—

(a) it is exempted by section 8(3A)(a), (c), (d) or (e) of this Act; or

(b) it is a vesting of the whole of the dwelling-house in a person or persons taking under a will or on an intestacy and the person or one of the persons beneficially entitled to the dwelling-house is the spouse of the deceased or a

1038
member of his family who resided with him throughout the period of twelve months ending with the death. ").
24 Page 9, line 39, leave out ("section 8(3A) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (2A) above").
25 Page 9, line 42, at end insert—
("(8) In any case where the landlord made an application for a determination under paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, it shall be conclusively presumed that this section does not apply.").
26 Page 55, line 1, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
27 Page 55, line 4, leave out ("6") and insert ("7").
28 Page 66, line 18, at end insert ("or persons").
29 Page 75, line 7, at end insert ("or persons").
30 Page 85, line 17, leave out from ("in ") to ("of") in line 19 and insert ("subsection (2A) for the words "section 8(3A)(a), (c), (d) or (e) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5)(a),(c). (d) or (e)".").
The Commons propose the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement to amendment 15.
31 Page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk rose to move:
31A That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed, and disagree to Amendments Nos. 16 to 30 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to the Amendment No. 31 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not want to spend a great deal of time on going over ground which we have already been over many times. As noble Lords will remember, this started in 1980 with an amendment which was won in Committee in order to exempt elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy. We had another amendment which was more restrictive and conformed more to the criticisms that the Government had made of the working of the original amendment which has again been amended in another place. It was on this amendment, which is completely clear, restrictive and sensible that a Committee of this House voted with a majority of 23. The Government proposals in another place have replaced this very simple proposition with exemption for certain rural areas and pre-emption for the rest.
On looking at this a little more closely, it will be seen that the definition of rural areas immediately raises a number of questions. The reference to areas of outstanding natural beauty is pretty clear where it refers to national parks. However, when we come to the designated areas, out of 130 applications only 22 areas have been designated by the department. That raises the whole question of what are the criteria for designation, which has not been covered in any of the deliberations in another place.
I am told by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations and the Association of District Councils that numbers of applications have been turned down for areas which most of us would consider to be rural—parts of Wiltshire, Suffolk, Hampshire and areas in Gloucestershire. There are probably many others but I have not had an opportunity to analyse them all. If the Government are really sincere and determined to answer the points on rural housing, why do they not exempt all housing in rural areas for elderly persons as defined in our amendment that was passed here? That would at least make some sense rather than have the complicated and very difficult proposals that have been put in its place and which will certainly not work anything like as well.
Rural Voice, which speaks for a number of rural and agricultural organisations of all sorts, including farming organisations, has come out against the amendments made in another place; as, indeed, has the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust and Age Concern, among many others.
In making the changes that the Government have made, what will now happen is that we shall have to go back to the situation which existed in 1980 when the Secretary of State made the determinations. In other words, the appeal went to the Secretary of State and, as was explained by the Minister for Housing in another place and by the Minister here, this was an expensive operation costing about £150,000 a year. It was not very satisfactory and. as the Minister for Housing said in another place, the department has the greatest difficulty in satisfying itself that it is maintaining a consistent and impartial stance in its dealings with tenants and landlords. That applies just to the rural side of the argument, but we are aware that most elderly people are living in towns and cities. Nothing that is done by another place in its amendments to our amendment will help any of these people. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who put her name to the amendment that I moved in Committee, referred in her speech not only to the rural areas but also to urban areas.
Relying on pre-emption, which is what all these changes will do and which means that the local authority has to be able to exercise its right to buy back these properties if it wishes to and is financially able to do so, is extremely unsatisfactory—as was pointed out by many noble Lords in Committee. These houses can be lost for ever. The decline in the building of old people's dwellings will add to the long waiting lists, and there is a shortage of rented accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Nicol pointed out on a previous amendment, about 20 to 25 per cent. of people will always need rented accommodation. As she also pointed out, that is a view expressed by a building society and not a local authority. As the span of life lengthens and as, with that, the turnover in elderly people's accommodation is greater than in general housing, it is even more essential that there should be a stock of rented housing for elderly persons— certainly in current circumstances where resources are so scarce and building starts have declined.
This is not a party matter. It is a question of supply and demand and of giving elderly people the opportunity to live in places in which they can be independent and in which they can live a comfortable life without being dependent on other people. The amendment passed on 28th April was clear, succinct, quite brief and referred to houses which are occupied by elderly people,
"designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house for occupation by persons of pensionable age".
The amendment then goes on to describe what "designed or specially adapted" means.
The amendment did not go as far as many noble Lords and many people outside the House would have wished, but it was specifically drafted in this way to meet the Government's objections to an earlier
1040
amendment and in order to make it simpler for the Secretary of State to administer, and for everyone to know where they stood. Perhaps in the whole global view of legislation, and of what is going on, this might be quite a small matter, but it is not when we realise the number of elderly people who are not going to have a chance to live in a place that has been specially adapted or designed for them and who will still constitute, as they do now in many areas, about 15 per cent. of the waiting list.
The amendment we passed was clear and tightly drawn. This is not just a question of turning down the Commons amendments for the sake of it. That has nothing to do with it. There is no way of amending the amendments that the other place has put down without going back to our original amendment, which seems to me to be the simplest and best way to do it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed, and disagree to Amendments Nos. 16 to 30 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to the Amendment No. 31 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Birk.)
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Baroness in her amendment, I must declare that in general I have been entirely convinced by the Minister's propositions. It seems to me that, generally speaking, the right to buy has been abundantly vindicated and it has had the beneficial results that the Minister has claimed. Where I venture to differ from him. and why I rise to support this amendment, is on the passionate logic to try to carry that good principle into every corner of our social and legal life in the face of common sense, humanity, experience and convenience.
The noble Baroness has put the case so well that I desire to say only this. The Government's case against the view that your Lordships took has two bases to which I shall come in a minute, but first of all perhaps I may say this. Your Lordships have had this matter under consideration twice now. In 1980 an amendment was carried against the Government by a majority, I think, of almost 2:1 after a notable speech by the late Lord Amory. The Government did nothing to disturb your Lordships' decision. Although specific references were made in the election manifesto to the right to buy and the desirability of its extension in certain clearly specified particulars, nothing was said about this, nor was anything done when the Bill was introduced, nor at Committee stage. It was not until the Report stage in another place that the Government tried—and succeeded—to upset the decision that had been come to by your Lordships in 1980.
The second occasion when the matter came before your Lordships was on the first day of Committee on this Bill. Your Lordships then came to a decision in the knowledge of what the Government proposed as what are now claimed as concessions—the provisions which are contained in the Commons amendments. The noble Lord the Minister indicated the concessions that he had in mind—namely, the exclusion of rural areas and dealing with what is conveniently described

1041
as inheritance. Nevertheless your Lordships decided that that was not good enough and that the amendment of the noble Baroness was clear, specific and in every way superior.
When the noble Lord the Minister in Committee indicated the so-called concessions, he indicated further that they would probably be brought forward at Report stage in your Lordships' House. That would have been very convenient, because they could have then been examined at leisure. But there was absolute silence at that stage; absolute silence on the Motion for Third Reading, when we had a great number of amendments; and absolute silence on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. It was not until the matter got back to the Commons that the Government took any steps to deal with it. It got back to the Commons on the last day before the Christmas Recess—a Thursday. I can only say that in that manoeuvre—the failure to deal with it at the Report stage in your Lordships' House and dealing with it in that way in what was clearly said to be a hurried debate in another place—one senses the odour of sulphur that seems to emanate from the office of any Chief Whip.
What are the Government's objections to the noble Baroness's amendment which was carried in your Lordships' House? The first one was that paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 has proved to be extremely difficult to administer. That is neither here nor there, because the noble Baroness did not propose to maintain that criterion. She proposed a very clear one, and there has never at any time been any argument that her criterion is not workable. The second reason was that it would amount to discrimination against the elderly (the people of pensionable age), and that has been the main argument both in your Lordships' House and in another place. But that of course is the purest rhetoric. Are we really going to have the Government moving by that sort of rhetoric? Is it so catching? Is the Minister to be seen flailing alternate arms to make his points apparently more cogent? Is it discrimination against the disabled that we have just seen the Government carry? Is it discrimination if the elderly are disabled? Is it discrimination if the elderly are of unsound mind? What stuff is this that your Lordships are asked to swallow under the name of discrimination?
I turn to the so-called concessions. The first one is the exclusion of rural areas. The figures were given by the noble Baroness and are made the subject of a Question by my noble friend Lord Hylton which is down, I think, for next week or the week after. Only 22, I think, out of over 130 applications have been granted. Why? Scarborough, which the noble Lord the Minister knows well, made an application. Its application was for the exemption of the rural areas outside the town and outside the National Park. Are those not rural areas? Why was that turned down? Why are so many others turned down?
It was suggested alternatively that, if that was not acceptable, the parishes which adjoin the National Park should be exempted, but that was not taken up. There was nothing except a negative reply. If that area is not a rural area, what is? The noble Lord knows the area south of Scarborough and west of Filey. Is that not a rural area? Why was it not certified as such by the Secretary of State? Of course we all know the reason.
1042
It is that the Minister has grown to be (I think probably justly) extremely cautious and critical of many of the local authorities. He fears that they have dragged their feet, that they have been recalcitrant in applying the 1980 Act.
In fact, in another place the words "injustice" and "cheating" were used. Unfortunately I think that feeling has swelled out and overwhelmed a great many quite meritorious local authorities. My Lords, that is the first concession: the rural areas. Perhaps I should just add this: that the Minister in another place invited further applications in view of the new criteria, as he put it. But there are no new criteria relating to rural areas. An area is either a rural area or it is not. That was so under the 1980 Act. It is equally so under the Commons amendment which your Lordships have under consideration.
The second concession is the exemption as a relevant disposal of a vesting on intestacy or under a will. That undoubtedly is valuable; but, as the noble Baroness said, it is a right of pre-emption in the local authority. They have to have the first offer. Whether it is worth anything depends on whether they have the money to accept the offer. If one takes the proposed discount of 60 per cent., it will require the sale of 2½ houses in order to purchase one. Adaptation cannot be very different. Of course, one has to multiply that by the curb on local authority spending. They are not today allowed to spend more than 40 per cent. on capital expenditure of their capital receipts. So that means that one must double the 2½—a bit more than double—and I think that is the origin of the figure of 6-plus which has been used on occasion. So, as I said, valuable and necessary as the concession on inheritance is, it is worth nothing at all unless the local authority can find the money.
Now how can a local authority like Scarborough find the money? It has 25 per cent. of elderly people within its boundaries as against the national average of 16 per cent. So however one looks at the Government's case or the Government's so-called concessions, in my respectful submission to your Lordships there is no new argument at all which would cause your Lordships to depart from the decision to which your Lordships came in knowledge of the sort of so-called concessions that were proposed; no reason to depart from that. Therefore, in my submission, the noble Baronesss's amendment should be carried and I shall certainly support it myself.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I have been involved in carrying three amendments against the Government in the Committee stage. On each occasion they undertook to take the matter back and look at it again.
In the case of the disabled, as I have said before, they have responded fairly and generously and I have thanked them for so doing. In the case of the charities, they did not really move any distance at all in order to enable charities to reacquire the whole of the freehold which had been let. Therefore it was necessary for your Lordships to divide against the Government and once more to defeat them.
In the case of the elderly, I think the position is marginal. I freely recognise the value of the concession that there should be pre-emption in cases where the

1043
heir of the elderly person inherits. I think that is an important concession. We wanted to avoid a state of affairs where some heir would be able to acquire a great capital appreciation, not due to any merit of his own but because he was the heir of some elderly person. The fact that the Government have taken care of that is, I think, a concession of very considerable importance
I want to be realistic about these matters. I quite recognise that, if the Government choose to stand firm, it will not be possible for your Lordships to effect the whole of the amendment, with regard to the elderly living in rural areas, which your Lordships desired. It all turns upon the exercise by the Minister of his discretion in designating areas as being rural. That is done under Section 19 of the Act of 1980. The figures have been given once or twice but I repeat them: that after 130 applications, only 22 areas had been designated as rural areas. My Lords, it is difficult to understand how it can be that, when all these applications have been made by local authorities, who know the conditions where they live, in only 22 cases has the Secretary of State exercised his discretion to designate them as rural areas.
In his speech in another place, the Minister went some distance towards indicating that in the future a more generous, a more reasonable, a more equitable line might be taken in considering whether or not areas should be designated as rural areas. When they are designated, then the provisions giving advantages for the preservation of dwellings especially suitable for the elderly take effect.
The Minister followed up his speech in another place by writing a letter to TheTimes. I thought that went just a little bit further than perhaps he had gone in his speech in the House of Commons. I have had the advantage of a letter from my noble friend the Minister here, indicating that he hoped to be able to say something on the subject this afternoon, although he safeguarded himself by saying—and I wholly accept that as being reasonable—that he cannot anticipate how the discretion of his right honourable friend will be exercised.
But a very great deal depends upon this. Here we are being asked to legislate. The preservation of rights for the elderly is to depend entirely upon the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretion. When we have the figure that only 22 of those applications out of 130 have so far been granted, it does make one feel that we ought to have some reassurance. So far as I am myself concerned, I feel that, if the Government could go a little bit further in the way of indicating the spirit in which they are prepared to act, I should not feel inclined actually to vote against them. But I hope we can have some indication that they are going to take a more broadminded view in the future than they have done in the past.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, before I start on the point I wish to make to your Lordships I should like to comment on the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. Which Secretary of State and what climate of opinion are we being asked to rely upon? We do not
1044
know. It is too hazardous, and I hope the noble Lord will think very carefully about that point.
I want to stress to your Lordships the relevance and importance of this amendment to a grave national problem that we have—and I mean "we". I mean the nation; I mean each one of us as an individual. This amendment is not, and ought not to be, a matter of party business; in my view it is far too serious for that. We have an ageing population. People are living longer, and they have to be housed properly. Not only is that so in human terms, but it is the nation's responsibility to see that its citizens are housed adequately and properly at whatever stage of their life they happen to be. This amendment is absolutely relevant to this problem.
When people are elderly they pass through three stages. We are concerned with the first stage, which is when they are 60 or 65 or perhaps into their 70s and require what we are talking about in this amendment—an adequate house, a bungalow or a ground-floor flat without stairs; a place that is easily looked after; and a place that is adequately heated, which is very important. They need a proper dwelling to meet that stage of their life. This is covered in the amendment.
The second stage is when they get more frail; and, finally, the third stage is when they are very frail and need to go into an extra-care home. But we are not talking about those stages; we are talking about the first stage. Those people in our nation can be divided broadly into two groups. The first comprises those who have assets and some money and are able to look after themselves. They have an asset to sell and they can sell it and move into a dwelling suitable for them. I could almost say that all the big builders seem to be climbing on the band-wagon, but I am delighted to see that they are now building sheltered housing for those of the elderly who have assets to sell and who can now buy. Those people can look after themselves. That is well and good—and thank goodness they can!
But now we have to think of the bulk of our population, particularly the elderly, who have not moved into the affluent society. They are dependent largely on local authorities and housing associations to provide them with the accommodation suitable for them in the first stage as they get more elderly—I will not say the first stage of their old age. On second thoughts, I will call it old age. Some people are still young when they are 80 or even 90. as we in your Lordships' House know from the noble Lord who sits near us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Maturity.
Baroness Denington: Yes, maturity. I thank my noble friend for giving me that word; it is very helpful. These people number thousands, and, as I say, they must look to the local authorities and housing associations to house them adequately. We have not got enough of these dwellings. Although there are many thousands of them, the number is still inadequate for the people who need to be in such accommodation. If they are not in such accommodation they will age more rapidly; they will suffer, and then they will have to go into geriatric wards in hospitals. I am sure that those of your Lordships who

1045
have been in such places will agree with me that they are painful and sad beyond words.
As I said, this matter ought not to be a political issue. The Government are always telling us that they must push to the extreme limit this policy of theirs for the sale of public housing. Why? A policy can be a good policy, but when one pushes it to extreme limits it ceases to be a good policy, and that is so in this case.
In the case of the disabled, we are most grateful for what the Government have done. The whole House is delighted, as is everybody concerned with that group of people. But for many more people it is just as essential to preserve the type of housing that this amendment is talking about. If the houses are sold at some point in their history—for some of them that will not be far along the road—they will not be occupied by this group of the population for whom they were purposely built and financed with public money. Surely this is a group which ought to be left out.
We are asking the Government to be reasonable. People are reasonable. I find that when one puts a case to old people they are exceptionally reasonable. I quite accept that a few will be disappointed if the Government say. "Sorry; we can't sell to you; we have had a look at it". A manifesto is a broad-brush thing but one has to consider all its implications. One does not always do that at party conferences, where one is swept away by enthusiasm. What I am saying to the Government is that people may be disappointed but they will understand. We are asking that the Government should understand the plea and the national need.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, since 1980 a very large section of this House has been actively concerned about this matter. The reason for this concern is that in 1980 there was an acute shortage of bungalows and flats suitable for old people. There still is the same acute shortage. If anything, it is getting worse because of the restrictions and cuts that have been imposed on the housing association programme and on local authority building.
From my personal experience I can bear witness to the shortage in my rural part of Somerset. In the village where I live there are three-bedroomed and four-bedroomed houses occupied by one or two pensioners who are having to live on the ground floor because they are unable to climb the stairs to the bedrooms. They would move out readily if bungalows were available for them. At the moment this is not the case. Other Members of your Lordships' House who have great knowledge of urban areas, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, can bear witness to exactly the same sort of situation in the towns and cities.
There is a further point which has not yet been mentioned. If the right to buy is allowed to be exerted over these bungalows and flats, it is most likely that quite soon they will be occupied by young families with children. We are almost certain, in my view, to have conflicts and tensions arising as a result. The elderly tenants will be disturbed by their younger neighbours and that will be most unpopular. I beg the Government to think again on this matter. If they will not do so, then I urge the House to support the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The Lincolnshire Echo of 4th May reported that West Lindsey District Council were
"being forced to sell old people's bungalows when they have a massive waiting list of pensioners"—
and I ask your Lordships to note the word "massive". The article goes on to say that the council have called upon their local Member of Parliament—who happens to be a Conservative—
"to help them try to get the right-to-buy law changed".
The law is of course being changed, but to a totally inadequate extent as so many of us—or perhaps most of us—believe. The report continues that one councillor explained that the council:
"were being forced to sell these types of homes against their wishes".
It goes on to say that another councillor revealed that:
"in many cases old people's bungalows were not being bought by the pensioners themselves",
from which one can deduce that many of them are being bought or financed by younger people, possibly related to the elderly people living in them, with a view to making a quick capital profit.
It is noteworthy that West Lindsey is very far from being a Left-wing area. It is very far from being a part of the world which is in general opposed to the Goverment's policies. Only three councillors out of 37 are members of the Labour Party; the other 34 are divided almost equally beween Conservative, Liberals and Independents. In other words, opposition to the Government's proposals cuts right across party lines.
I hope therefore that those of your Lordships in all quarters of the House who disapprove of the Commons' virtual reversal of your Lordships' amendment will be prepared to go into the Division Lobby with the noble Baroness.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I just want to raise a passing point which has not yet been mentioned, and it is as follows. One matter which has not been thought of by many councils is that when one reaches old age—and I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, that I am not in the least ashamed of that—one needs transport of some kind or other. One must be mobile. Even when one reaches my age one still wants to go shopping and one will probably want to be near a station, particularly if one happens to be a Member of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I think that that is a matter which councils should take into consideration.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should like to begin with a few observations on what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said, because her remarks went right across the spectrum of the whole housing situation. Exactly 20 years ago I was saying that, as regards all the public housing that was being built, the priority should be one and two bedroomed units of accommo-dation. That is still the position today. But one and two bedroomed units of accommodation are also those which are in the greatest demand by young people as well as elderly people.
The point is: what is a dwelling for the elderly? It is a one or two bedroomed unit of accommodation—a

1047
bungalow or whatever. That is the type of dwelling which it is felt is most suitable for the elderly. But how do we distinguish for the elderly? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that elderly people would be disturbed by having younger people near them. I cannot think of anything with which I could more disagree. When we were trying to decide where to house elderly people or people who were perhaps ill, the one thing that we did not want to do was to isolate them so that—as we used to say in those days—all that they saw were the ambulances turning up from time to time. Elderly people—and this point has so far not been mentioned in the debate—also have rights. They have rights in that they themselves should not be so disadvantaged that they, as a body, should be singled out to be excluded from having the right to buy.
When we discussed this matter in Committee I said that my late mother used to say, "It's not good to grow old". I used to say to her, "Mother, it's no good if you don't grow old". The point is that she was right in the sense that so often there is discrimination against elderly people and what we are proposing to do here today is further to discriminate against elderly people. I do not accept the arguments that sound so right on the face of it but which, when we begin to look at them closely, do not stand up in terms of human values. The elderly must not be discriminated against, as is the case at the present time.
Let us talk about one and two bedroomed units of accommodation", let us talk about the provision of housing for elderly people. It is right that we need more. It should be the priority in public housing. I was saying 20 years ago—and so were many Labour leaders that I knew in housing—that we should not be building any more three and four bedroomed units or even five bedroomed units for large families, but that we should be building only one and two bedroomed units. That is the key to what we are talking about in this debate; if we are talking about human values and being concerned for people. If I sound very impassioned about this matter it is because I feel so deeply about elderly people, and I have many reasons for so doing.
It is a problem but the fact is that you do not—as the noble Baroness. Lady Denington, said—purposely build houses for elderly people unless they are sheltered units of accommodation, and that is something with which I agree very much. I did not interrupt the noble Baroness but—
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I just want profoundly to disagree with the Minister. When I was chairman of the GLC Housing Committee we built many thousands of units specially designed for elderly people, and last time in this Chamber I produced plans to prove that point.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in that case the noble Baroness will have to explain to us what was special about those houses that meant that they could not be used by young people as well. The fact is that what we are really talking about is one and two bedroomed units of accommodation. If the noble Baroness does not agree with me, then we will agree to disagree.
The fact is that we are not talking here about quick capital profits, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said.
1048
That really is not fair. The fact is that the Government have taken this matter back. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon, talked of "a manoeuvre" because we did not bring something back at Report. If I may say so that, too, was most unfair from someone who is always so very fair. The fact is that at Committee we proposed that, if the amendment was not pressed, we would come back at a later stage—it would have been Report—with certain proposals. In the event the noble Baroness—as is her right—decided to have a vote and the decision went a certain way. In those circumstances, if we had brought the matter back at Report we would have been accused then of overturning at that stage a decision of your Lordships' House. It is not fair to say that it was a manoeuvre. We went through the correct procedure; namely, that if a matter is defeated in this House, the Commons have the right to consider what to do with it. They have decided in this case to come back with compromise suggestions—and they are compromise proposals that are being put forward—and that surely is not in any way a manoeuvre, but the correct procedure.
This Bill is a Bill to extend the right to buy. The Government could not possibly agree to proposals which had the effect of taking that right away—and that is what this amendment seeks to do. The amendment is not restoring the position as it was prior to the Bill being introduced. Let us be clear about this. The amendment is now about taking away from tenants a right which they currently possess. It is not about giving a new right. The amendment is about actually taking away from people a right that they currently possess, and that is a vastly different matter. I wonder whether your Lordships really appreciate that that is the significance of this particular amendment. That is as important a point as any that I could make in responding to this debate.
The point has been raised as to how valid is the concession. My noble friend Lord Molson said that he would be influenced by the extent to which the Government say that they are willing to give greater effect through the exemption procedures. I believe that it is significantly different in rural areas. I would say to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that if Scarborough made its application for designation of its hinterland under the proposals now intended in the legislation—although, of course, as he knows, I could not guarantee what the decision would be—certainly the factors which would come into the assessment would be rather different from what existed previously. I think we said that some 160 local authority districts in England and Wales are covered to a greater or lesser extent and will, therefore, be able to use the new exemption procedures if they so wish. That is quite a cry from the position that has existed hitherto and I think it is fair for me to say that.
On the inheritance point, it is also fair for me to say that one can argue about the effect and extent of it, but the fact is that it is a genuine attempt to meet the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House. It is genuinely meant to be so. I have said all along that I see nothing wrong in young people wanting to help their parents to own their own homes. If they contributed something towards it. what is wrong with that? All their lives their parents have helped them, so

1049
why should they not help their parents? I can think of little that is more noble than that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked that question not merely rhetorically. Is not the intention of this Bill to give a right to buy a dwelling-house and not to make a financial windfall?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, there is no question of making a financial windfall. Prohibitions exist and there are pre-emption rights that go with them, so I see no case for saying that there will be windfalls. This is an attempt by the Government to meet concerns which have been expressed. We have done what I think your Lordships would fairly expect us to do; we have moved and we have made concessions. We come back in that spirit and we find before us an amendment which takes us still further away and which will take away from people rights that they now have. It is because of that more than almost anything else that 1 think I am entitled to say that your Lordships should not accept this amendment. It does not have the effect that we have been told; it does not mean that if one sells a dwelling to an elderly person, the availability of that dwelling being used and occupied by elderly people is lost for ever. It does not apply to the other people who buy under the right to buy procedure.
I have said all along that if a person buys, he then continues to occupy the home as an owner rather than as a tenant, and that makes a dwelling neither more nor less available to rent than it was before. I concede that there is a marginal difference with regard to elderly people, but with the safeguards on pre-emption and with the other safeguards that we are now bringing forward at the suggestion of many members of your Lordships' House, in all equity—and I think that if we went back we would worsen the position of existing tenants—we should not support this amendment, but reject it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he challenged my assertion about people making a quick capital profit, I should like to put one question to him. Is it not the case that a person who buys a house from the council at 40 per cent. of its market value can, under the pre-emption scheme, then sell it back at 100 per cent. of the market value, which represents a profit of 150 per cent.?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is assuming that the person buys it and immediately re-sells it. First, he has to wait for several years and then the authority still has the right to buy it back, if it so chooses. So do not let us talk about the windfall profits of these people; it just does not apply.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I was chairman of a housing committee for a number of years and when you have been on housing committees, as has the noble Lord, you know all about it. When you have hundreds of young people wanting houses and you are very short of houses, it is very difficult to get the county councils or the town councils to build the kind of houses that are
1050
suitable for old people. Of course, that can be left entirely to the free market, and I am not against people owning their own houses. I have owned my own house and I like to see other people owning theirs.
My noble friend has not spoken about the concessions and I do not really know what they are. The trouble is that you cannot get these dwellings built for old people when there is great pressure on housing committees to build for other classes of people, with the result that there is a terrible shortage of old people's dwellings. Of course, the young try to buy them because they are there and they have much more money than the old, but if you do not protect the old you will not get the result for which we all hope.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can only say that I am in total agreement with my noble friend on this point. I want to see more dwellings of one and two bedrooms built for elderly people. They are being built. The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, was fair enough to acknowledge that fact earlier on. That building must continue. But what we propose will not disadvantage those people in any way. It will give the elderly people rights, and I am passionate for them to have those rights and not to be disadvantaged just because they are elderly.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to reply to the debate. We are very grateful to all those noble Lords from all sides of the House who have spoken so strongly in favour of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, had some doubts about it and wanted reassurance on the rural side. I do not think that he got the reassurance that he wanted, but, as someone who takes an interest in the welfare of the elderly and who is himself a very kindly man, I put it to him that he should also look at the plight of the elderly in the urban areas—in the towns and cities—for it is the whole area with which this amendment is concerned.
In reply, the Minister started by asking how we distinguish the building design for the elderly. Clause 7 of the original Bill, which we are using at the moment (the unamended Bill, the Bill that came from the other place) says quite clearly that where a conveyance:
"is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age".
Even in the other place, speaking on the amendments, the Minister for Housing—and I am delighted to see him here today—more or less made the same points, and made it quite clear (either overtly or by implication) that certainly they are dwellings which are manifestly suitable for older people.
The Minister then went on to use the argument, with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, dealt with tremendous brilliance, about the people being discriminated against. The Minister has gone on and on making this point, which is not really true, because all it can do is perhaps upset a certain number of people. We are saying that where there are not enough houses of this sort to go round—and this is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, was making a few moments or so ago—it is the Government's duty to make sure that those who are really in need will have the opportunity to use these houses and to live in them. If the Government's plan is agreed to, it would

1051
be a discrimination against those who need the houses and who will not get them.
With great respect, when the Minister said that you do not lose a house if it is sold to an elderly person, that is not true. If it is sold to an elderly person, it becomes lost because it then goes into that family. We have had a great deal of cross-discussion about age this afternoon. As the turnover in elderly persons' accommodation must be greater than that in other accommodation because of the sheer age of the people when they go into it—and even if they live longer, it does not make all that difference—when it goes back into the council stock more people will have use out of each unit of accommodation than will be the case if the accommodation is sold. It is also interesting that the rural organisations, the agricultural organisations, the local government organisations, are all against these amendments which have been proposed in another place and all support the original amendment passed in this House. Therefore, I beg to press the amendment.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed, and disagree to Amendments Nos. 16 to 30 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to Amendment No. 31 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gregson, L.

Airedale, L.

Grimond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Attlee, E.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Beswick, L.

Henniker, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boothby, L.

Hylton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bottomley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Chelwood, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kagan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kaldor, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

McCarthy, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Denington, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Derby, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Diamond, L.

Meston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milverton, L.

Ennals, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Monson, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Nicol, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede. L.

[Teller.]

[Teller.]

1052

Prys-Davies, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Rhodes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Templeman, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Stallard, L.

Winstanley, L.

Stedman, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bauer, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clashfern. L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cairns, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Croy, L.

Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Minto, E.

Cockfield, L.

Morris, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guildford. L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Perth, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eccles, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland. D.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney. L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rugby. L.

Gainford, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn. E.

Gormanston, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shannon, E.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Soames, L.

Marylebone, L.

Somers, L

Henley, L.

Spens, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hood, V.

L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathspey, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Kintore, E.

Teynham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vickers, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Luke, L.

Wise. L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Amendment No. 32 printed earlier.]
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 32 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 32, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Belhvin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
33 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Further advances in the case of certain voluntary disposals. Where-

(a)a lease of a dwelling-house granted otherwise than in pursuance of this Part of this Act contains a provision to the like effect as that required by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act; and

(b)a body specified in section 18(3) above has, in the exercise of any of its powers, left outstanding or advanced any amount on the security of the dwelling-house,

that power shall include power to advance further amounts for the purpose of assisting the tenant to make payments in pursuance of that provision.").

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
34 Line 2, at beginning insert ("(1)").
35 Line 12, at end insert—
("(2) This section shall be deemed always to have had effect.").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 to the Lords Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 to the Lords Amendment No. 33.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
("Repayment of housing association grant.
36 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) In section 30(3) of the 1974 Act (repayment etc. of housing association grant in certain circumstances), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) there has been paid to the association in respect of any land to which the grant relates an amount payable in pursuance of—

(i) the covenant required by section 104B(2) of the Housing Act 1957 or section 8(1) of the Housing Act 1980 (covenant for repayment of discount) or any other provision to the like effect; or

(ii) the provision required by paragraph 3, 6 or 7 of Schedule 3 to the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 (terms of shared ownership lease) or any other provision to the like effect;".

(2)If, after a housing association grant has been made under section 29 of the 1974 Act to an association registered under section 13 of that Act—
(a) there is such a disposal as is mentioned in paragraph

(a) of subsection (3) of section 30 of that Act; or

(b) there is made such a payment as is mentioned in paragraph (aa) of that subsection,

the association shall notify the Secretary of State of the disposal or payment and, if so required by written notice of the Secretary of State, shall furnish him with such particulars of and information relating to the disposal or payment as are specified in the notice.
(3) Where a housing association grant has been so made, the Chief Land Registrar may furnish the Secretary of State with such particulars and information as he may reasonably require for the purpose of determining—

(a) whether there has been such a disposal as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 30 of the 1974 Act: or

(b) whether there has been made such a payment as is mentioned in paragraph (aa) of that subsection.").

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
37 Line 35, at end insert—
("(4) The amendment made by subsection (1) above shall apply whether the payment was made before or after the commencement date.").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37 to the Lords Amendment No. 36.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
("Provisions as respects certain tenants of charitable housing associations etc.
38 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) This section applies to any tenant of a publicly funded dwelling-house who, but for subsection (1) or (2)(a) of section 2 of the 1980 Act (exception for cases where landlord is a charitable housing association etc.), would have the right to buy: and a dwelling-house is publicly funded for the purposes of this section if housing association grant has been paid under section 29 of the 1974 Act in respect of a project which included—

(a) the acquisition of the dwelling-house;

(b) the acquisition of a building and the provision of the dwelling-house by means of the conversion of that building; or

(c) the acquisition of land and the construction of the dwelling-house on that land.

(2)The Secretary of State may pay housing association grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act to an association registered under section 13 of that Act in cases where the association first acquires a dwelling-house and then disposes of it at a discount to a tenant to whom this section applies.
(3)Where an association registered under section 13 of the 1974 Act contracts for the acquisition of a dwelling-house and, without taking the conveyance, grant or assignment, disposes of its interest to a tenant to whom this section applies, subsection (2) above and the following provisions, namely—

(a) section 122 of the 1980 Act and sections 104B(2)to(9) and 104C of the 1957 Act as applied by that section (disposals by housing associations);

(b) Part II of Schedule 1A to the 1980 Act (qualification and discount);

(c) section 2 of the 1974 Act (consent of Housing Corporation to disposals); and

(d) Section 9(2) of that Act (Loans by Housing Corporation),

shall have effect as if the association first acquired the dwelling-house and then disposed of it to that tenant.
(4)A housing association which is a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 may have among its objects that of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2) above without preventing the association being or, as the case may be, remaining registered under section 13 of the 1974 Act.
(5)In this section "dwelling-house" includes a house within the meaning of the 1957 Act.").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
39 Line 35, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("14) Section 13 of the 1974 Act shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included the purpose or object of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2) above. ").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39 to the Lords Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)
The Commons had made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
40 Page 88, line 19, at end insert—
(" . In subsection (1) of section 127 of that Act (registration of housing associations) for the words from the beginning to "its objects" there shall be substituted the words "Section 13 of the 1974 Act (the register of housing associations) shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included" and the words from "without" onwards shall be omitted.").
41 Page 90, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 127(1), the words from "without"onwards.").

Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
42 After Schedule 6, insert the following Schedule—
SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 4 TO 1980 ACT

  SCHEDULE 4A
  GROUNDS FOR WITHHOLDING CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT BY WAY OF EXCHANGE
  Ground 1
  The tenant or the proposed assignee is obliged to give up possession of the dwelling-house of which he is the secure tenant in pursuance of an order of the court, or will be so obliged at a date specified in such an order.
  Ground 2
  Proceedings have been begun for possession of the dwelling-house of which the tenant or the proposed assignee is the secure tenant on one or more of grounds 1 to 5 A as set out in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act or there has been served on the tenant or the proposed assignee a notice under section 33 of this Act which specifies one or more of those grounds and that notice is still in force.
  Ground 3
  The accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is substantially more extensive than is reasonably required by the proposed assignee.
  Ground 4
  The extent of the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the proposed assignee and his family.
  Ground 5
  The dwelling-house forms part of, or is within the curtilage of. a building to which sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act applies and the dwelling-house was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his in consequence of the tenant or predecessor being in the employment of the landlord or of a body specified in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph.
  Ground 6
  The landlord is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960 and the proposed assignee's occupation of the dwelling-house would conflict with the objects of the charity.
  Ground 7
  The dwelling-house has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by a physically disabled person who requires accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house and, if the assignment were made, there would no longer be such a person residing in the dwelling-house.
  Ground 8
  The landlord is a housing association or housing trust which lets dwelling-houses only for occupation (alone or with others) by persons whose circumstances (other than merely financial circumstances) make it especially difficult for them to satisfy their need for housing and, if the assignment were made, there would no longer be such a person residing in the dwelling-house.
  Ground 9
  The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons with special needs and a social service or special facility is provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses in order to assist persons with those special needs and, if the assignment were made, there would no longer be a person with those special needs residing in the dwelling-house.")
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
  43 Line 29, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("either").
  44 Line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or is situated in a cemetery and (in either case) ").
  Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 to Lords Amendment No. 42.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
45 Page 84, line 1, at end insert—
(" . Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 3 of the Housing Act 1980 (meaning of "house", "flat", "dwelling-house" etc.) shall have effect as if any reference to the right to buy included a reference to the right to be granted a shared ownership lease.
. Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants) shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part 1 of this Act.
.—(1) In section 5(2) of that Act (notice claiming to exercise the right to buy) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted the words "two years".
(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act.
. At the end of section 6 of that Act (purchase price) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(6) Where the secure tenant's tenancy has at any time been assigned by virtue of section 37A of this Act, the persons specified in subsection (5) above shall not include any person who under that tenancy was a secure tenant before the assignment.".").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
46 Line 11, leave out ("In section 5(2)") and insert ("After subsection (1) of section 5").
47 Line 12, after ("buy") insert ("there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(IA) A landlord's notice under subsection (1) above shall inform the tenant of any application for a determination under paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act and, in the case of a notice admitting the tenant's right, shall be without prejudice to any determination made on such an application."
(I A) In subsection (2) of that section").
48 Line 14, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)")
49 Line 15, leave out ("the 1980") and insert ("that")
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps we might take the next amendments one at a time. Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 are consequential.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, the noble Lord is moving Amendments Nos. 45 to 49: is that right?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords; I am moving, first of all, Amendment No. 45 on its own. My Lords, I beg to move that Amendment No. 45 be agreed to.
Moved, That Amendment No. 45 be agreed to.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 are consequential and therefore are not moved.
Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 disagreed to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49 to Lords Amendment No. 45.
[Printed above.]
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
50 Page 90, line 58, at end insert—
("1. The repeal of section 2(5) of the Housing Act 1980 has effect subject to section 2(4) of this Act.
2. The repeals of sections 7(5) to (11) and 15 of that Act have effect subject to section 3(6) of this Act.").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
51 Line 3, leave out ("2(4)") and insert ("2(5)").
52 Line 5, at end insert—
("3. The repeal of paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act has effect subject to section 2(6) of this Act.").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that Amendment No. 50 be agreed to, but Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 will be not moved.
Moved, That Amendment No. 50 be agreed to.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 disagreed to.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
6.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Separate accounts of expenditure by local authorities under Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973]:
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I expressed my intention of suggesting that we leave out Clause 7. It is not that I object to the clause, rather that I should like the Government to give us some information about it. For generations we have had this power in Scotland to spend up to two pence in the rates on various matters that a local authority considers conducive to the good of the town and in respect of which it has not been the custom or the requirement to keep separate accounts. As far a I know there has been little or no complaint about it. If there is any complaint about anything that local authorities do in Scotland the time to voice that complaint and do something about it was last Thursday. Judging by the results of the local elections in Scotland last Thursday, I do not see any justification for the Government to take a more grandmotherly approach to Scottish local authorities. In Edinburgh, Tories lost seat after seat after seat and eventually lost control of the council. Then in Glasgow—that place where they had high hopes—there is less than a handful of Tories left (I think it is four or five) out of a council of 66.
So they had a complete wash-out in Scotland, apart from a little consolation where they regained on redistribution a Tory seat around Troon, which I have never considered to be a hotbed of revolution.
Why should we have this clause in? Somebody discovered that councils have a separate account in England and as I have said before that is the worst possible reason for putting a thing into Scotland. I know that under this power a tremendous amount of good is done by local authorities. If there is something outrageous that they are going to do, but which is not illegal—and I point out that this does not in any way render anything that they have done illegal—but which some people perhaps may consider outrageous, there is usually a debate about it. The local papers are full of it and we can rely upon the local press to publicise those things. I know, for instance, from my own involvement with the National Trust of Scotland that the contribution of the local authorities to the work of the National Trust is invaluable in the monies that they provide. I wish that the local Member of Parliament who raised this and persuaded the Government to pass it had spoken about the contribution which the Stirling District Council made to the National Trust in respect of information and the very fine centre that we have built at Bannockburn.
I deplore the Government's acceding to this point. I am not going to object to it because if there is more information made available to some Nosey Parker then, so be it. But I should like to hear the Government's justification as to why—and they passed the 1973 Act and we have had local government Acts in every single Session of Parliament since 1979—they wait until the Committee stage of this particular Bill and accept a new clause from someone whose experience of Scottish local Government is fairly limited; and why, for the worst possible reasons, we have this clause.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for speaking in this debate on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to put the case for what we are doing in the Bill by the addition of this new clause. The purpose of the clause, which was added to the Bill during its Committee stage in another place, is to require local authorities to include in their accounts a separate account for expenditure under Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. It may be that some noble Lords are not completely aware of the contents of Section 83 of the 1973 Act. I shall just mention that that is the provision which enables authorities to spend up to the product of a tuppenny rate on expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of the area and its inhabitants and for which statutory powers do not otherwise exist.
There was already an equivalent provision in English legislation requiring English local authorities to keep a separate account for their payments under this power. While we do not have detailed information about the uses to which this power is put in Scotland, recent research has shown that the main expenditure under the power is to enable local authorities to give assistance to industry. However, the power is also used for purposes which are politically controversial.
Given the wide scope of the power, it seems important that there should be provision for a separate account to be kept, as is the case in England and Wales. The clause would force authorities to be more systematic in their account of the expenditure under this power, setting it out clearly for the public to see. At present, local authorities do not appear to be spending the full amount that they could under this power. The first financial year for which we asked for information from the authorities about their expenditure was 1982–83; and the returns to the questionnaire dealing with this year suggest that authorities in total spent about £1·5 million under this power. This is about one-half of 1 per cent. of the total amount which local authorities spent in that year.
This clause when it was introduced in Committee was welcomed by both sides and represents a useful extension of open government as well as requiring Scottish local authorities to provide the same amount of information in their accounts as do English authorities on their expenditure under this broad, general power. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, actually has reservations about it. I know that he is particularly interested in matters pertaining to local government and I should have thought that anything which is going to be of assistance to the general public to see exactly how money is spent by local authorities would have been welcomed by him. I hope that I have been able to explain to him the reasons why the Government think that it is right that Scotland should have this power which is already available in England and Wales and I hope, in view of that explanation, that he might be prepared to agree to Clause 7 of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: To say that it was welcomed in another place is an abuse of words. It was not objected to—apart from I think one Member who
1060
voiced considerable objections, mainly to the speech with which it was introduced by the Member for Stirling. I too would have objected strongly had I been there in respect of that because it was of a very selective nature. It was interesting that the Minister of State should say that of recent days or somehow or another it has been used for political purposes. I think that Stirling made a contribution to the march for jobs. Well, in view of the situation in Scotland, I can well understand local authorities making a contribution towards something that they think should be highlighted—the need for more jobs in Scotland.
It might not be pleasant for the Government but the whole point is this. The 1973 Act which is now being amended was passed by a Tory Government. They did not think that it was necessary then that it should be done. I want to know why it is necessary now. One of the first local government Bills promoted by the Government after 1979 was to free the local authorities from certain restrictions vis-à-vis central government. I should like to know why at this point of time they should think that this is necessary. No one will ever use it. I am perfectly sure of that. The Minister of State himself says that the local authorities in Scotland do not use to the full the tuppenny rate. Is he going to encourage them to use it or to discourage them? I ask this bearing in mind his general attitude to rates I do not object to it but I do not think that it has really been justified that we should make this slight change. I do not object to it myself but I do not welcome it.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inspection of local authorities' accounts]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 43, after ("interested") insert ("and authorised by the Secretary of State")
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 8 which is again an open government clause. The rubric reads:
"Inspection of local authorities' accounts.".
The wording of the subsection to be substituted begins:
"At each audit under this Part of the Act …".
That is, at a particular time, there is going to be an availability for inspection—and inspection by "any persons interested". These
"persons interested may inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating thereto and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents."
The later part of Clause 1 will deal with another amendment. What I am interested in are the words, "any persons interested". It does not read "any ratepayers", but "any persons" so that someone could come in from outside, somebody who is probably just interested. How you define "interested" I do not know; for anyone can say that in their own opinion they are interested on any particular point. They could be pursuing a vendetta against some councillor, for that matter, and serving some personal end in respect of it.
I think there ought to be some sort of limitation on this, bearing in mind that this is the time of year when local authorities are busy and when they want to get on

1061
with other business such as looking forward to meetings with the Secretary of State or the Minister of State about guidelines and everything else. But they have got to hold things up for about 15 days. There could be a regular stream of people coming in doing this. I suggest that there ought to be a certain limitation, and that we might say,
"any persons … authorised by the Secretary of State".
I know that this power is available in England. When we ask what limitation is to be put upon it we are told that it is left to the courts to decide whether or not anyone is abusing the right, as they well could abuse the right in respect of both their presence and how often within the 15 days they are there, and so on.
Once again, this is something which has been brought in because "they have got it in England". I do not necessarily object to it, but I am interested in the definition of "any persons interested". It could be somebody from the States. I do not know whether other former Ministers get the same sort of thing as I get—two letters a week from people studying something that happened in Scotland, who ask whether they can come and see me. They are obviously writing books. They could go and see all the accounts of all the local authorities in Scotland. It would be interesting, even if they do not make a deep study of the matter. But what is involved? Why use these words, "any persons interested"? Why not say "any ratepayers interested"? That is my concern. I do not suggest that the words I use are the right ones, but if the Government would have a look at it and see whether they could find some more limited phrase to give this right to people in the area, I would be very happy about it. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I do not object to this very strongly, either. Certainly I think a ratepayer may well have the right to inspect the accounts. In fact, I thought he had, but if he has not then I agree that this is reasonable. There is a very small point here. Over the last two or three years there have been constant additions made to what local authorities are bound to do, and at the same time the Government constantly complain that they take on more staff and spend more money. As I say, this is a very small matter but it is cumulative; and it will add to the work of local authorities.
If the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, come true people may come pouring across the Atlantic to look into the accounts of local authorities. I dare say this is one of the noble Lord's usual colourful explanations to draw the Committee's attention to the dangers which might arise, but it is true that over the last few years there has been a cumulative "drip, drip, drip" of new responsibilities and new duties put upon local authorities; and then at the end of the day the central government say that they are spending too much. I must point out that it is central government which exceed their expenditure targets, not local government.
So while I do not object to it, I think it should be put on record that this is a small and probably justifiable extra duty which is being given to local authorities. I do not object to it, but I think we should bear the possible danger in mind.
The Earl of Kintore: I certainly thought that a ratepayer had the right to see the accounts. I had these accounts with my rate demand this year.
Lord Gray of Contin: Clause 8 represents what we consider to be a welcome extension of the existing public right to inspect local authorities' accounts. At present the Scottish public may only see the abstract of their local authority's accounts. In England their counterparts may see all the supporting papers relating to those accounts. Clause 8 extends to Scotland the rights enjoyed in England for many years. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to require anybody who wishes to inspect their local authority's books to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend will be flattered that the noble Lord wishes to confer such power on the Secretary of State, but I am afraid I must disagree with him on this occasion and resist his amendment.
The proposal has a number of flaws. First, it is clearly designed to deter people from exercising their rights under the clause. Secondly, it is clearly inappropriate for the Secretary of State to exercise judgment on this matter. For example, what criteria should he apply? How would he justify exclusion? Thirdly, it actually constitutes a restriction of public rights as compared with the existing arrangements. At present the public can inspect at least the abstract of accounts without any approval from St. Andrew's House or anywhere else. Under the noble Lord's proposal, they would require my right honourable friend's authorisation even to do that.
I consider that this is an advantage to the people of Scotland. They will be able to see the supporting papers to the accounts if they so desire. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked how we could define the sort of person who would be entitled in this way. It virtually means what it says: any interested person can have access to these accounts and to the papers supporting them. This includes ratepayers and electors, but it does not restrict access to those categories. The suggestion that young people who might be doing a thesis on the subject would have the power to inspect these papers is perfectly correct. There is nothing which prevents them from doing that at the present moment in England, and it is not intended that they should be excluded so far as Scotland is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested that it might put additional work on the local authorities and that it was really increasing their functions. That is not the case. What it is doing is merely giving members of the public the right to see the supporting papers rather than just the abstract of the accounts. I do not anticipate that this is a privilege for which there are going to be regular queues outside every town hall in Scotland in order to study the papers supporting the abstract of the accounts, but I do suggest that it is a right which is available in other parts of the United Kingdom and I have no doubt there are those in Scotland who will welcome it and make use of it. With that explanation, I hope that perhaps the noble Lord will accept what I have said and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not regard this as a privilege, by the way: I regard it as a right, and I think that the Minister of State would probably wish to withdraw what he said about this being a privilege. It is a right. I do not object to it, but I would ask: how have we managed to live without it for all these years? I have seen no great bands of people protesting to local authorities in respect of this. When the Minister says, "Don't worry; there are not going to be many people using it, but it is there", I am still not satisfied with the phrase "any persons interested".
The noble Lord who rose from the Back-Benches is probably right. It is the local ratepayers who are really interested. Your Lordships will remember the definition of "interest" in repect of the land. Having an interest in the land really meant that, whether as land superior, feuer, owner or occupier. This is far too broad to my mind—and why should we give an interest to somebody who probably knows nothing about it? I am thinking for example of the 15 open days for inspection.
Secondly, am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State has to produce an order in relation to the procedures such as the times at which this will be available and the limitations upon the right in respect of which vouchers and everything else can be produced? An answer to that would be helpful, if we were to have another look at it later on.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that there is a regulation-making power so far as this is concerned. Subsection (2) states:
"regulations as to the period in which accounts may be inspected and as to informing persons about their rights of inspection and objection".
So there is a regulation-making power.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is this an affirmative resolution or a negative resolution?
Lord Gray of Contin: If the noble Lord will bear with me, I am almost sure that it will be a negative resolution. But perhaps I may write to him and confirm that point.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are not yet finished with this clause and the noble Lord may be able to get the information. So far as I recollect, it is the negative procedure. But in view of the discussions that we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
Lord carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No.34:
Page 6, line 45, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 46.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is also to get information from the Government and, from what my noble friend Lord Ross has said, the government are aware we are not trying to prevent local people or anyone else from finding out what has been done by an authority. We feel that there should be some restriction on who has the right to do this. The position becomes clear when
1064
one considers what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said about the gradual increase in the duties of local authorities. There is an increase of half an employee here and a quarter of an employee there, with a gradual building up, and the Government always assume that the extra duties can be absorbed.
This amendment takes away the right of people to,
"make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents."
At present, people are able to go into local authority offices and take copies of Ordnance Survey maps or plans for the area, and in certain local authority engineering departments there is a little section set aside for people to take copies. But the Ordnance Survey, through the local authority, levy a charge for this, and there is no question in the clause as it stands that there will be any charge made for making these copies.
In one of the major cities in Scotland it would need only half a dozen people to bring things almost to a standstill. For example, where do they make copies? Do they make them there and then, or do they take the plans away to the local library and put 5 p or 1 Op in the machine every time they want a copy? Alternatively, will there be machines provided? This is a small but important point. Once people have been given the right to inspect, they should also be given the right to take notes or to make some sort of permanent record of what they have seen in order to aid their memory.
But the papers will be incredibly voluminous if they,
"make copies of all or any part of the accounts",
and it may take days for half a dozen people in one of the large regions of Scotland to make copies. That may sound a frivolous argument; but someone could cause great disturbance to the running of a local authority. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said and perhaps admit that a little tightening up for the sake of local authorities, and even of ratepayers, may be necessary before this clause is accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the points which he has raised. But first, lest I forget—not that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, could ever allow me to forget!—I can confirm that his recollection that the regulation-making powers are by negative resolution, and my own recollection which was the same, were correct and that they are by negative resolution.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would remove a right which currently exists. As it stands, the clause provides that members of the public may make copies of all or any part of the documents that they inspect under the rights to be conferred by the clause. A similar right to take copies already exists in England, and the Scottish public already has the right to take copies from the abstract of accounts. The only local authority accounts document that they may at present inspect is the abstract of accounts. The noble Lord's amendment would therefore remove all these rights, both old and new.
It may be that the noble Lord is concerned that local authorities will face huge photocopying bills as a result of the provisions of the clause. If so, I can put his mind

1065
at rest. The clause confers upon the public only the right to make the copies and does not place upon local authorities a duty to supply these free of charge. In publishing parlance, it is simply a waiving of copyright rather than a licence to demand free books. Local authorities will be free to make reasonable charges for any copies that the public may make on their photocopiers.
It will be left to local authorities to make arrange-ments appropriate to the area. For example, the arrangements made by an urban authority may be quite different from those which would be appropriate in a rural area. As noble Lords opposite were preaching to me a week ago today, the people at local level frequently know best how to take care of these matters, and we think that they are the most appropri-ate people to make the local arrangements. With those explanations, perhaps the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a question. The words,
"make copies of all or any part of the accounts"
strike me as possibly being an awful nuisance to the staff. If people are to be able to walk around making copies of anything—which I interpret these words to mean—is that not going too far; or will it be left to authorities to decide what should reasonably be made available for people to see? I am looking at this from the point of view of nuisance to the staff. Every now and again there are real busybodies who put their fingers into all sorts of irrelevant places and I wonder whether it is necessary to leave the clause as open as that.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for raising that point, but I would remind him that this is a facility which has been available in the past in England and I am not aware of any great difficulty which has been found as far as the English authorities are concerned. While accepting that, regrettably, life being life, there are busybodies around and we are all faced with them from time to time, I think they are very much in the minority.
The Earl of Selkirk: I hope so.
Lord Gray of Contin: Certainly, this has not been the experience elsewhere. I think it is an added facility which the Scottish public can now have, so that they will be allowed to take copies if they so desire. I think this is an improvement, and that it will be operated by local authorities and used by the public with a reasonable attitude. Obviously, a member of the public would not be allowed to be unreasonable and oppressive in demands, but again this depends on the circumstances in each case. However, the 15-day period for inspection which is to be proposed for the regulations governing access will put a limit on the number of documents it would be possible to produce and inspect.
I hope that my noble friend would agree with me that this is something which we should not keep from
1066
the public. Local authorities should have nothing to hide, and if members of the public seek to take copies I really cannot see that there should be any great objection to it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble friend uses the word "unreasonable", but that does not appear in the Bill. I do not know how the local authorities can prevent people being unreasonable. I just wonder if they need some degree of authority to do that. If a person is thoroughly unreasonable, he can sit about in the office all day watching the people working while making copies. I wonder whether some word is not required of a slightly restrictive character.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that there is already a right in the 1973 Act to take copies of abstracts. If some totally unreasonable person were to try to insist that he was provided with a wholly unreasonable number of copies every day of the week for a fortnight, then I think the local authority would be not unreasonable in refusing to make this facility available. As with many minor things, this has to be interpreted with a degree of reasonableness by all concerned.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder whether the Minister has ever looked at some of the judgments given by Her Majesty's judges in Scotland in respect of the interpretation of statutes. They are governed by the words that are there. There is nothing about "unreasonable" or "reasonable" or limitation of any kind.
It is a different matter in respect of abstracts of the council. It is all backing-up papers, vouchers, receipts and everything else. I wonder if this facility is available in the Scottish Office in respect of the national government. I could think of spending a fortnight there enlightening myself on all sorts of things in respect of receipts, accounts, vouchers and everything else applicable, it may well be, to Ministers. I do not think we know enough about Ministers and their expenses. The Scottish Office Ministers are a different matter from English Ministers. They can determine whether they are based in Edinburgh or whether they are based in London. It is amazing what goes on. The same thing applies in respect of civil servants travelling between London and Edinburgh. You could have a fascinating time if you were interested in things like that, and I feel that that is why there really ought to be something put in.
In another place when this was discussed it was pointed out that this was not a matter of reasonableness or anything else; this was a matter for the courts as to whether anyone was being a nuisance in respect of what they were asking. That is not quite good enough. According to the Minister, we are going to have a chance to see it because he is going to produce regulations. I hope they will cover the extent and detail which may be allowed under this. Within those regulations it may well be that there will be power to get closer to the fact of debarring people from making use of this. I am not very happy about them making a copy. The Minister says it may well be different for rural areas and for urban areas. One can imagine somebody sitting down with a pen copying

1067
out a long account which will take sometime. Yet there is nothing to stop them, as far as I can see. On the other hand, there is nothing here that says charges can be made for making copies available.
The Lord Advocate will know that, under more recent legislation in respect to civic government and all things about licences and people getting copies of them, there was a charge made (and if I remember rightly, the charge was left to local government) such as would cover their administrative costs. There is nothing here about that at all. I should have thought that, since there has been recent experience of this same kind of thing in respect of people getting copies, this might well have been covered.
The fact of the matter is that these are clauses which were accepted in Committee by Back-Benchers. I do not think the Government paid enough attention to them. They will have a little more time between now and the next stage of the Bill, and then time before the next stage again, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carmichael will be pressing the Government on this and on other points, so that they look into the practicalities and the effect on the actual work of local government, which has to continue while they meet this latest drip of demands upon them, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, rightly said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies, I detect that we are a little short in the Chamber of recent or current local government experience. I think this is a point which the Minister really should look at. There are certain people who are barrack-room lawyers who pursue their local councillors with points that they want to investigate. I thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that there was already good access. I have always provided all the papers that constituents of mine (I am no longer a councillor) have wanted, and they have doubtless copied them, but 1 do think that they should copy them at their own expense and I do think it should be indicated in some way that they should not use the copying machine in the department where they are looking up matters. There is usually only one copying machine there, and they could hold things up.
This does need to be rather more precise. It is not a very practical way of putting it. Having said that, perhaps the Minister can look at just how this should be phrased. The access is essential, and there is no reason why they should not have copies, but that might mean that the copying machine would be blocked for half an hour, greatly to the detriment of ratepayers' business.
The Earl of Perth: Together with others who have spoken. I think there is a worry here when we read that one has the right to make copies. I know the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said they should not be unreason-able, but who is to judge that? It would be much better to have another look at this and see whether somehow—even if it is only by saying "within reason" or something like that—we can qualify what is here at present; otherwise, I can see the busybodies being very troublesome.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can appreciate the concern which has been expressed by noble Lords and by the

1068
noble Baroness. The situation is that no limit is placed upon what can be copied. It is up to the local authority. Expenses will again be a matter for the local authority. The local authority will be bound to allow a member of the public to take a copy, but there is no question of the local authority having to provide that copy. It will be up to the member of the public to take the copy and to pay the local authority for it, if they use a copying machine.
When this matter was discussed in another place, the Minister pointed out that it would not be practical to specify a limit on the number of documents which might be requested, although it is worth noting that the proposed 15-day inspection period imposes an upper limit on the volume of paper that it would be possible to produce and inspect during that time. Ultimately, again it would be a matter for the courts to determine in the event of a dispute. Once again, the question has already been tested in the English courts. Public access provisions have been in operation for some time in England. The courts in England have held that it would be possible for a request to be so oppressive as to amount to an abuse of rights; but again that must be a matter for the circumstances and merits of each application.
The noble Lord has suggested that we should leave out from the word "thereto" to the end of line 46. I could not accept the amendment in its present form. However, I know that this matter is causing concern on all sides. It is not a party matter. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I shall look at the matter again before the next stage to see whether there is a form of words which will achieve the desired objective. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: If the noble Lord the Minister is to look at the matter again, would he undertake to have regard to the circumstance that the matter has already, apparently, been the subject of litigation in England? Surely we should be legislating in such a way as, as far as possible, to keep the citizen out of the hands of the lawyers and to keep him out of the courts, which have a great many other things to do.
Lord Gray of Contin: I accept the point which the noble and learned Lord makes. However, in the event of a serious dispute a decision will ultimately have to be taken somewhere. The court would seem to be the appropriate place for that decision to be taken. However, when I look at the matter again I shall certainly bear in mind the noble and learned Lord's suggestion.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look again at the matter. He mentioned that great concern has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. It should be emphasised that nobody wishes to stifle the right of people to know what is happening. The noble Lord should also consider whether there will be confidentiality. Will it be possible, for instance, to inspect bills of quantities which local authorities accept from builders for, say, civil defence shelters? There may be long queues of people waiting to take copies of bills of quantities of that kind. That might be a new phenomenon, but it

1069
could happen. There is a great deal to be looked at, particularly since the advent of the modern copying machine. May I ask the Minister whether there is any question of reasonable hours being involved? Must this be done at particular times? The noble Baroness referred to rural areas where there may be only one copying machine. If members of the public were to use it throughout the whole of the period that it was available, it would not be possible for local authority officials to use it for, perhaps, very important business. This matter needs to be looked at. We do not wish to limit the rights of people, but care must be taken to protect the rights of local authorities. They, too, have rights.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Most of the points he has made will be resolved at local level by local authorities. I shall look again at the question, but I must make it clear to the noble Lord that I am taking the matter back without commitment. I may find that I am unable to find a form of words which is preferable to that which already exists. However, I give the Committee the assurance that I shall take the matter back and look at it in order to see whether the wording can be improved.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I hope that the Minister will be able to improve the wording. We shall have another opportunity to look at the matter. Having received those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This has proved to be an important clause which is worthy of a few words. Remembering what happened last Thursday, it is right that we should give expression to those few words. We have been promised that the words "any persons interested" will be looked at again. The Minister has also said he will look again at the words: "and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents".
Time and time again the Minister has said that this is a new right. On one occasion he called it a privilege. He said that it will be there for only 15 days, so things will not be too bad; if there is chaos for 15 days, we can live with it.
One of the duties of local authorities is their duty in respect of civil defence. Many people are interested in civil defence, from the point of view of being not helpful but unhelpful about civil defence. They will want to know as much as possible about it, the expenditure involved and what would happen if there were to be a nuclear attack on this country. May I ask the Minister whether the words "and those other documents" include documents which relate to matters of considerable importance from a defence point of view? Will any limit be imposed because of confidentiality? Many of the documents will include the names of certain people. They may be councillors or members of staff. Other matters may be included

1070
which affect ratepayers. The rights of tenants also have to be considered. One of the rights of tenants, if they do not receive satisfaction over speed of repair, is to carry out the repairs themselves and to be reimbursed by the council. This means that they will need to supply receipts and accounts. I am sure that a great number of people, believing that something was not done by the person whose name appeared at the head of a sheet of paper but that it was done in some other way, would insist on seeing the accounts in respect of any particular job. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not in Perth today. He might be able to tell us whether it will include the invitation to see particular receipts for (in respect of a do-it-youself job, say) the cost of the wood, the glass, and anything else. All that may well come into this provision.
It may be quite wrong of the Minister of State to suggest that only a few people will be interested. With this new right, and with what may happen as a result of it in respect of repairs—with people doing this work themselves and then asking for certain sums of money (and there are to be certain limitations in respect of that aspect)—there could be quite a queue of people visiting within the 15-day limit. It might be that local authorities will have to open additional offices.
As to the Minister's suggestion that this is not going to cost local authorities anything very much, I believe he is probably quite wrong. I believe that I am right in thinking that COSLA, while not objecting to the clause, are, like me, not overweeningly welcoming it. One of the points they made was that this could cost them money in respect of staff work. I shall be very glad to have the Government's view on this.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am glad that the noble Lord is not objecting to this clause because I believe he would agree with me that it is extending to the public a right which they did not previously have in Scotland and which they do have in England. While I would agree with him that the fact this right exists in England is not necessarily a reason for legislating just so that we have everything the same in Scotland as we have in England, as this right is available in England, I believe it is proper that we should be making it available in Scotland.
Obviously a balance has to be struck between the public interest in full disclosure of information and the need to protect the individual's rights. That balance will depend very much on the circumstances of each individual case. Ultimately, in the event of a dispute, it would be for the courts to decide. Although the legal systems in England and Scotland are not the same, it is worth noting that this issue has arisen in England, where there is long experience of the operation of wide public access. The decisions of the courts in England suggest that the balance between the public interest in disclosure and protecting confidentiality is different for public access as compared with auditors' rights. There is greater assumption in favour of confidentiality where public access is concerned, but obviously it depends on the merits of each individual case.
The second question which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked concerned information regarding, for example, civil defence, or any other information that

1071
might be of a highly confidential nature. That again would depend on the individual case, but obviously classified information could not be made available. Indeed, I doubt very much whether anyone would expect that classified information would be made available to them. Certainly classified information would not be made available to members of the public. Otherwise, it very largely depends on each case being judged on its merit. In the event of a dispute, then the court would have to be the judge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Will the noble Lord give me the information I sought on whether he expected any increase of scrutiny of these accounts arising from the new right given in respect of the tenants' right of repairs—the right to do repairs themselves and send the bills to the local authority? Would those bills be subject to the same scrutiny?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, the noble Lord has a perfectly fair point. Again, this would be a matter for each individual case to be decided. There might be special circumstances in which a member of the public would have a justifiable interest in the costs in which a private tenant was involved in respect of a certain type of repair. But the individual concerned—the member of the public—would have to be able to convince the authorities that he had a reasonable need to have that information. It would then be decided at local level. If it could not be decided at local level and there was a dispute, it would have to be resolved by the court.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is the Minister now telling me that the phrase about which we spoke earlier, "any interested party", is one that will be decided upon by any local council? That is what he is saying. Is even this decision about "any interested party" one that can be ruled out by the decision of a local council, with there being an appeal to the courts in respect of it? This is very different from what he said earlier.
Lord Gray of Contin: With respect, I do not think it is different from what I said earlier. The noble Lord has now reverted to the question of what type of person would have right of access. The answer I gave earlier, and which I repeat now, is that the right of access would be the same as that which presently exists in England. That is, not only that a ratepayer or an elector has a right to examine, and in this case take a copy of, the papers which are there in support of the abstract of accounts, but that any particular individual who wishes to seek more information about the accounts of a particular local authority has a right to go to the local—
Lord Grimond: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? If that is so, does the word "interested" add anything at all? When the noble Lord is looking at the redrafting of this clause, will he consider leaving out the word "interested"? As far as I can see, he has now made it so broad that anyone engaged in research of any kind can go to a local authority and ask to see the accounts. If that is so, the word "interested" seems to be unnecessary.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I will look at that again. I take the point which the noble Lord makes. Presumably his argument would be that if an individual was not interested then he would not seek to look at the accounts anyway, and therefore the word may be superfluous. I will certainly examine this again. If it is possible to improve the wording then we shall look into this at the next stage.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I asked the Minister specifically about the new rights under the tenants' rights and the right of a ratepayer, or any other interested party, or any party, to ask to see vouchers, accounts and all the rest. I hope that the Minister will read the words he used, because it is those words to which I took objection. He seemed to imply that the local authority could decide whether they would show these documents to a particular person, and as to whether that person had a right to see them.
It may well be that I misheard the Minister. It may well be that the words he used were injudicious. It may well be that all of this will be covered in the regulations which we shall see but which we shall not have a chance to deal with because under the negative procedure it will be left to another place to deal with them. But by tomorrow the Minister will have had a chance to read what he said, and when we return to this Bill next Thursday I am perfectly sure that he will put us right in respect of anything that he said that should not have been said. But I do not seek to pursue this point at the present time.
Clause 8 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I state that we shall not be resuming the proceedings on this Bill for an hour, until nine minutes past eight o'clock.
House resumed.

Betting, Gaining and Lotteries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In so doing I wish briefly to explain why it is that I am forgoing the delights of your Lordships' restaurant at this hour to introduce this modest Bill this evening. In spite of the fact that this is the second time in two or three years that I have introduced a Bill on roughly the same subject, I do not altogether wish to give the impression that I am a compulsive and inveterate gambler on horses or any other appropriate and available medium for a bet. Nor do I wish to encourage others to indulge in this exercise beyond reasonable bounds.
A few years ago, during the 1970s, a Back-Bench committee consisting of members of both Houses and of the three major parties was formed with the objective of trying to help all aspects of racing. In those days the main problems were VAT and stable lad unrest. Inasmuch as these matters are still problems,

1073
we cannot claim unrivalled success; but at least we have provided a forum and made a bridge between Parliament and the racing authorities and those who work in the racing industry; and that includes the large number who work in the bookmaking industry.
Therefore, when I was asked to move the Second Reading of the Bill, before agreeing I asked myself two questions. First, will it help racing in the broadest sense? To this I believe the answer is, "Yes". Secondly, will it be for the public's advantage or will it make them into betting addicts and lead them into the depths of depravity? As I say, this Bill is essentially modest and I believe it is to the public advantage.
As regards the racing industry, it has always been the wish to attract more people back on to the racecourses, which are in dire need of increased patronage. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to improve considerably the amenities which could be offered in betting shops, and I wondered whether this might adversely affect racecourse attendances. After taking expert advice, principally from the Jockey Club, I am satisfied that racecourses would not suffer. Indeed, the extra interest, if stimulated, might eventually encourage people to see the real thing. Of course, racing does receive a small cut (through the levy board) of every legal bet struck.
As regards the public, the Bill is a sequel to the 1963 Act of the same name which brought under the control of law an occupation which had hitherto been conducted illegally. In this minefield caution was very much the key word and strict regulations were enacted. But almost a quarter of a century later off-course bookmaking has shown itself to be, on the whole, mature and responsible, and an important part of our recreation. It is of course also a substantial contributor to the Revenue. I do not wish to moralise or pontificate but I believe that a bet on a horse in reasonable proportions can be looked upon as a healthy interest and no more depraved than investment on the Stock Exchange or membership of a Lloyd's syndicate.
This Bill seeks to remove some of the original strict regulations by providing the Home Secretary with the means to enable bookmakers to offer their clients the type of service they require—which can indeed already be found in illegal shops—while keeping the whole operation within the law. These powers are an important feature of the Bill and I hope will mean that we need not go into too great a detail in the Bill because these details may have to be altered fairly frequently. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton will confirm that the Home Secretary's order would not be made without wide consultation and Parliament would then use the affirmative procedure to confirm the order.
Apart from the racing authorities, this Bill is supported by the Bookmakers Off-course Licensees Association and by the smaller bookmakers. It seems strange to me to be making a speech on this subject without the scrutiny of the late Lord Wigg over my right shoulder! But it is fairly rare for anything in this field to have this wide support. So far as the smaller bookmakers are concerned, their welfare was an important point in the debates in the other place. They tend to operate in the larger villages and smaller towns

1074
where the bigger chains do not think it worth their while. I went to see the admirable Mr. Worth last Monday in Kegworth, which is close to my own home, near Loughborough. He was looking forward to the improvements that he will make to his distinctly bleak premises if this Bill becomes law.
I now turn to the clauses of the Bill to say a few words on the major clauses. Clause 1 deals with the provision of these improved amenities such as tea-making machines and coffee-making machines, but as your Lordships will see from subsection (1)(b) this specifically excludes the sale of liquor. The present EXTEL commentary—commonly known as the "blower"—will continue. This purely provides information on prices from the courses and an oral commentary. The Bill will allow the installation of television sets to show the running of races live to the customers. That will dispose of the rather silly present situation where sets can be installed for the staff to watch but a customer can only do so by being invited round the back of the betting office. The size of the TV screens could be a slightly controversial issue; but that is the kind of consideration which could be included in the Home Secretary's order. Habits change fairly frequently in this field. These modest creature comforts will still leave the premises essentially a place to have a bet. They will not in themselves entice the ordinary thirsty British tea or coffee drinker or the square-eyed television addict into the shop only to find himself promptly fleeced by irresistible temptations to bet on the races.
Clause 2 deals with advertising. The present situation is totally confused and interpreted in various ways by betting shop owners, the courts and the police. This is particularly true in the case of window displays. This clause will enable the Home Secretary to rationalise the present confused situation. Displays inside betting shops will also be considered and more information made available in the shape of publications such as Timeform. and so on.
Clauses 3 and 4 are, I think, self explanatory inasmuch as clauses in any Bill ever are; and that is really saying something. I therefore simply conclude by commending this modest Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Crawshaw.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for the way in which he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, and for his light-handed touch in explaining its provisions and his own personal position in regard to supporting such a Bill. One feels that this is a Bill—and I speak personally since this is a Private Member's Bill—which ought to have a Second Reading; but there are some points which the House ought to bear in mind.
May I say first of all that I believe that another place did a service in regard to the Bill as originally presented there, in two directions. First of all, it then had the name, "Specified Premises Improvement Bill", which was not a title which gave everybody a very clear indication as to what the Bill was about. I think

1075
therefore that when the title was altered to the one which comes before us it was a very sensible thing to do. The second thing that was done in another place was to remove what was then Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill was going to permit young people over the age of 16 to be employed in licensed betting shops. The other place in its wisdom at the Committee stage decided that that was not an acceptable clause and it was removed.
I think that the House can certainly obtain a great degree of comfort from what the noble Lord correctly said, which was the assurance that was then given on behalf of the Secretary of State; namely, that there would be very wide and deep consultations before the regulations were made. If I may quote from the Minister. Mr. Douglas Hurd, at column 19 of Standing Committee C's proceedings in another place on 4th April of this year, he said:
"If the Bill is enacted and the powers are conferred on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the next step will be consultation. It would clearly be wrong for the Government to indulge in a headlong rush to make an order under the new Act without consulting widely. I give an assurance that there will be consultations. Parliament would then use the affirmative procedure to approve the order, so it would not be abdicating from future involvement.".
That ends the quotation.
This consultation is very necessary. There was a Royal Commission on Gambling which reported in 1978 (Cmnd. 7200) and which dealt with the very matters (among, of course, many other things) that this Bill deals with. It would be obviously wrong to ignore the recommendations of that Royal Commission when considering whether orders should be made by the Secretary of State, and, if so. the nature of those orders. Very briefly, as I promise your Lordships, I shall refer to some of the relevant considerations which 1 am sure the Secretary of State will bear in mind.
The first one that I would refer to is the lack of statistics and other information of a very necessary kind which the Royal Commission found in regard to matters affecting bookmakers and generally in regard to gambling. One of the recommendations which was made by the Royal Commission (and I am reading from page 20 of Volume One of its final report) was:
"We therefore believe it both essential and urgent for the Government to establish a Gambling Research Unit to monitor and study the incidence, sociology and psychology of gambling.".
Although that was an urgent recommendation which was made in 1978, we are here considering a Bill some six years later without such a research unit having been set up.
The Royal Commission referred specifically to the question of licensed betting offices in connection with the necessity for research. I am looking at recommendation 8 which was made in paragraph 7.22:
"the Government should commission a study of bookmaking finances in about three years' time".
Three years has certainly elapsed and that recommendation has not been carried out, although here we are considering a Bill which affects bookmakers and what ought to happen to their licensed premises.
In regard to the special provisions of this Bill, let me refer to recommendation 9 to be seen in the summary

1076
of recommendations at page 425, this time in Volume Two of the Royal Commission's report:
"Betting offices should not offer any facilities which might induce people to enter them for any purpose other than to bet".
Then it goes on:
"they should, however, be allowed to provide vending machines for light refreshments and non-alcoholic drinks, which are forbidden by law at the present time".
That is a recommendation which is carried out in this Bill, but of course there is the general question of the facilities that might induce people to enter premises for any purpose other than to bet. Obviously one has in mind in this connection the television and other facilities and general entertainment which are provided for under this Bill if the Secretary of State sees fit to make regulations. One hopes, therefore, that all the caveats that were entered by the Royal Commission will be taken into account before the Secretary of State deals with that aspect.
Lastly, there is the question of the signs which can appear outside, as well as inside, licensed betting premises. Again the Royal Commission made recommendations here which one hopes the Secretary of State will bear in mind. I am looking at recommendation 10 which is reported at page 426:
"The provisions concerning signs and notices visible from outside the premises of a betting office should be revised and simplified".
That is referred to in paragraph 7.54 of the report. Recommendation 11 is:
"Provided a code of consumer protection is instituted, the restrictions governing notices and signs visible inside a betting office should be revoked and paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (encouragement to bet) should be repealed so far as it applies to signs and notices".
That means obviously that consideration has to be given again to what the Royal Commission had in mind in that connection.
Subject to those matters, as I said, I think that this Bill, which was so gracefully introduced by the noble Lord, should certainly have a Second Reading.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for his excellent explanation of this Bill. I think he has got hold of a rather slippery customer. It is a purely enabling Bill. It does practically nothing itself. Owing to the strong convention in this House of never rejecting a statutory instrument, this Bill gives the Home Office pretty well a free hand to do what it likes regarding the amenities in betting shops.
I am conscious that I am not coining a phrase when I say that betting is a mug's game. It always has been and it is more so now than ever before, now that we have the betting tax and the betting levy. I think that the best advice you can give to a young person who thinks he is going to be able to make money backing horses is, "Remember, my boy, that only one horse is running for you and all the others are running for the bookie". That sometimes makes him think.
But even betting is not all bad. It does at least give employment not only to the bookmaking industry but to the horse racing industry and in the oganisation of all the other events upon which the betting takes place. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is no business of

1077
governments to encourage mugs to play games, but rather they should control the circumstances in which mugs play their games if they must. No doubt it was right in 1963 to have the Act which introduced the betting shop, because illegal betting was rife; the law was in total disrepute and here was a measure to control which brought under control something in which people were going to indulge in any event. But this Bill would undoubtedly permit the Home Secretary to encourage betting by enormously improving the amentities in betting shops.
This brings me to make a point about the betting tax. There seems to be a two-sided argument here. On the one hand, if people are slowly getting rid of their money, which is what the average punter is doing for 99 per cent. of the time, it is no bad thing that he shall be made to throw a percentage of it into a fund to relieve the hard-pressed taxpayer. But on the other hand I do not relish the thought of the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to the Home Secretary and saying "Look here, you have got a chance here enormously to popularise the betting shops and increase the betting turnover and increase the revenue from the betting tax". I hope that, if that conversation takes place, the Home Secretary will be very cautious about accepting an invitation along those lines. I am glad that there is to be—we are told—extensive consultaton before any statutory instrument is going to emerge as a result of this Bill and I do hope that the Home Secretary is going to proceed very cautiously indeed along this path.
7.32 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailesbury: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, because this is the first time I have dared to attempt a Second Reading speech. But unfortunately I am not sure that too much gratitude is going to manifest itself in this speech. I am reminded of that sad little wartime story to the effect that when Luftwaffe came over the British troops got into dugouts and put on tin hats. When the RAF planes came over, the Germans got into dugouts and put on tin hats. When the American Air Force appeared, everybody got into dugouts and put on tin hats. I am afraid I reach hastily for my own tin hat when I see politicians overflying this particular area.
I shall be brief, so I hope that I shall be forgiven if I recall just one example of the kind of thing which has tended to happen on previous sorry occasions. There was a Chancellor of the Exchequer—not very long ago, although he is now dead—who noted to his great satisfaction that the football pool industry is able to bear a fairly high rate of tax. He therefore acted—he did not just fly a kite, he acted—on his assumption that the fixed odds football industry would similarly be able to bear a fairly high rate of tax. By his action he brought that industry to a complete standstill at a stroke (a phrase very popular in those days).
Obviously, he failed to appreciate that these two sections of the industry cater for totally different sections of the betting public. One section is so mesmerised by the mirage of instant wealth that it is not deterred even by the fact that for every pound that goes into these pools a miserable 30p comes out again,

1078
while the other section is interested, of course, in a calculated risk and a modest profit. One really would have thought—would one not—that the difference would have been well within the comprehension of this intelligent man and his battery of advisers; especially since, if only one of them had grasped the point in advance, presumably the whole fiasco would have been averted. But, no, evidently that was asking too much.
Now this season on the flat, the form is working out pretty well. The question for us this evening is whether the political form is working out equally well. In other words are the politicians doing it all wrong again? Yes and no, but predominantly yes. The sad thing is that if one managed to take a sufficiently narrow and blinkered view, the Bill is so manifestly benign that one would feel inclined to criticise it for not going far enough. In what other country in the world could it have been enacted that one may have a betting shop but one may not make it comfortable nor attractive lest someone should be lured inside to bet? Sometimes I feel surprised that we cannot legislate to make pubs uncomfortable and unattractive lest someone should be lured inside to drink. Really, this mentality is the wonder of our enemies and the despair of our friends.
So what is wrong with the Bill? In isolation, as I have said, nothing. Only this: I think it will seriously unbalance and thus undermine the whole structure of the betting industry upon which racing relies. I am not one of those who depict the owners of the big betting shop chains as the villians of every piece. I say only that this Bill will give them enormous scope for indulging their strong and unhealthy monopolistic urges. This Bill will do their work for them by seriously weakening the on-course betting market.
Far fewer people, I think, will choose to bet on the racecourse rather than in these much improved shops. This will enable the big betting shop chains to denigrate, far more convincingly than they already do, the state of health of the on-course market. They already dislike it, with its cut-throat competition from which the betting public so greatly benefits. Now they will claim that it is so enfeebled as to be irrelevant, and that they are the people to determine what ungenerous rate of odds their customers may in future receive. It will be most ironic if this Bill, so loaded in favour of large monopoly against small private enterprise goes through under this particular Government.
If I may end on a constructive note by revealing what the politicians ought to do but will not, the Government ought to balance this Bill by abolishing the on-course betting tax. If they were to do that—that is, if pigs were to fly—then one could welcome this Bill.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Crawshaw will forgive me, after the very genial way in which he has introduced this little Bill, if I tell him I do not like it at all. I had better declare an interest at once and explain why. I am and have been for the past seven years the chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is a democratically elected body embracing all walks of life in the greyhound world, including that of the bookmaker. So I am not to be heard as speaking against the

1079
bookmakers in the few remarks I wish to address against this Bill this afternoon.
I think it is going to do our sport great harm. It is going to take the punters away from the greyhound racing track and take them into the betting shop. We have no betting levy in the greyhound racing world, unlike in horse racing. We rely on the money that is passed to our totalisators on the track. The Bill will take it into the shops and put it into the bookies' pockets. I am not going to be dog-in-the-manger or greyhound-in-the-manger and say that I want the betting shops to be untidy and uncomfortable and improperly regulated. Of course not. It must be done properly. So what am I worrying about?
Our sport, the greyhound racing sport, is in an anxious state of health. Therefore any further threat—and I regard this Bill as a further threat—is very unwelcome. After soccer, we are the second biggest spectator sport in this country. We are a modest sport. We are a family sport and, importantly in these terrible events we have read about recently, we are a law-abiding sport. We do not pull down the barricades or throw broken bottles at the police.
Any decline in the attendance at our sport I think will be a serious national handicap. There is a decline. About 4½ million people a year attend greyhound racing at the moment, and the number is declining. A large sum of money finds its way into the Treasury and that is declining. Tracks are closing. Our best known track, the White City, is to be closed almost immediately. Your Lordships will have seen, and it gives me great pleasure, that Mr. Isadore Kerman and the GRA are proposing to build another track over by Wormwood Scrubs, and I am very grateful to know about that. But there are threats to other tracks: Harringay. Wimbledon, Leicester and Manchester are all in danger. In switching over to horse racing, I have to remind your Lordships that there is no horse racing track in the centre of London. There are three within bicycling distance of the Eiffel Tower. In London we have none nearer than Kempton or Sandown. Nor is there any horse-race track in Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff or Glasgow, of the bigger cities. Why? Because they were too expensive and it was more attractive to put up offices and factories there. I see further erosion in this Bill.
We are primarily an evening sport. The betting shops are open until about 6.30 in the evening and people can bet in advance on the races that evening and on the races that frequently take place in the afternoon. They are putting money not into the greyhound sport but into the bookmakers' pocket. As I said, we have no levy. I remember this vividly because for four years I was chairman of the Tote and I served on the levy board. I remember the debates that went on at the time; the noble Lord, the Minister, will also remember. As 1 say, the bookmakers make a contribution but it is a minuscule contribution Some of the more generous ones put their hands into their satchels and make a voluntary contribution. The Home Office well know that this is a laughable contribution because recently they introduced it in Northern Ireland, where it did not exist before, and made it very much bigger, thereby acknowledging the point that we have to make here.

1080
The Minister knows all about this. He knows it because I make an annual visit to the Treasury, with my supporters around me, trying to get the betting tax made a little bit less ridiculous. It is ridiculously balanced against our interests. I have not had very much success. We have been trying to get other amendments made to the betting laws. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Newall, introduced a Bill into the House and another is in contemplation to try to put this matter right. I am not speaking against the bookies. I am not saying anything against horse racing. I am not suggesting that the betting shops should be made uncomfortable in any way. What I am trying to bring home is the fact that by luring more and more punters away from our tracks and across to the betting shops the Bill is gravely imperilling a sport which already is seriously in danger.
Of course, I shall not divide the House against this Second Reading. The House does not look very full at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised an interesting constitutional point. We also had a slightly more controversial Division earlier in the day. Lord Wigg never hesitated to divide the House on a Private Member's Bill, because he thought that what happened to some of our Bills in another place merited their Bills occasionally being divided upon here. I shall do no such controversial thing.
1 shall merely ask the noble Lord to be good enough to take us fully into consultation and to remember our plight and our danger and the necessity, for the reasons I have given, to support the greyhound racing track and sport. In anticipation of the favours to come from the noble Lord, I might suggest to him that he should cast his eye favourably on the prospects of "Disco Duchess" in the 10 p.m. at the White City this evening. I cannot do better than that.
7.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, it may be right for me to indicate now the Government's attitude to this Bill—though not to the odds quoted so kindly a moment ago by my noble friend—and explain how we would proceed if this Bill were enacted. First, may I make it clear that we support the Bill. My right honourable friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has done the industry a service in taking the Bill through another place and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crawshaw for his readiness to take it through this House, in one of his rare and brief speeches. Both rarity and brevity are virtues in legislation and I congratulate him on both, although I wish we saw him more often. He introduced a useful measure. My noble friend is a courageous horseman and a good deal better at cross-country than some I can think of who do not suffer his handicap. I hope that on this occasion your Lordships will give him an easy ride.
We think the law governing signs and notices outside licensed betting offices is unsatisfactory and that the time has come to clarify and simplify the existing confused situation. We have been considering what may be exhibited and displayed inside the licensed premises and we have also given thought to relaxing the restrictions in the facilities available in licensed betting offices. It is this last point which has

1081
attracted most attention and it is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill. This would enable the Secretary of State to lay down by order what facilities may be provided in licensed betting offices. Such an order would of course have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it was made.
Your Lordships will wish to know what sort of changes might be proposed. None, I must emphasise, would be brought before Parliament in an order until there had been full consultation with the various interests. Every one of your Lordships who has expressed an interest in the Bill has expressed an interest in that aspect of it, and I am glad to reassure noble Lords. These consultations would extend beyond the racing and betting industries. For example, changes in the controls on the conduct of betting offices will affect the justices who license them, the local authorities who are responsible for planning and other controls, and the police who enforce the law.
Nor would any changes made override the relevant provisions in other legislation. As far as the Secretary of State is concerned, this is an enabling clause in an enabling Bill. But the only legislation it enables him to vary, by order and under parliamentary supervision, is betting legislation. It does not enable him to set aside the requirements in legislation about other things such as the sale and supply of food or drink, and the licence holder and his premises would have to satisfy them as well if he provided facilities affected by them.
It has for long been understood that the various statutory controls and restrictions on gambling are designed to prevent the stimulation of demand for gambling facilities. We have no intention of departing from that principle when drafting orders under this Bill. But why, your Lordships might ask, should there by any change at all in that case? The existing restrictions were imposed when there was no experience of cash betting offices in the United Kingdom. They were designed to discourage continuous betting, loitering and inducement to bet. Since the 1960s experience has shown that some of the fears entertained before cash betting offices were legalised were without foundation; that perhaps the greatest inducement to bet is the simple existence of such facilities; and that the restrictions at present imposed may be unnecessarily restrictive.
The bookmakers' associations have asked for a relaxation in the controls on the conduct of betting offices, in particular for removal of the prohibition on television broadcasts and on vending machines for non-alcoholic drinks. Moreover, it has been suggested that these restrictions in particular provide an incentive to illegal betting in places where such facilities do exist, and that has caused us some concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly referred to the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling; I am obliged to him for notice of his intention so to do. He referred to the fact that it suggested that information on the statistics of gambling should be brought together in one place. I think I should refer the noble Lord, although I am sure he must have seen it, to Command Paper No. 7897 which was published in 1980 for that very purpose.

1082
This was an occasional publication, as my now noble but then right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in the debate on the report. I think the noble Lord will find it useful.
On the finances of bookmakers, the Royal Commission also concluded that bookmakers did not make excessive profits. Provided they operate within the law we do not see reason, from the standpoint of gambling control, for such a study to be made. Issues such as monopolies would be for the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Returning to the Bill and the need for it, we also need a little flexibility to keep legislation up to date with technological change. The power contained in this clause would give us that flexibility and enable us to deal with changing conditions such as further developments in audio-visual technology. Moreover, the clause is not a device that can move in one direction only. The enabling power would mean that restrictions could be tightened as well as relaxed, if that should ever become appropriate.
As I have said, no order would be brought forward without wide consultation. But there are limits to what we would consider, even within consultation. I can assure my noble friend Lord Mancroft in particular that there is no question of turning betting shops into some form of leisure centre with cabaret or entertainment; nor will they become general gambling centres.
It is not our policy to mix different gambling activities. The business of a betting shop will remain the effecting of a betting transaction. Any change in the restrictions on facilities would therefore be made with that very much in view. What we have in mind are, first, facilities genuinely related to the betting transaction (such as the facility to see a televised race) or, secondly, those which might be regarded as a reasonable incidental facility (such as vending machines dispensing tea or coffee). That, I think, is quite in accord with Recommendation 9 of the Royal Commission, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. These are not inducements; they are scarcely even embellishments.
However, I can say to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that we do recognise that there is concern that the introduction of television in licensed betting offices could adversely affect attendances at greyhound races without the compensation of increased levy income which would result from any increase in off-course betting. I entirely understand that. In fact, the British Greyhound Racing Board will be coming to see Home Office officials in the very near future to discuss the problems facing greyhound racing and their proposals for possible changes in the law.
In the context of this Bill, the board would be one of the bodies we would consult about any order proposed under Clause 1. They will, therefore, have the opportunity to comment on any proposals and to suggest measures which would safeguard their interests. I think that that is the assurance that my noble friend was seeking. I cannot, of course, give him any assurance about changes in the level of taxation, which fall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, that is a point which I also make to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.

1083
We have had some preliminary consultations already. If this Bill were to be enacted, our further consultation would cover much greater detail. For example, in considering whether television should be allowed it would be necessary to decide whether there should be any restriction on the number of sets, or the size of screens, or on when they could be switched on. Any such detail, if aproved, would be contained in an order made under this clause. So there is no question of any headlong rush to provide additional facilities in betting offices. Proposals for change will be considered carefully, and Parliament, as I have already said, will, quite rightly, have the final word. I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Ailesbury, will recognise that this is a fairly effective safeguard, and one which involves his own supervision as well as that of others; and I hope he will perhaps be persuaded with great caution eventually to remove the metaphorical tin hat which he donned on the approach of my noble friend over the target area.
Clause 2 deals with the signs and notices outside licensed betting offices. The law on these has, as I have said, been recognised as unsatisfactory for some time. This clause, which seems to me to be in accord with Recommendation 10 of the Royal Commission, amends the 1963 Act to bring the publication of all advertisements and notices visible outside licensed betting offices under the control of regulations made by the Secretary of State. The regulations would relate to the content and manner of display of the advertisements. They would apply to notices or advertisements which were inside the betting shop but visible from the outside (for example, in a window), to those which were in premises giving access to such an office, and to those on the outside of the office premises or on the outside of premises in which the betting office is situated. They would not apply to notices or advertisements visible only inside a betting office. These are already subject to control under Schedule 4 to the 1963 Act.
Preliminary consultation has indicated a fair measure of agreement as to what might be permitted by way of signs and notices outside licensed betting offices. We think this might include the company or individual's name, a description of the business (which might be licensed betting office, bookmaker, turf accountant, or something similar) and the telephone number of the premises. Two provisions might be made mandatory: we might require, first, the display at the entrance to the licensed betting office of a notice, clearly visible and legible to anyone seeking to enter, stating that persons under the age of 18 are not admitted or would have to go out again; and, secondly, a notice giving the times of opening.
Whatever might be agreed would still have to comply with planning regulations. One of the matters to be pursued in further consultations, before any regulations were made, would be the extent to which the manner of display should be left to the planning authorities. Window displays have caused some confusion in the past. There has been doubt about whether they constitute an inducement to bet. But it has been suggested that they are aesthetically more acceptable in a shopping area or high street than a simple blank or painted out window. This, again, is

1084
something on which planning authorities will have a view. Our initial view, and one which has the general support of the local authority associations, is that it would seem reasonable to permit the display of pictures, photographs, cartoons or other matter associated with events on which betting takes place, but to prohibit any text.
I do not want to go into too much detail, but I might just add that notices of staff vacancies might be a reasonable exception to this, and there might be others. I say that simply to show that we have given a good deal of thought to this matter already. But we do not propose to permit the display of the odds available on the Grand National or the Derby, or the animal which my noble friend recommended to me earlier and whose name I shall have to ask him for later—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it was "Disco Duchess".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged to noble Lords better informed than me, because Hansard would come too late to my rescue!
As with any changes which might be made under Clause 1, there would be widespread consultation before any regulations were made. Clause 3 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to vary certain fees by order. Under the 1963 Act the fees payable for the grant or renewal of a bookmaker's permit, betting agency permit and betting office licence are payable to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices. There is no power to vary these fees at present. This clause provides that the Secretary of State may vary the fees by order subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important that they should reflect the cost of the work involved in administration and issue. We shall be considering what the appropriate level should be.
I hope this explanation of the Government's attitude and intentions has been helpful. As I have tried to explain, this Bill would not mean that on Royal Assent betting shops could simply go ahead and install television sets and drink machines in their premises. I would stress again that there would be widespread consultation before any proposals were brought forward. Because such proposals are likely to represent a considerable social change, the Bill provides that any order with respect to the facilities that may be provided in betting offices will be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We feel it is right that such changes should require the specific approval of both Houses of Parliament.
With those comments, I commend my noble friend's Bill to your Lordships' attention.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their interest in the subject. The Bill has had something of a mixed reception, but nevertheless it has been an interesting debate. I can only hope that the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton will have reassured those who think rather like the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because I accept that the Bill does put quite a lot on the Home Secretary's plate. I also hope that my noble friend reassured the noble Lord, Lord

1085
Mishcon, with his fair points about the recommen-dations of the Royal Commission. That came over fairly strongly in the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Ailesbury. I must admit that initially I thought along the same lines, but I must tell the noble Marquess that the racing authorities support the Bill, and they are the people who I suppose would be affected if racecourse attendances dropped significantly. I should like to join him in his message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if we could reduce the on-course betting tax it would meet his point considerably.
I point out to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that I, too, am interested in greyhound racing and very much enjoy it, and I in no way wish to damage it. I very much hope that he will take advantage of the communication which I understand his association is having with the Home Office. I, personally, have never quite understood why the greyhound racing industry has not got a similar scheme to that of the racehorse industry, but I am sure that my noble friend will look after that aspect.
One way and another, we have to deal with the facts of life as they are, and, as I have said, since 1963 betting shops have been functioning mostly responsibly. It does not seem to me that we can expect them to go on in rather archaic conditions. I feel that they ought to be brought up to date to cater for the customers of 1984. For that reason I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until nine minutes past eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 p.m. to 8.9 p.m.]

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
(" Inquiry by S.V.A.C.
. Without prejudice to the generality of its functions under section 3(4) of the Valuation and Rating Act 1956 the Secretary of State shall ask the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council to consider as a matter of urgency the appropriateness, effectiveness and fairness of the present day system of valuation in Scotland; and for the purposes of this inquiry the Secretary of State may appoint five further members to the Advisory Committee. Its report should be made public").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Marshalled List, which takes advantage of the existence in Scotland of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council which, with added members, could then attend to what I think is necessary:
"the appropriateness, effectiveness and fairness of the present day system of valuation in Scotland".
and make recommendations to the Secretary of State; and its report should be made public. There is no doubt—and the Government have recognised this—that there is considerable concern about valuations in Scotland.
Then we take their White Paper:
"The burden the taxpayer faces as a product of separately determined figures",
and the first one is the rateable value of the property. The other of course is the rate poundage. They give evidence there that the valuation system has caused concern. They talk about valuation anomalies, and point out, as they think, that they have already dealt with the most glaring ones. They say:
"Evidence suggests that compared with their counterparts south of the border, ratepayers may face a higher share of the rate burden because of valuation methods as distinct from differences arising from more recent valuations in Scotland, regional variations, and rental values. It may be necessary to introduce minor modifications to bring these particular ratepayers into line with their competitors south of the border."
With all due respect, I do not think that the Bill does that. I think we should know why. The Government also say in paragraph 9:
"Significant steps were taken during the last Parliament to remove some of the most glaring anomalies",
and they instanced the change in external plant and the changes in respect of communal accommodation, although so far as I can understand—and I think my noble friend Lord Carmichael has some evidence in respect of this—there are still discontents in respect of this in that it has not been exercised if it has been brought into the new system.
When you take the whole aspect of it since the 1956 Act, which is probably the more up-to-date basis of valuations in Scotland, there have been many changes. Remember—and this is something of which I have to remind myself at times too—that whenever we suggest that somebody should be relieved of rates it does not reduce the aggregate burden upon the rates, it just means that a narrower base, fewer people, will then have to bear the burden of the rates. By curing, or seeming to make a palliative in respect of individuals, or a group of individuals, you are creating greater anomalies by overburdening those who are left. We always have to bear that in mind in all the changes that have been made since 1956.
The 1956 Act itself took agricultural land out of valuation. That was a considerable change made there. Before the 1956 Act had come into force the burden of rates, which had been split between owners and occupiers, was fully placed upon the occupiers; those who actually paid the rent and occupied the property.
Then there was the business of industry. This was to get over the inequity between Scotland and England in respect of rates on industry. There was a 75 per cent. derating of industry in Scotland. That was changed. Later it became 50 per cent. There have been extensions in respect of charities and discretions to local authorities; there have been these changes in respect of the external industrial plant. That was a big drop in respect of the central area and in respect of the Shetlands. The Government did not come in to help in respect of that. It had to be borne by these regions themselves. It was a matter of millions of pounds.
When you add up all these changes, and the changes even now proposed within this Bill, there has been a narrowing, and a narrowing of what may well be proved to be an unsatisfactory situation. The alternative to domestic rates was produced by the Government in 1981. They said themselves:
"Many of those professioally concerned with rating and valuation matters believe that the technical basis of the domestic rating system is no longer satisfactory in some respects."
This was accepted by the Government. So much so that we had an Act of Parliament to give the Government the power, which they exercised, to change the date of revaluation, and a further power to make it either a general revaluation or a partial revaluation.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was here at the time, but the Government actually produced from that Bill a Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Order which said that instead of having a revaluation on a general basis in 1983–84.
"only such classes of lands and heritages as specified in the schedule shall be valued or revalued."
That was 19th January 1982, and there was going to be no revaluation of domestic hereditaments.
This of course was in keeping with expectations that they were going to get rid of domestic rates. They changed the law. They introduced the order, and then between February and 25th June 1982 another revaluation order was produced.
"The Valuation (Scotland) Order 1982"—
that is this one—
"is revoked."
So they decided that they would not have that, and they decided instead to have a complete revaluation in the year 1985–86. This has been a considerable floundering about in respect of valuation; what should be done about it and what should not be done about it, and shows that the Government have been in considerable difficulties over it and over their own pledges in respect of it.
It is interesting to note the situation even as we are discussing this matter here tonight. I do not know whether the Minister of State has gone, or whether he is preparing to go overnight with the rest of us, but the Minister is going to Perth to endure the pains and pleasures of the Scottish Tory Party in Perth. Today the party is discussing what? Rating and valuation. I think the Lord Advocate is wise to be here tonight and wise not to go to Perth tomorrow because of what he will be discovering are the feelings of the Tory Party, the Government having said that they think the rating system is just right as it is. Having been defeated last week, and having promised to look again at the whole system, they will pray in aid the pledge they gave to us in the Lords that they are considering it once again, but that was mainly the rating aspect. I am concerned with the fairness and effectiveness of the aspects of valuation.
The Lord Advocate will know that what is proposed for the anomalies in respect of certain properties or parts of properties, what is suggested in respect of reed beds and caravans, is setting aside legal decisions that

1088
have been made perfectly fairly and correctly by interpretation of the statutes by the Scottish courts. What the Government propose to do is to set aside the uncontrovertible decisions of the Scottish valuation courts to get what they think is a sense of fairness between Scotland and England. The more one pushes away the rights of Scottish courts the more anomalous it becomes. We see that in Clause 16.
I do not know whether the Lord Advocate knows the reactions of the Faculty of Advocates and the reactions of the Society of Assessors who are concerned about this and about the whole system of valuation. So is COSLA, which has suggested that there should be another method of valuation in Scotland, pointing out that the only thing in statute to guide the assessors in evaluating is what is laid down for dwelling-houses. It is perfectly clear there, but for non-domestic subjects there are formulae for gas, which is separate. The same thing is true of steel and railways. There was a very confused and complicated formula for electricity. There was only one man in Scotland who understood it and that was Tom Steele who was a Member of Parliament. No one else could quite understand it.
Then there was the reversion, on their own, by the assessors in Scotland to what they called a contractors' formula to arrive somehow or other at what they thought was a fair notional rate. There is no doubt that the anomalies persist. When the Government say that they have dealt with the anomalies on external plant and have treated Scotland the same as industry in England; that is all very well, but in Scotland we did not separately rate internal plant but in England they did. So anomalies, even with the correction of anomalies, still stand out.
It is about time that we considered the whole matter again. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which represents district authorities, the regions and islands authorities, suggests that we consider house valuations and put the system on to capital values. My answer to that is that it might be better, but why put valuations on a house? Why should the house be the standard and the basis of valuation for a person's ability to pay a particular share of the rates burden? The real person to value is the ratepayer. There is another reaction to that: why just the ratepayer who is the occupant and tenant of a house? What about the others who receive much from the services of local authorities but who pay nothing at all in rates? The whole system requires another look.
It is lucky that we have the Scottish valuation authority which is an expert on the subject. It has been receiving details of the anomalies all these years and sees the limit of meeting the anomalies by changes in the laws. It sees the limit in meeting the anomalies by giving abatements, which means that those who are left within the valuation system have to bear a bigger burden. There is no doubt that there is a justification for complaint.
I instanced at another stage the rateable values of football grounds. Rangers' football ground has a rateable value of £82,500 and the rates payment is £127,050. Manchester United is not £82,000 in rateable value, but £37,000. That club was able to pay £500,000 or more to Aberdeen the other day for a very

1089
good Scottish football player. Its rates burden was £64,935 last year compared with Rangers' £127,000. There is no fairness or equity there.
Queen's Park is an amateur team. It is not in very good shape in football terms at present and probably is lucky if it plays on alternate Saturdays to about 1,000 people, but its stadium is the Scottish national football stadium. The Scottish Office should know because we are trying to refurbish that stadium and make it worthy of modern days and worthy of Scottish football. We were going ahead with a considerable change, and were given authority by the Scottish Office one day; and at the weekend the Scottish Office sent a letter saying, "Don't go ahead". Believe it or not, this well-furnished, brainy Government had to pay £2 million and over in frustrated expenditure because the club took the Government at their word. The Government changed their mind and had to pay £2 million for nothing.
We are still in the process of building new stands there. Queen's Park is an amateur team; £55,000 in rateable value, paying rates of £84,700. It will have two very good games on the 19th when the Scottish Cup Final is played and then the following Saturday when Scotland play England. Apart from that—remember under the present aegis Scotland plays England at Hampden only once every two years—one can realise what revenue aspects and capacity mean for an amateur team.
Arsenal's rateable value is £30,000 and the rates payment is £63,000 compared with Celtic's rates payment of £99,000 and Queen's Park's £84,000. When you go to the well-known teams in Scotland, like Partick Thistle, supported here by my long-suffering but still loyal noble friend, it has a £9,850 rateable value and a rates payment of £15,169. That is, 22 per cent. of their income in the year before last went on rates. If you take Leeds United and Liverpool, about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of their income goes on rates. There is no equity there. Surely, it requires to be looked at. Do not tell me, please, Lord Advocate that it is all going to be seen to in Clause 16! It is not. That is the feeling of experts in respect of this.
We are trying to improve the clause, and it may be that the noble and learned Lord has some amendments to that clause as well; but, so far, there is considerable scepticism in the sporting field as to whether the Government will meet their promises. Their promises were quite clear in the White Paper because of what they said in respect of football stadia and racecourses—and I can give you the figures for racecourses. Ayr, where I live, represented in Parliament by the Secretary of State: rateable value, £57,384. If you take Newbury or Haydock Park, which are equivalent, their rateable value respectively is £12,900 and £11,000—it is five or six times that in Scotland. When you take what they actually pay, you get the same discrepancies. It is not justified, it cannot be justified in any sense.
It may be that it is because of the method of valuation. In Scotland, assessment is done by locally-appointed assessors. Once appointed, they are independent; they cannot be sacked and they are not responsible to the regional authority which employs them. In fact, as I remember the 1956 Act, they can

1090
only be sacked by a two-thirds majority of the council. For all practical purposes, they are completely independent. They do it on their own basis, much of which is quite different and quite mystic as against what happens in England and Wales, where it is done by the Inland Revenue.
In respect of football clubs, how, in England and Wales, they arrive at the football club valuations is something which I just do not understand either. It is certainly not what happens in Scotland. Because there is no competition, you cannot find an alternative tenant. There are no alternative tenants for these stadia, so the question of what somebody else would pay is not relevant. What they do in Scotland is to work on the basis of the contractor's principle, or the cost of the stadium. The Government come into this, too. As the result of what happened at one particular Celtic v. Rangers game when there was a tragic accident, the question of safety at football grounds came before Parliament. We passed an Act of Parliament and all grounds now must be licensed for safety. It meant that a tremendous amount of money had to be spent; spent by Aberdeen, by Celtic, by Ibrox. As a result of that, as soon as they spent money on it, along came the assessors and pushed up the rateable values. And this was a result of what the Government did.
When we talk about the income of these football clubs, we must remember that the Government get quite a lot out of it. They do not make any loss when the gates fall. They still get their VAT and they still get their cut out of the pools tax. If there were no football played, there would be no football pools to be taxed. The Government do very well out of football; but Scottish football, by the valuation system, is penalised. There is no doubt about that.
I do not think that we can be assured of fairness and equity as compared with our English counterparts coming out of Clause 16 of the Bill. I hope that the Government will look at this as something that is worth examining from the point of view of the present valuation system. Something new has got to be devised. It applies to racecourses, it applies to football authorities and it applies to indoor bowling as well. I have the figures in respect of indoor bowling for Auchinleck, in Ayrshire, where, for my sins, my daughter teaches at the Auchinleck Academy. The Auchinleck indoor bowling club has a rateable value of £19,747. Remember the rates! If you take Hartlepool, with the same kind of facilities, the rateable value is £4,500; Darlington is £4,900. But in an area pretty devastatingly hit, and certainly so at the present time with the miners' strike, it is £19,747.
Figures like this make people feel that we are being let down by the Scottish system. There must be some kind of changes made. I feel that this is one of the best ways: the Government should refer to the Scottish Valuation Council, with its additional numbers. It may well be that we could have a Scottish judge as someone from the valuation courts looking at this to see whether or not a better system could be produced. That is the basis of this new clause. I hope the Government will smile on it—and by that I mean smile benignly. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Although I am prepared to lay, as I think the phrase has it, all Lombard Street to a China orange that I was born nearer to Hampden Park than was Lord Ross of Marnock, it is not my intention to lead your Lordships across any of those fields on which Lord Ross has been playing tonight. But I am impelled to say just a brief word because I have resisted the temptation during your Lordships' discussions on the last two amendments to express strong disagreement with Lord Ross of Marnock.
On this occasion, I am happy to express wholehearted support from these Benches for this amendment. I do so by expressing merely that, against the background, much of which is history, which he has expounded this evening, I find it very difficult to believe that the Government can find any good reason for declining to ask the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, to consider as a matter of urgency the appropriateness, effectiveness and fairness of the present-day system of valuation in Scotland. Of course, it may be that the ingenuity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will enable him to express some convincing reasons against that. But, as far as matters have gone so far in the Committee, I find it very difficult to believe that there are convincing reasons for opposing this amendment.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): The duties of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, which was constituted in terms of Section 3 of the 1956 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made reference, include advising the Secretary of State on any matter relating to valuation which he may refer to them. They therefore have a broadly based remit. In 1982 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the council to consider the problem of valuation anomalies alleged to exist between the Scottish valuation system and that of England and Wales, and matters of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred in connection with football grounds, racecourses and the like, were the subject of representations. The whole subject matter had been referred to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council already. The review was completed early in 1983, and it considered the very basis of valuation in Scotland.
In the recent past the council has also carried out a review of the entire valuation appeals procedure and has considered what improvements might be made in the current arrangements to make the valuation system even more comprehensible. In addition, it has reviewed many other valuation matters. Advice has been given to the Secretary of State on all these things by the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, and that advice, as your Lordships may know, is always made public in the council's annual report so that anyone who is interested may know exactly what the council has considered and what advice it has tendered after that consideration.
In that situation it does not seem to me that a case is made out at this stage for a further general inquiry of the type here proposed. The Secretary of State has ample power to refer any matter to the advisory council, but I think it would be fair to say that the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council is constituted in a way which enables it to give broad and informed

1092
advice on any valuation problem, and it has considered particular problems in that way. I am quite unable to see that there is any real basis at the present time for a further reference to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council of the general kind which is asked for here. The noble Lord can of course be assured, as can the noble and learned Lord. Lord Wilson of Langside, that the Secretary of State will certainly use the powers that he has, as he sees advantageous, for getting advice from the advisory council on any matter that may arise. I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord may feel able not to press this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I should like to be given a little more information about the limits of the consideration that is given by the advisory council, because surely they consider it within the limits of the present system. I am asking them to look beyond the present system to a fairer and better one, and to give us their advice on that. I can understand that they also should be in a better position than most, because since 1956 they have dealt with all the anomalies that have arisen one after the other; and it gets to the point that if you have dealt with a whole accumulation of anomalies you can see whether or not you are virtually toppling over a system that was rocking at the very start and which was subject to considerable difficulties.
The noble and learned Lord spoke about the appeals procedures and the changes made. We will come to that aspect later, because there are difficulties there and they have been aggravated by the fact that the Government, for the mistaken reason of thinking that they were going to deal with domestic rating on its own, put off the valuation for the first time in Scotland. I think the last time there was a revaluation in England and Wales was 1973, but we have never had any postponement of revaluation until this Government caused that to be done. The last valuation was 1978–79, and it was due again, in its five-year period, in 1983–84. It has now been put off for a general valuation in 1985–86. That has implications for the right of appeal of any person whose property is being valued in Scotland. Indeed, they have made some of their own difficulties in respect of that.
I do not think that is a good enough answer, and I hope that the Government will look at it again, not only in the light of what has been said here but also in the light of what has been said in Perth about the subject. They should have had a fair indication from the kind of criticisms put forward in Perth that not everyone in Scotland was satisfied with the present valuation procedures. You have the contractors' basis in Scotland in respect of the things I have spoken about, such as new stadiums, but it all depends on when the construction was done, as to the cost of it, and two or three years makes a tremendous difference to the cost.
In relation to the system that they are working, it may well be that some of the inflated rates—for example, in respect of Rangers—are inflated because of that. To my mind there is no justification for it in that respect where you are dealing with some fairly historic costs as against those which are right up to date. There is no justification, in fairness or equity, for the results that are reached. You have to take into

1093
account the fact that I do not see anything that is fairly going to deal with these glaring and very unfair anomalies that we have spoken about here. Therefore, although I am prepared to withdraw the new clause at the present time I hope that the Government will give a little more consideration to the extent to which they are meeting these anomalies by their actions. The other point is important, too—the extent to which you meet them in such a way that all you do is to put heavier burdens on those who are still left to unrebated valuations and, therefore, rates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Right of appeal on change of owner, tenant or occupier]:
8.48 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
("(2C) when revaluation is postponed, generally or partially, a right of appeal against existing valuations shall be conferred on all affected by the postponement." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would mean that, although you postpone revaluation, you give those who would have been appealing on the basis of the information that they have gathered during that five-year period a right to appeal as if the revaluation had taken place. The longer you keep people subject to an anomaly—in other words, penalising them—the more unfair it becomes. That is the reason for this amendment. I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can see some justice in it, but he may think it would be unfair to assume a revaluation which has not taken place and thus given the right to appeal. He will probably say that this is giving them a second chance of appealing in respect of a valuation roll that is fairly old. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This amendment certainly raises an interesting matter. First, I think it has to be borne in mind that the right which normally arises on a revaluation—the right to appeal against the revaluation figure—is in respect of the new one which is inserted as a result of the revaluation. Secondly, I am glad to say that it is really only because revaluations have been postponed. The noble Lord said that this was the first time. I think there was a postponement before, on the reorganisation of local government, because the revaluation was due, if I remember rightly, in 1976, and it was postponed to 1978. It was due again in 1983, as the noble Lord said, and it was postponed. But I believe that the remedy, if possible, is to avoid postponement and to have regular revaluations unless there is some good reason to the contrary.
It seems to me that to attempt to introduce a general right of appeal on a postponement is not very practical against the background of the other provisions that remain. In general, the people who would have some ground of appeal on a postponement are the very people who will benefit from Clauses 9 and 16 of this Bill. I think that the noble Lord earlier referred to Clause 16 when he may have had Clause 15 in mind. Clause 15 is the one about comparisons with England, while Clause 16 is the one that opens up more widely

1094
the appeal provisions. In my view therefore the best answer to the noble Lord's amendment is to try to avoid postponements of revaluation, and it does not appear to me that the amendment itself would produce a very workable solution in the event of a revaluation having to be postponed for the reasons which I have explained. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment in those circumstances.
Lord Ross of Marnock: In recent days we have been talking so much of people's rights in regard to local government Bills and extending rights to this and that person. But when you postpone revaluation, you take away a person's right to appeal. I can speak about my own case. We have just about finished the valuation roll and the appeals for the last revaluation, as a result of what happened in Troon, and lots of people feel that they have a right to consider what happened there in respect of a right to their own appeal. I feel the same in relation to a part of Ayr that was dealt with in a very hard way. The Secretary of State will know all about it, because a considerable number of people have written to him. If you postpone the revaluation, you postpone the chance to get the position rectified.
During these past five years, every time a house has been for sale and a picture has been put up of the house showing the rateable value, everyone has compared it with his own house and his own rateable value and was not aware of all these circumstances. But people become aware of them because they are pushed in front of their faces. Some houses are glaringly and obviously under-valued, from the point of view of the other person who is looking at them. I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that people have been cutting out these details and getting ready for the next revaluation and for their right of appeal in respect of properties near at hand. As the noble and learned Lord knows, in 1956 people could appeal only on the basis of a comparable subject within a limited valuation area. That was in the days when a large burgh had its own assessor, the county council had its own assessor, and so on. That was extended so that subjects anywhere in Scotland could be compared. That change was made after 1956.
I do not know how many people took advantage of that right, but now we are virtually getting that further extended into comparing subjects with those in England and Wales under certain conditions. It has meant that there has been growing up a burden of frustrated desire to appeal and to get at the assessors, in respect of valuations which, admittedly, were sometimes agreed to with a certain measure of reluctance at the time of the last revaluation, and avoidance of postponement is the right way.
We had that postponement of a revaluation that was due in 1983–84. The Government did not do what they expected to do in respect of the origininal postponement, which was to deal with the whole question of domestic rates. I have the whole facts here from the speeches of Mr. Rifkind in another place. There was no point in having a general revaluation when most of that work would be overthrown by the changes that would be made. But they were not made. The Government changed their mind between February and June and reverted to a purely postponed

1095
revaluation. All this has been unfair to a great many people and I hope that the Government will look at it.
It is not right to say that most of the people affected will be heartened by what is being done by Clause 9 and Clause 16. I appreciate that the clause has changed its designation between the other place and this place, and we can understand that it will be changing its designation again once other new clauses are put in. I do not wish to press this at the present time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Jurisdiction in valuation matters of Lands Tribunal for Scotland]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 37: Page 7, line 39, after ("decline") insert ("with reason stated").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which I feel the Lord Advocate will almost certainly be willing to accept. It is merely to say that when a complaint is declined an individual appeal reasons should be given. That appears to be part of natural justice. I hope that the Lord Advocate will realise that there has been an omission from the Bill and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This clause refers to the Lands Tribunal. It is one of the improvements that we are proposing in the Scottish valuation appeal system to enable the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to adjudicate as the tribunal of first instance in certain appeals. Of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland is a judicial type of tribunal, and therefore we assume that if it were to give a decision it would be a reasoned judgment. For that reason this phrase was not put in the Bill.
But in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised this matter and has, as it were, doubted whether that was sufficiently expressed, I think that his amendment is perfectly acceptable. It is in accordance with what we had in any event intended, and therefore I am happy to recommend that your Lordships should agree with Amendment No. 37.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 38: Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 8.
The noble Lord said: The Secretary of State is here being given quite wide power. I should like the Lord Advocate to explain how often the power is likely to be used and how he sees it being used, and to say whether he does not think that it is drawn rather wider than is good for the community as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This is a power which is precedented in legislation of a technical character for the purpose of giving full effect to a new provision in primary legislation. We have examined the primary legislation and I sincerely hope that this power will never require to be exercised. But in a complicated
1096
field of this kind, there is a chance that something important may not have been noticed and it is therefore advisable to have a power of this kind—which will require affirmative resolution—to be in the Bill, so as to make sure that if this provision is required there is scope to give full effect to what Parliament is here approving. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept that explanation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That explanation clears up a lot of the worries that we on this side had. The Lord Advocate is obviously concerned that this power is never used and has said that it has never been used before. Furthermore, and more important, it needs affirmative resolution. With that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39: Page 8, line 18, after ("circumstances") insert (", by whom,").
The noble Lord said: This is another minor amendment. It is merely to find out exactly who will be able to make an appeal, whether a tenant or an owner. Subsection (2A) states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations governing—
(a) the circumstances and manner in which an appeal or complaint may be referred to the Lands Tribunal".
I should like to know who can put the initial appeal to the Secretary of State before it goes to the Lands Tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Again, this is a matter of interest and importance that the noble Lord has raised. The system that we have sought to set up under this clause is that the Lands Tribunal will have power to determine any appeal or complaint under the Valuation Act referred to it by a valuation appeal committee; in other words, the parties go to the valuation appeal committee in the ordinary way and then it is for the valuation appeal committee to decide, on looking at the matter, whether it is a sufficiently important case or technical case to be referred to a rather more specialised tribunal. The noble Lord will see on line 36 on page 7 of the Bill: "referred to it by a valuation appeal committee".
That really answers the question that he has put, because the only body by whom the appeal or complaint can be referred to the Lands Tribunal is the valuation appeal committee to whom it was made by the party or parties in the first instance. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very happy with that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Constitution of lands valuation appeal court]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Separate entry in valuation roll of pitches for static caravans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: As to pitches for static caravans, I just want an explantion in respect of this because this is one of the cases where a judgment in respect of a decision of assessors has been upheld by the Scottish courts, the valuation courts, but the Government have seen fit by reason of what has happened in England to make a change here.
Remember that in respect of this the Scottish assessors and the English Inland Revenue were dealing with the same piece of legislation, and so it has been interpreted in one country in one way and in another country in another way. This is one of the things that I do not think we can applaud, a case where the assessors have been quite right, where they have been proved to be right by the interpretation of the Scottish courts, but as a result of what has happened south of the Border the Scottish law and Scottish practice is pushed aside and virtually what is applied here is the English system. That is not exactly the right way to do things. If there is something wrong with the legislation you should put it right in Scottish legislation and not by reference to what has happened elsewhere.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation here is that, as the noble Lord said, in the light of the then current Scottish legislation a decision was taken on the lines tht he has described, but those who are interested in these matters have felt that there was no particular reason why that should be the situation in Scotland while a different situation existed in England and Wales. It is not so much a question of, as it were, opting for decisions taken south of the Border rather than north of the Border, but it looked to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to be reasonable that the Scottish person interested in the site of a static caravan should have this option if he wished to exercise it.
I do not think the noble Lord has indicated any reaon why one should not have this option. There is no disrespect here to the Scottish court. The Scottish court decided on the basis of the then existing legislation that no such option should be allowed, but the Secretary of State considered in that light that it was right that this option should be conferred; this clause is for that purpose, and I hope your Lordships will allow Clause 12 to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Percentage derating of static caravans]:
9.6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("site") to ("shall") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: This is the provision where:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that the ratable value of a caravan site to which this section applies shall be the sum of the following amounts"—
and so on. Of course, it involves virtually the derating of caravans. The point I made before is that if we derate caravans or anything else it means there is no
1098
change in the burden of expenditure, but it means also that somebody else is taken out of paying rates or part rates and somebody else has to pay more. I propose to leave out these words in order to have a clearer explanation of what is being done here and the justification for doing it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The words that the noble Lord seeks by this amendment to have deleted are words that seek to ensure that the new provisions relate to exactly the same caravan sites and pitches as the definition in Section 3(1) of the 1956 Act; that is to say, a caravan site which is treated as a single unit of lands and heritages and the caravan pitches defined in the new Section 3A(3) in Clause 13 of the Bill. If we do not have a precise link between these two, new anomalies might be introduced. The words which the noble Lord seeks to delete remove any doubt as to what caravan sites and pitches are referred to, and I hope the noble Lord in the light of that will feel able to agree that these words are better left in.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am prepared to accede to the request by the Government in respect of that, but I wanted a little more information as to what the Secretary of State proposes. It may well come under clause stand part. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate now able to tell us what the effect of this clause will be? It is headed "Percentage derating of static caravans". This means that the Secretary of State is taking the power to derate static caravans. Upon what will the noble and learned Lord base his decision about the percentage?
Lord Mackay of Calshfern: The noble Lord has accurately described the effect of the clause. It gives the power to the Secretary of State to make a deduction—my understanding is that the deduction which the Secretary of State would be intending to apply is the same one as applies in England and Wales—in order to give parity of treatment to this particular type of subject on both sides of the border.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I need a little more information than that. I should like to know exactly what the percentage is. I should also like to know exactly what, in aggregate, this will mean for Scotland. What is the assessed loss of revenue to a local authority? Do the Government intend to make up in any way this loss of potential revenue to local authorities?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord has said, when one removes anomalies, what one does, generally speaking, in this situation is to relocate the total burden. This type of removal of anomaly is no different from the rest, to which earlier the noble Lord so eloquently drew attention. The proposed percentage is 40, which I understand to be the same as in England and Wales. I am afraid that at this moment

1099
I do not know what the total would be for Scotland as a whole. Indeed, I am not absolutely certain that by itself this figure will be of any particular significance. That is the way the matter stands, as I see it, at the moment. The answer to the noble Lord's last question is that my understanding is that this will simply be a relocation of the burden on ratepayers.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, or somebody else, will find out exactly how much it is in aggregate before we reach the next stage of the Bill. This is bound very considerably to affect tourist areas. It will affect very considerably Kyle and Carrick and other places on the Ayrshire coast where there is a heavy concentration of static caravans. It might affect my own rates. I have to pay higher rates because of the generosity of the Secretary of State towards these areas. The Highlands of Scotland and elsewhere might also be affected.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: That is why I ventured to doubt whether the global figure was of much significance. I understand that the global figure is of the order of £700,000.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will appreciate that many parts of Scotland will be unaffected, while many other areas will be very seriously affected. The ratepayers in those areas will have to make up this loss of rateable value of £700,000. It is a quite serious point. When these points are added together, they result in a very considerable increase in the burden on particular groups of ratepayers. We tend to forget the effect that the accumulation of these correcting provisions will have because of the unfairness of the valuation system.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 42A:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time.
After section 243 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time.

243A.—(1) If it appears to the rating authority that Part of any lands and heritages included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only the authority may request the assessor to apportion the rateable value between the occupied and unoccupied parts and on being thus requested the assessor shall apportion the rateable value accordingly.

(2) As from whichever is the later of the following—

(a) the date upon which lands and heritages the rateable value of which has been apportioned under section (1) above became partly occupied;

(b) The commencement of the financial year in which the request under that subsection relating to those lands and heritages was made,

until whichever of the events specified in subsection (3) of this section first occurs, the value apportioned to the occupied part of the lands and heritages shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the rateable value ascribed to the lands and heritages in the valuation roll.
(3) The events mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;

(b) the end of the financial year in which the request was made;

(c) a further apportionment of the value of the lands and heritages taking effect under subsection (1) above.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above, if it appears to the rating authority that the part of the lands and heritages which was unoccupied at the date of an apportionment of the rateable value thereof under subsection (1) above has continued after the end of the financial year referred to in that paragraph to be unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the authority may direct that the apportionment shall continue to have effect for the next financial year; and subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (c) above shall have effect in relation to that year accordingly.
(5) In this section, "financial year" has the meaning assigned to it by section 96(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
(6) This section shall have effect as if it had come into force on 1st April 1984".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment as printed on the Marshalled List contains two particular misprints. In the third line, the phrase "and unfurnished" should be deleted. In subsection (2), between (a) and (b) the word "or" should be deleted. Subject to these alterations to correct the misprints, perhaps I may seek to explain the new clause.
The Government have repeatedly emphasised that the major purpose of the Bill is to protect ratepayers both in general and those in particularly difficult situations. Among the latter are industrial ratepayers, who face particular problems at the present time and whom the Government propose to help by removing entirely the liability to pay rates on empty industrial property. These proposals will, however, be subject to the well-established rule in matters of valuation and rating that use of any part of a property constitutes use of the whole and that rates are leviable on the whole and cannot be remitted on part of a property, speaking generally.
These other measures, therefore, to which I have referred will do nothing to help the ratepayer, particularly the business ratepayer, who during a downturn in business closes down part of his premises in order to cut costs. He is obliged to continue to pay full rates out of the reduced income. Given the importance of maintaining jobs, particularly in rural and remote areas where much might depend on the viablility of comparatively few businesses, the Government consider that it would be sensible to give rating authorities discretion to remit the rates payable on the unoccupied part of a property so that rates will be payable only on the part continuing in use. The measure proposed will give the rating authority absolute discretion in awarding relief. In this way, the rating authority will be able to apply its local knowledge and judgment to give help where it is considered to be most needed.
But of course complete discretion is accompanied by the entire financial responsibility. The cost of giving this relief will not be met by direct grant from the Government and nor will it be taken into account in the distribution of the resources element of rate support grant. The consideration of whether or not to give relief will have to be in the light of the situation that exists within the rating authority's area. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I have one or two questions to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. First, we are grateful to him for leaving out the words "and unfurnished" in his manuscript

1101
amendment because very great dangers could arise in certain places.
I appreciate the importance of the assessor still having the overall right, particularly with industrial premises, to assess the occupied and unoccupied parts and of the judgment as to whether rates are payable to be ultimately a decision for the assessor himself. We are certainly aware of the importance of this in some of our cities. Up until the 1978 Act, there was in many cases—particularly those involving tenement property but other types of property as well—a tendency for some property owners to be quite happy about paying rates for a few years, knowing that property prices were rising steeply. Some houses stayed empty so long that they were almost unsaleable.
We believe it is important to arrive at a definition of some kind of the words:
"for a short time only".
The amendment makes the qualification referring to the property
"included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only".
This may be a technical point, but there must be some judgment involved. This takes us back to the horrors—although perhaps not in Scotland—of Centre Point, to remember how big this problem can be. I am sure that there must be other industrial, commercial and—who knows?—residential areas where the same might apply. This is a highly technical clause, and while it is welcome, it will be helpful if the noble and learned Lord can answer these points.
The other point that arises from time to time is the vexed question of election rooms. I understand that all parties use vacant properties for election rooms. I have heard certain people in an assessor's office say that rates could be applied to them. I understand that rates could be applied for a much longer period than that for which the rooms were actually in use. Are there any legal rights in respect of rooms occupied for a very short period for non-charitable purposes? Will they still escape the levying of rates or, again, is this something that will be for the local assessor to decide?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord referred to Centre Point. The situation there was that the property was kept empty and in this way rates were avoided in order to get, in effect, capital appreciation on the value of the property. The proposal before the Committee is not intended to create any difficulties of that kind. This brings me to the second point. The discretion to give this relief and the judgment of whether or not the property is to be unoccupied for a short time only is for the local authority to exercise. The rating authority has that discretion given to it. The noble Lord will see in the opening words of the new clause:
"If it appears to the rating authority that part of any lands and heritages included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only.".
Therefore, it is the rating authority's judgment and a matter of completely free discretion on its part to decide whether or not it considers that that condition is met.
It will appear from the structure of the clause as a whole that the intention is that it should be within the rating year, generally speaking. There is a provision
1102
later on for extending it beyond the end of the rating year, but one can have a short time that carries over the end of the rating year. The idea is that it shall be comparatively short in relation to the rating year as a whole, but it is a matter of discretion for the local authority, which has complete power to make a judgment in the light of local circumstances. I believe that is a principle which the noble Lord will feel is acceptable.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not want to labour the point, but when I mentioned election rooms I also referred briefly to short lets of non-charitable places. Would they also be covered by the discretion given to the local authority, or would there be an overweening power by the assessor to say, "No, this is an assessor's job and not for the local authority"? It seems to me that there are two choices available. The local authority, which has no ultimate control over the assessor, would appear to be able to say to the assessor that he does or does not look at something. I may be getting mixed up here, but it seems to me to be a point that needs clarification.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The point about election rooms, if I have understood it correctly, is that if you occupy property for any part of the rating year you create the possibility of a liability for that year. I think that is the point to which the noble Lord refers. The correct solution to that depends on the existing provisions. The situation is that if you give, say, a short occupation of a property which is generally unoccupied, in view of the statutory provisions you put the person concerned in risk of paying rates for much more than the short period for which he is actually using the property. But this provision is not really dealing with the same problem as that. I hope that is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord's question.
Clause 14 agreed to.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Central space heating.
. When assessing a dwelling-house for rating purposes the assessor shall not increase that valuation on the grounds that some form of central space heating has been installed.").
The noble Lord said: This is an old one. I think I put down this amendment every time we have a valuation Bill, and that goes back a long time. It refers to this business of when you improve your house the assessor saying "Yes, the house is worth far more now and we shall put up your valuation". There are many people who, because of the feelings about clean air, and so on, felt that they should put in central heating. In fact, it is now the general thing that people have central heating rather than open fires. It is about time we accepted that people should not be penalised for doing the right thing but, rather, should be congratulated.
I do not know whether I will have the agreement of the Government on this. I am hoping that after the way I teased him about his last memorable Bill—the one on roads—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will do something here. There are forms of central heating which can be installed without

1103
affecting the valuation. There is a form of electric heating where you just plug in the radiators. Mind you, the whole house has to be wired up to do that, and although one can take the radiators away the actual changes made in the house, which are equivalent to what may well be required for gas or oil central heating, are still there; but it does not attract any penalty by way of increased rateable value. I think it is about time we put this one right.
Even in local council houses they have been putting in central heating. I do not know whether that affected their rateable value. I think it is time we got away from this particular one. It is self-evident. As I said, the Scottish Office should have all along known my feelings about it. Many people who have put in central heating, and done the right thing from the point of view of the proper use of energy, clean air and the rest of it, have then discovered with the increase in oil prices, as well as in electricity and gas prices, that they would have been far better leaving things alone and just freezing in the winter, instead of having to face the kind of bills and the last insult that they have a higher valuation to meet when it comes to paying rates. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like sincerely to support this amendment. I cannot understand how the Government could produce any argument for not supporting it. We are told all the time to economise in energy. Installing central heating is improving the house at the owner's cost. I do not see why he should then be charged extra rates when he has improved the property and conserved energy.
Lord Polwarth: May I simply ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to look very seriously at something which in this day and age is a complete anomaly?
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support this amendment very strongly indeed. It will save such a lot of money, time and everything else and improve the value of houses. It is high time that something was done about this.
Lord Elphinstone: I also should like to support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, explained to us very clearly earlier on that when you make any deduction from one person's valuation you are in effect adding a burden on to somebody else. Therefore you must be very careful about the principles on which you proceed in order not to damage the fairness of the system. I personally have a house in which we have a central heating system, which is reflected in the valuation. Therefore I can well appreciate the sentiments that have been so clearly expressed from different parts of the House, but I would have to say that your Lordships must bear in mind what are the principles of rating valuation. They are that you have to consider what a tenant would pay by way of rent for the house which is the subject of valuation (if it is a house).
What has been considered is that if you have a heritable central heating system in your house the tenant will pay more for that than for a house that does
1104
not have a central heating system, for obvious reasons. Indeed, as your Lordships have said, the house is better by reason of the system. For that reason it is right in principle that there should be some addition, depending on the circumstances, for a heritable improvement to the house, which is what the central heating system is—no more and no less. It is as if you put an extra room on your house. The house is then worth more to rent, generally speaking, than it would be without that addition. Otherwise, presumably the addition would not have been made.
Attractive as this proposition is to those of us particularly who have central heating systems in our houses, I fear that it is not an amendment which can be justified in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in moving the amendment reminded us that storage heaters are out of valuation by reason of Section 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. But that is because these heaters are fixed so that they can be removed from their place without necessitating the removal of any part of the building. Therefore these are not really in the nature of heritable things at all. They are just like a heater—say a paraffin heater or some free-standing heater—that one would bring in. That kind of thing is not heritable. Therefore it does not add to the value of the heritable subjects from the point of view of the rent which a tenant would be prepared to pay.
While of course I very much regret not being able to give effect to such strongly expressed views from the Committee, I hope that in the light of these explanations the Committee will see that, however desirable from the individual point of view this might be, in the present state of the valuation and rating system, it is not really defensible in principle, and it would be to introduce an anomaly rather than to remove one.
Lord Elphinstone: May I for the moment say that we live in a colder part of the world than perhaps some of the Committee?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have heard it said that there is no colder place than Edinburgh. I do not know whether or not that is true. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily true, but it is very difficult to make variations according to the part of the country in which one lives. Of course the point is that the rating system, the valuation system, is primarily for dividing the burden of expenditure in a particular region; and, on the whole, the difference between regions, from the point of view of climatic conditions, is not as great as between, say, extreme parts of the whole country.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is very, very disappointing. But could I say thanks for the response that I have had from the Committee: from the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. from the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, and from the noble Baroness herself—and usually when she speaks the Front Bench quakes. I think we will need to consider this again, and probably at a more reasonable time. I think I even had the support of the noble Viscount. Lord Massereene.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Very strongly, yes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is twice in two debates. He will need to watch himself; he is getting a terrible reputation about himself. But, with all due respect to the Lord Advocate, he was not all that convincing. He mentioned that the rule had been breached by the reference to storage heaters and his suggestion that you can just lift them away. Of course, they are all linked up to the electricity system. In most cases it has meant that the heaters have had to be specially wired in order to do that. It means in many cases also that there has to be a special meter in respect of that system. So from that point of view there are very considerable changes to the property. There are forms of electric heating, quite apart from storage heaters, that have breached this general rule because there is a notional feeling that you could take them away. If you take them away you leave a great deal of material which has had to be put there in order to get the value out of these heaters. Now these are changes as well.
He tells me, "Well, it would be unfair"—certainly, when we think of the number of people involved, it would be expensive. But it must be remembered that a considerable number of people are affected, and I think probably it will eventually be a majority of people; so it will all cancel itself out. Do we want to encourage this or not? I think we do want to encourage it for the proper use of energy. We are told to save energy. And an efficient authority is one of the best ways of saving it. I knew the previous Lord Elphinstone very well. I do not know where the present noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, lives but he thinks he is in the coldest part of the world.
Lord Elphinstone: It is getting near to it!
Lord Ross of Marnock: Getting on for it? You must be coming near Edinburgh then! I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know of the rigours in certain parts of Scotland. We want to encourage, and you do not encourage by penalising, by imposing an extra tax. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again. In view of the enthusiasm for this particular amendment, I have to withdraw it; but I will put it on the Marshalled List again. I will write it much more carefully next time so that even the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, himself will probably go to the Back-Benches and get up and support me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.35 p.m.
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Valuation Acts to shootings.

.—(1) In the Valuation Acts, wherever the expression "lands and heritages" occurs it shall be interpreted to extend to and include shootings but only where such shootings are let.

(2) Shootings which remain in the occupation of the owner shall not be entered in the valuation roll, and any reference in any enactment to the person appearing from the valuation roll to be the owner or occupier of such shootings shall on and after 1st April 1985 have effect in the case of such shootings as if the reference to the valuation roll were omitted.

(3) In this section "let" means in relation to shootings the grant of a tenancy, whether formal or infomal, for any specified period.

(4) In this section the expression "the Valuation Acts" means the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854, the Acts amending that Act, any other Act relating to valuation and includes this Act.").

The noble Lady said: Contrary to what some noble Lords may suppose. I must say that I do not have an interest to declare. My shooting is let and I hope it will remain so; the same applies to my husband's; and I myself do not shoot.
There is a difference in the treatment of sporting rights for rating purposes in Scotland and England. In England sporting rights are rated only if severed from the occupation of the land through a formal lease, whereas in Scotland, even if there is only a sporting potential, that right is assessed to rates in spite of the fact that an owner does not, or does not even wish to, exercise those rights. This is a manifestly unfair anomaly and cannot be said to be even totally consistent with the Scots law relating to heritable property. For example, where a dwelling-house is vacant of both occupier and furniture for a period in excess of three months the owner is refunded rates for such period of non-occupation. This situation could be compared with the estate or farm where game may not be artificially reared nor is there any exploitation of the sporting right.
This amendment is designed to bring the Scottish law on the rating of sporting rights more into line with the law in England so far as shootings are concerned and should result in shootings which were in hand being taken out of assessment, while those shootings which were let, however informally, would still be assessed to rates as at present. I think the tone of the recent White Paper, Valuation and Rating in Scotland—Proposals for Reform, indicated that the Government were prepared to depart from their previous entrenched view as to anomalies. As an example, the removal of reed beds from the valuation roll in Clause 14 brings the law into line with the law of England.
I think that a similar course of action should be adopted towards the rating of sporting rights in Scotland, which at present are the subject of unfair treatment compared with England. Up to now the Government's view has been that of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council—that the treatment of sporting rights should be consistent with treatment of other heritable rights in Scotland. In view of the Government's intentions expressed in the recent White Paper, I hope they will accept that such a blatant anomaly as clearly exists with regard to the rating of sporting rights in Scotland should now be removed by legislation.
A similar amendment was put down by the honourable Member for Dumfries, Sir Hector Munro, at Committee stage in another place and was rejected on a basis which in fact is not correct. The Minister stated that in Scotland shooting and fishing rights are heritable subjects in their own right whether or not they are severed from the land over which they are exercised. He then referred to the need to maintain consistency in the law. This is not a correct statement of the law, as neither shooting nor trout fishing rights can be separated from the land over which they are exercised; that is to say, they cannot be sold off as separate rights.
The present situation is very hard on many farmers and small landowners, and moreover it is bad for conservation. If one is going to have to pay rates whether or not one shoots, the temptation is to let to

1107
tenants. And tenants who are paying rent are likely to expect to shoot more than may be advisable. After all, it is not going to worry them if they overshoot when they have taken the shooting for only one week, one month or one season. They can go elsewhere next year, leaving a desert behind them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Minto: As my name is associated with this amendment, it might be helpful to the Committee and also to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if I speak immediately after the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I also have to declare what I suppose is called a "non-interest". I make no bones about it: I shoot. I have property in Scotland over which I shoot. I have friends in Scotland with whom I shoot and I am very lucky to do so. But in every single instance—and I do mean every single instance—the properties, whether they are mine or the properties over which I shoot, are let and for that reason they pay rates. This amendment would in no way stop them from continuing to pay rates. Therefore, I believe that I can genuinely say that I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this particular amendment.
My property in Scotland is surrounded on its marches—and if there are any noble Lords present from England perhaps I should should say "its boundaries"—by a number of farms, few of which have woods suitable for shooting and even fewer of which have game upon their properties at which to shoot. These farms extend well beyond my property. To the east it is necessary to travel six miles before one comes upon a keepered estate; to the south one has to go the same distance; to the west it is necessary to travel 12 miles to find a keepered estate; and to the north the distance is so great that I have, quite truthfully, not worked it out.
It will be clear to your Lordships' Committee that the areas which I have defined are so extensive that there are many, many owner-occupiers who are paying rates for shooting rights but who have no intention whatever of ever running an organised shoot. If on the odd occasion—and 1 am sure this happens—the owner-occupier does take out his gun and goes to shoot at some extraordinarily stupid cock pheasant that has strolled on to his land, it is a very expensive way of putting something into his pot, because the sporting rights on a farm in my part of the world of, for example, anything between 250 and 350 acres can in fact be as high as £150. So it is an expensive pheasant that one pops into one's pot, and I really do not think that it is justifiable.
We are told in the White Paper that it is the Government's intention to remove anomalies. This matter has been mentioned already and very fully by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. However, this particular amendment requires looking at from another point of view as well. I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—and I am sorry that he is not here because he has continued to make it incessantly since the first day of the Committee stage—that we narrow the base every time we derate or devalue something. That is absolutley true. No one who, like myself, has been a regional councillor in a Scottish region and who has been responsible with a handful of fellow councillors for the finances of a region can
1108
possibly think otherwise; it would be completely wrong.
Therefore, in my view this leads one to support pressure being brought to bear upon the Government to bring forward at the earliest conceivable date a proper and full review, because, quite frankly, two wrongs do not make a right. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, says that it is wrong to narrow the base and the Government say that it is wrong to bring forward a review at this point in time, then those are two wrongs and they do not make a right. It still means that the owner-occupiers of these properties are, in fact, spending very large sums of money for absolutely nothing. Therefore, the system is wrong.
I made this point in your Lordships' House (I do not think it was in Committee, but I cannot quite remember) to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, some time ago in almost exactly the terms of the first amendment during the Committee stage of this Bill. I was told by the noble Earl that he would be looking into it in the early future. That was some little time ago and nothing seems to have been done. So I am concerned that that seems to have been put off and put off, and I do not think that that is very helpful to any of us.
Finally, speaking as someone who lives in a rural community and having admitted quite openly to noble Lords that I shoot, I should also like to make this point. Up until the end of the war and for some few years afterwards my property sustained no fewer than five gamekeepers. Today I can barely afford to warrant one. This applies to all the people with whom I shoot. It has led, in percentage terms, to a very large reduction in the total number of gamekeepers, and it has increased the unemployment factor in the countryside. It is an absolute tragedy that we shall continue along this line for want of not being able to pay them for doing nothing.
What do gamekeepers in fact do? There is an extraordinary feeling that gamekeepers are there to put grouse, pheasants, or whatever, over the heads of guns. That is simply a small part of their job. Historically, they have always been responsible for controlling vermin. Although it is true that over a period of time, myxomatosis did reduce the number of rabbits in Scotland, sadly, that is not the position now. There are areas of Scotland where there is still an element of myxomatosis and a fair reduction in the numbers of rabbits. But there are other parts where myxomatosis has no effect whatever. Quite definitely this has a detrimental effect upon farm productivity, because, where they are really virulent, rabbits do untold damage to both cereal and root crops.
Therefore, there is a need not only for large properties but for smaller properties and owner-occupied farms, to be able to sustain if only a part-time gamekeeper to ensure that the vermin are kept down and that farm productivity is maintained. I make no further point. I was deeply impressed by what the noble Lady. Lady Saltoun. said, and how she said it. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Briefly, I should like to support the amendment as my name is down to it. I have an interest to declare in that I shoot, but the only shooting I let is red deer stalking. I also let fishing

1109
rights, which are not applicable to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has left the Chamber, but earlier he was comparing unfavourably the burden of Scottish rates compared to England. Here is another instance where, as has been pointed out, one is, as an owner occupier of shootings still having to pay rates if they are not let.
I have to declare an interest in so far as I have rough shooting. There are a few grouse, ptarmigan, woodcock, and duck, but I never let them because they are not good enough. They cover quite a large area and I do not let them but I am rated on them, which I think is unfair. Shooting too is dependent on the climate, especially rough shooting and shooting of migratory birds, and you really cannot let rough shooting because it is of very little value. You might let it one year, or one season, and there would be little to shoot, and of course another season the tenant might be lucky.
I can endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said: rating unlet shooting can cause unemployment. If somebody has shootings, and say he is a conservationist, and if he is highly rated on his shootings which he does not let, then he will probably have to get rid of his keeper, as the noble Earl pointed out. I should like to ask the Government whether they would give some encouragement that the rateable burden on shootings that are not let and are not bringing in any money will be eased, or will not be entered on the valuation roll anyway for rateable purposes.
If we want to be really fair what ought to happen if shootings are rated, as they are at the moment in Scotland whether they are used or not, is to have valuation every year. Supposing one did let—not that I do—and one had a good year: well of course for the next year one would be rated quite highly. But for the next three or four years one might have bad years. Though at the end of that period I suppose it would be averaged out, in the meantime one would have had to pay the wages of one's keepers and have little coming in from the shootings. I heartily support the amendment.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Polwarth: May I briefly declare an interest and say that I own a few hundred acres of marginal and hill land which nature has populated with a few wild pheasants and other species of game, none of which enjoys any protection from predators, whether animal or human. I reckon that each bird that falls to the guns of my friends, family, and me for the pot contributes about £2 to the local rates. While I appreciate the problem of narrowing the base of the rating system, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he can justify the continuance of this basic difference between the practice in Scotland and south of the Border.
Lord Elphinstone: It is worse than the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, suggested, in that I understand we are being rated on our bags between 1972 and 1977, which bear no relation to what we may be killing at the moment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: There are two problems which fall to be distinguished: the problem of how you
1110
should value shootings, and the problem of whether they should be valued at all. The point that my noble friend has just referred to is a point on the question of how you should value shootings, whether or not they are let. That is a point that this amendment does not address. However important it may be, I am not sure that I could assist much upon it tonight.
The fundamental question is in what circumstances these shootings should be rated. That is the point to which the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is directed. I should like to begin by express-ing my gratitude to her for explaining to me so fully before we came to the Chamber precisely what she had in mind. I am grateful also to those who have supported her for the clarity with which their support has been expressed.
The problem is that we have here a situation from England and Wales which I want to explain as briefly as I can. In England and Wales sporting rights are entered in the valuation list as such only if they are severed from the land over which they are exercised. Until recently the view has been taken in England and Wales that rights could be entered in the list only if they were severed by means of a formal deed. This has led, with an arbitrary distinction of that kind, to many attempts to work away at the boundary and to rub the boundary away, so many sporting rights are being given out—if I may use that rather inaccurate expression—under more informal arrangements. The question has arisen whether they should still be in the valuation list. I understand that there are cases now waiting to be heard in England and Wales that may alter this and lead to more subjects being brought into valuation. This, however, would not alter the position concerning rights that are kept in hand. But it illustrates the difficulty of an arbitrary distinction based upon whether or not the subjects are let out.
In Scotland the position was at one time the same as that in England and Wales. But it was thought—and this is almost 100 years ago—that that was entirely unsatisfactory. Shootings were not entered in the valuation roll unless they were actually let, and this peculiarity was removed by Section 6 of the Sporting Lands Rating (Scotland) Act 1886, which placed a duty on the assessor to enter separately the yearly value of shooting over lands and deer forests. The present amendment, in effect, seeks to reverse the effect of the 1886 Act. But it is only right to consider what that would lead to.
Let us take as an example neighbouring estates in Scotland where one is let out and the other is not, but the value of the shootings is the same on both. That is perhaps somewhat hypothetical, but it is illustrative of the principle. They have similar shooting potential and similar bags. Surely they should not have different valuations and make different contributions to local rating resources. But if this amendment is approved the tenant of the let shoot will continue to pay rates while there would be no similar burden on the exactly similar estate next door where the shooting is not let out but perhaps the owner runs paying house parties and so still derives considerable income from the shoot, indirectly, but not by means of a let out. Surely, therefore, to introduce this amendment would be to produce a considerable anomaly into the Scottish system.

1111
Our first priority must be to ensure equality of treatment within Scotland, for the primary purpose of the valuation system is to apportion the rate burden in any one area, and like subjects in the same area must be treated alike; otherwise, one introduces a fundamental unfairness. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, clearly explained, the White Paper seeks to identify, and in the Bill we seek to eliminate, anomalies between our system and the system in England and Wales, where it is possible to do that. But in our judgment it is not fair to do that if, as a result, much greater anomalies are introduced into the Scottish system. For that reason it does not seem appropriate to give effect to this amendment.
We have considered this matter very carefully. The noble Lady referred to the debate in another place. I can assure her that the matter has been very carefully considered as a matter of principle, and, for the reasons I have sought to explain, the decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was that he could not see his way to giving effect to this amendment, although of course he did not have the benefit of the eloquent speeches to which we have listened this evening. But I think he had the points that have been made this evening in his mind when his decision was taken.
Viscount Massereene of Ferrard: If the proprietor is letting out to guests, and if they stay in his house for two or three days' shooting, surely he could be rated on that. It has to appear in the estate accounts so I should have thought that he could be assessed on that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: At the moment he will be assessed on the value of the shooting. But he will not be assessed on the value of the shootings in these circumstances if this amendment is passed because these shootings are not let. He has people with him staying in his house who enjoy the shooting along with him but he has not let the shootings. Therefore, in terms of this amendment, these shootings will escape valuation altogether. The noble Viscount is right. They could be assessed, and that is what happens now. I am saying that if the amendment is passed they would cease to be assessed and it seems to me to be manifestly unfair to introduce a greater anomaly into the Scottish system itself than the amendment would remove between the Scottish and the English systems.
Lady Saltoun: What the noble and learned Lord has said about the owners who entertain house parties with paying guests is true. They are, I think, a fairly small minority because a great many owners are neither willing nor able to do this. As the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has said, in most cases what is paid for these shooting house parties goes through the estate accounts, and therefore evidence could be produced that the shooting was let. I may be wrong there. In drafting this amendment we wanted to draft something that would take this into account but it has been an extremely difficult problem to find suitable wording. This seems to be one of the biggest problems over this amendment. I wonder whether there is any way in which the noble and learned Lord can reconsider this matter with a view to finding wording that would cover it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Very briefly, what I am seeking to point out is the difficulty in principle over the type of amendment which the noble Lady is proposing. I have not been able to think of any way of removing the anomaly which this amendment introduces. Parliament thought of it in 1886 and I have not been able to improve on that in the time since then.
The Earl of Minto: I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord can remember 1886. He looks so young.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is amazing what the years can tell us.
Lady Saltoun: It is a very long time since 1886. It is 98 years. I appreciate that if nobody has been able to find better wording in those 98 years, it must be a difficult task. I wonder how much time and trouble has been taken during those 98 years to find better wording. I wonder whether before Report stage the noble and learned Lord might see if he could find better wording.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: 1 think the best that I can do is to say that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the speeches that have been made this evening.
Lady Saltoun: With that very kind and considerate remark from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I will await developments at the Report stage with a feeling of hope.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Comparison with hereditaments in England and Wales]:
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 39, after ("Wales") insert ("serving a directly comparable purpose, but").
The noble and learned Lord said: My noble friends Lord Grimond and Lord Mackie of Benshie regret very much that they are unable to be present at this hour for this sitting of the Committee, and they have asked me to move this amendment which stands in their names. This I am happy to do, albeit that I have certain reservations—as indeed have my noble friends—about the drafting of the amendment. Its effect, as is apparent on the face of it, is to provide that hereditaments in England and Wales which may be relied on by way of comparison must be hereditaments which serve a directly comparable purpose with the Scottish hereditaments.
The amendment is a probing one and it derives, I understand, from a certain local anxiety in the Northern Islands that it might provide a foundation for a more or less significant degree of derating in relation to certain of the industrial oil installations in the area. We seek some kind of reassurance, if that can be given, by the noble and learned Lord about that. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can understand that people in the Northern Islands might wonder how, for example, Clause 15 has affected the situation of particular subjects. It is very difficult for me to do more than say that if there are no comparable subjects in England and Wales they have nothing to fear. If there are comparable subjects in England and Wales they might then be compared with them. I do not understand that this amendment really draws attention to any particular point that would be of much use one way or the other.
"Serving a directly comparable purpose",
does not really seem to me to convey any very accurate sentiment. But, so far as I know, there are no subjects in England and Wales that could be regarded as comparable to the subjects which are the particular concern of the noble Lords who tabled this amendment. However, that is very much a matter of fact upon which it would not be appropriate for me to do more than say what I have said.
Lord Wilson of Langside: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 10, line 39, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: We will need to gallop on because we are running short of time. It is a shame, because we are coming to perhaps one of the most contentious of the clauses and there are various amendments. It is a pity that we could not take them all together. It may be a good idea to take them all together so that we get some substance of whatever changes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is going to make by what he says. The purpose of my amendments is to leave out certain words. Leaving out those words would considerably widen the scope of a subject that might be brought in, though once again there is the question of appeal.
The Government claim—certainly in another place—that this will solve all the problems of race courses, football stadia and possibly other things as well. But I do not think it is exactly the answer that people expected from the Government, bearing in mind what was said in the White Paper. They listed there all the various valuation anomalies and mentioned caravan sites, commercial reed beds, spectator sports stadia and so on. They stated:
"The Government's policy is in summary to provide immediate relief through a measure of derating to the above categories of non-domestic ratepayers, the rate burden on whose business property is for valuation reasons substantially out of line with that of compara-ble properties in England and Wales".
Clearly the Government have not met that pledge. They have done so in respect of reed beds, caravan sites and caravans, but they have not in respect of one of the subjects, which is the spectator sports stadia.
Later on in that same paragraph, paragraph 18, of the Valuation and Rating in Scotland: Proposals for Reform, the Government say:
"Longer-term measures will be of assistance to all classes of Scottish ratepayers and will operate through improvements to the appeal system, by allowing evidence that rental values have fallen … allowing the citation of valuations listed south of the Border and improving the machinery for hearing appeals".
In the last phrase rests the justificaion for this clause. But I ask your Lordships to remember that it is only in the longer term that this will be available.
The other difficulty is that there is no direct change that will lead to an improvement. It is all based upon appeal and allowing the citing of comparable subjects south of the Border. It seems there is to be no change in the attitude of the assessors. They will go on as they have been doing and then it will be up to the occupiers of the hereditaments who are seemingly offended by what is being done to appeal, when they have this ground of appeal that is not there at the moment.
This will depend, first, on the attitude of the Scottish courts. The whole thing is based, as I understand it—and I assure noble Lords that this is a very complicated subject—upon the fact that for football stadia and race courses in Scotland there is no other tenant prepared to compete for the subjects under appeal. There is no rent and there is no notional rent. There is an annual value fixed by the Scottish assessors, based mainly upon the system which I mentioned earlier. As I understand it they can bring in comparable subjects and get a rent valuation which might be comparable—and I have been reading quite a lot about this—but there is no evidence that there is a rent paid there, either.
There is no reliable evidence on such properties in England and Wales, so what do we come down to? There is reached there an annual value, and you are not going to be comparing a rent, because there is none in Scotland; you are going to be comparing an annual value reached in Scotland by one method with an annual value reached in England by another method. Unless those who hear the appeal are prepared to consider the merits of the methods of assessment, then there is going to be no real appeal at all.
To my mind, this is a very important subject. I do not think it is open to the Government to be able to argue that they can give orders to the appeal authority, be it the Lands Tribunal or the courts. I do not think that is possible for the Government. We are dependent entirely on the decisions that the appeals authority will take. It may well be that they will dismiss the whole thing. They may say, despite the changes that are being made by the Government, that there are in Scotland comparable subjects. There is Hampden Park as against Ibrox, or Celtic Park, Firhill, Pittodrie, and, in different parts of Scotland where there is no rental evidence, there is annual value evidence reached by a particular method.
I have read the debates in the other place. I have read what the Minister said—that they are satisfied that somehow or other they have so worded it that the Lands Tribunal will have to consider this, whether or not they make any decision on it. In relation to England and Wales the Government have this covered. Any annual value that is in the roll in England and Wales dates from the year 1973. It is not up to date. It is true that there has been no change in the roll since that time, and the Government recognise this because they say in one of the Subsections that the Lands Tribunal will have regard to when that annual value is fixed.
The thing is complicated; the thing is difficult; to my mind it is very doubtful in its outcome. That is why I

1115
put in yet another matter one should have regard to—that is, the actual burden of rates paid. That is what eventually really matters. It is something that stands out in relation to the inequity of treatment of the sporting stadia in Scotland as compared with those in England. It is for that reason that I tried to make it easier to get the thing before an appeals tribunal and to have the appeals committee somehow or other judge the equity as between Scotland and England. But these doubts remain, and I wish I could be as sure as eventually I think Mr. Michael Ancram in another place seemed to be that it would work that way.
I have had advice from experts in this field, and they are very doubtful indeed as to what will happen unless those who hear the appeal move away from rent and consider, first, the result and, secondly, the methods of reaching that result in Scotland as against England, the fairness of one against the other. It can only be by way of appeal in the first instance that it can be discussed. After you go there, you are entirely in the hands of the judgment of those hearing the appeal. The Government cannot be so certain as they were when they wrote the White Paper about the help which will be afforded to race courses and to establishments like bowling alleys and sports stadia. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord has suggested that, although we are dealing with Amendment No. 46, we should take account of the amendments which both he and I have proposed in relation to Clause 15 and speak together to them. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has indicated that she does not intend to move Amendment No. 47C, a drafting amendment. Therefore I shall not take account of it but will seek to take account of all the other amendments which have been put down to the clause.
I shall try to explain the situation, as I see it, in relation to the clause. First, one has to distinguish between the rates paid and the rateable value, which is the basis on which the rates are paid. The rate poundage is a matter, in effect, of the expenses of the local authority, and it is sought to be controlled by Part I of the Bill. Turning to valuation for rating, Part II of the Bill, that is what Clause 15 is about. As the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, indicated earlier, concern has been expressed that what appear to be similar premises in Scotland are rated at, say, x, whereas corresponding premises in England appear to be valued at about half x. Those who are in charge of these matters in Scotland feel aggrieved and believe this to be an anomaly. It is towards that anomaly that the clause is directed—the idea that there is a basis in England which is much lower than the basis which has been used hitherto in Scotland in situations where no rental evidence is available.
In that situation, the law at present is that you may look at England and Wales, but only at rents—not at valuations or values in the valuation list. As the noble Lord said, it is very unlikely that there will be let premises in England and Wales, either, in the classes to which we are referring. Therefore, under the present Scottish law, unless one is allowed to look at values in the valuation list, one cannot make effective comparisons with England and Wales. It is that which the clause is intended to alter so as to make it possible to found, by way of comparison, on valuations entered
1116
in the valuation list in England of properties which are comparable to the properties we are seeking to value in Scotland.
The noble Lord mentioned that there is more than one property in a particular class in Scotland, but when one seeks to put values on the properties they are all without values. We start from the situation where, at the beginning of a revaluation, a number of properties—all the football gounds in Scotland, to take the example nearest, perhaps, to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—have no values at all. The question is how to obtain a value for them. The answer, in terms of Clause 15, is that in considering what the values should be, the appeal committee, the lands tribunal or the valuation appeal court will have regard to the values in the valuation lists in England and Wales for these properties. If there appears to be a pattern for such values disclosed by the valuation list in England and Wales, it will afford a proper basis of comparison for arriving at the answer for which we are looking for the Scottish subjects. That is the basic principle of the clause.
The noble Lord says that this is an appeal provision, but the assessors are valuing against the appeal system—in other words, within the framework of the appeal system—and the assessors, doing their job properly, will take account in their valuations of the matters which the appeal court and the appeal committee will take account of in considering any appeal from the assessors' valuation. That is the nature of the system and the way in practice that the criteria have been laid out in the past.
Clause 15 is an amendment to an existing clause which is framed according to the same approach. A number of questions have been asked in relation to Clause 15. The first concerned the opening words of the provision:
"only if the evidence available as to lands and heritages in Scotland comparable to those which are the subject of the proceedings is not adquate to enable the committee or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to draw conclusions".
The question has been asked by the noble Lord: what will happen if there are no subjects at all in Scotland comparable to the subjects of appeal? We believe that point is covered because in that case there will be no adquate evidence because there are no subjects at all. But a doubt has been posed, by the Faculty of Advocates particularly, and we have sought to meet it by making clear that if there are no comparable subjects this provision will apply; or if the comparable subjects do not yield sufficient evidence of rents, again the provision will apply. So we cover that point.
The second question that has been raised is whether, by our clause, we are altering the existing law to prevent actual rents being looked at and confining attention only to valuations. To make that plain we have proposed the later amendments to make it clear that actual rents are still available for comparison in England and Wales, if there are any. When it comes to the kind of subjects to which the noble Lord has referred, I do not think that there will be. But if there are actual rents in England and Wales—such as there were, for example, in the Portland Cement case—then they will be looked at, taking account of all the circumstances. That is the purpose of the later amendments in my name.

1117
The last point concerned examining the total sum paid in rates. The noble Lord said that that is the ultimate point at which the person concerned will look. We have dealt with that aspect because the valuation in England is on the basis that the tenant pays the rates in a subject which is valued at a net annual value, and that is the same basis as is applying in Scotland in such subjects. In both cases, one assumes that the tenant is paying rates and therefore that the burden of rates is properly taken into account in the rent that is in question.
The purpose of the clause is as I have explained, and I believe that it meets the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has put forward. I hope that I have been able to explain satisfactorily why, in our view, it does that. I have tried to follow the steps through as logically as I can. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and will be prepared to agree to the amendment standing in my name being given effect to.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the attention he has paid to this aspect in the short time we have had available to us. 1 would prefer to study what he has said, and its implications. I felt that there was a slight jump in the latter part of his argument in relation to the notional rent being equated with the burden of rates, which he said I hoped to meet by the addition of the words in my amendment, taking into account the actual rates paid. He said that that point was met, but I am not too happy with what he said. I am prepared to consider his comments, and in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that we shall have another chance to approach this subject—I hope at a more convenient time—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 10, line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("—
(a) there is no").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already dealt with this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 47B:
Page 10, line 42, after ("proceedings") insert—
("; or
(b) such evidence as is available in that regard").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have also dealt with this amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 47C not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 47D, 47E and 47F:
Page 11. line 10, leave out ("taken to be") and insert ("treated as").
line 11, after ("hereditament") insert ("(as at the date as at which its net annual value was ascribed to it)").
line 20, leave out from ("section") to end of line 21 and insert ("to make such adjustment as is, in their opinion, necessary—

(a) to its rent as established by the ebvidence, so as to take account of (amongst any other things) the date at which that rent became payable;

(b) to its rent as established under subsection (1B) above, so as to take account of (amongst any other things) the date as at which, under that subsection, that rent is to be treated as payable.".".

The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps we may take Amendments Nos. 47D, 47 E and 47F en bloc. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Alteration of "material change of circumstances "]:
[Amendment Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.] Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Amendments and repeals]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 11, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years after the passing of this Act unless continued in force by an order approved by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I shall move this amendment very quickly. We will want to watch exactly what happens under the Bill and see that it adequately meets all the points raised. Therefore, I suggest that the provisions,
"shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years after the passing of this Act"—
and that will take us beyond the next revaluation period—
"unless continued in force by an order approved by Parliament."
In other words, the Government will not need to come back for legislation: they can continue it with an order.
The old idea used to be the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts under which important Acts of Parliament were continued for many years. I remember one in Scotland, believe it or not, on the 30 miles an hour speed limit which was carried forward from year to year under that procedure for nearly 30 years. The amendment would give the Government the opportunity, or expectation, to justify the continuation of the changes in the Bill and come back to Parliament to keep them in force. We would then have them under review. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: We have had an opportunity to consider these provisions in the ordinary way. They are not in the nature of being temporary provisions. In the Government's view a provision of the kind proposed in the amendment would be extremely exceptional in this type of legislation. We believe that the legislation is satisfactory as permanent legislation for the reasons which have been explained to your Lordships at the various stages of the Bill. I certainly could not accept the proposals in this amendment on behalf of the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Government are right to refute this amendment. In covering the whole Bill I

1119
drew it far too widely. But there are certain provisions where there are considerable fears that there may be a clogging up of the whole procedure in relation to appeals and that we shall fail to get the stability of the roll that is essential from the point of view of the confidence in the assessments and the assessors, and also the stability that local authorities will need in order to go forward when striking their budgets and knowing just exactly what the rate poundage is to be. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate rightly reminded us, the rate poundage depends upon the valuation as well as expenditure. Therefore, I appreciate that the amendment is drawn far too widely. It may be that there are one or two clauses which should be looked at particularly carefully to see whether they are working well and perhaps on the next stage of the Bill I will limit such an amendment to that. In the meantime, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the way he has handled the whole business tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Enactments]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 24, line 15, leave out ("on oath").
The noble and learned Lord said: In another place the honourable member for Garscadden, Mr. Donald Dewar, suggested that we should look at the various powers that the Assessor of Public Undertakings has; in particular, the power to examine persons on oath. As a result of his invitation to reconsider the matter, we have concluded that in modern day circumstances it is not necessary for the Assessor of Public Undertakings to have the power to examine people on oath and accordingly have brought forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
10.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order, which was laid before your Lordships on 31st January of this year, be approved.
The first order which we have before us this evening seeks to amend various items of legislation and to revoke others with which the Department of Agricul-ture for Northern Ireland is concerned. The order also provides for a levy on the Northern Ireland seed potato industry, as well as for the making of schemes to aid consumers of liquid milk.
If your Lordships would care to glance at the amendments contained in the order, I think that you
1120
will agree with me that most of them are of a relatively minor nature. Indeed, we believe they are concerned mainly with correcting deficiencies in some enactments and clarifying ambiguities which have become apparent in the light of experience in the administration of this legislation. I hope that your Lordships will agree that in view of the hour this evening I might limit my comments to just the most important provisions only. Of course, if your Lordships have any questions I shall attempt to answer them briefly. If more detail is required, perhaps I might have to do so by correspondence.
If I might start by just glancing at Article 3, your Lordships will see that this will enable the department to levy the Northern Ireland seed potato industry and to allocate the money so collected for the benefit of persons engaged in the production or marketing of seed potatoes. It is particularly important that the work of promoting and developing the seed potato industry, which was previously carried on by the Northern Ireland Seed Potato Marketing Board, should be continued. Article 3 provides the means by which the funds for these functions can be collected from the industry. It also enables the department to prescribe a body to receive the levy income in order to carry out these functions. It is the Government's view that Seed Potato Promotions (NI) Ltd would be a suitable body to receive the levy income. The Northern Ireland Assembly, although in favour of the department being empowered to raise a levy, expressed some reservations about this. I assure your Lordships that there will be fullest consultation with all interests before we proceed to collect the levy and allocate the funds.
Article 4 provides a legislative base for making schemes to benefit consumers of liquid milk. The consumer subsidy ensures that consumers in Northern Ireland do not have to pay a higher retail price for their milk than consumers in England and Wales. For the producer this has meant a very welcome £5½ million of additional income in 1983–84, which is continuing at the same level in the current year. The original intention of Article 5 was to transfer the duty to license slaughtermen from district councils to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. However, following representations from the local authorities it was decided that the article should be amended to leave the licensing function with the district councils. The revised article amends the Slaughter of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1932 and makes it clear that local authorities should check the age and competence of the applicant before issuing a licence to slaughter or stun animals.
If we move on to Article 7, this extends the scope of the Agriculture (Temporary Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 so that schemes can be made to aid persons engaged in the production, processing, packing or marketing of agricultural produce. I would briefly add for your Lordships that at the moment the Act only provides for assistance to or for the direct benefit of farmers.
If we could turn the page and go on to Article 11, this amends the Agricultural Produce (Meat Regulation and Pig Industry) Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 to enable the department to recover the full costs of the meat inspection service, while enabling

1121
measures to be taken for a more efficient use of staff, and we hope this will reduce costs.
If I could take your Lordships on to Article 14, we see that this amends the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to permit trade during the close season in salmon, trout and pollen, and also in brown eels imported from fish farms outside Northern Ireland as well as trade in such produce from fish farms in Northern Ireland.
Article 16 amends the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 to bring Northern Ireland more closely into line with Great Britain and to enable the department to exercise greater control over the running of such things as pet shops, animal boarding, riding and zoological establishments, in the interests of the welfare of animals.
Article 17 makes a number of changes to the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. This will allow for more effective control over animals imported into Northern Ireland and thus will aid disease control. Most of the changes reflect the animal health law in Great Britain.
I have briefly gone through the main provisions. If your Lordships have any questions on what I have raised, or indeed on any other articles that I have omitted in my little speech this evening, of course I will attempt to answer them and will attempt to do so tonight. But I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that brief glance through the order and, with that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the theme of this order is agriculture but it touches, according to my rough count, on about two dozen agricultural subjects. It is important for Northern Ireland because it is the largest single industry in the Province. That Province has its own crop of problems in this field. I am particularly pleased that this order has been discussed by the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly. The Assembly received written evidence, it heard oral evidence, and the report of the committee was accepted by the Assembly without amendment. So on behalf of these Benches let me say that we see here the Northern Ireland Assembly at work. This really is an excellent example of the Assembly at work and a justification for its existence.
The Minister has been very helpful in concentrating on the most important provisions covered by the order and describing the relevant background. If I may, I want to deal in particular with Article 3 because a substantial part of the evidence presented to the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly was concerned with just one aspect of Article 3. It appears to me that there is overwhelming agreement with the principle of compulsory levy to be applied for the benefit of the seed potato industry—subject, however, to one important reservation: that those who pay the levy should have effective representation on the governing body of the organisation which will disburse the funds. We on these Benches believe that that is a fair contention. There is force in that contention, and we support it.
1122
The Minister has indicated that unless something unexpected happens the prescribed organisation will be the Seed Potato Promotions (Northern Ireland) Company Limited. We understand that 50 per cent. of the directors of this company will be merchants nominated by the Northern Ireland Potato Marketing Board, the other 50 per cent. being nominated by the Ulster Farmers' Union. This is the snag. In the abstract, this formula may sound all right but it does not ensure that 50 per cent. of the directors will be seed potato producers. I understand that that is a matter of great concern to the Assembly, which has drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to its concern.
If the Seed Potato Promotions Company is to be given the responsibility of dispersing the levy, should not the articles and memorandum of association of this company be amended to ensure that the seed potato producers have an effective voice on the governing body? I think it is right that we should raise that key question.
I will turn now to a non-contentious area. So far as I can see, no one appears to have dissented from Article 4, which introduces a scheme to make payments for the benefit of consumers of milk. I will have to read carefully what the Minister has said, but some of us are not quite sure who will benefit from the scheme. Having listened to the Minister, I am inclined to think that the consumer generally will benefit from the scheme, and obviously we would be content with that. But it could be argued, merely on the wording of the article, that the benefit would be confined to groups such as school children or the elderly. Again, we would be very grateful if the Minister could give us a rough indication of the value of the benefit to the individual consumer. I rather think the benefit will be to the individual consumer.
The Minister made no reference to Article 8; but from reading the evidence presented to the committee of the Assembly I understand there is certain concern about the imposition of payments for navigation on the Lower Bann. But I will not pursue that point.
I come now to my last question. This relates to one of the enactments to be repealed. A great deal of concern has been expressed in Northern Ireland about Section 20, or the vacuum that may be left if Section 20 is implemented. Both the Ulster Society for the Preservation of the Countryside and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland have voiced concern. I was born and bred in the countryside and I understand their concern. Both are of the opinion—and possibly "opinion" is too weak a word and the right word is "conviction"—that the Department of Agriculture should have power, a new power if I understand the position correctly, to control the felling of trees of high amenity value.
We have been referred by the evidence of one of those bodies to the corresponding provision vested in the Forestry Commission which operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. Both organisations claim that the mechanism of the tree preservation order does not meet the problems. We invariably hear in this House—and quite rightly—about the need to protect the quality of the environment. Therefore, I would be interested to know why the department's representatives should not come to the Houses of Parliament and

1123
ask for power to control the felling of trees of high amenity value.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could deal with those few points. I should have given the Minister notice of the fact that I was going to raise them, and I am sorry that I did not do so; it is due to my inexperience. I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland will be interested in the Minister's response. However, we on these Benches generally welcome the order: after all it is acceptable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are particularly grateful for the careful work and scrutiny which has been carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and for the welcome which he has given to this order. The noble Lord need have no fear that we were unable to follow the line of his questions, because he laid them out in an admirably clear and concise way. I hope that, with just a little debutante's luck, I shall be able to give the noble Lord clear and fairly satisfactory answers to the queries that he has raised this evening.
First, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his comments on the very valuable work that has been done by the Assembly. I am sure that his words will be echoed in Northern Ireland and that they will be read and will give great pleasure to members of the Assembly who work so hard. Secondly, I am sure that the noble Lord's comments on the importance of the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland will also find favour, because I am finding that the agricultural industry is particularly important to the entire life of Northern Ireland. I am very pleased that the noble Lord and I are on the same side so far as that is concerned.
The noble Lord asked me about the organisation concerned with seed potatoes, and why Seed Potato Promotions (Northern Ireland) would be an effective vehicle, and how the seed growers would be represented in that organisation. I stress to your Lordships that four of the eight directors of Seed Potato Promotions are already appointed by the Ulster Farmers' Union. The noble Lord will be aware that all producers can join the union; and so far as I am aware all the main producers are already members of that union. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that producers do and can influence the selection of the union-appointed directors through the normal democratic procedures of the union. For that reason we believe that our method is the best for the promotion of the seed potato industry in Northern Ireland.
On Article 4, concerning the milk consumers' subsidy, I am able to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships that the present level of the subsidy is 1½p per litre. The cost to the Government this year is approximately £5½ million. I would stress to the noble Lord that, strangely, the payment of the subsidy is made to the Milk Marketing Board, and, in turn, they pass it on in full to the liquid milk processors. It is in this way that all consumers benefit by not having to pay a higher retail price. We believe that that is the best method. It is easy, and, above all, it is cheap to administer.
1124
The noble Lord asked a particularly relevant question about Article 20, concerning the felling of trees. I would stress to the noble Lord and, indeed, to all those who have expressed an interest to him—and certainly there are one or two people in Northern Ireland who have expressed an interest—that the aspects of restricting felling on important and, indeed, justifiable grounds of landscape, conservation and, above all, amenity are fully covered by the Department of the Environment through the administration of its tree preservation orders. Therefore, there is no need for the Department of Agriculture to duplicate this particular function. I am able to assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that the Department of the Environment has been fully consulted on this measure, and certainly it has no objection to the repeal of this legislation.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davis. He raised some very important points. I should like to commend him for his very detailed study, and also for the concise way in which he put his questions. I hope I have been able to answer them.

Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
10.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before the House on 15th March, be approved. Your Lordships will see that this order creates a new structure of five levels of maximum fines for offences triable only summarily, and it provides for a general increase in maximum summary fines, which are presently less than £1,000. It also removes the limit of the fine available on indictment. The order also makes some related changes to other penalties and gives the Secretary of State power, by order, to vary maximum fines in the future in line with changes in the value of money.
This order is designed to bring the structure of fines in Northern Ireland generally into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The order is indeed technical and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall refer to what we regard as the main features.
Article 3 removes any existing limit on the fine that may be imposed where the offence is triable on indictment. Article 4 introduces what we call "the prescribed sum", which is defined as £1,000, as the maximum that may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence that may also be tried on indictment.
Article 5 introduces a standard scale of fines for purely summary offences consisting of five levels; namely, £25, £50, £200, £500 and £1,000. Article 5 also converts fines expressed in monetary terms to the appropriate level on what we call the standard scale. Daily and other periodic fines are, of course, excluded.
Article 6 contains the main feature of the order by providing for a general increase of fines below £1.000 for purely summary offences and in general increases them to the level on the standard scale next above the amount of the existing fine. As so often hapens, there

1125
are special cases and indeed exceptions, and these are referred to in Article 7, and also we find them in Schedules 2, 3 and 4. In brief, fines which are recently set are unaffected, while some are increased by more than the general level.
Article 8 is similar to Article 6 but it covers fines under subordinate legislation, while Articles 9 and 10 abolish enhanced penalties on subsequent conviction of purely summary offences. Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 make consequential amendments to certain fines and other sums in order to assimilate them into the new fines structure. I turn to Article 17. This gives power to the Secretary of State to alter maxima by order to reflect changes in the value of money. This will allow Northern Ireland fines to be increased later this year in line with the recent changes made in Great Britain.
Finally may I mention Schedule 1. This makes some changes to penalties under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in line with those made earlier for Great Britain. This order before us this evening lays the basis for a more cohesive and rational structure of the level of fines in Northern Ireland similar to that applying to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for me to emphasise to your Lordships the importance of the fine as a penalty, and it is essential to ensure, as we hope this order does, that the maxima for individual offences are not so undermined by inflation that they are rendered any less effective. It is in this spirit that I would commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
11.3 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again the noble Lord the Minister has given a full explanation of the order before the House. It has again a single theme, fines, but it has required 19 paragraphs and 7 schedules to cover the ground. We agree with the Minister that the fine is an important penalty. It is imposed, I believe, on about half the offenders sentenced for indictable offences in the magistrates' courts and it is imposed on the great majority of those sentenced for summary offences. Therefore, as the noble Lord has said, the fine should not be undermined by inflation so that it becomes no more than a token payment.
The Minister has explained that the order increases the maximum penalty and introduces—I would not say creates—in Northern Ireland the principle of the five-level scale of fines already available in England, Wales, and Scotland, and indeed reproduces the very scales specified in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Again it abolishes the enhanced penalties. In other words, most of the major provisions of this order follow the corresponding clauses embodied in Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
This leads me to ask merely this question: why were these provisions not contained in a special Part of the 1982 Act? Why, in a sense, do we have to start afresh but without the opportunity to move amendments? Not that I necessarily have amendments to move. But perhaps I may ask the Minister this other question. When the order is implemented, will the fine structure applying in Northern Ireland correspond essentially to
1126
the fine structure in England and Wales, or will there still be substantial differences?
There is nothing else that I can add except, on behalf of our Benches, to welcome the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful for the noble Lord's reception of this brief order. He is correct that this order follows from many of the measures and many of the contents of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
Various changes have been made since the proposal was published and the noble Lord was wondering why there was a delay following the England and Wales Order 1982. The noble Lord, with his knowledge, would agree that the task of standardising fines was begun in 1977 with the Criminal Law Act 1977. Among other things that increased fines, which, as the noble Lord suggested and we agree, is an effective weapon—we hope that his point is taken—in criminal justice, but it increased fines for some offences at the lower end of the criminal scale in pre-1949 Acts.
It also introduced the £1,000 prescribed sum for offences tried summarily, but which were also triable on indictment. Consideration was given at that time during the preparation of the 1977 legislation to introducing similar provisions for Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that much preparatory work was completed, but it became apparent that further changes were being considered for Great Britain, so action to follow the 1977 Act as far as Northern Ireland was concerned was halted then.
The further changes for Great Britain appeared for the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 and we have started the work which we were doing up to 1977. We hope we have brought it up to date and we hope that we have been able to incorporate measures similar to the 1977 measures and all the measures which have been contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 in this order.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that there was some catching up to be carried out for Northern Ireland and that is one of the reasons why we have had some delay in bringing this order before your Lordships—it is not quite two years behind the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
I understand that the fine structure—if your Lordships and the other place accept the order, and it should be implemented—will correspond to the fine structure in England and Wales. There are some exceptions. I noticed that there was one exception over alkali. My little non-legal mind took me into this point concerning periodic fines, but that is a minor point and I understand that that is liable to be repealed and to fall in line later this year. I understand that the fine structure as a result of this order will bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales.
I hope that that has satisfied, in the major part, the queries which have been raised by the noble Lord. With that, I hope that he and your Lordships will forgive me if I beg to move.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.

  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME: WORKING PARTY
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME: WORKING PARTY
  SALMON IN THE THAMES
  SALMON IN THE THAMES
  SLAUGHTERHOUSE CONDITIONS: REPORT
  SLAUGHTERHOUSE CONDITIONS: REPORT
  EC AGRICULTURE POLICY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  EC AGRICULTURE POLICY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  WORKS OF ART: EXPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES
  WORKS OF ART: EXPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES