Sitting of 26 January 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Tidal Power
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what major projects his Department is sponsoring on tidal power as an energy source; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): My Department is sponsoring a £5·5 million research programme into United Kingdom tidal resources. It includes £4·2 million of advanced investigations and site explorations on the Severn, jointly funded by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Severn Tidal Power Group; a £400,000 contribution towards studies of a Mersey barrage; and a programme of supporting studies on environmental issues, construction techniques and the resource available from small sites.
    Mr. Speller: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about what is being done. Is he aware that when I visited
    2
    Norway last month with a number of colleagues we observed the Norwegians using British inventions—in this case the oscillating water tower system, which produces extremely economic electricity—which we have rejected? Will the Minister assure the House that if a scheme that was initially overlooked or passed over appeared to be efficient and suitable for our waters he would reconsider it?
    Mr. Hunt: I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position. The Department of Energy's wave energy programme was closed because the unanimous advice of the Department's scientists was that that energy source was unlikely to make a large-scale economic contribution to the United Kingdom electricity supply. The Norwegian experiments do not affect that decision as they are aimed at small-scale supply to remote or isolated communities with favourable coastal conditions. Studies of a similar system have been carried out at Queen's university, Belfast, and further work may be carried out there if it appears to be technically and economically promising.
    Mr. Hayward: My hon. Friend referred to the Severn barrage project, which is currently under consideration, but he did not refer to the time scale. Can he tell us what the time scale is and whether he has had any initial information about the success of those studies?
    Mr. Hunt: There is no doubt that the Severn estuary is one of the largest and most favourable tidal energy sites in the world. Details of the Severn work programme, related studies and procedures for consultation are presently being discussed by the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Severn Tidal Power Group and my Department. I hope that details of those studies will be announced shortly. I have already made it clear that as soon as the programme of works has been clarified I shall place copies in the Library.

    Electricity Supplies (France)
    Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements have been made for electricity supplies to be provided from France over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The Central Electricity Generating Board has negotiated arrangements with Electricité de France to provide for bulk imports of electricity from France until 26 March 1988. Arrangements beyond that will be subject to commercial negotiation by the two utilities.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he bear in mind the recent strikes in France and what contingency plans Her Majesty's Government might have if we relied upon the French for electricity supplies which were then cut off as a result of strikes? Is not the time now right to provide for another coal-fired power unit so that workers in this country will not be denied an electricity supply? Although we should in no way move away from nuclear power as the ultimate source of energy, perhaps in the short term the Government should give serious consideration to the placing of a new order for a coal-fired electricity unit.
    Mr. Goodlad: It is important that the generating board should be able to take advantage of economical methods of electricity generation. Imports through the link will help to keep down electricity supply costs and therefore electricity prices. The link with France is designed for flows in either direction. The generating board stated that its present arrangements provide for a two-year supply up to 25 per cent. cheaper than can be generated, on average, in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the generating board does not regard the link as firm capacity in planning for its long-term requirements. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close constituency interest in the possibility of new coal-fired capacity. Proposals for new power stations must come from the electricity supply industry. I understand that the board is considering the possibility of building new coal-fired power stations, but no applications to construct stations have been received, apart from that for Sizewell B.
    Mr. Redmond: Has the Minister considered the impact on the balance of payments deficit?
    Mr. Goodlad: The impact on the balance of payments deficit will obviously depend on how much we buy and how much we sell.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: As my hon. Friend has said that the costs are substantially in favour of France, will he consider laying a third cable across the Channel so that the consumer in the United Kingdom can receive that considerable benefit?
    Mr. Goodlad: I note what my hon. Friend says. Before any further links are considered, the utilities will wish to have further operating experience of the present link.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister comment upon the assistance given to maintain the supply link to the United Kingdom by the French Government? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give the same assistance to protect jobs in the electricity supply industry in this country as well as the coal mining industry? Can we have the same protection here as the French workers?
    Mr. Goodlad: Obviously, the Government are deeply concerned to take every account of employment in both the coal and electricity supply industries.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Bearing in mind that this country was in the forefront of nuclear power development in the
    4
    late 1950s, will my hon. Friend comment on or perhaps even express disappointment at the fact that this country now produces less than 20 per cent. of its electricity from nuclear sources while France produces more than 60 per cent.? Is that not the reason why, with our more expensive and less plentiful electricity, we are having to import from France?
    Mr. Goodlad: I note my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Minister tell the House what the foreign exchange costs of this venture have been to date? Is he aware that we totally oppose any extension of the Channel link because we believe that we should be able to produce our own generating capacity in Britain?
    Mr. Goodlad: I note the right hon. Gentleman's latter view and its likely impact on electricity consumers, both domestic and industrial, in this country. I shall let him know the exact foreign exchange costs.

    Vehicle Fuel
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to limit the amount of oil consumed as vehicle fuel in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Our aim is to encourage energy efficiency measures that are cost-effective.
    Mr. Baker: If I am correct in assuming that my right hon. Friend has not made representations to the Home Office that the present speed limit on motorways should be enforced for the sake of oil conservation, will he join me in making representations to the Secretary of State for Transport that the speed limit on motorways should be raised?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge, many complex considerations and factors are involved. As I understand it, one of my right hon. Friend's main considerations at present is the very important question of road safety.
    Mr. Douglas: When the Minister considers oil consumption, will he give some advice to the consumer, who seems somewhat bemused by the fact that when oil prices fall the advantage is not passed on to him, but when oil prices rise the oil companies take immediate steps to raise prices at the pumps?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, whatever the price, energy conservation measures are worth while. I hope that he pays tribute to the work done by the motor industry in already achieving much better performance of British cars.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate the need to encourage energy conservation, particularly in vehicles, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will not be at the expense of the Government's programme and commitment to introduce lead-free petrol, even if lead-free petrol is less efficient that leaded petrol in miles per gallon?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government are committed to the introduction of lead-free petrol, and differential pricing and duty are a positive encouragement. My right

    5
    hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he will be saying more about that in the next Budget. More than anything else, that policy underlines the Government's commitment to unleaded petrol.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that other issues could play a vital part in the whole question of oil supplies? For example, what will happen if the Iranians reach Basra? The hon. Gentleman will know the impact of what happened in 1979. Have the Government considered meeting the Institute of Economic Affairs to discuss that nightmarish possibility, which could have a profound impact on oil supplies and prices?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Thus far, the IEA has not requested any meeting to discuss the fuel efficiency of vehicles in Britain.

    Oil-Fired Power Stations (Conversion)
    5. Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will discuss the conversion of existing oil-fired power stations to coal.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that the board has concluded that conversion of oil-fired power stations to coal would be uneconomic at present.
    Mr. Pike: Should not the Government be encouraging the CEGB to think again in the best energy interests of the nation? Does he appreciate the importance of conversions of power stations such as Padiham in my constituency?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I hope the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the whole House is aware, there has been a considerable narrowing of the differential between oil and coal prices in the past 18 months, which has considerably reinforced the case against conversion. I stress, however, that it is for the CEGB to take a decision on this.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the miners' strike the miners tried to deny supplies of coal to the power stations and thus electricity to our people, and that reliable, continuous sources of supply were provided by oil? Will he bear that in mind when considering the matter in the future?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall, of course, bear that in mind, as any fair-minded citizen would, but the ultimate decision is for the CEGB.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Bearing in mind the Minister's comments a few moments ago about the economics of conversion from oil to coal, is not one reason for that programme the lack of investment in research and development in new technology in coal-burning power stations?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I do not think that that is so. The issue rests on the economic case. Unless we observe the economics of the situation, the consumer and industry suffer and industry, in particular, becomes uncompetitive. Ultimately, those are the considerations that matter.
    Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind especially the need to avoid any overdependence on coal and to maintain a diversity of sources of fuel for electricity generation. so that there is no risk of the country being held to ransom by Arthur Scargill and his friends on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of all the industrial countries in western Europe, the United Kingdom is blessed with the greatest variety of fuel sources, and it is clearly right to take the best advantage that we can of that and avoid over-reliance on any one source.
    Mr. Wilson: Has the Minister seen the report in the Glasgow Herald today that the CEGB is playing ducks and drakes with the Scottish supply system, and that having taken 20 per cent. of Scottish output during the cold weather it has now apparently stopped the imports? Before any decision is made about conversion of power stations, will the Minister look into what is being done to provide for the economic supply and use of power?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom is the mutual assistance that can be given from time to time on both sides of the Scottish border with England and Wales. The fact that assistance goes one way at one time and the other way at another time does not justify criticising what happens on just one occasion, as the hon. Gentleman often chooses to do.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that as Britain has more coal than oil there will still be coal when oil supplies have been exhausted, so that on economic grounds coal has the advantage? Secondly, as the power station construction industry is hungry for orders, is there not an economic case for giving it orders for conversion to coal because, on economic grounds, the nation and its people would benefit?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's arguments on economics, taken to their conclusion, would simply put up the price of electricity for the consumer. Having listened to some speeches from the Labour Benches in recent weeks, I am sure that Labour Members would not support that. It would also put up the price for industry, making our goods less competitive in the world. I should be interested to know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.

    Renewable Sources of Energy
    Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amounts which his Department will spend in 1986–87 on research and development into renewable sources of energy; how this compares with 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Expenditure on my Department's programme for research, development and demonstration into renewable sources of energy in 1986–87, including external contributions, is estimated to be £17·25 million compared with expenditure of £3·6 million in 1978–79.
    Mr. Dickens: I congratulate the Department of Energy on those excellent figures, which, to be fair, must represent something like a doubling of investment since the Government came to office. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to involve heavily the private sector in investment into wave, wind and solar power and subterranean heat so that we are sure that resources are put into those areas that are technically and economically sound?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We have sought to maximise contributions from external sources — in particular, the private sector—and over £3 million in the figures that I have announced for 1986–87 is expected to

    7
    come from such sources, compared with £800,000 last year. More than £100 million has been invested by the Government in renewables research and development since 1979. My hon. Friend is right to stress that no Government have done more than we have to develop the renewable technologies.

    Sizewell
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce his decision on the report of the inspector on the proposal by the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In an answer pursuant to a question from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on Thursday 22 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would publish the report today. He has done so and has placed copies both of the full report and of a summary in the Library and Vote Office. My right hon. Friend has asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange a debate before he makes any decision.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Did he note that during the recent cold snap the CEGB transmitted more electricity than ever before, and that even ignoring that, the demand for electricity is approaching the higher end of the estimates given by the CEGB to the Sizewell inquiry? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange the earliest possible date for the House to consider and accept the main conclusions of the Layfield inquiry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is important that we should have a full debate in the House before a decision is taken, and that will be the position.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that a decision to purchase an American reactor, which the Americans have not chosen to order for 10 years, is a major political act and the decision should be taken by Parliament and not by the Minister? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no advance spending authorising the PWR, simply because the Layfield report has now been published, pending a decision by Parliament and, preferably, by the electorate, because during the election this issue will be a central matter between the parties?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I simply emphasise what I said a moment ago — that no decision will be taken until Parliament has debated this important issue and that important report.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is not an early decision essential if we are to avoid large sections of the United Kingdom power construction industry going out of business altogether? In arriving at a decision, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Britain has had 30 years of building and working gas-cooled reactors, which are now in place and performing satisfactorily, but that while the PWR may be old technology we have little direct experience, except in military applications, of operating it in Britain, and the sums upon which Sizewell was originally based have now been turned completely upside
    8
    down? Therefore, will he assure the House that even if the go-ahead is given to Sizewell, he is not shutting the door on further AGR development in the future?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that my right hon. Friend, as is his custom, will consider very carefully all the points that are made in the debate.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the report concludes that there has not yet been sufficient public and political consideration of the regulation of the safety of the nuclear industry, will the Government give two undertakings? First, will they undertake that no decision will be taken before the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has published its report and the report has been given satisfactory consideration? Secondly, will they ensure that there is sufficient time for the political and public process of consultation to take place on that huge report, especially because on cost and needs grounds the prospect of Sizewell is far less likely to be justified now than ever before?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has a number of points that he wishes to make. In those circumstances, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that there will be a full debate on the matter in the House.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the security arrangements for a pressurised water reactor be any different from those existing at present in Britain's nuclear power stations? Is it true that Mr. R. W. Marshall broke into the Trawsfynydd power station in Wales and that damage could have been done? If such an incident took place in the future, it might turn the British people against nuclear power and some of us do not want that to happen. Can we therefore have assurances about security at power stations?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to the Sizewell report. We shall have an opportunity to debate that matter and I take note of the hon. Gentleman's points.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that less than 1 per cent. of average radiation comes from the nuclear industry and that chapter 2 of the Sizewell report provides ample justification for going ahead with the Sizewell PWR programme as the most suitable programme for the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I commend my hon. Friend for the speed with which he has managed to read what he regards as the relevant parts of the report since its publication. However, in all seriousness, it is important that the recommendations and conclusions are read in the context of the report as a whole. They must be considered together before any conclusions can be reached.
    Mr. Barron: Paragraph 12 of chapter 108 of the Sizewell report refers to safety and states:
    "The examination of safety was not exhausted."
    It continues:
    "many matters were examined only briefly if at all."
    It also states:
    "Furthermore, the design was incomplete and not yet susceptible of a final assessment of its safety."
    I understand the position if that is not the case. If that is the case, following the debate in the House, will it be left in the hands of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and

    9
    the CEGB to make the final decision on safety? Is the Minister satisfied with that, as both those bodies seem to operate in a cloud of secrecy most of the time?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the advice that I gave earlier. I suggest that he takes that advice. Even knowing the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman, I cannot believe that he could have read the whole report in just one hour and 45 minutes.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Now that the planning process has reached publication, can the Minister tell the House the Department's intentions for the future CEGB proposals following on from Sizewell and other Magnox sites, including Trawsfynydd in my constituency?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Let us deal with Sizewell first.
    Mr. Haynes: I should have thought that it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of the State to be present to answer such important questions. Bearing in mind that the report has been produced by an inspector by way of consultation, when will other people be consulted about nuclear power?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would regard himself as one of the representatives of the people. He will have an opportunity to take part in the debate in the House. I am sorry that, from his own mouth, he has said that he feels that he is not able to represent the people properly. If that is his view, it may not be the proper one.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister and his departmental colleagues resist the temptation, which seems to be with him this afternoon, of suggesting that the acceptability of a balanced provision of energy resources, by nuclear or other means, necessitates acceptance of a report which points to the advisability of constructing a PWR? On the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), relating to PWR, why does it appear that the Government wish to accept American technology which the Americans do not believe is safe enough for their people?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks me not to yield to temptation. That is precisely what I have done this afternoon.
    Mr. Orme: May I press the Minister on the question of the debate? He and the House will agree that it is important to have a debate in the country as well as in the House. Can he give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the date for that debate?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand fully what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is a matter for the business managers of the House, and I have no doubt that they will have noted what he said.

    District Heating (Basildon)
    Mr. Amessasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the cost-effectiveness of the district heating systems in Felmores and Langdon Hills in Basildon.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Government recognise the important contribution made by district heating schemes where they are commercially viable. The operation of the
    10
    two schemes mentioned by my hon. Friend is, however, a matter for the Commission for the New Towns, which is answerable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents in the Felmores and Langdon Hills area, of Basildon are completely dissatisfied with the district heating system, believing it to be expensive and inefficient? In the light of the great success enjoyed by Sid, will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to encourage the Commission for the New Towns to install individual gas-fired central heating?
    Mr. Hunt: I very much regret the problems experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents. I understand that the former New Town Development Corporation asked the Department of the Environment to consider agreeing in principle to the replacement of the Felmores estate district heating system with independent systems for each dwelling. Last summer the Department of the Environment invited the Commission for the New Towns to carry out an analysis of that option and of the alternative of retaining the district heating systems with improvements. That analysis is still awaited.

    Conservation
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to expand energy conservation measures for the domestic consumer.
    Mr. David Hunt: As well as supporting the continuing expansion of community insulation projects, which have now insulated more than 300,000 homes, my Department continues actively to promote the cost-effective energy efficiency measures which all householders should take to benefit from reduced fuel bills.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it not rather an odd way to celebrate Energy Efficiency Year by removing loft insulation grants from millions of householders? Is the Minister aware that more than half our households have inadequte loft insulation, even by current standards? Is he aware that 12·5 million households lack effective draught-proofing and that 10·5 million households lack cavity wall insulation? What new measures will the Government introduce to deal with the backlog?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is distorting the position. He should be aware that on 19 December my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction announced that he would make available up to a further £1·5 million of resources, which is being distributed to councils in England which had exhausted their present allocations. But with nearly 90 per cent. of accessible roofs in England insulated, the Minister decided to concentrate the scheme's assistance on those who have most difficulty in affording the cost of loft insulation. Therefore, he announced that he would be introducing a new scheme, withdrawing the general grant of 66 per cent., but extending the availability of the more generous 90 per cent. grant to all householders who received housing benefit or supplementary benefit.
    I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that that change will assist greatly families with low incomes for whom it is most important to gain the maximum possible benefit from the money that they spend on heating their homes.
    Mr. Hannam: Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of the recent neighbourhood energy action week, does he accept that there is anxiety about the delay in the anouncement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services of a replacement for the single payments scheme? Will he exert pressure on the Secretary of State for the Environment to include draught-proofing in any future home insulation scheme, as that is the best way to help elderly people to overcome problems such as those they experienced in the recent cold spell?
    Mr. Hunt: I shall mention my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State, but the Government have given a clear undertaking to the House that adequate arrangements will be made to enable those important projects to continue after the social security reforms. Opposition Members should realise that the Government's programme of insulating low-income households dwarfs anything that existed when the Labour party was in power.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that those involved in the industry regard with disbelief the statement that 90 per cent. of lofts in Britain have been insulated? Will he disclose the figures on which the Government have based that statement? May I add my voice to those who urge that any money that is proposed to be saved on the loft insulation programme should be used to draught-proof the homes of those on social security benefit?
    Mr. Hunt: I repeat what I said, that nearly 90 per cent. of accessible roofs in England are now insulated. It is right to concentrate resources on those who need the greatest help. They are getting the greatest help under this Government.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the relative inefficiency of the insulation of most of our homes. To what extent is the Department of Energy co-operating in sharing a common budget with the Department of Employment, the housing department within the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry, and not leaving the matter only to the poor old DHSS?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the fact that Government support for the community insulation project is coming from a range of Government Departments. That support is now worth £30 million a year. We shall continue to intensify it, with 360 of these groups already established, 180 more planned and with a target of more than 500 groups operating by the early part of next year.

    Leicester (Combined Heat and Power Consortium)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on the recent visit to Leicester by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), to view the presentation by the Leicester combined heat and power consortium.
    Mr. David Hunt: I visited Leicester on Wednesday 21 January. The CHP consortium is to be complimented on producing a very professional report. The key to further development lies in attracting private sector finance, which I know the Leicester consortium is very much aware of, and I hope that it will achieve the potential to take this important project forward.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Having accompanied my hon. Friend to view the combined heat and power consortium at Leicester, may I reinforce what he probably already knows namely, that it is ready and willing to get on with reducing the cost of heating in Leicester, but desperately needs additional help to meet the particularly high cost of rates of this project and any to cope with legislative burden? Not only are 400 jobs guaranteed if the construction goes ahead but there will be substantial savings for all my constituents and those of other hon. Members in Leicester.
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that Leicester is in the lead. I congratulate him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) on the strong support that they have given to the consortium. Following my meeting, I am urgently examining with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the obstacles that the consortium has identified.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the plans of the consortium have the full support of the council, irrespective of party, and that the council is to be congratulated on the efforts that it has made to back it? Meanwhile, as this will take much time to reach fruition, will the Minister press for help for the people who are in need and suffering from cold, especially during the recent spell, such as the elderly, the pensioners, the disabled, the ill, all of whom are not being looked after by the Government and who will suffer until this plan comes into operation?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to those who support the consortium, such as my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Leicester, East, (Mr. Bruinvels) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South, and the local authority. So far as Government help is concerned, it is a fact that this Government have provided record levels of support for the very target groups that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we welcome a new source of energy which would lead to a reduction in heating costs and further sharpen the keen competitive edge of Leicester's industry? Will he see that any scheme remains firmly in the sector of private enterprise?
    Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. I stress once again that this Government fully support CHP and agree that the key to future development must lie in projects which will attract private sector finance. I hope that Leicester has that potential.

    Geothermal Power
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy what major projects his Department is sponsoring on geothermal power as an energy source; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My Department is funding a further £6·85 million of research into geothermal energy to determine the cost-effective contribution that hot dry rocks could make in the United Kingdom. This includes a £5·85 million extension to the programme of reservoir investigations by the Camborne school of mines and a further £1 million on supporting studies.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that renewed commitment by the Government to this alternative energy source. Does he agree that although we must continue to obtain energy from main fuels, including nuclear power, there should be an increasing commitment to alternative power sources, such as energy drawn from hot rocks beneath the earth's crust? Will he acknowledge that that is a good way of proceeding, and will he make further commitments in this direction?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that the Department of Energy has made a major contribution in this instance and has invested about £20 million so far. The quality of the work that is being carried out is establishing the United Kingdom as a world leader in this technology. We are delighted to be able to support it and to see it continue.

  THE ARTS

    Crafts Council
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the work of the Crafts Council and its funding.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I fully support the work of the Crafts Council in promoting the wider practice and appreciation of the crafts. I am maintaining its funding broadly in line with inflation.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the priority that is given by the Crafts Council to the marketing and design of a wide range of craft products? Will he confirm that this has a beneficial spin-off for a wide range of industry, including exports? Will he bear that in mind sympathetically when he comes to review the continuation of a grant to the Crafts Council?
    Mr. Luce: I much endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The council is doing an excellent job under the leadership of its chairman, Sir Nevil Macready, whose chairmanship has now been renewed. In the increased grant that I gave I was glad to be able specifically to allocate £100,000 to regional development, especially for marketing work, to help craftsmen to market their crafts and objects of art more effectively and to export them more effectively.

    Works of Art (Loans)
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to encourage lending by the national collections to provincial museums and galleries.
    Mr. Luce: Yes, Sir. Many loans already help to widen access to our national treasures, but I believe we could do more. The Museums and Galleries Commission plans to set up a modest touring exhibition scheme this year. I hope that it will help to stimulate yet further activity.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he direct his attention to specific national collections such as the Victoria and Albert and the British museums, both of which have large quantities of material in their basements that are seldom seen by the public? Will he persuade them to part with them, or loan them, to provincial museums and galleries? If security and insurance is a problem, perhaps central Government
    14
    funding should be directed to that area of expenditure rather than to acquiring further materials and pictures that will be seldom seen by the public?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend that some of our national museums and galleries have a substantial proportion of their treasures in storage—not necessarily locked away—although it should be acknowledged that they rotate the objects of art that they display quite regularly. I believe that it is right to stress the need to encourage further loans of these objects of art to various parts of the country. It is with that in mind that the Government's indemnity scheme does a great deal to facilitate loans to be made to local museums, for example. It is to encourage this prospect that the Museums and Galleries Commission has now established the unit to which I have referred, which is designed to encourage exhibitions throughout the country.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome what the Minister has said, but will he go a little further and undertake positively to make funds available to assist with the project that is designed to ensure that some of the basement articles are displayed throughout the country? There are many items in London that would be received with rapture in other parts of the country. Will he go further than he has gone so far?
    Mr. Luce: The commission has earmarked a modest sum especially for the purpose of encouraging that to happen and to link those who want to exhibit objects of art from our national museums and galleries. The right hon. Gentleman should not underestimate that which can be achieved through the Government's indemnity scheme. I am sure he knows that the expense of taking out commercial loans means that the cost of the premium is prohibitive. In my view, the Government's indemnity scheme plays the most prominent part.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister encourage the national museums to publish an inventory of what they have in their basements? Such an inventory could be sent to local and provincial galleries. Perhaps the Minister could ask national museums to give advice to the provincial museums in respect of storing and exhibitions.
    Mr. Luce: I shall certainly inquire whether it is possible for the national museums and galleries to provide an inventory. With the gradual introduction of computer services in those museums and galleries it may be possible to do that. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know the results of my inquiries.
    Mr. Fisher: Surely, if the Minister chose, he could give much more determined support for this policy. Does he accept that people in the regions have a right to see, and want to see, the riches of our national collections? Will he consider initiating a national policy to bring together the Musuems Commission, the Arts Council, area museum councils and regional arts associations, which could be funded to co-operate to open the national collections to the whole of the country?
    Mr. Luce: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming Opposition spokesman for the arts. I hope that he finds the position as interesting as I do on this side of the Box. I think that we shall look forward, with interest, to discovering Labour party policy on the arts. I am very glad that he supports the general thrust of the discussion on the question of loans to galleries all over the

    15
    country. It is for the Museum and Galleries Commission to co-ordinate the task nationally, and I shall do whatever I can to support it. The commission is the right body to put forward a national policy, and that is precisely what has been achieved with this new unit.

    Museums and Galleries (Grants)
    Sir David Priceasked the Minister for the Arts if he will seek to ensure that grants made to museums and galleries for the acquisition of artefacts are treated as capital rather than current expenditure.
    Mr. Luce: Funds for national museums and galleries to acquire objects for their collections are voted annually as part of their grant-in-aid. These funds may, however, be carried forward from year to year if institutions wish to use them to accumulate a purchase fund.
    Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the acquisition of a great work of art by a public gallery or museum is not a matter of a one-off piece of expenditure? It is the acquisition by the nation of something that is not only a capital asset but of something which, I hope, adds to the glory of our nation. Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Treasury that to treat such an acquisition as current expenditure is an act of Treasury frivolity? The purchase should be treated as a capital asset. The entire grant should be considered as a capital matter and not a matter of current cash flow. Will my right hon. Friend explain that to the Treasury?
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate the importance of the question that my hon. Friend has asked, but I must point out that it is possible for the national museums and galleries—indeed, it is possible to negotiate the same deal for the local authority museums and galleries — to accumulate a purchase fund for the acquisition of a work of art and to carry over 100 per cent. of that purchase fund to the following year. That is an important concession on the part of the Treasury.
    We should not lose sight of the fact that there are other ways, in addition to the purchase fund, of purchasing works of art, or indeed preserving those works of art for the nation. For example, we now have the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and this does an important job. There is also the acceptance in lieu scheme, wherein up to £12 million can be drawn upon to help preserve works of art for the nation. The important tax changes of the last Budget have also contributed to preserving works of art in this country.
    Mr. Banks: Perhaps the Minister would consider authorising a lease-back arrangement for the great national collections along the lines of some of the arrangements of local authorities. One can imagine the sort of revenue that that could generate. Has the Minister done anything to try to secure for the nation Van Gogh's painting of sunflowers that is due to come up for auction? Will the Minister make the money available to secure it for the nation? Indeed, will he start thinking about imposing some sort of levy on the obscenely high prices paid for paintings at auctions? Money could be taken from the price of those old masters and perhaps be dedicated to some of our young artists.
    Mr. Luce: There are already well-established good procedures for intervention where it is thought that certain works of art ought to be considered for preservation in this
    16
    country. Those procedures were set up by the Government in 1980 and the National Heritage Memorial Fund helps to fulfil that task. It is for it to make judgments about various works of art. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since the early 1950s there has been in existence the Export Review Committee, which has the job of recommending to me that certain works of art should be stopped from sale abroad until such time as we have tested whether this country is prepared to provide the funds for them.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take Treasury Ministers on a tour of some of our national museums and, if they fail to be excited by the beauty of the objects displayed, will he point out just how much money they represent to the country, both in capital value and in the tourist revenue that they generate?
    Mr. Luce: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should point out that he recognised the importance of this when we were able to announce the new acceptance in lieu scheme, which, as I have said, provides an extra £10 million in contingency reserve, on which we can now draw. That is in itself an important acknowledgement by my right hon. Friend of the need to preserve our works of art.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Secondment
    Dr. Twinnasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will give the figures for secondment in and out of the Civil Service over the last three years.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Outward secondments increased from 632 in 1983 to 679 in 1985, and inward secondments from 133 to 227. Figures for 1986 are expected to be available in April this year, but the Government are working for a continued expansion in secondments.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he assure us that the Government will do everything that they can to expand the number of incoming secondments to the Civil Service, as the programme brings great benefit to the Civil Service and to industry? Could not the benefits to industry be more widely acknowledged by industry?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has seen from the figures, there are fewer inward secondments than outward secondments, and I am anxious to persuade industry and other sectors to lend some of their people to the Civil Service for a period of, say, two years. It does good to the Civil Service and should help it. The more that we can persuade industry, the better, and I shall continue my efforts in that direction.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that politicians who enter this place having had experience in commerce and industry are perhaps more alert politicians? Is it not healthy that civil servants should be seconded into industry so that they know what the outside world is all about?
    Mr. Luce: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is volunteering for secondment, but I agree that there is great value in officials having experience of the outside world. That two-year period can bring enormous benefits when

    17
    they come back to the Civil Service. That is why I am increasing the target for the number of civil servants who should be seconded outside.

    CPSA (General Secretary)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to meet the new general secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association to discuss Civil Service pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the leaders of the non-industrial Civil Service trade unions from time to time, but have no immediate plans to meet Mr. John Ellis. Civil Service pay, in any case, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Bruinvels: My right hon. Friend will no doubt join me in congratulating the CPSA and its new leader, John Ellis, on such a decisive election win. Is this not the way that democracy can be seen to be at work, and does it not show that, in true and fair elections, the right people can be elected? When my right hon. Friend next sees Mr. Ellis, will he advise him to pay a visit to the Leicester DHSS office, to ensure that the workers in that office, who are members of the CPSA, are putting my constituents first and putting aside their differences and their past support for Militant?
    Mr. Luce: I am sure that the vast majority of civil servants put service, not only to my hon. Friend's constituents but to the public as a whole, first. Let me endorse what he said. I should like to feel that the House will join me in congratulating the CPSA having conducted a fair and democratic election in which the majority of members participated. I welcome the fact that there was on this occasion a decisive result.
    Mr. Winnick: As the Minister meets leaders of non-industrial trade unions may I ask whether he has recently met the appropriate trade unions in the Civil Service about the fact that it is now three years since the shameful ban was imposed on GCHQ employees belonging to a trade union? As, in a few moments, the Home Secretary will be making as much political capital as he can out of events on Saturday, does not the ban on trade unionists at GCHQ demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Government are the enemy of trade unionism?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense and he knows it. He also knows, and the House will have noted, that while this matter is principally for my right hon. the Foreign Secretary, by declaring this case inadmissible the European Commission on Human Rights has confirmed the Government's view that our actions were fully in accordance with our commitments to human rights.
    Mr. Favell: How successful has my right hon. Friend been in persuading the CPSA and other Civil Service unions to have clerical work done in the north? Banks manage to have typing, for example, done well away from branches because modern communications enable dictation to be carried out over a distance. Is there any point in paying an arm and a leg for a typist in London when the work can be done at half the cost and twice as well in the north?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. It is perfectly true that it is much more
    18
    expensive to recruit people in the south-east than it is to recruit them in other parts of Britain. He may like to note that over the past seven years there has been a natural progression of 5.000 officials moving outside London because it is thought that it is operationally more efficient to move them to other regions.
    Dr. McDonald: Does the Minister not think that morale in the Civil Service would be much improved if the Government made it plain that they recognise the value of the Civil Service a ad if they sought to re-establish a settled pay system and improve equal opportunities throughout the service?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Lady's assumption that the morale of the Civil Service is low is wrong. Of course certain parts of the Civil Service are going through particular difficulties, some of them in the scientific field. On Wednesday the Government will launch, for the first time ever, an annual report on the work of the Management and Personnel Office and on the Civil Service as a whole. The hon. Lady will find there a strong tribute to the Civil Service by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Marlow: As the cost of living, the cost of housing, and wage rates, are totally different in different parts of the country, is it not daft that civil servants are paid the same wherever they happen to be outside London? As we have a strong Government, is it not time that some action was taken on this?
    Mr. Luce: Although Civil Service pay is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend may like to note that there has been increased progression towards a more flexible pay system in the Civil Service and that we now have a system of pay additions for those parts of the Civil Service presenting recruitment and retention problems. That is a move in the direction about which my hon. Friend speaks.

  THE ARTS

    VAT
    Mr. Freudasked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had regarding the effect of removing value added tax on the performing arts; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have received a number of representations. In particular, the Society of West End Theatres has advocated the removal of VAT from theatre tickets, and the report compiled last year by the National Campaign for the Arts argued for the zero rating of the arts for VAT purposes. As the House knows, these are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Freud: Although it is the job of his right hon. Friend to look into these matters, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his right hon. Friend that a vast amount of work is done for no purpose other than raising subsidy for the theatre, and that that subsidy is then given to the Exchequer? If he could make that clear to his right hon. Friend, a great amount of work would be saved and much finance could be generated for the live theatre.
    Mr. Luce: Of course I acknowledge that the theatre world and the arts world contribute VAT to the overall

    19
    revenue of the Government. The hon. Gentleman must accept that this policy on indirect taxation is part of the broad strategy of the Government. We want to put greater stress on indirect taxation and seek the reduction of income tax. Against that background one must seek the broadest base for indirect tax, and one must acknowledge that. The best way we can positively help the arts is by of the kinds of changes that we saw in the last Budget, which encouraged individuals and corporations to give more to the arts. This is the time for the arts world to generate support from those sectors.

    South Bank Complex
    Dr. Twinnasked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress of revitalising the South Bank arts complex.
    Mr. Luce: The South Bank Board of the Arts Council has made great strides since it took over in April 1986. I
    20
    am confident that the imaginative plans of the board will be increasingly justified by events as they come to fruition in the years ahead.
    Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Greater London Members of Parliament who have seen the energetic programme introduced by the committee at the South Bank Centre since it took over from the Greater London council, inheriting a mess when it did so?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. The board, under the leadership of Ronnie Grierson, has shown great imagination in planning the longer term future of the South Bank. If we look back to the gloomy prognosis given by so many Opposition members over a year ago, we find the situation is quite different and that the plans for the future of the South Bank are exciting.

Wapping (Disturbances)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the disorder at Wapping on Saturday evening.
I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the disorder followed a march from central London marking the anniversary of the News International dispute. The police estimate that 12,500 people took part. When the march reached Wapping at 7.15 pm disorder broke out almost immediately. Cordons of police officers in ordinary uniform came under attack with missiles. At about 7.40 pm, a lorry being used by the demonstrators was overturned, and an attempt was made to set it on fire. Disorder then continued for some hours. Missiles were thrown at the police, including rocks, bottles, ball bearings, darts, railings, scaffolding poles and pieces of paving stone. The police used mounted officers, and foot officers in protective equipment, to restore order. I understand that calm was restored by about midnight.
In all, 162 police officers were injured. The injuries included a broken bone in the hand, injuries to the face and legs and concussion. Two officers were detained in hospital overnight. I am glad to say that they have now both been discharged. The police know of 40 members of the public who were injured; there will have been others whose injuries did not come to police attention. I understand that 67 people were arrested, of whom 65 have now been charged with public order and other offences. Fifteen of those 67 people arrested are print workers.
This is the latest in a series of disturbances connected with demonstrations at Wapping. Over the past year, including last Saturday, 572 police officers have been injured, 1,462 people have been arrested, and over 1·2 million police man-hours have been spent. The total additional policing cost up to the end of 1986 is estimated at £5·3 million.
It is clear that some of those attending Saturday's demonstration armed themselves with ferocious weapons intent on violent attacks against the police. No serious attempt was made to stop the lorries leaving the plant, and they were able to do so without significant difficulty.
It also seems clear that the organisers of these demonstrations are unable to prevent violence or to control the activities of all their supporters. They must now, in my view, find some other way of making their point without providing occasions for violence and disorder.
I have conveyed to the Commissioner my full support for the action taken by the Metropolitan police to deal with this disgraceful incident, and my sympathy for the police officers who have been injured. The vicious attack on Saturday evening had nothing to do with peaceful protest or the peaceful furtherance of a dispute within the law. I trust that it will be condemned unreservedly by both sides of the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman rose—
Hon. Members: Condemn it.
Mr. Kaufman: The House will want to voice its strongest possible condemnation of all the gratuitious violence at Wapping on Saturday night. The House will
22
also wish to send its sympathy to all those who were injured during the ugly events at Wapping, to members of the Metropolitan police, local residents and all those who went to Wapping to avail themselves of their lawful and legitimate right — [Interruption.] — their lawful and legitimate right of peaceful demonstration. That peaceful non-violent demonstration was the objective of the overwhelming majority of those who were present at Wapping is shown by the fact that a highly active police presence found it necessary to arrest 67 people—only one half of 1 per cent. of the 12,500 people who took part.
Is the Home Secretary aware that the events at Wapping highlight three extremely serious problems?[Interruption.] The first is the problem for trade unionists pursuing a just and important grievance when outside elements not involved in the dispute batten on and exploit that grievance for their own sectarian purposes. It is no coincidence that most of those people who were arrested at Wapping on Saturday were neither print workers nor local residents. Brenda Dean of SOGAT '82 and Tony Dubbins of the National Graphical Association have today reiterated to me their absolute dissociation from those outside and alien to the democratic trade union Labour movement who fix themselves like leeches to a cause which they do not assist but actively discredit.
Secondly, there is the problem for the police, who have still not found it possible to work out tactics to deal with potential or actual disorder which protects both the police and innocent demonstrators and bystanders from danger and injury. In view of the seriousness of the situation and conflicting reports of exactly what took place at Wapping, it is essential that there be an urgent and independent public inquiry—
Hon. Members: No!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the House that this is a day when we have a time problem. I must ask the House to hear the right hon. Gentleman in silence.
Mr. Kaufman: That was the party of order.
—that there should be an urgent and independent public inquiry into Saturday's events and the events leading up to Saturday, for which there should be made available all the video and sound recordings made at Wapping by the broadcasting authorities and other organisations, including the police.
Thirdly, we once again see clearly what happens under a Government who have a vested interest — [Hon. Members: "Oh."]—a vested interest in disorder. Any other Government, Conservative as well as Labour, would by now have tried to step in to assist in producing a solution to a dispute which has dragged on for so long.[Interruption.]
The present Government's policies actively foster confrontation. Any other Government would show concern at the serious and damaging way in which the massive and continuing police presence at Wapping is distracting the Metropolitan force from dealing with the 750,000 crimes which are being committed in London, a dilemma to which the Commissioner himself drew attention last Friday. The Prime Minister is perfectly content to mouth catchphrases about law and order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]. No doubt this will be broadcast and people will hear how Conservative Members behave in what is supposed to be a free Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We do not like the right hon. Gentleman supporting rioters.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is so stupid that he is not worth answering.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The shadow Minister is supposed to be asking questions.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Prime Minister is perfectly content to mouth catchphrases about law and order while London suffers from its worst ever crime wave and its lowest ever crime clear-up rate? That is the harsh reality that spotlights the difference between this Government's hypocritical slogans and the crime and disorder over which they complacently preside.
Mr. Hurd: I can tell from that that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in some difficulty. He is right to the extent that several hundred people detached themselves from the much larger procession and were responsible for the violence, but the organisers of the event know perfectly well that violence and violent people would attach themselves to it. There is nothing new about that—t happened in May—so it was deeply unwise to hold and organise a demonstration at that place at that time.
As regards the right hon. Gentleman's request for an inquiry, I would simply say that the background to such events is well known. Some of the events of Saturday night will be investigated by the courts as a result of the charges that have been made. Parliament has laid down the procedures for investigating complaints against the police, including supervision by the independent Police Complaints Authority.
Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have often pointed out in the House over the past year the dangers and damage done to the policing of London because of the diversion of policemen to the Wapping dispute. I would expect that, after a year of ambiguity, the right hon. Gentleman would make it clear whether, in his view, the police are right to be present at Wapping upholding the freedom of those who work there or whether he believes, as do some of his hon. Friends, that they should withdraw and leave the field clear for the thugs whom we saw in action on Saturday night.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will await with interest the answer by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to his challenge? Meanwhile, can my right hon. Friend confirm the press reports that some Opposition Members were present and spoke at that disgraceful riot, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—[Interruption.]
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: No.
Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend also confirm that, if those reports were correct, the words that were attributed to those speakers were more likely to inflame the mob than to restrain it?
Mr. Hurd: I believe I am correct in saying that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was present and that he addressed the meeting. I have no account of what he said or whether he attempted to restrain the violence of those attacking the police.
Dr. David Owen: Although condemnation of the violence should be total and unequivocal, the question has to be posed of what will be done. For a year now, we have seen not peaceful demonstrations in the defence of trade union rights, but a squalid public nuisance. Does the Home Secretary think that political demonstrations should continue to take place in Wapping highway, disrupting the residents' lives for over a year and putting them at risk? Indeed, a young boy recently lost his life on the highway because of this whole affair.
Is it not time that it was clearly stated that that is not in defence of reasonable trade unionism and that such demonstrations should take place in Trafalgar square?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is elaborating a point that I made. It is not for me to get involved in the merits of the dispute; it is not for the police to get involved in the merits of the dispute. But it is perfectly reasonable that the Home Secretary should, as I have done often over the past months, say that it is wrong and unwise for those organising the dispute to conduct it in such a way that the consequences described by the right hon. Gentleman almost inevitably flow from it.
Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Since the stated purpose of some of those who went to that demonstration —not the print workers—was specifically to embroil the police in violence and so damage their standing with the public, will my right hon. Friend study some of the literature that is circulated by those people? Is he aware that one leaflet shows how to make a petrol bomb, under the legend: "Pigs today and bacon tomorrow," and that another piece of that literature says:
"We confront, we maim and we kill the police because we hate them. They are the class enemy."
Will not my right hon. Friend beseech Opposition Members who are doing their best to rid the Labour party of that sort of person—
Mr. Dave Nellist: Don't you accuse people—
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will not my right hon. Friend beseech them to ask—
Mr. Nellist: Withdraw that.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nellist: Withdraw that or repeat it outside.
Mr. Hurd rose—
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend, with the support of the Opposition Front Bench, not beseech local authorities that are financing that sort of literature to stop handing out the ratepayers' money for that purpose?
Mr. Nellist: Withdraw that or prove it outside.
Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will make available to the authorities any literature that he thinks ought to be investigated, in case it falls foul of the law, but he is right in saying that it is high time for those on the Opposition Benches who are seriously interested in the policing of London to bring to an end the ambiguity to which I have drawn attention.
Mr. Michael Foot: Since it is quite evident that, on this occasion and on previous occasions,

25
the actions that have led to the violence have come not from just one quarter — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Evidence to that account has been presented to the Home Secretary on numerous occasions. Therefore, if the Home Secretary thinks that his case is so good, why is he so afraid of an independent inquiry, which is what the trade union leaders are asking for?
Mr. Hurd: Partly because, if one has an independent inquiry, one immediately cuts across the ordinary processes of law. I am anxious that those charged with offences on Saturday night or before should face those charges in the courts. I am anxious that any complaints against the police should be handled through the procedures that Parliament has laid down. Both those lines of action, which seem to me right and normal, would be to some extent complicated and frustrated if there was an inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Scarman."] The Scarman inquiry dealt with the whole background. On this occasion it is very well known, though controversial.
The crucial point, which the right hon. Gentleman brought up, is that the conduct of the dispute on the trade union side has attracted around it a cluster of violent people. There is no dispute about that. I urge that those responsible for continuing the dispute find some way of doing so, if they feel that they must, while getting rid of the violent fringe that is causing all the trouble.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Labour party cannot have it both ways—that if it pretends to have an interest in crime prevention and good policing in London, it must use its influence to get its people off the streets and into the negotiating room so that our police may go back to policing the streets of London?
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): As the Member of Parliament for the area that includes Wapping, may I convey to the Home Secretary my profound and unreserved condemnation of the attacks that were made on the police on Saturday night? But may I equally convey to him my profound concern about the attacks that were made by the police on a number of my constituents who were peacefully demonstrating in the area? I entirely agree with the Home Secretary that individual cases and those who were arrested should be brought to trial, and complaints against the police properly heard, but surely the scale of the events and the important issues that are involved—including the maintenance of law and order in Britain in the 1980s — deserve a full, independent public inquiry and I urge that on the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hurd: What occurred on this occasion—as on previous occasions—is that a peaceful demonstration was transformed by attacks on the police from a minority of those present. Having endured that for some time, the police took action to restore order. Once that action has begun, all kinds of things happen and all kinds of people take all kinds of action. That is what I and the right hon. Gentleman mean when we say individual cases.
I cannot see any purpose in having a general inquiry, because the essence of the matter is not in dispute. The essence of the matter is that an industrial dispute, which has dragged on for month after month, with great harm to the policing of London, is complicated by the presence
26
of violent people. The answer lies in the hands of those who are organising the dispute to conduct the dispute if they have to do so, in a way that disposes of that fringe.
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): Will my right hon. Friend ask the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to spell out how people can go on peaceful demonstrations when they are armed with stones, bricks and spears? Will he further say that the organisers of the demonstration, instead of weeping tears on television, should take their share of responsibility because they organised it? Can we have an investigation into what was being said behind the picket lines by people who, I believe, were inciting violence?
Mr. Hurd: If there is evidence of incitement, it has to be examined, but my hon. Friend's main point is entirely right. Several hundred people, a minority of the 12,500 people taking part—this has happened before—were responsible for what happened on Saturday night, and the onus falls on those responsible for these events to make sure they do not organise their affairs so that this happens again and again.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Although the Home Secretary is the one-man police authority for London, does he realise that he knows less about what happened on Saturday night than most people, because he was not there, and that he should listen to the constituency Members of Parliament who live in east London and who were there?
Will he accept it from me that the police behaved with excessive, unlawful, indiscriminate and quite sickening brutality and violence? Does he realise that if he allows the riot squad to continue in that way, they will soon kill somebody? Does he realise that those workers who are involved in an industrial dispute in this country have a perfect and proper right to demonstrate, and will continue to do so until there is a proper negotiated settlement? Finally, does he realise that, as his statement carried no credibility, the only thing that will satisfy the country is a proper independent inquiry to get at the truth?
Mr. Hurd: I have always listened with care to the hon. Gentleman because of his local knowledge, and to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other Members with constituency interests in this matter. However, nothing that he has now said will distract the House from the basic facts of what happened on this occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't know."] There is no direct connection with the industrial dispute, because no attempt was made to intervene with the lorries that were coming out of the plant. It was a demonstration with speeches—that is legitimate, though on this occasion unwise—and it was also an attempt by several hundred people, equipped with ferocious weapons, to attack the police. Justice should take its course against such people, and I hope that that will be as strongly endorsed by the House as I believe it will be by the country.
Mr. Neil Macfarlane (Sutton and Cheam): Does my right hon. Friend consider that the extra-parliamentary activity and winning the streets, which has been advocated by Opposition Members, has now well and truly begun?
Mr. Hurd: I read an account of something similar being said by an hon. Member. I could not really believe that an

27
hon. Member of this House, representing parliamentary democracy, would allow himself to make such a deeply undemocratic and anti-democratic remark.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the many tens of thousands of men, women and children from all over the country who have been to Wapping over the past year will understand perfectly why the Home Secretary does not wish there to be an inquiry? It is because an inquiry would reveal what I and others who have been there could confirm from our own eyes—occasions when there have been savage and brutal baton charges by the police against those who were present, as last Saturday when the legal observer, John Bowden, had his face smashed in by a police baton, when a photographer of a national newspaper was trampled on by a horse, when one of the television units there had its lights smashed deliberately by the police and when the police broke the windows of the bus which has been used as a first-aid station since 3 May. Is the Home Secretary aware that those who were there understand perfectly that the Government need Rupert Murdoch and are giving him free police for the purpose of denying work to those who used to work for him?
Mr. Hurd: I repeat that neither the Home Secretary nor the police have, or should have, any part in deciding whether Mr. Murdoch is right or wrong, or whether SOGAT is right or wrong. That is not the business of the police. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), have failed either to endorse or repudiate the concept that the police should withdraw from Wapping and allow the thugs to trample on those who are exercising their right to work there.
Mr. Benn: Public inquiry.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is a former senior Minister and Privy Councillor. He knew perfectly well that violence had for a long time been attached to the dispute and that violent attacks have been made over and over again on the police, yet he went ahead and joined in a meeting—
Mr. Kaufman: Read it out.
Mr. Hurd:at that time and at that place on Saturday night, and that casts serious doubt on his judgment.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that I was one of those Members there on Saturday and I was able to observe police officers spraying members of the crowd with red paint in order to identify them for later arrest, that the police were using agents provocateurs in the crowd and that at 9.10 during the evening, when there was complete quiet throughout the crowd, a completely unprovoked dragoon-like charge was mounted by the police straight into that crowd, seriously injuring a number of people? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that he should go and witness the scale and ferocity of police violence against innocent, peaceful people protesting against the theft of their jobs by the Murdoch empire?
Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have his evidence for the suggestion that the police used red dye.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes.
Mr. Hurd: I understand that a tin of red paint was thrown by a demonstrator.
I have looked carefully into the particular point about the use of mounted police. I do not think that there is any dispute that the trouble started when some of the demonstrators overturned a lorry which they had brought along and tried to set it on fire. That set off the first round of violence. As I understand it, and as I have been informed and believe, despite attempts to clear the area by officers on foot with shields, the police were continuing—this is just after 9 pm—to sustain a high level of injuries. That means that missiles of the kind that I have described were constantly being tossed at them. The efforts by foot police to deal with that, although they continued, were not successful. That is why the decision to use the mounted police was taken. Attempts were made to give a warning of that operation in advance. A loud hailer was used to that effect, but there was so much noise about that that warning did not have full effect. That is the background of continuing missile attacks on the police which led to the decision, which I believe was justifiable, to use the mounted police.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Since this is not the first time—as my right hon. Friend has said—that violent and brutish outside elements have exploited the troubles at Wapping, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the organisers of the march consulted the Commissioner about the routing or the wisdom of the march? In the light of what has happened, will consideration be given to the use of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure that such opportunities for anarchic violence are not given at Wapping in future?
Mr. Hurd: The police were consulted about the nature of the original procession and the arrangements that should be made. They were consulted by the organisers. The police had no power once the demonstration became static to impose conditions.
Mr. Kaufman: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is urging me to use the powers that he so strongly opposed in the Public Order Act 1986. He will be glad to hear that preparations for introducing those powers are well advanced and I hope that they will be introduced within the next few weeks.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of many of my constituents who were at Wapping on Saturday night—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they have lost their jobs. On behalf of my constituents, may I say that they unreservedly condemn the political activists on the fringe of the demonstration who caused untold and unjustified trouble? However, will the Home Secretary accept that there is a severe crisis of confidence in London over the police tactics? Will he tell the public, who want the police to have the right priorities in catching and dealing with criminals, that massive deployment of personnel at Wapping week after week prevents much of the work that the police would rather be doing—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Simon Hughes: —and that the only way to ensure that that concern is met is through a public inquiry for which many hon. Members have asked. That would ensure that the facts are objectively known.
Mr. Hurd: I heard but found it hard to believe that the demonstration was intended in some way to be a family occasion. It is absolutely amazing that people brought their children on a cold January night to a scene where there had been violence in the past and where there was clearly a risk of violence on this occasion.
Of course the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right: there were approximately 1,000 police officers at Wapping on Saturday night and about 12,500 demonstrators of whom only several hundred were involved in violence. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the police should produce at Wapping either nobody or inadequate numbers of police officers so that they are swamped, I cannot see—
Mr. Simon Hughes indicated dissent.
Mr. Hurd: Well, that is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the implication of what the right hon. Member for Gorton has consistently said. That is entirely wrong. The Commissioner has to decide, in the light of the information available to him, how many men he should deploy at Wapping on each occasion. That is his operational decision. That is irrelevant to the question of an inquiry.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are under a time constraint today. I will allow three more questions from either side of the House, then we must move on.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate and give credit where credit is due to the Leader of the Opposition for denouncing the violence on the picket lines and for denouncing the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Will he tell the Leader of the Opposition in no uncertain terms that, if he was a real leader, he would kick out the scum of his party who are turning the Labour party into a party of mob rule and not law and order?
Mr. Hurd: I certainly think it is time that the Opposition responded to the prompting from this side of the House to renounce and be rid of from their midst the anti-police borough leaders in London, because there is undoubtedly a connection between all these anti-police activities.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that all of us agree with him that the events that we saw on Saturday night and Sunday at Wapping were shameful? Will he also accept that I disagree with him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) should not have the right to go down to Wapping and speak—[Interruption.] He has the right to go down there and speak in favour of those who disagree with the actions taken by the newspaper proprietors.
The Home Secretary has said that he will not have an inquiry. Is he aware that there are three points of concern? The first is the allegation from the Home Secretary's hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that local authorities use ratepayers' money—that was the allegation—to instigate what happened the other night. That should be investigated. Secondly, allegations have been made that it was not the trade unionists who caused the trouble, except perhaps marginally, but people from other organisations. Who are
30
these other organisations?[Interruption.] It is all very well for people to say who they think they are. The allegation has been made and the country should know who they are. Thirdly, an allegation has been made to me that at 9.30 pm something went wrong and a charge was made when it should not have been made. That ought to be investigated as well, and the Home Secretary could report to the House.
Mr. Hurd: Of course I am not challenging the legal right of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I was very careful not to do that. I was simply saying that his decision on that occasion cast some doubt on his judgment as a former senior Minister and Privy Councillor.
Mr. Benn: I saw it; you did not.
Mr. Hurd: I have dealt with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and I have nothing to add. As to outsiders, I will simply repeat the only point that I have made in that respect—that, of the 67 people arrested, 15 are print workers.
Mr. Nellist: What unions were the others in?
Mr. Hurd: I have the professions of the others, and they vary widely. As for the rest, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has not undermined the case that I have made for letting the ordinary processes of law obtain and continue in this case.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there was a public inquiry it would inevitably be a judicial inquiry and that that would have the grave disadvantage of involving the judiciary in politics and would also inhibit criminal proceedings? On the other hand, criminal proceedings will in the end by decided by juries which give no reasons and cannot become involved in the political debate.
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: I was at Wapping on Saturday and I am neither a liar nor blind. I can tell the Home Secretary that some stones were thrown at the police early on, and I condemn that. That is not only unlawful; it is very stupid when one is confronting thousands of police officers who are tooled up to the eyebrows. Did the Home Secretary see on television on Saturday night police officers indiscrimately beating with batons people whom they had already arrested? That is unlawful by any measure, and the Home Secretary must say what he will do about the undisciplined actions of those police officers.
Lastly, it is about time that the Government realised that they cannot continue washing their hands of this dispute. The dispute was caused by Rupert Murdoch, who sacked 5,000 workers. He is an American citizen. It is about time the Government intervened in the dispute.
Mr. Hurd: The sequence on Saturday night was familiar. First, the police attempted to contain disorder with ordinary police officers on foot using ordinary equipment. When the attacks on the police continued despite that, police armed with protective gear arid with riot equipment were used.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is not true, Home Secretary. You have been misled.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hurd: Then, after 9 o'clock, in the circumstances that I described in answer to earlier questions, events continued to be out of control because of missile attacks on the police and the decision was made to use the mounted police.
Mr. Benn: You were not there.
Mr. Hurd: On each occasion, I am satisfied that those decisions by the police were justified. If they had not been taken, those whom I have described as, and who the House will agree were, the thugs, would have prevailed. That would have been a bad day for the people of London.
Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant): The Home Secretary will have noticed, that, in her description of the crowd at Wapping, Miss Brenda Dean used the words, "ordinary, decent, normal families". Does he agree that a sad and regrettable gulf is opening between Miss Dean's definition of that term and the understanding of that term in 26 million homes across the length and breadth of the country? Does he agree that, in those 26 million homes, the contempt for the objectives is exceeded only by the contempt for the methods used at Wapping?
Mr. Hurd: My criticism of the trade union leaders is not that they are continuing the dispute, because that is a matter for them, nor that they instigated or took part in the disorder, because they did not. My criticism of them is that, despite the overwhelming weight of advice that they have received, they continue to organise their part in the dispute in such a way as to produce these results. In doing that, they assume a heavy responsibility. I hope that they have now changed their minds and will pursue the dispute, if they must do so, in a way that will remove violence from the scene.
Mr. Robert Litherland: I am sponsored by SOGAT '82, a member of that union and extremely proud of it, and I was at Wapping. I condemn the violence, but I ask the Home Secretary to go to Wapping to see that obscene razor wire curtain that is an affront to all working people. Does he realise that with this whitewash he is seen to support Rupert Murdoch's brutal and violent strategy of confrontation?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman leaves out of account the fact that, to use his words, hundreds of decent working people work and wish to continue to work at Wapping. That puts the police in a wholly unenviable position. The right hon. Member for Gorton and his colleagues have not yet answered the point: do they expect the police to continue to protect the right to work of those who are engaged at Wapping or do they believe that those workers should be abandoned?
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reflect later on the intervention during those
32
exchanges by the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)? After quoting leaflets which he alleged were calling for the death of police on the picket lines, he linked those leaflets to two sources. The first was those members of the Labour party who may or may not be under threat of expulsion—I have been named as part of that group more than once. The second source identified by him and his colleagues is Labour Members in this Chamber.
As the guardian of the rights of Back-Bench Members, Mr. Speaker, will you find out whether the hon. Gentleman should be required tomorrow to withdraw those statements or produce the evidence outside the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what is said. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) had named an individual Member, that would have been entirely different.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I must warn the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that we have a time restraint today, which makes life difficult for us all, including the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not usual for you to allow a Member such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to catch your eye when his name has been mentioned as often as his was this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not assume my prerogative in these matters. It is a difficult enough job as it is.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the remedy lie with a personal statement from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? After all, serious allegations have been made against—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a continuation of questions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Skinner: I have no intention of making a personal statement, Mr. Speaker, but I will say this to you: whether I am in Parliament or outside, I shall fight for the working class that sent me here, just as the Tories, including the Home Secretary, fight for their class day in and day out—including all those crooks in the City.

New Statesman and Mr.Duncan Campbell
4.15 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The searches by special branch at the premises of the New Statesman and the homes of Mr. Duncan Campbell and other journalists following a request by the Attorney-General for the instigation of inquiries."
On Saturday, special branch officers entered the offices of the New Statesman in my constituency and began a comprehensive search of all papers held in those offices. That search continued through Sunday and was added to by a search of the homes of Mr. Duncan Campbell and other journalists. It is continuing. I was present when the offices of the New Statesman were searched and when the home of M r. Duncan Campbell was searched. I hasten to say that I do not criticise the officers of special branch, who conducted their investigation with perfect courtesy and decorum. However, it is the first time that such a search has been mounted against an independent newspaper. It was instigated by a Government who are supposed to believe in the freedom of the press.
Major questions arise that should be discussed in the House. We must ask why the Government are trying to muzzle the press seven months after they first knew that the Zircon film was being made—a case of shutting the stable door months after the horse has bolted. We must ask why, as in the case two years ago of my constituent Clive Ponting, action is being taken under the discredited section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which the Attorney-General himself has disowned. Why are the Government, far from being concerned about genuine national security considerations, engaged in a public operation to cover up their political embarrassment and interest? Above all, there are questions about the geed to end the absurd secrecy and the paranoia about secrecy which characterises the Government and which should be replaced once and for all by proper, full and thorough freedom of information legislation.
These are issues of immense public concern and interest. The House must debate them urgently.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The searches by special branch at the premises of the New Statesman and the homes of Mr. Duncan Campbell and other journalists following a request by the Attorney-General for the instigation of inquiries."
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Personal Statement
4.20 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to make a personal statement, Mr. Speaker.
On Monday 12 January the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), during a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, alleged that a
"highly regarded member of the Parliamentary press lobby"—
that is to say, Mr. Adam Raphael—
"informed me"—
that is the hon. Gentleman—
"that he had been told by the hon. Gentleman him self"—
that is the hon. Member for Workington—
"that Sir Stephen Hastings and I"—
that is, the hon. Member for Davyhulme—
"had been sent letters by the hon. Gentleman"—
that is myself—
"identifying us."
That was identification of the hon. Gentleman and Sir Stephen Hastings as persons who
"had engaged in a conspiracy with officers of MI5 to bring about the downfall of Her Majesty's Government by unconstitutional means"—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 34.]
If the allegation that I had disclosed this matter to the journalist was true, it would mean that I had broken a solemn undertaking given to the House on Monday 15 December when I said:
"I do not intend to name the Members of Parliament
involved."—[Official Report, 15 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 7831.]
In the circumstances, I wish to inform the House what happened. On Saturday 13 December, Grania Forbes, a political journalist on the News of the World, acquired a copy of the first edition of The Observer. She has stated that, during the course of the evening, at about 8 o'clock, she was informed, on a confidential basis by a senior Conservative politician, that the hon. Member and the former hon. Member referred to could be the hon. Member for Davyhulme and Sir Stephen Hastings, and that she then telephoned the hon. Member and put the allegation to him. That was two days before I spoke in the debate in the House. The story was therefore already known in Fleet street before I spoke.
On 15 December, I gave the undertaking not to divulge the names of the Members concerned. On Thursday 18 December, three days after that debate, the attention of Mr. Adam Raphael was drawn to an article in Tribune which identified the two Conservative politicians, by name, as agreeing that they had received material concerning allegations of plots against the Wilson Government.
It should be said that Mr. Raphael had also spoken to Grania Forbes, who told him that she had spoken to the hon. Member for Davyhulme. Adam Raphael then approached the hon. Gentleman to ask him about the allegations and ascertain whether he had received a letter from me. The hon. Gentleman agreed that he had received a letter from me and showed him his reply to me.
I make this statement, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate that I have kept the undertaking that I gave to the House on 15 December that I would not identify the Members concerned and, furthermore, have not disclosed the names of the hon. Member for Davyhulme or Sir Stephen Hastings to Adam Raphael.
Mr. Churchill: I recognise that I cannot in any way contest what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says in a personal statement, and it would not be my wish so to do. I wish to say that I was misquoted from Hansard. I did not make mention of Mr. Adam Raphael: it was the hon. Gentleman who made that reference. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order now for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the false and malicious accusations that he made against Sir Stephen Hastings and myself on 15 December, for which he has produced not one shred of evidence.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has made a personal statement which has been cleared by me. I take note of what the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has said.

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.24 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee, Report and Third Reading
1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill and the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day.
(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Proceedings on going into Committee
2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question, and the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.
Order of proceedings
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Dilatory Motions
5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on the alloted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
6. —(1) On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2)Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, he considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others):

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Memberm, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

37
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not he interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
9. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the alloted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed by this Order for any proceedings on the Bill to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or

(b) prevent any business from being proceeded with on the allotted day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
12. In this Order—
"allotted day" means a day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill.
As I move this timetable motion, Mr. Speaker, I am conscious that just a week ago we spent some time debating a dilatory motion affecting proceedings on the same Bill. Although the juxtaposition of the two debates may seem to have an element of perversity to it, notwithstanding the failure of that dilatory motion, the issues which we address today are wider and more important to the passage of the Bill than those in last week's debate. In addressing these issues I propose first to deal with the nature of the Bill and its urgency, and then with its passage so far. Finally, I intend to say a few words about its future consideration.
The House will recall that the reasons for this legislation were set out by my right hon. Friend the
38
Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement of 16 December. In that statement he explained that, following legal advice, it had been established that the treatment of expenditure in local government finance was incorrect in law. This being the case, all past decisions involving the concepts of total or relevant expenditure were put in doubt.
My right hon. Friend therefore introduced this legislation primarily to validate for England and Wales all past decisions involving the use of relevant or total expenditure and to allow decisions to be taken for the remainder of the present rate support grant system and for rate limitation in line with the practice which has been adopted until now.
It is clearly in the interests of everyone involved in local authority finance, not least the local authorities themselves, that this complex area is restored to a basis of certainty as soon as possible. Quite rightly, neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales thinks it proper to take further decisions on rate support grant matters or complete the rate limitation process until the law and the practice on this matter once more coincide. Thus, only after the Bill receives Royal Assent can Parliament approve the necessary rate support grant reports and local authorities be paid that grant for the coming financial year.
On the Government's part, the recognition of this urgency was shown by the introduction of the Bill immediately after my right hon. Friend's statement. Part I addresses the position in England and Wales, set ting up a new method of calculating relevant and total expenditure for rate support grant purposes in future. It makes arrangements also for a rate limitation process for 1987–88. In addition, it validates what has already been done for rate support grant purposes and for rate limitation purposes. Part II is less substantial and deals with minor difficulties which have come to light in the present Scottish practice which, of course, derives from separate legislation. I accept at once that these provisions are both difficult and technical, but this is the case with many issues which the House debates.
The Bill received its Second Reading on 12 January by 233 votes to 175, following a debate lasting just over 6½ hours. Its consideration by a Committee of the whole House began one week later on 19 January and continued on 21 January. During the course of those two days the Bill was debated for more than 14½ hours, and the Committee considered 13 groups of amendments. A further 25 amendments or groups of amendments remain to be considered: of these only eight involve Government amendments.
I shall seek, Mr. Speaker, to deal with two points on which the Government have been criticised in Committee. The first criticism is directed at the number and length of Government amendments. I realise that there are difficulties for the House when, particularly on a complex subject, Government amendments are not available early. I have to observe that my right hon. Friend has been ungenerously treated by his critics. On the one hand, he is criticised for having waited to inform the House until after he had confirmed that there was indeed a problem: on the other, it is objected that the Bill has been brought to the House of Commons at a stage when the Government believe that it can still be improved by

39
amendments, rather than being delayed until it is a polished and refined version. Both sets of criticisms cannot be fairly sustained, although in politics they usually are.
The second point which was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was that the Bill should not have been committed to a Comittee of the whole House because of its technical and complicated nature. The hon. Gentleman is a fair person and will appreciate that the urgency with which the legislation is needed was one of the factors in deciding on this course. I can, however, assure him that, however urgent the Bill, we would not have taken this course had we felt that proper and detailed consideration of the Bill was beyond a Committee of the whole House. I would also point out to him that Members of another place conduct the Committee stage of legislation on the Floor of the Chamber, and apparently have no doubts about their ability to do so. Leaving that aside, progress in Committee has been slower than had been hoped. It has certainly been slower than is commensurate with the urgency of the Bill
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government are in such great haste and will not allow a separate day for a Report stage, given that the Bill was significantly amended by the Government in Committee and the fact that by this timetable motion—it could have been different—in practice the House is being denied a Report stage because of the impracticability of submitting, and having accepted, manuscript amendments?
Mr. Biffen: The main motivation and desire has been to get the Bill to another place where it will undoubtedly be very fully considered and then reported to this place. I accept all the arguments of time that turn upon the niceties of just one more day—but a day, day, a day and so on stretches out. In all charity we have to judge whether there might be a change in attitude towards the passage of this legislation, if that one more day was forthcoming. Our view of human nature is a little more generous than that of the hon. Gentleman.
The motion before us today would provide for one allotted day until midnight to complete the proceedings on the consideration of the Third Reading of the Bill. That allotted day, as the House will be aware, is today. While I accept that there is an almost infinite amount of time which we could spend on the intricacies of the local government finance system, I believe that the House will think it not unreasonable that we should regulate our consideration of this measure in this way. We will of course have an opportunity to examine it further when it has been considered in another place.
Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that progress has not been as speedy as it might have been because of the Government's action in tabling a large number of amendments in an unprecedented manner? New schedules, new clauses and a virtual process of rewriting took place in Committee such as I have never experienced—and I have served on every local government Bill since 1979.
Mr. Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having survived that experience with such robustness. I have touched on the problems caused by tabling
40
amendments, but I still think that our reaction is reasonable in view of the time available and the speed with which this has had to be considered.
Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify some details? To what extent were the Government's deliberations on the way to put forward this timetable motion influenced by the wish of the Secretary of State for the Environment to avoid any further embarrassment as a result of yet another court case between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the city of Birmingham for which leave was given last week?
Mr. Biffen: That thought, I am sure, was not either in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment or any one of us on the Treasury Bench when we calculated how best to present a timed debate on this measure.
I will end my remarks there, since the sooner we conclude our debate upon this motion, the sooner we may proceed to consider the Bill. There is still opportunity for constructive consideration of this Bill and I urge hon. Members to use it. I believe that there is general recognition of the need for the Bill's prime objective of restoring certainty to these aspects of local government finance and the recognition also that this needs to be achieved expeditiously. Among those seeking the early passage of the Bill must be the local authorities and their associations whose present approach to these matters will be validated by the Bill. This motion will help to ensure that we do not delay that validation unduly. I am inspired to that sentiment by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. He caught the mood of the Oppposition precisely and, for once, succinctly. On 21 January he exhorted the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) who was speaking to amendments 48 and 154 to "Drag it out." Those three words pretty well say it all and have inspired my actions ever since. I commend the motion to the House.
4.35 pm
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): The number of times that the Leader of the House during his brief defence of this unacceptable motion used the word "complex" is a justification of the argument that this measure should never have been debated in Committee on the Floor of the House in the first place.
We object that this, the 31st guillotine motion tabled by the Government—the 22nd on the Floor of the House, and of which at least six have been attributable to the Department that has caused this guillotine—is in itself guillotined by the way in which it has been tabled because it has been incorporated within the timetable that is available for the entire Bill.
Therefore, in discussing the merits and demerits of the guillotine as we should, we reduce the time available for the even more important discussion of the Bill's contents. We further object because, as far as we can gather, there is in effect to be no Report stage because of the way in which the timetable motion is worded.
The motion allows no time for the tabling of amendments and their scrutiny by Mr. Speaker. Consequently, we are to be denied a Report stage. A preposterous proposition was made by the Leader of the House. We are asked to guillotine the Bill after a couple

41
of days of debate. The Committee stage is to be curtailed and the Report stage eliminated. Yet, what did the Leader of the House of Commons tell us, as elected Members of Parliament? He said that we needed to curtail our consideration of the Bill so that there should be full consideration of it in another place.
Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he, as Leader of the elected House of Commons, should come to the Chamber and tell us that we must cut short our discussions on a Bill to enable fuller discussion to take place in another place? All I can say to our colleagues in another place is that I hope that they take note of this abuse by the Leader of this House and I hope that they make him pay for it. I hope that they will take the opportunity that their procedures allow, with the absence of a guillotine system, to ensure that every minute detail of the Bill is examined.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the example he has just given of the words of the Leader of the House gives a new twist to the words of the noble Lord Hailsham about the elective dictatorship of this place?
Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively.
Thankfully, after a miserable weekend, I come to the debate from outside the area of local government and local government finance legislation. It has been my 23-year good fortune not to have been involved in the detail of it before. Having tried to make sense of it during the past few days, my lasting impression is of the complexity and convolution of the subject we are supposed to be debating. The opportunities for misunderstanding seem to be enormous. My political early warning system cautions that experience has shown, with this subject, haste is a dangerous policy for the Government to pursue. Essentially this matter needs slow and deliberate contemplation—as we would normally have—with a proper Committee and Report stage.
The present Bill may do what the Secretary of State claims or what my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) claims. I must admit that, having tried to read through the Bill in a few days, I do not pretend to know but, in the end. I had hoped that we would have the chance to know. Nothing that the Minister has said so far has convinced me that my hon. Friend is wrong. The Government have ignored our offer to give support to a simple Bill brought forward merely to rectify the problems of the past. In that way the Government would have got the Bill through the House.
Having read through the proceedings, certain things have become clearer to me. The first is that the Minister originally responsible for this Bill, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and the present Secretary of State have agreed upon one thing—the magnitude of the problem. They have agreed about the £30 billion that may be involved in the fiasco that underlies this Bill. That alone suggests that the Bill deserves considerable discussion in the House. Secondly, it has taken six years to establish that the original legislation was wrong. That also suggests that we, if we showed any sense in these matters, should give priority to get the matter right this time.
The third thing that strikes me is that there have been so many banana skins. The Government have already had
42
to amend or seek to amend their rectifying Bill on 40 separate occasions. Fourthly, eminent lawyers, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland the other day, expressed their clear views about the scope and breadth of the legal immunity that will be given to the Minister. That advice implied that that immunity is far wider than the Minister has so far admitted. I must draw the attention of the House to the comments made by the Secretary of State, under interrogation by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he said:
"It is impossible to disentangle some parts of any conceivable court case from those parts that relate to total expenditure."—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 995.]
Those comments imply that our legal advice is right with regard to this Bill and that the legal protestations made by the Secretary of State are absolutely wrong. I hope that when the Secretary of State comes to make his speech he will address his remarks to that point—about the conflict of legal advice. That conflict is the nub of the difference between the two sides of the House.
Having read through the debate, the fifth point that strikes me is that we should always be careful when enacting retrospective legislation as there is always an implicit threat of a risk to the concept of the rule of law. We are fortunate, with regard to this Bill, in that we have, in the present Secretary of State, the greatest living exponent of retrospective legislation.
I have given five good reasons why I suggest that we need a thorough analysis of the Bill. However, so far we have spent only three parliamentary days discussing the Bill, and that includes Second Reading. Indeed, the Bill was published only one day before the Christmas recess. When a Bill has 17 clauses and four schedules I do not think the desire to discuss all that detail can be described as filibustering or causing undue delay. Yet we now face the guillotine.
The Secretary of State assures us that we can take his word that he has got it right this time. We would perhaps be more convinced of this had it not been for the fact that between the time that he gave us that assurance on Second Reading and the time when he next came to the House to discuss the Bill — an interval of three days — the Secretary of State had found it necessary to amend his Bill 40 times to get it right. The Secretary of State is so confused about what is right that he tabled amendments to two of the clauses and, having advanced those amendments, then withdrew them. Does this smack of a firm, determined knowledgeable Government? The right hon. Gentleman has impressed us!
If the Government have got it right this time, we are a little puzzled as to why, on Thursday 22 January, the Government tabled yet another Bill on the rate support grant system. All this must be viewed against a background — which is less than reassuring — of a Department overruled in the High Court on 15 April for illegally trying to rate-cap the city of Birmingham.
When the Secretary of State tells us that we must take his word he will understand that we have certain reservations. The right hon. Gentleman may come to the Dispatch Box and say that these amendments are proof of his determination to get everything right this time. Although I appreciate that some of us may have a cynical disposition, we might be inclined to think that those

43
measures show how far the Government have got it wrong this time. Yet the Secretary of State wants to rush over the cliff on this occasion with a guillotine motion.
It is not just a joke. When one considers the events that have led to this situation our doubts are compounded by suspicions. On 16 December, in the fourth RSG statement in five months, the Secretary of State said:
"The first intimation I had that the legal advice was as I have described it was towards the end of October."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1053].
That is clear enough, but on 12 January, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, the Secretary of State said:
"I think I told the hon. Gentleman that I first became aware of the problem in September."—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 43].
The Secretary of State gave no apology, showed neither remorse nor contrition for the indication that he had misled the House in his statement by the use of the words:
"I think I told the hon. Gentleman."
That was another attempt to mislead the House about a matter upon which the House had already been misled. This man, this dissembling Minister, is asking the House to take his word in respect of those matters. He is not simply a man from whom one would not buy a second-hand car but a man to whom one would not sell a second-hand car.
One is bound to ask the Minister what on earth happened in the three months between September and 16 December. Why was there no mention in the Queen's Speech of the legal advice and the changes that would be needed? Why did the Minister not mention that legal advice and the changes that would be needed in his speech during the debate on the Queen's Speech? Why was there no explanation of the legal difficulties when the right hon. Gentleman failed to produce the statement on RSG in November? Why was there no mention of those problems when the right hon. Gentleman answered a private notice question on 3 December? Such were the opportunities to confide in the House of Commons but those opportunities were ignored.
Why should we trust someone who has misled the House and, not only that, has concealed facts of which he was well aware? The Secretary of State's description of events is, of course, somewhat imaginative. He said:
"credit should go to the Government for having identified a legal weakness and for having sought immediately and honourably to put it right."
Three months does not exactly conform with the dictionary definition of the word immediate. I must leave it to the House to decide whether Government action was immediate and honourable. I have my conclusions in that respect. I was intrigued by the judgment made by one of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). He asked:
"Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is the least guilty in a long line of guilty Ministers".
Note that the hon. Gentleman does not say that the Secretary of State is not guilty, but simply that there might be extenuating circumstances. What the right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is, "Honest guy, I didn't do it. I only hid the body." I repeat his comment:
"It was the Government who spotted the error, so the credit should go to the Government for having identified a legal weakness".
44
In other words, in a further submission for remission, he is saying, "Don't I get some time off for coming clean eventually?" Indeed, he even tried the most novel defence that I have come across. He tried to rewrite constitutional history. It turns out that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is really the guilty party. The Secretary of State said:
"It takes me to do not only my job but the Opposition's job in pointing out what Parliament failed to stop in 1980."
We now have a new definition of ministerial responsibility. When a Minister gets it wrong, the shadow Minister is expected to resign. It is imaginative and we have to give the Secretary of State credit where it is due.
I read with some bewilderment some of the comments made about the statement. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said:
"my right hon. Friend who has a brain that is even finer than that of his four distinguished predecessors".
There he sits, the Government candidate for Brain of Britain. May the good Lord protect us. What on earth must the rest of them be like? When he came to the Dispatch Box, he said—please do not laugh at this because it is serious—
"I am the only person who is quite certain what the law is."
I looked at the official box and even the men in the white coats were laughing.
The matter becomes even more absurd the more one reads these comments, because the hon. Member for Eastbourne went on waxing eulogistic about the Secretary of State's policy. He said:
"Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has earned the admiration of the House for his courage?"—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1053–7.]
That is an interesting proposition. Was it an act of courage, as suggested? The Secretary of State left it to the last possible minute. He left it so late that now we can discuss the Bill only under the threat of the guillotine. The Secretary of State came here only when he had no alternative but to come here because he could make no more statements that would progress the proceedings for next year's rate grant until he had cleared the position.
I must chastise my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. He is excessively kind to the Secretary of State. I am sure that I read somewhere—I apologise if he did not say this—that he had said that the Secretary of State had delayed coming to the House until another local government Bill had received Royal Assent. That is generous of my hon. Friend. The reality is that the Secretary of State came forward only when he could delay no more. I do not call that courage. He knew that his reputation and job were on the line if he did not come and make his confession. Eventually, he went over the top only after he had been shown the firing squad, and that is what the Conservative party is claiming as its courageous Minister.
All this is hardly surprising if one has followed the Secretary of State's career, which is colourful, to put it mildly. He came to the job with a track record even worse than that of the Department he was joining. When he was at the Department of Transport, the Court of Appeal overruled him because he had tried to stop the GLC lorry ban when that was outside his legal powers. It would have been a resignation matter for most Ministers—those with pride and integrity. The Secretary of State came from the Department of Transport after the High Court had overruled him because he had wrongly demanded £250

45
million from the GLC when that was outside his powers, outside his rights and outside the law. Again, that would have been a matter of resignation for any Minister with integrity.
What was the judge's description—not ours—of the Secretary of State and his actions? It was that they were:
"Unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper."
This is the Government's M ENSA candidate. What a brilliant prime ministerial appointment it was to take a man with his record and put him in a Department with that record. He came with only one qualification—a discount on barristers' briefs. He is part of the Government's economy campaign.
The Secretary of State has said that the issue is urgent. Ministers knew before we went away for the Christmas recess that the business was there, was urgent and was complex. Why did we not have a two-week Christmas recess, as we have done in the past, so that the Bill could be judged properly?
There has been no delay, and no long speeches from the Labour side of the House. From Ministers there has been a flood of amendments, amendments to amendments and now more amendments to go in in the other place. For the first time, the Government have decided that it is time to impose a guillotine not on us but on Ministers, because they do not know what is coming next. There is no justification for imposing the measure on us and for that reason I call on the House to reject the motion.
4.57 pm
Mr. William Shelton: Of the 20 minutes or so that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spent speaking. I noticed that, rather wisely, he spoke about the measure before us for only a few minutes. The rest of his speech was a good humoured but unnecessary and unpleasant attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is necessary that the Bill should be guillotined today and that the Bill should go through. I speak as a Member with a constituency interest in Lambeth, and ratepayers there need the protection of the Bill against the tactics of Lambeth council, which is a classic example of Labour in power. Let me explain why the Bill is important for my constituents. If the Bill goes through, Lambeth will get a rate support grant of some £85 million, which is—I hope that my constituents will be aware of this—an increase of £21 million on the rate support grant that Lambeth received last year. That increase is good news.
Even better news for my constituents is that under the Bill Lambeth will be rate capped, with a budget of around £152 million, which will give a rate of about 113p in the pound. Last year, the budget was £167 million and the rate 126p in the pound. Lambeth council will have a reduction in budget of £15 million, and my constituents a reduction in their rate of 13p in the pound. That is the first reason why the Bill is so important for ratepayers in my constituency.
I accept, as perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware, that this will create a difficulty for the Lambeth councillors. At a policy and resources committee meeting of Lambeth council on 6 January, it was revealed by the officers, who bear no blame in the situation confronting Lambeth, that a preliminary budget forecast for this year showed a budget of £197 million, including £7 million carried forward unspent from last year on the salaries account, because the council cannot recruit
46
sufficiently. Therefore, there is a shortfall of £45 million. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me it' our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to increase the amount of rate support grant or to change the rate capping once the Bill has gone through. If Lambeth's problems stemmed mainly or entirely from rate capping or a lack of finance, I would be the first in a delegation to persuade my right hon. Friend to make more money available for Lambeth, but that is not the case. As I have said, Lambeth is a true picture of Labour in power—the services are breaking down, the council is a shambles, and money is wasted because of mismanagement, loony schemes and underspending on staff as was the case last year.
Members of the Opposition or people in the constituency who do not believe me perhaps saw the leaked report of the auditors. That report is soon to be
published, but it was front page news in the Sunday Telegraph, I believe, the Sunday before last. The headline read: "Loony Left push London into Anarchy …". The auditor's report, which has not yet been published. concludes that social conditions and Government measures bear some of the responsibility, but most of the blame is directed at Left-wing Labour councillors and, of course, Lambeth is named. The report says that expenditure per person by councils since 1981 has fallen in real terms, except in inner London where it has risen by 20 per cent. in real terms. It also says that inner London has twice as many staff per capita as the
"most deprived metropolitan districts outside London …".
I understand that there are certain pressures to have that leaked report modified, but I hope that they will be resisted. I draw the attention of the House to the last auditor's report, published in September 1986. [Interruption.] It is relevant because if the Bill does not go through the typical Labour profligacy of Lambeth will not be checked. I shall read a few of the comments from the September report. The auditor says:
"Opportunities to reduce expenditure without reduction in standards have not been acted upon …
My audit has led me to question the efficiency and effectiveness of the way in which some of the Council's services are managed … whether there is too much talking about problems and too little action."
That is typical of Labour. The auditor goes on to make specific and damning criticisms:
"serious deficiencies in the accounting controls over domestic rents … shortcomings in the Council's accounting arrangements … clearly the situation cannot be allowed to continue".
Referring to the management of the council's fleet of 525 vehicles, the auditor states:
"financial control procedures and the quantity and quality of management were inadequate".
On refuse collections he says:
"costs for the current method of collection … around £180,000 (16%) above the optimum."
On collection of rents, rates and so on, he says:
"Large sums of money are owed to the Council … exceeding £34 million at the end of March."
He also refers to
"Inadequacies of collection procedures."
The report goes on like that, page after page.
Any hon. Member who does not believe the auditor should look at the memorandum sent by the chief executive of Lambeth, Mr. George, to the leader of the council, Miss Linda Bellos. That memorandum, too, found its way into the press. It was a confidential

47
memorandum and I do not know how it found its way there, but I have a copy and I shall quote some of the highlights. The chief executive writes:
"There is a grave danger that certain areas of service may have to be closed down and this may occur in areas of statutory responsibility with very serious consequences for the Council indeed … the Council is unable to recruit quickly or retain staff'.
The chief executive highlights the high profile of the trades unions in Lambeth's affairs and talks about:
"other detrimental consequences for the way in which the Council came to be run. In the absence of strong management the trades unions increasingly came to determine the nature and pace of introduction of organisational change and new procedures."
He also highlights the problem of political interference by Labour members so that
"the role of Chairs of committees and directors and the Chief Executive are blurred and confused".
That, again, is a damning indictment of mainstream Labour in power. It is not just mismanagement—it is a classic case of what happens when the Labour party runs something. For example, Lambeth is spending £44,000 for extra staff in the council's own police unit. The council boycotts the community police association, for which it was recently deeply criticised by Lord Scarman. It spent £760,000 on propaganda about the rates in 1985–86 and £40,000 to fight the proposed Channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo.
Mr. Stuart Holland rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it a little difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the allocation of time motion and the Bill which is the subject of the debate. I am sure that he will relate his remarks to the motion before the House.
Mr. Shelton: I am coming to the end of my speech. If the Bill does not go through, the antics that I have described will continue unchecked. There will be no rate capping and no reduction in the rates and instead of spending £500,000 on four new equality units catering for lesbians, gays, and so forth, the council will probably spend £1 million.
Mr. Holland: In the list that the hon. Gentleman has cited he has not drawn attention to the fact that Lambeth's housing investment grant has been cut from £56 million in 1979 to £33 million projected for the coming year. In current terms, that is a nominal cut of a third. Further, 40 per cent. of the residents in Lambeth claim housing benefit. Delays in those benefits, which affect the hon. Gentleman's point about slow payment of rent, have been affected because since 1982 the Government have brought in 36 statutory instruments that have affected housing benefit. Why does not the hon. Gentleman address himself to those real issues of cuts in housing expenditure and to the way in which the Government have fouled up the possible payment of housing benefit, which is of far more concern to the residents of Lambeth than the trivial points that he is raising?
Mr. Shelton: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, how can responsible councillors spend £500,000 on equality units catering for lesbians, gays, ethnic minorities, the disabled and women? How can they spend £14,000 on a peace and nuclear affairs officer and £50,000 on a
48
woman's day on 8 March? Of course the council has difficulties in its inner city area, but is it not irresponsible—
Mr. Holland: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will answer his points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) was somewhat tempted by the Opposition but he must return to the motion.
Mr. Shelton: If the Bill does not go through the shambles in Lambeth will continue. While the council is spending that sort of money and spending at a rate above the rate at which the council will be capped, there are unprocessed claims for housing benefit, rent arrears, empty homes, squatters, staff shortages and, to use the words of the auditor's report, "a cycle of decay". The council is ignoring its responsibilities and seems to be capable only of ill spending money. It is typical of Labour in power and for the protection of my constituents I urge the House to support the Bill.
Mr. Holland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has been aware of the fact that you attempted to bring the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) to order several times. He paid no attention to your ruling—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) has resumed his seat.
5.10 pm
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: It is sad that the Leader of the House came before us today with this motion when we have a certain regard for protection of the rights of the House. It is not insignificant that he appeared to have little heart for what he was saying and, sadly, that he has left the Chamber so soon. It is a shame that he did not come forward with the motion in any spirit of humility by saying, "Here is something that has been caused by the Government and by errors in the past. It has been brought upon us by matters that we have found to he wrong, that we are seeking to put right." Instead of doing that, he tried to brazen it out. What is worse, he used the age old threat that we have heard throughout the proceedings on the Bill that unless it goes through quickly it will hold up the rate support grant settlement.
As I have said before, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of those who wish to deal with rate support grant to find some way of making that possible in the interim with the active support of Opposition Members. It compounds the felony to use the problem about rate support grant settlement as a reason for guillotining the Bill. It flies in the face of the fact that, had the Bill been solely to validate the financial problems, it would have been through by now.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): If it is true, as I have been saying throughout the previous two days in Committee, that the Bill does precisely that, would it now be time for the hon. Gentleman to realise that he could deliver on his promise by not making his speech?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I do not know whether the Secretary of State misunderstands the Bill in its entirety or whether he now contradicts what he has said before. The Secretary of State has admitted in the Chamber during previous

49
debates on the Bill that it goes further than validating the errors. If he has accepted that before, why is he now trying to say that, if all we want to do is secure the RSG settlement, we need not have the debate? The fact is that we oppose the Bill and many of its provisions because it goes way beyond validating the illegality that the Secretary of State discovered in his Department. It goes way beyond that in terms of codes of practice, in trying to define and in attempting to introduce retrospective legislation beyond what is necessary for the rate support grant settlements. That is why it does a disservice to the House to try to pretend that we have somehow brought about the need for a guillotine.
The Bill has been in Committee of the whole House for some 15 hours and we are roughly halfway through the amendments and new clauses. I do not believe that anybody could sustain the argument that there has been undue delay or excessive speeches by Opposition Members. It is not possible to say that there has been a filibuster. It showed the flimsy nature of the Leader of the House's argument that he had to pick up the comment of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who, when I said that I would not delay the House, said, "Drag it out, Michael." The Leader of the House did not point out that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and I did not drag it out. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West could have dragged out the debate but he chose not to. To be fair to him, which is not always possible, he spoke little and often. He certainly did not delay the House unduly.
Many of the amendments selected for discussion, those we have dealt with and those to come, are Government amendments. There is a complex new schedule tabled by the Government. It was not tabled by my hon. Friends or by Labour Members. Therefore, it is a disservice to the House to propose this motion now.
A total of 66 amendments have been selected and of those 12 are Government amendments. There are no amendments piled up by the Opposition for the sake of it and there are no amendments which simply probe. A large proportion are Government amendments. One of the amendments selected for debate is in the name of two Conservative Members. I am sorry that the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Halifax (Mr. Galley) arc not in the Chamber to defend their amendment against what will happen to it if the Bill is guillotined. It is a particularly important amendment. They have consistently argued that more resources are required for the fire and civil defence authority in west Yorkshire. Again, that is not something that Opposition Members have sought to set out to delay the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) mentioned the problems about Report stage. I raised that issue on a point of order on 20 January. I pointed out the problems that would occur if there were to be no gap between the Committee of the whole House and Report stage, especially when there are such complex Government amendments, new clauses and the new schedule, which presumably the Government will drag through. We will then be faced with manuscript amendments which we would be unable to relate to particular lines of the Bill, and there would be problems of debate. To be fair, the Leader of the House said on that day that the Government did not intend to drive the Bill through and that the debate would terminate at a reasonable hour. Therefore, the question put in my
50
legitimate point of order would not arise. After that, which I thought was fair to the House, it is intolerable that today the same thing does not apply and that we will either have to move straight from the Committee of the whole House to the Report stage, attenuated no doubt, or the Report stage will be virtually non-existent and the only debate on that will be for another place.
I am surprised that Government Ministers would risk provoking Members of another place to amend the Bill We all know that our noble Friends are particularly concerned with their constitutional position and, to the chagrin of some Labour Members, they take their position so seriously that they do not push their views to a Division so often. I believe that the Government are risking an awful lot if, by attenuating the debate here, they provoke Members of another place to do their worst with the Bill. It may be that it will be counter-productive and do exactly what the Government do not want. Therefore, it is dangerous.
What is happening today may well validate the cash, but it will not validate the damage that is being done to local government. I hope that Conservative Members are on their knees night after night praying that there will never be a Labour Government who might try to use the powers that the Government are taking to themselves in this Bill, especially in view of the things that have been itemised by Conservative Members as happening in local government. If Labour Members were in government and they had the powers contained in this Bill and others being pushed through the House, Conservative Members would rue the day they ever put this Bill on the statute book, because the draconian centralising powers in the Bill could be used to devastating effect, directly opposite to that intended. It is important to recognise the danger.
Up and down the country there are Conservative members of local authorities who are not standing for re-election. There are some in my own city. They believe that the Government no longer see them as people of importance within the community. They believe that the powers they would want to enable them to operate within local government are being taken away.
It is significant that Conservative Members who have defended local government in the House were absent from previous debates on the Bill. They seem to have given up the struggle against their Government. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) was conspicuous by his absence, as was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). They have all genuinely and bravely defended local government and it is significant that they seem to have given up the struggle.
The Conservative Government have broken the consensus about what should happen in the relationship with local government. They have been tempted, by what has happened in certain local authorities, to take powers to themselves which are not needed and which will ultimately prove to be counter-productive. Once that consensus is broken, I fear that they will have sown the wind and that they will therefore reap the whirlwind. Guillotining the Bill is callous in the extreme to local government and it adds insult to injury to the way in which the men and women who serve local authorities without fear or favour are treated by the Government. The Government will rue the day that they tabled the motion.
5.20 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: If any group has broken the consensus in local government, it is the extreme Left, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) gave an example. I could give another—Ealing.
I am surprised that the Labour party feels able to oppose any guillotine motion, as it was the Labour party which proposed no fewer than five guillotine motions in one day. Not one of those Bills had been considered in Committee on the Floor of the House, as has this one. The flimsiest of reasons was given for those motions. Indeed, they were anti-reasons for a draconian and, to my mind, anti-democratic action.
This Bill would validate a good deal of past expenditure and I am therefore surprised to hear the Labour Front Bench argue against it. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should know that the action of the Labour-controlled Greater London council, which imposed a rate increase of 100 per cent. and doubled bus and underground fares in 1981, would be invalid without the Bill. Many other actions which have to be permitted for democratic reasons, I suppose, would be validated. Among them is the expenditure by Ealing council of £140,000 for removing books from school and other libraries because they are considered racist and sexist. Without the motion, and therefore the Bill, such action is not legal, although it will in due course be rejected by the electorate. The £140,000 is intended to remove racist and sexist books such as "Robinson Crusoe" from Ealing schools. It is said to be racist because Man Friday has a subservient role and it is said to be sexist because there is no woman in it. That is an example of the absurd and wicked behaviour of some local authorities such as Ealing.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for interrupting his flow, but is this strictly relevant to the guillotine motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is relating his speech to the allocation of time motion, and I am sure that he will continue to do so.
Mr. Greenway: I am trying to describe what will happen if the motion, and therefore the Bill, is not passed. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West is one of the great filibusterers of the House. Filibustering is a skill in which he excels and, without a guillotine motion, he could no doubt prolong the discussion of the Bill himself. We must bear that fact in mind.
Actions such as I have described could not be scrutinised properly if the guillotine motion and the Bill were not passed. Ealing council is spending £5·25 per line advertising teachers' jobs in The Guardian rather than £2·25 advertising them in The Times Educational Supplement and Higher Education Supplement, which are a much more relevant recruiting ground. Such an abuse of expenditure and so much else will, by a great irony, be the better exposed if the Bill is passed.
Some £3·1 million is to be spent each year on a grand new office block for over-grand councillors. A substantial sum of money has been spent on bogus consultations of residents in the process of taking their allotments away from them so that they can be built on. Such behaviour could be better scrutinised if the Bill were enacted.
52
I should mention one such action in a little more detail so that the House understands what I mean by bogus consultations. There are a few plots of land in part of Greenford which are all taken up by residents. Ealing council proposes to confiscate the land and build council houses on it. It is surrounded by houses. A lady of 76, Mrs. Skillman, heard at a public meeting that her house would be acquired compulsorily—the first intimation she had of it.
Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point again, and I realise that the debate may range widely, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be making a constituency speech with no reference to the motion's title—
"Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will relate his speech to the motion.
Mr. Greenway: I most certainly will, Sir. We all know that the Labour party does not like to hear the truth about its colleagues in local government and the evil behaviour of Brent, Ealing, Haringey and the rest. It defends such councils, but I do not know how it can. This 76-year-old constituent, who has worked for 20 years with a sick husband to buy her house, needs the protection that the Bill, and therefore the motion, will afford. She has been victimised by a callous, wicked Labour council. I hope that Labour Members will see the meanness of their ways in encouraging them.
5.26 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I would have more respect for the time-wasting remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) if he had spent more time in the Chamber during our consideration of the Bill.
The arguments employed by the Leader of the House will not wash. It is not true that there has been a filibuster during the Bill's Committee stage. If there had been, my collegues from Birmingham and I would have—
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) made a very rude remark about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he left, but the hon. Gentleman sat down only two minutes ago and has himself rushed off. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is there."] He is going out of the door. I wonder whether it is in order to ask the hon. Gentleman to apologise to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate.
Mr. Davis: It is not true that there has been a filibuster. If there had been, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Birmingham would have taken part because we oppose the Bill to the greatest possible extent. Instead, we have waited patiently for amendments that affect the city of Birmingham to be considered. Even with the guillotine motion we will still debate those amendments, but there has been no time-wasting in the meantime.
It is especially inappropriate for the Leader of the House to move a timetable motion on this Bill because it was this Secretary of State who said on 16 December that the need for the Bill arose from inadequate scrutiny of previous legislation. The Government are now moving a

53
timetable motion which will curtail scrutiny of the Bill. I only hope that, some time in the future, the Secretary of State's successor will not tell the House that it must consider yet another Bill because there is a loophole in this legislation as a direct result of our not being able to give it proper scrutiny—because of the Government's draconian decision to move a timetable motion.
It would have been possible for the Government to provide adequate time. We could have come back earlier from the Christmas recess, we could have sat later in our two previous sittings, or the Government could have made more time available by providing more days. Instead, they are determined to bulldoze the Bill through, just as they have bulldozed through other local government legislation. This is a regrettable and deplorable decision and yet anoter example of the shabby way in which the Government treat local government.
5.30 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who opened the debate for the Opposition, on trying to prove to the House—unsuccessfully, I am afraid—that there is life after death. Having heard Labour Members' reactions to today's statement, I can assure the House that the Labour party is in terminal decline.
I should like to make a lesser and a greater point, and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say whether he intends to include them in the Bill at a later stage.
My first point is about the voting rights of co-opted members of education committees. It is quite sensible and understandable that the great majority of co-opted members, being very much in favour of education, would wish to see more money spent on education, because that is largely what they are there for. Co-opted members can sometimes sway decisions in favour of spending more money on education, and can sway those decisions against the majority on the local authority. Once that decision on the local education committee has been swayed it is sometimes very difficult, for quite understandable political reasons, for the majority party on the county council or local authority to reinstate the original situation. That sometimes leads to greater expenditure than would otherwise have been the will of the elected majority. Taxation without being representative is wrong, and something should be done about it.
My second and greater point concerns creative accounting. The Audit Commission has said that certain local authorities have creatively accounted and have sold assets on lease, and so on and so forth, to the extent of about £700 million. One of today's newspapers said that that figure could be a massive £5,000 million. We want to know what will happen because these are largely poor areas. Will the ratepayers of those areas have to pick up the tab at some stage, or will the general taxpayer have to pick up the tab? We ought to know.
There was once a noble bishop who, when confronted with a problem of great theological complexity, looked it straight in the eye and then passed by. I should like to think that the Government will not pass by this problem.
5.32 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I was surprised and somewhat gratified to figure so prominently
54
in the speech of the Leader of the House. Alas, lie greatly overrates my influence on Opposition Front Bench tactics, because, alas, my advice was ignored, as, I regret to say, it so often is.
I was brought into the justification for the motion. which is absurd. When I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) that he should "drag it out", I was not referring to the Secretary of State, nor was I inviting him to dress up in women's clothing, handsome though he might look. All I was trying to do was to make it clear to Conservative Members—not that there were many of them here then, nor are there many here now—that they should not, in any way, underestimate our intention to make a great fight of this.
The record has shown that far more responsible advice was taken on the Opposition Front Bench, and we have made a very good fist of the Bill. We have done so responsibly, and we have in no way done it by crying to prolong discussion.
The Minister knows, because he is handed briefs that he probably has not seen until a few minutes before, that it is a highly technical Bill. None of us can say that we fully understand it. I am absolutely convinced—the Minister would probably agree with me if he could get up and say so—mistakes have been made as the Bill has gone through the House in the amendments that have been moved by the Government and the amendments that have been refused by the Government, which we have tried to make. No one can be 100 per cent. sure, and there is a great case to be made out for going slowly and surely on the Bill. One of the reasons why the Government took such a leisurely pace was that amendments were coming hot off the press while Ministers were considering it.
I hope that the attitude that we have taken has always been consistent with our view that the Bill is profoundly misguided in certain fundamental respects. Great mistakes have undoubtedly been made. We believe that the Government have been trying to hurry the Bill through to frustrate legal challenge, but in hurrying it through in the way that they have they will lay the Bill open to further legal challenge at a later date. That is why I shall oppose the motion.
5.34 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I say at the outset that not only could there have been agreement about a short Bill with the aims and objectives of clarifying the law, but there could have been agreement on the timetable of such a Bill, as the Secretary of State well knows.
I emphasise that the Government cannot shelter any longer behind the excuse of shortness of time, when Ministers have known about that state of affairs since September. Such is the confusion and incompetence in the Government's affairs that even as recently as Friday yet another Bill was published, the Rate Support Grants Bill, in the explanatory and financial memorandum to which there is again our old friend of an excuse: the Bill is designed to remove uncertainty in the law. Within months of one Bill receiving Royal Assent, the House is considering a second Bill and yet a third one appears necessary to clarify the law.
If that was not sufficient reason for us to object to the Bill being railroaded through, I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment this afternoon—I thank him for this courtesy. He is trying to re-establish previous normal working relations by writing to me. It

55
would be instructive to tell the House what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. In his letter he makes it clear that the Government will again have to amend the Bill. He wrote:
"the amendment will relate to the information about total expenditure and rateable values to be used in making reports … it will be, as is the whole schedule highly technical and I am afraid rather long … It is very much in the local authority's interests that we get this schedule absolutely right and that is what my amendment will aim to do."
Incompetence, bordering on farce, has been a feature of our considerations of these matters. However, yet again we have a confession from the right hon. Gentleman, within days of previous denials, that major revision of the Government's legislation is again necessary before we have completed the Committee stage. That, of course, proves our point that this highly technical, highly complex legal and financial Bill has no place on the Floor of the House. As we argued from the outset, it should have been properly, carefully and slowly considered in Committee, before a proper Report stage.
What has happened now, in the way in which the timetable motion has been engineered and in the rather lame way in which it was moved by the Leader of the House—I am grateful that he is in his place—demonstrates the inadequacy of the procedures of the House when a Government are determined to railroad a Bill through, regardless of the consequences. As I have emphasised, we already have a further Bill, but we have not yet cleared up, nor do we appear able to, the major legal row about the Bill.
The point still at issue is that clause 4 contains a sweeping catch-all immunity for the Secretary of State from legal challenge in the courts, which is unprecedented, so far as we can tell, in modern legislation. [Interruption.] I emphasise that we share the widespread concern—the Secretary of State again murmurs that we are wrong—that he has failed adequately to define the immunities that he is seeking in the Bill. His inability to be clear about that was apparent in his somewhat contradictory remarks and in his uncertainty in response to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on Wednesday 21 January at column 995 of the Official Report.
Obviously, many provisions of part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, 1980 are not dependent on total or relevant expenditure definitions, as we have constantly argued. Examples are the Secretary of State's duty to consult local authority associations; determination of the aggregate amount of domestic rate relief grant; calculation of block grant to each authority—deduction from total expenditure of the product of grant-related poundage multiplied by gross rateable value; the principles to be specified in the rate support grant report; the power of the Secretary of State to apply multipliers to the product of GRP multiplied by GRV; and the duty to frame guidance by reference to principles applicable to all authorities. None of those things is dependent upon definitions of total or relevant expenditure, and all of them are affected by the sweeping provisions for immunity that the Secretary of State is seeking.
We make no apology for saying that it is the duty of the House rigorously to examine those matters and to be satisfied about them before we can allow the Bill to pass.
56
Why should the Secretary of State's decisions on all those issues be immune from legal challenge? Why are clause 4(1) and (2) not much more carefully qualified than at present? We have similar major reservations about the provisions with respect to rates limitation in clause 6.
If the Government were seeking simply to validate retrospectively past decisions for the reasons claimed—that is, reasons of the definition of total or relevant expenditure—decisions taken for the financial year 1987–88 would have been included in clause 6(2). Those decisions would then have been for the purpose of part I of the Rates Act 1984.
We have had no answer on this point, either. It seems clear that decisions on the 1987–88 rate limitations are, in clause 6(3), for a particular reason. Under the clause, decisions are
"For the purposes of section 7 below and Schedule 2 to this Act".
They are not for the purposes of part I of the 1984 Act. In other words, it appears that at some point in the process of determining rate limitation for the coming financial year, but before the introduction of the Bill, the Secretary of State deliberately stopped taking decisions that he had a duty to take. He stopped taking those decisions in the context of the Rates Act 1984 and instead he began to act, presumably under the guidance of decisions in the context of the forthcoming legislation—the Bill—which was yet to be introduced to the House. That is an extraordinary state of affairs for a Secretary of State to find himself in, I agree, but it is an unsatisfactory way for him to act. I should like at some time, either now or later, some confirmation that that is the case.
The Secretary of State could well be forgiven for reflecting on the words of John Gay:
"I know you lawyers can, with ease.
Twist words and meanings as you please."
The right hon. Gentleman, seems to have been doing a little of that himself while the Committee has considered the implications of the legislation.
We cannot accept the timetable motion. It is unreasonable, in the circumstances in which the House finds itself, to suggest that a timetable motion is necessary at all. I have no doubt that we shall discover that in another place their Lordships will have some searching questions to ask, not only about the provisions of the Bill but about the reason why they were not more carefully scrutinised and why more time was not allowed in the House before the Bill went to another place.
For those reasons I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.
5.45 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I should like to deal first with two extraneous points. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked whether the Bill would prevent the co-option of non-elected people to education committees. It does not have that effect.
Mr. Marlow: I was suggesting that those people should not have voting rights, not that they should not be co-opted.
Mr. Ridley: Indeed, but the Bill does not affect that. The matter would have to be the subject of a separate piece of legislation.
The other matter that was irrelevant to the Bill was raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr.

57
Cunningham), who mentioned the Rate Support Grants Bill, about which he was warned in July, September and December. He appears to have forgotten that the Government have always said that they would abolish grant recycling. For the hon. Gentleman to try to draw that into this discussion is ridiculous. It shows how right the Government are to introduce the timetable motion.
I shall not rehearse the urgent reasons for which the Bill is required because the House know them very well. I think that Opposition Members will find that local authorities will be keen to see the Bill on the statute book so that they know where they are.
There have been extraordinary examples of filibuster, particularly this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) came to the debate from the cold, not having the faintest idea what the Bill or our discussions were all about. He talked for 20 minutes. Your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was remarkable. I congratulate you upon it, letting that drivel from the right hon. Gentleman run on. I am sure that once the motion is passed, as it will be, the right hon. Gentleman will go away from the Committee and never be seen again. He was right when he said that he knew nothing about the rate support grant. I think that he said that he has been in the House for 26 years—
Mr. Williams: It is 23 years.
Mr. Ridley: Twenty three years. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he knew nothing about the rate support grant. That was absolutely right. He would be wiser to absent himself from all matters connected with local government after his pathetic filibuster this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman accused me of misleading the House. That is a serious charge, and it is not true. I nearly asked him to withdraw it, because I have been absolutely frank with the House throughout the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present at our discussions and taken the slightest bit of notice, he would not have dared to make that charge, so I invite him to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Williams: I do not withdraw that remark, and invite the Secretary of State to look at his own comments, as quoted from Hansard, in which he gave one date on one occasion and another date on the other. He made no attempt to apologise. It is not for me to withdraw; it is for the right hon. Gentleman to apologise.
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has compounded his error. He has not read Hansard properly. He will know perfectly well that I told the House that, at the end of September, I received from my officials advice that the total expenditure definition was doubtful. I therefore told the House that I sought legal advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which was received on 21 October—I am sorry; at the end of October. The right hon. Gentleman must now realise that what I said was absolutely right. I did not know that there was a problem that had to be legislated upon until I received that advice. Therefore, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would now withdraw that accusation.
Dr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Ridley: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I was talking to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.
Dr. Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
Mr. Ridley: I have not given way.
Dr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood the Secretary of State to say that he had not given way.
Mr. Ridley: I was giving way to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must look at the Official Report for 16 December, when the Secretary of State said:
"The first intimation I had that the legal advice was as I have described it was towards the end of October and this was confirmed in a second opinion".—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c.1053.]
On Second Reading the Secretary of State announced that he knew in September. The conclusion that one is left with is that it is not good enough simply to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman says; one has to see whether his eyes are rolling as he says it.
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has not done his homework, and would not understand even if he had. I bitterly resent what he is saying because it is an unfair and untrue charge, and I shall ask him to withdraw it. On Second Reading I said perfectly clearly that I was told that there was doubt about the definition of total expenditure at the end of September. I then received legal advice, and it was not until then that it was known that it was necessary to legislate. That is what I have said throughout, and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman sitting there shaking his head. He has made a mess of his speech this afternoon and he should withdraw from the debate if he does not understand it.
Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State is struggling in a quagmire of his own making. On 16 December I asked:
"For how long has the Secretary of State known of this situation? When did he first receive the legal advice to which he referred?"
The Secretary of State replied:
"The first intimation I had that the legal advice was as I have described it was towards the end of October, and this was confirmed in a second opinion."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 1401, c. 1052–53.]
We now know that the Secretary of State had known about it since September. He has caused the confusion, and he has been less than candid with the House.
Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman get this point straight, please? Officials told me that there was a problem and legal advice was needed to resolve it. That was at the end of September. The legal advice was recieved at the end of October, and that is what I referred to when answering his question. I said that the first time that I received legal advice was at the end of October. I would now be grateful if the right hon. Member for Swansea, West would please withdraw his offensive remarks. He cannot come into a debate, make an accusation of that sort and expect to get away with it.
Mr. Williams: I value my integrity in the House as much as the right hon. Gentleman values his. I have never maligned an hon. Member, and if I have ever done anything in the House that I felt was wrong I have been willing to withdraw it. In this case I am absolutely correct; the circumstances are as reported in Hansard, and as I have described them in my speech.
Mr. Ridley: The House will know that the hon. Gentleman cannot be relied upon to do the decent thing in a situation such as this.
We have already had 14 hours 50 minutes of debate in Committee, two and a half hours of which was spent on procedural motions and points of order. During those two long days only 17 groups of amendments were considered and 25 groups of amendments remain provisionally selected by the Chairman. At this rate we shall need three more days in Committee alone.
Mr. Tony Banks: So what?
Mr. Ridley: Authorities might not receive any grant. The Opposition have had a bad time recently on everything from defence to their extraordinary attempt to counter the sort of points that my hon. Friends forEaling, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) were so rightly emphasising in the debate this afternoon. This is a pathetic attempt to accuse decent, efficient Tory councils of meanness. They dropped that pretty quickly. Then we had the extraordinary visit to Bishop's Stortford, when the Opposition announced that a financial collapse was imminent. The stock exchange went up 19·5 points on the day and 65 points on the week, having digested the economic policies of the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Copeland thought that the Bill would be different. He thought that he would be able to make his reputation without slipping on a banana skin. He thought that there was potential for him to put right the appalling blunders of the Labour party on the Bill.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that I have served on all 12 local government Bills introduced since 1979? The major difference between this Bill and the others has been the conduct of the Government, the Secretary of State and other Ministers. The Secretary of State has treated the House, the Opposition and local government with more contempt than any of his predecessors and he should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Ridley: The major difference is that the Opposition have not understood the Bill. The hon. Member for Copeland certainly has not understood the Bill. To coin a phrase, the hon. Gentleman has been making bricks without straw. He invented the first scare that I was putting myself above the law in some way, and the other scare that the Bill contained draconian, centralising powers, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) called them.
It is odd that the hon. Member for Copeland sought to make the point on a point of order on Wednesday afternoon when it was not remotely a point of order and when he knew that the debate of substance would not be reached until late that night. He knew that I could not reply on the point of order; he knew that he was talking rubbish, and he hoped that it would be picked up by the press because he made it at 3.30 pm when he hoped that the press would be there. I thought that was a shabby trick. The hon. Gentleman knows what a point of order is, and he knew that what he was saying was not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman did not bother to raise the matter in the clause 4 stand part debate; he left it to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who accepted the Government's case on that matter entirely, and when he received my letter today he realised how wrong he was.
Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ridley: Sit down. I will give way when I feel like it. The hon. Member for Copeland is trying to make accusations about the Bill which will stick in prime time because he knows, as all my hon. Friends know, that what the Bill does is validate the past in the way that I always said it did.
Mr. Straw: I would have accused the Secretary of State of seeking to mislead the House in suggesting that I had accepted the Government's case had I not thought that it was a joke. The Secretary of State was present during the debates on 19 January about the effect of clause 4(6). Would he like to quote one single word or sentence where I intimated that I had accepted the Government's case?
Mr. Ridley: I was accusing the hon. Member for Copeland of making bricks without straw. If he had straw with him, I am happy to admit that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, as well as his hon. Friend. I was trying to pay him a compliment by saying that he was the only Member on the Opposition Benches who knows what the Bill does.
The Bill simply validates all that was done because of the definition of the law not being as everybody thought it was. I admit that it is more complicated than we would all like, but the great mistake that the Opposition have made is to think that it puts me above the law or gives me excessive centralising draconian powers. There is not a single word of truth in that at all. It is right we should debate the Bill for the rest of the day and put it on the statute book as quickly as we can.
5.59 pm
Mr. Michael Hancock: If ever there was a reason why we should not rush to vote on the guillotine motion, we have just heard it. It must surely have reinforced the doubt that every hon. Member must feel that the Secretary of State is the only person here who understands the Bill because he is so vague about its concept and ambitions.
On 21 January the Minister for Local Government said:
"I shall have to be careful with the words because all these words mean something and have to be interpreted … I try to interpret them for myself at the same time as I interpret them for the Committee and five minutes later I wonder if I have. I should prefer to write to the hon. Member"—
that is me—
"about this".—[Official Report, 21 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 981.]
If a Minister in the Department promoting the Bill has doubts about the interpretation of the words in it—much of what has gone on before is about the way in which those words will be interpreted and the way in which local authorities will have to respond—the Secretary of State must surely see the merits of allowing the House to go into a proper Committee stage to try to draw from him and his colleagues the real meaning and implication of their words.
The Minister of State is dead right—words mean something and they must be interpreted correctly. Much of what has happened in the 15 hours in which we have discussed the Bill will lead to a gross misinterpretation of what the Bill is about and will undoubtedly mean that many local authorities will be drawn into expensive legal battles with the Government. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) talked about the shambles that had occurred in many Labour authorities in London. I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to the

61
shambles that will occur if he adopts the powers that the Bill would give him. In answer to me last week in the House he said that Hampshire county council could levy a rate not in excess of 1·5 per cent. His Department told Hampshire county council that it would be happy if that rate increase was 4 per cent. greater than that—some 5·8 per cent. A real shambles would occur if Hampshire adopted that policy. It would mean that about £20 million worth of cuts would have to be made. It would mean fewer policemen, firemen and social workers. It would mean cuts in education. It would mean a really regressive and nasty turn for services in Hampshire. The council would have to make £20 million worth of cuts if it took the Secretary of State's advice.
The Secretary of State tried to score a cheap and silly political point in answering my question. Unfortunately, the substance of the Bill is a silly political point. Surely we have a responsibility to expose that and to try to get the Secretary of State to come to the House with the integrity and honesty that is needed to spell out what is meant by some of the terms in the Bill. Many of the amendments that will be before us later this evening are probing amendments—they have to be, by the very complexity of the subject before us. They hope to probe and bring out the reasons behind the Bill, to discover who will be affected by it and what powers the Secretary of State will have. The shambles is here for all to see—we do not have to quote chapter and verse from our own experiences in local authorities.
To do our job properly we must devote time and energy, and the Government must provide that time, to examining the Bill properly. That will not be possible with the timetable motion before us. I fully understand the embarrassment felt by the Leader of the House at having to present such a motion because he, above all, must realise that it is not giving the local authorities a fair chance and certainly not giving the House a fair chance to examine a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 173.

Division No. 70]

[6.05 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brooke, Hon Peter

Alexander, Richard

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Amess, David

Browne, John

Ancram, Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Arnold, Tom

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Buck, Sir Antony

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Budgen, Nick

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

Burt, Alistair

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Butcher, John

Batiste, Spencer

Butterfill, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Bellingham, Henry

Cash, William

Bendall, Vivian

Chapman, Sydney

Benyon, William

Chope, Christopher

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Churchill, W. S.

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Blackburn, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bottomley, Peter

Cockeram, Eric

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

Colvin, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Conway, Derek

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Coombs, Simon

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Cope, John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Couchman, James

Bright, Graham

Cranborne, Viscount

Brinton, Tim

Critchley, Julian

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Crouch, David

62

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Mates, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Mather, Sir Carol

Dorrell, Stephen

Maude, Hon Francis

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Dover, Den

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Mellor, David

Dunn, Robert

Merchant, Piers

Durant, Tony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Eggar, Tim

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Evennett, David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Moate, Roger

Farr, Sir John

Monro, Sir Hector

Favell, Anthony

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Moore, Rt Hon John

Fletcher, Sir Alexander

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Moynihan, Hon C.

Forman, Nigel

Mudd, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Neale, Gerrard

Forth, Eric

Nelson, Anthony

Galley, Roy

Neubert, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Newton, Tony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Nicholls, Patrick

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Onslow, Cranley

Gow, Ian

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gower, Sir Raymond

Ottaway, Richard

Greenway, Harry

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Pawsey, James

Hannam, John

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Harris, David

Pollock, Alexander

Hayes, J.

Powell, William (Corby)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Powley, John

Heddle, John

Price, Sir David

Hicks, Robert

Proctor, K. Harvey

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Raffan, Keith

Hind, Kenneth

Rathbone, Tim

Hirst, Michael

Renton, Tim

Holt, Richard

Rhodes James, Robert

Howard, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Jackson, Robert

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Key, Robert

Rost, Peter

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Rowe, Andrew

Knowles, Michael

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Knox, David

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lang, Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Latham, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lester, Jim

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Shersby, Michael

Lightbown, David

Silvester, Fred

Lilley, Peter

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Speed, Keith

Lord, Michael

Speller, Tony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Spencer, Derek

Lyell, Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McCrindle, Robert

Stanbrook, Ivor

Macfarlane, Neil

Stanley, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

McQuarrie, Albert

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Madel, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Major, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Malone, Gerald

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Marland, Paul

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marlow, Antony

Terlezki, Stefan

63

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Watts, John

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Thornton, Malcolm

Wheeler, John

Thurnham, Peter

Whitfield, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Raymond

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wiggin, Jerry

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Trippier, David

Wood, Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Woodcock, Michael

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Yeo, Tim

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walters, Dennis

Mr. Richard Ryder and

Ward, John

Mr. Michael Portillo.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Foulkes, George

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Alton, David

Freud, Clement

Anderson, Donald

George, Bruce

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Godman, Dr Norman

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Gould, Bryan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gourlay, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Bell, Stuart

Hancock, Michael

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

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Bermingham, Gerald

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bidwell, Sydney

Heffer, Eric S.

Blair, Anthony

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Boyes, Roland

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hoyle, Douglas

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Janner, Hon Greville

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Kennedy, Charles

Cartwright, John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Lambie, David

Clarke, Thomas

Lamond, James

Clay, Robert

Leadbitter, Ted

Clelland, David Gordon

Leighton, Ronald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Litherland, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Corbett, Robin

Loyden, Edward

Corbyn, Jeremy

McCartney, Hugh

Crowther, Stan

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cunningham, Dr John

Maclennan, Robert

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

McNamara, Kevin

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

McTaggart, Robert

Deakins, Eric

McWilliam, John

Dixon, Donald

Madden, Max

Dormand, Jack

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Douglas, Dick

Martin, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Eadie, Alex

Maxton, John

Eastham, Ken

Maynard, Miss Joan

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Meacher, Michael

Fatchett, Derek

Meadowcroft, Michael

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Michie, William

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Mikardo, Ian

Fisher, Mark

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Forrester, John

Nellist, David

Foster, Derek

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

64

O'Brien, William

Skinner, Dennis

O'Neill, Martin

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

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

Park, George

Snape, Peter

Patchett, Terry

Soley, Clive

Pavitt, Laurie

Spearing, Nigel

Pendry, Tom

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Pike, Peter

Stott, Roger

Prescott, John

Straw, Jack

Radice, Giles

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Randall, Stuart

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Raynsford, Nick

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Redmond, Martin

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Tinn, James

Richardson, Ms Jo

Torney, Tom

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wainwright, R.

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Robertson, George

Wareing, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Welsh, Michael

Rooker, J. W.

White, James

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Rowlands, Ted

Wilson, Gordon

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Sheerman, Barry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Mr. Frank Haynes and

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

Mr. Ray Powell.

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee, Report and Third Reading
1 .—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill and the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day.
(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Proceedings on going into Committee
2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question, and the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.
Order of proceedings
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Dilatory Motions
5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on the alloted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
6.—(1) On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders,

65
be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others):

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Memberm, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are
66
to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that. Motion.
Supplemental orders
9.— (1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the alloted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed by this Order for any proceedings on the Bill to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or

(b) prevent any business from being proceeded with on the allotted day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
11. —(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On the allotted day no debate shall he permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
12. In this Order—
"allotted day" means a day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  Committee [Progress 21 January]
  [SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

  Local Government Finance Bill
    Clause 5

      FURTHER PROVISION AS TO FUTURE
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 5, line 9, after 'years', insert
      'unless the accounts for the intermediate year were certified by the auditors for the local authority before 16th December 1986'.
      Before we can consider amendment No. 87, we need to consider clause 5 because this is the first debate that we have had on this clause. But before we consider clause 5, we must look back at clause 3, which we have already considered. Clause 3 provides for the definition of relevant and total expenditure for the year 1987–88 and for subsequent years. As a result of clause 5, the same definition is to apply, after the passing of the Bill for the years 1983–84 to 1986–87. These past years are described as the "intermediate years".
      The amendment would benefit the city of Birmingham council. To the best of my knowledge, it would benefit only the city of Birmingham. It is designed to benefit Birmingham specifically in respect of expenditure for 1984–85, for which the accounts have already been audited and certified by the auditors. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to what I would describe as the Birmingham problem. In response to my intervention, he said:
      "Birmingham council moved a sum of money which it did not have into a special fund, and at a later stage it moved that money back into the rate fund, thereby claiming grant."—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 45.]
      Later, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Secretary of State went on to say, again in relation to Birmingham:
      "But if there were no funds and the funds that were shifted did not exist, then I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree with me that that was a fiddle."—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 104.]
      It was clear that the Secretary of State believed that Birmingham had made a paper transaction involving money that did not exist. I was especially concerned by his reference to "a fiddle" and discussed the matter with the city treasurer immediately after Second Reading and on several other occasions. The present city treasurer was not the treasurer in Birmingham at the time of the transaction in 1984–85, but he assures me that there is no question of the council cheating. Indeed, he has authorised me to say on his behalf that he will give a categoric assurance that nothing untoward or underhand was done by the city of Birmingham in 1984–85 in its handling of its accounts.
      On 15 January, the city treasurer, Mr. Farrar, wrote to the under-secretary in charge of local government finance
      68
      policy in the Department of the Environment, Mr. Brearley, to make similar comments to him, and through him to the Secretary of State. Mr. Farrar said:
      "Comments made by the Secretary of State during the course of the second reading debate on the Bill, however, indicate that he is under a basic misconception as to Birmingham's position … It is not right to suggest as the Secretary of State seems to do … that Birmingham's fund contribution in 1984–85 equal to the rate fund deficit 'did not exist'."
      As the city treasurer explained to Mr. Brearley, the city council operates, like all local government, on the basis of receipts and payments during a financial year. Unlike central Government, year end accounts are drawn up on an income and expenditure basis, including accruals for debtors and creditors. It follows that a year end deficit does not automatically mean a cash deficit. I repeat that there was no question of the city transferring money that it did not have. The money was in its account. But as we can see from reports from the former city treasurer—Mr. Sabin, who has left to become chief executive of Kent county council—the city of Birmingham was under-spending considerably compared with its budgeted expenditure for 1984–85, so he suggested to the council that a sum equivalent to the underspend should be transferred to a special fund to be called the supply of goods and services fund.
      There was some correspondence about the transfer while the city's accounts were being audited—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is making noises from a sedentary position. No doubt he is agreeing that there was some correspondence, of which he has copies. There was nothing underhand about the way in which the city treasurer and the council, with the agreement of Conservative and Labour councillors, behaved in this matter. They have hidden nothing from the Government. It is the Government who are behaving deplorably and deserve to be criticised.
      There was some correspondence between the Audit Commission and the city's auditors, Price Waterhouse. I have a copy of a letter, which has also been provided to the Secretary of State, dated 31 January 1986 from Mr. I. M. Pickwell of the Audit Commission to Mr. J. Layton of Price Waterhouse. Mr. Pickwell said that he had some doubts whether the transfer could be regarded as legitimate expenditure. He said:
      "Underlying these thoughts of course is my own view that a local authority has a basic duty to fix a balanced budget for the year and to seek to conduct its business so that it remains 'in balance'."
      The city's solicitor wrote to Price Waterhouse with regard to this point and explained that there was no question of the city council being unable to finance its end of year deficit without recourse to borrowing. It did not need to borrow money because it had cash. He explained that the city had underspent and that it had transferred an equivalent sum to a special fund. The same practice had occurred the previous year.
      On the basis of that correspondence, Price Waterhouse wrote to Mr. Pickwell of the Audit Commission saying:
      "In certain circumstances you may judge a transfer to a fund to be unreasonable when, for example, a transfer should only be financed by way of unauthorised borrowing, but we have no evidence to justify these comments in connection with the City's position."
      In his letter, the city's solicitor also examined the suggestion that the year end deficit had occurred as a result of the transfer. He told Price Waterhouse:

      69
      "It is wrong to assume a causal link between the decision to make the fund contribution and the end of year deficit. The City Treasurer reported to the Finance and Management Committee on 10th April 1985 that the deficit arose not from overspending the 1984–85 budget but from a combination of factors, the most significant being block grant and rate proceed losses in 1984–85 and previous years."
      The deficit arose because of accounting adjustments, not because of the way in which the council had conducted its affairs.
      After examining this matter and the books, Price Waterhouse wrote again to the Audit Commission on 21 March, saying:
      "We have examined the legislation and whilst tenable arguments exist for your reservations, on balance, we tend to favour the views put forward by the City. We take this view since it seems to us that the City's discretion to create funds is unfettered."
      That was on 21 March—six months before the Secretary of State said that he began to have doubts about the legality of the way in which he proposed to treat council expenditure. On 16 May 1986, Mr. Layton of Price Waterhouse told the Department of the Environment:
      "We have considered this issue in some detail and have concluded that the contribution is a lawful charge on the City's accounts and its effect has been properly shown on the face of the grant claim."
      That correspondence shows that Birmingham council acted honourably and above board in these matters. The transfer to a special fund had occurred previously. In 1983–84, the then Conservative-controlled city council had transferred an even larger amount to a special fund described as the special projects repairs and renewals fund. It follows that this practice was not abnormal. It was not invented for the 1984–85 budget and, in the face of the auditor's certificate for that year, the Secretary of State is wrong to try to revise the amount and to insist on removing £8 million from the city of Birmingham.
      This is not just a case of accounting practice. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the point. He said:
      "On examining our Scottish practices in the light of the problems which have emerged in England and Wales, we discovered that we have counted as expenditure transfers between the general rate fund and special funds in assessing authorities' expenditure for the purpose of imposing grant penalties. According to the system we operate"—
      that is, the system in Scotland—
      "we would also have been prepared to count such transfers as expenditure had they occurred in the accounts of authorities for whom we were proposing a rate reduction."—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 109.]
      We therefore have evidence from the auditors and from the Government that the council's actions were not abnormal, were not an underhanded method of cheating and were not, as the Secretary of State claimed on Second Reading, "a fiddle". They were above board, honest and open, and the accounts were certified by the auditors.
      We have restricted our amendment to Birmingham because the city's accounts were audited and certified before the Secretary of State's announcement in the House on 16 December. We are not trying to open a loophole that other councils could exploit or that Birmingham could exploit in the future. We are concentrating entirely on 1984–85, which is an important year because the Secretary of State's decision, as contained in the Bill and which he communicated to the city council, will mean that the city will lose £8 million, despite the fact that it made the decision above board and with the agreement of the Conservative and Labour parties on the council.
      70
      In our view, the entire Bill is unjustified, but this aspect of the Secretary of State's behaviour is totally unjustified. I urge him, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment and to restore the £8 million to the city of Birmingham.
      6.30 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) for setting out the case clearly. The matter is complicated, so I am sure that the Committee will bear with me if I give a fairly long. careful and detailed answer. I hope to convince the House that no injustice is being done and that everything is as it should be.
      First, I shall say a few words about the amendment, not in any sense to rest on my case that it is defective, which it is, but just to dispose of that point before we come to the substance of the Birmingham matter.
      The amendment relates to the years 1983–84 to 1986–87 in England and 1984–85 to 1986–87 in Wales. These are the years in respect of which we intend to make further supplementary reports. At the outset I should make one point clear. All authorities have known that for these years further supplementary reports are intended and they have therefore been aware that the amounts of block grant payable for those years is likely to change.
      The amendment would have the effect that the definition of relevant and total expenditure in clause 5 would not apply to authorities whose accounts for any one of the intermediate years had been certified by their auditors before 16 December 1986 for that year. This would mean that in practice it would be impossible to make another supplementary report for any year for which one authority had had its accounts certified by the auditors. This is simply not sensible and I recommend that the amendment be not made. I shall not rest further on that other than to say that that is not the way to achieve what the hon. Member for Hodge Hill seeks to achieve.
      The amendment is misconceived also as a device to help Birmingham and the 12 other authorities that may have engaged in what is known as deficit financing. Auditors are responsible for certifying that the accounts are correct. I have a totally different responsibility. I have a responsibility to the House of Commons and to the other authorities because block grant is close ended. My responsibility is to administer the rate support grant equitably and in accordance with current legislation, principally our old friend the 1980 Act. Those two responsibilities are quite different. Birmingham and the other local authorities appear to have—I have not reached any final view about this because we are still trying to get full details—
      Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the Secretary of State saying that auditors, whether Price Waterhouse or anyone else, act under no legal constraints? Is he saying that they simply have to say "These are correct"? That surely cannot be the position.
      Mr. Ridley: Auditors have one clearly defined function and they have their own body of law which governs what they should do. I operate in a totally different area. Under the 1980 Act, I am responsible to Parliament for administering the rate support grant system. If I administer it wrongly or unfairly I can be challenged in court by the other authorities that will suffer. Just because

      71
      an auditor approves or disapproves of something, it does not follow that I pay or do not pay grant as a result. I must pay grant according to the rate support grant law, not according to what the auditor says.
      In 1984–85, Birmingham created its supply of goods and services fund, which the hon. Member for Hodge Hill mentioned, and contributed £15,545,000 from its general rate fund to the new fund. By making this contribution, its rate fund revenue account ended the year with a £7,450,980 deficit; that is, about half the money was there, but the other half was not.
      Had Birmingham contributed only half of its general rate fund, that is about £7·5 million, to this fund, we estimate that it would not have incurred a deficit and that its total expenditure would have been nearly £8 million lower. Such a transaction would not cause concern for rate support grant purposes.
      In 1984–85, Birmingham was on a positive marginal rate of grant, so the higher its total expenditure the more block grant it received. Contributions to special funds add to total expenditure and an extra £8 million would result in a gain to the city of about £0·4 million of block grant for that year.
      In 1985–86, Birmingham was on a negative marginal rate of grant. By reducing total expenditure by £8 million, it would gain about £17·3 million in block grant. Taking the two years together, therefore, these transactions imply a block grant gain of about £17·7 million, largely representing reduced holdback and therefore at the expense of the Exchequer.
      The question for me is, should I pay this grant? First, I must make it clear that I am not in a position to take a final view on the matter today, statutorily or otherwise. The city council may wish to make further representations. I wish to consider what other councils in a similar position say to me. In short, I retain an open mind. However, I can give an indication of my preliminary view in the light of the papers that Birmingham has sent to me. Those papers make the following matters clear.
      First, the council took a decision to put a certain sum into a special fund knowing that that would create a deficit on the general rate fund. It did that to gain an increased entitlement to block grant.
      Secondly, the Audit Commission, when asked about the proposed action, expressed considerable reservations, as the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will know, having seen the correspondence, and suggested that the city council's auditors draw it to the attention of my Department.
      Thirdly, although the auditors took the view that the transaction was lawful, they agreed to draw it to the attention of my Department to consider the rate support grant implications. They did that in the letter of 16 May 1986.
      The issue this practice raises is whether it is right and equitable that I, as Secretary of State, should agree to pay grant on figures for total expenditure affected by this practice. Deficit financing is a game that any authority can play. It requires no money. Are the Opposition really suggesting that the distribution of grant should be at the whim of authorities which choose to adopt this practice to any extent they please?
      If Birmingham had run up as a deficit not £8 million but £80 million or even £800 million, the consequences in the grant that it would have attracted would have been
      72
      infinitely greater. Hon. Members will agree that it cannot be right that grant should be obtained simply by this method.
      Ms. Clare Short: The Secretary of State said that the question was whether it was right or equitable for Birmingham and other authorities to have done that. That is not the question. The question tonight is whether it is right for him to take powers to change the law retrospectively. The debate is not about what we all think is moral, right and fair in terms of local government finance. It is about retrospection in legislation.
      Mr. Ridley: I am coming to that point. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will listen, I will answer that point fully. Some hon. Members suggested, as she did, that I might be taking action against Birmingham by sheltering behind powers in this Local Government Finance Bill which I did not previously have. That is not the case. I do not wish to traduce her, but there seemed to be an acceptance in what the hon. Member for Ladywood said that there was perhaps some justification for me to look at this practice with considerable concern.
      Any hon. Member may intervene if he thinks that I have not convinced him that to run up a deficit on one account to put it in and out of a special account might be an unfair way of getting block grant at the expense of other authorities.
      Ms. Clare Short: I wish to put it on record that it is my view, having considered all the details, that there was nothing dishonourable or wrong in what Birmingham did. It is the duty of Birmingham to maximise the sum that it can obtain from central Government to provide for the needs and the services of Birmingham. The Secretary of State must not introduce any suggestion of fiddling. There was no such inference to be drawn from my previous remarks.
      Mr. Ridley: I merely implied that I do not think that the Committee would consider that I should pay grant in the circumstances that I have outlined. I think that the circumstances are as I have described them, but I shall not be sure of that until all the facts are before me.
      Mr. Terry Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is being fair in the way in which he is approaching the comments of my hon. Friends. He is putting an emphasis on motivation and suggesting that the city council decided to maximise grant and obtained money that would not otherwise have been made available to it. Has he read the report of the city treasurer to the finance and management committee of 28 January 1985, which sets out the reasons for the city treasurer's recommendation that a special fund should be created?
      Mr. Ridley: Without checking, I am not sure whether I have read that letter. I have read all the correspondence that was sent to me. I cannot check the date of the letter—
      Mr. Terry Davis: It is a report, not a letter.
      Mr. Ridley: I have read everything that was sent to me. If the report was sent to me, I have read it. Obviously I cannot remember the date of every letter and report. It appeared from the correspondence that the city council acted deliberately. It realised that it would gain more block

      73
      grant by acting in that way. There is nothing wrong in that and I am not saying that the council was wrong. The Committee has to consider whether it would be right—
      Mr. Corbett: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it acted illegally?
      Mr. Ridley: It was not an illegal act. The Committee has to decide whether it would be right for me to pay block grant on the transaction. Birmingham can try every tactic that it likes but I have to accept only that which other authorities and the law would regard as reasonable.
      The position, on what I am advised is the proper interpretation of existing statutes, is this. Before the Bill is enacted, the law provides that no transfers from the general rate fund to special funds would count as relevant expenditure, whether creating a deficit or not. If we had proceeded to court to resolve this matter prior to the Bill becoming an Act, there would have been no question of Birmingham receiving any money. The reason for the Bill is to make the law such that transactions between the rate fund and the special fund will attract grant. With the present state of the law, it would not attract grant.
      On the basis of current practice, I would have taken steps to ensure that authorities could not gain grant unfairly by deficit financing once I had discovered that deficit financing was taking place. The way in which I have operated the system is to have paid block grant on the basis of the best information available to me about authorities' total expenditures. If an authority submitted a figure of total expenditure which I considered was not a fair statement of its expenditure, I would seek to replace that figure with one which was a fair statement of total expenditure, on the ground that the replacement figure represented the best available information. Before using this figure, I would give the authority involved the opportunity to comment. If all had been well with my powers, I would have continued to act in that way to prevent authorities from gaining unfair advantage through deficit financing once it had come to light that it was happening.
      Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's remarks about deficit financing. Does he agree that there is a factor to which he has not referred which further confuses the issue, which is the argument over what is deficit financing? Leeds city council's representations to the Department of the Environment include the claim that it did not put the account in deficit in the way that he suggests. There is a series of complicated figures and it is suggested that putting together the transport grant and everything else produces an artificial figure of the sort that is set out in the right hon. Gentleman's allegations about the actions of Leeds city council. The city council argues that the Department has taken an incorrect approach. I should like to know what is being done to resolve this arithmetical problem, which does not involve moral, legal or retrospective considerations.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Ridley: I have not mentioned Leeds, but I have said that we want to get at the facts, which will show what every authority has done in the group that we are considering. We want to analyse what has happened and then to talk to the authorities before coming to a firm conclusion whether grant should be paid. We can resolve the issue of
      74
      what Leeds city council has done by the council coming to my Department and giving it the full details. We shall form a view in the light of what we learn. As I have explained, the deficit financing issue first came to light in a letter from the Birmingham auditors of 16 May. That is when we started to examine our powers, and we concluded that the practice followed in calculating the relevant and total expenditure was incorrect in law. That in turn led to the advice which I received from my officials at the end of September, which was that I should take legal advice on whether the definition was wrong and whether we should legislate in the way that the Bill seeks to do.
      The Bill enables total expenditure to be calculated in line with the practice that we have adopted. It will provide that transfers to special funds count within relevant, and therefore total, expenditure. It will provide also that I may specify adjustments to relevant expenditure that would enable certain sorts of transfer, such as deficit financing of special funds, to be excluded. These specifications will, of course, be subject to the scrutiny of the court in the normal way, as were directions on total expenditure under the 1980 Act. Any decision that I would have taken if it had not been necessary to introduce the Bill, or that I may take despite the fact that we have the Bill, will be subject to judicial review if any authority decides that it would like to take that course.
      There are two classes of authority which might feel that they wish to take legal action. One group consists of the Birmingham and Leeds type of authority which has been engaging in deficit financing, and the other of all the authorities which have not been, which might feel that they would lose grant as a result of the grant paid to deficit financers.
      To sum up, my current belief, subject to any further evidence that I may receive, is that it would be inequitable to pay grant that reflects deficit financing of special funds, either now or under the Bill. On the basis of the present statutes, deficit financing could not count for grant purposes. I am sure that local authorities would not want me to take account of deficit financing when paying grants. Under the Bill it will be open to me to make specifications that will exclude deficit financing from relevant and total expenditure. Those specifications will be subject to the scrutiny of the court in the normal way.
      I must advise the Committee to reject the amendment. It would not achieve that which the hon. Member for Hodge Hill wishes. Great interest has been shown in the subject and I hope that the full account that I have given the Committee will enable the hon. Gentleman to feel that he should not press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: There is an important issue to be raised but we shall discuss it as briefly as possible. The Secretary of State has helped matters slightly by the approach that he has taken and is taking. However, there is a need for us to probe even further.
      The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has to pay grant on the basis of rate support grant law and not on the basis of what the auditor says. Surely it must follow that if an audutior says in respect of a certificate that there has been a fiddle and something unlawful has taken place, the Secretary of State will not pay any grant. The auditors said that Birmingham's expenditure was a lawful charge on the city's account, so surely that cannot be dismissed by the

      75
      Secretary of State as a fiddle. I believe that that was one of his descriptions of the action of Birmingham city council.
      I agree that it would be an abuse if local authorities sought to create extra grant from the Government—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the sum of £80 million. Birmingham council did not set out to create a grant deficit—artificial or otherwise—in order to maximise grant. It discovered only in January 1985 that there had been an underspend. That was the difficulty faced by Birmingham. It did not set out to create the deficit. It was an accident.
      That was made clear in the correspondence, especially the letter from the city solicitor, dated 25 February 1986, which contained four propositions. One of those propositions made it quite clear that:
      "The General Rate Act 1967 Section 2 specifically anticipates that an authority may go into deficit in any one year by requiring the rate to meet expenditure in previous rating periods."
      That is not what lay behind what the city sought to do. The letter went on:
      "The decision to establish the Supply of Goods and Services Fund was made at the meeting of the Finance and Management Committee on 28 January 1985."
      That report is one that we would like the Secretary of State to read—if he has not already done so. The letter continues:
      "In making that decision the Committee were aware of a prospective deficit for the year of £8·4 million and of a financial advantage to the council of making the fund contribution."
      The facts are that the council was aware of the prospective deficit and it was the prospective underspend. One cannot claim that Birmingham city council, having come under Labour control in May 1984, went hell for leather to overspend. In January 1985, the council was aware that it had underspent and was seeking to protect its position. Both the Audit Commission and the city auditors—
      Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman also read out the fourth paragraph which states:
      "The fund contribution has increased the amount of block grant payable to the Council and is therefore to the Council's financial advantage."
      Mr. Rooker: I had intended to read out paragraph 4 and I also missed out the first point made in the letter.
      The decision that Birmingham took in January was the result of knowing that there would be an underspend which it could not help. It did not deliberately create a situation on an artificial deficit grant in order to maximise the grant it received.
      In January 1985 it became apparent that there would be an underspend and it would have been stupid for the officers of the city council not to advise the council of the most advantageous way out of a difficult situation. One of the officers at that time was Mr. Paul Sabim, who is now chief executive of Kent and probably one of the highest paid local government officers in the country, earning a salary approaching £60,000. The city would have been stupid not to take such advice. That advice was sought after circumstances discovered in the January. It is important to understand that the council did not deliberately seek the situation.
      I asked the Secretary of State to consider the reasons given by Birmingham council and he did say he had an open mind. The underspend caused the problem, not
      76
      because the council had gone into deficit financing per se; nor did it use artificial figures or money that was not available. Despite the Secretary of State's apparent sweetness, what sticks in the craw of the right hon. Gentleman is the fact that in May 1984 Labour took control of Birmingham, at the will of the electorate, after two consecutive years of reduction in rates under Tory administration. The fact is that Birmingham people woke up and discovered the effect of those rate cuts. I will not go over the background as it would be out of order and everyone is aware of the facts. The fact is that there was a threatened wholesale sacking of dinner ladies and a reduction in all services because of the cut in rates. The people of Birmimgham decided to change the policy and change the council. It is that which sticks in the craw of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) has already said that the decision to set up the fund for 1983–84 and 1984–85 was taken on an all-party basis. Birmingham council had operated on that basis.
      Since the change of council, year after year, without exception the Government have forced, by fixation and manipulation of rate support grant legislation, Birmingham council, under Labour control, to put up the rates. That is what happened. It is a case of "Ridley's revenge for Bosworth's blunder" in losing control of the jewel in the crown.
      The conduct of those Conservative Members who represent Birmingham has been absolutely disgraceful. They have put party before the city and they deserve the undying contempt of their constituents. As a direct result of the action in the Bill and the decisions the Secretary of State will take later on, the rates paid by Birmingham's ratepayers will go up when they should not. The council will be faced with this for five years without the possibility of knowing whether the council has rated correctly. How can local government operate on this basis? How can a Labour-controlled, Tory-controlled or hung authority operate in such a manner? Where there is majority control, how can it be that local government will not know for five years after the event whether it is able to fix a rate?
      The Secretary of State has a lot of ground to make up before he can convince the people of Birmingham that he is not exacting revenge upon them.
      Ms. Clare Short: It is remarkable that the Secretary of State has been calm, reasonable and not at all rude in answering the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). I have not had the pleasure or displeasure of being on a Committee where the Secretary of State has led for the Government, but in my time in this House I have not met another member of the Government who is so unnecessarily arrogant and rude in putting forward his case.
      What was notable about the Birmingham issue was the change in the Secretary of State's whole demeanour. Suddenly the right hon. Gentleman says that he has an open mind and that he will reconsider everything. That is welcome, of course. Our basic job is to defend Birmingham from the cuts and poverty that it currently faces. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State's attitude was undoubtedly different from normal.
      I refer to a letter that I have mentioned previously in the Committee. It is a letter dated 16 December to the chief executive of Birmingham, Mr. Tom Caulcott, from the Department of the Environment. The letter refers to the

      77
      Bill and states that it gives the Secretary of State power to look back at what Birmingham did in 1984–85 in setting up the special fund and that the Department will look into the details under the new powers in the Bill and then decide what to do. The Secretary of State tried to imply that Birmingham would have been in trouble whether or not the legislation was introduced, but that letter indicates otherwise. It is because of the Bill that the Secretary of State can act in this way.
      At previous sittings of the Committee I attempted to refer to Birmingham's case and that of other authorities affected by this provision of clause 5 because it represents an unacceptable element of retrospection in the Bill. Until now, the Secretary of State has brushed aside all such references. He says that he wants to come to Birmingham to discuss the case, but when he says that he is merely restating the law to be as everyone had thought it was previously that is clearly not true in this instance. The legal officers in Birmingham, two different city treasurers and Price Waterhouse, the auditors, crawled over the law and decided that what Birmingham was doing was absolutely lawful, but the powers in this Bill and in clause 5 would bring into question the legality of what Birmingham did. That is pure, absolute retrospection. It is changing the law after the action has been taken. The Secretary of State is giving himself powers to take away from the city of Birmingham £8 million that it thought it had. At least I thought that it was £8 million, as that is what the brief from Birmingham said. The Secretary of State, however, in the course of his calm and reasonable remarks, quietly referred to £17·1 million. That is terrifying—perhaps we are talking about more than £8 million.
      7 pm
      In 1984–85, with all-party support, Birmingham took a decision which was authorised by the auditors with clear legal advice from the city treasurer that what it was doing was legal. The Secretary of State is now seeking to change the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill said that he thought that the provision affected only Birmingham, but, as the Secretary of State made clear, it goes wider than Birmingham and 12 other authorities are affected. Probably none has a considerable sum at stake, but the majority of them are Labour controlled. It may be worth listing them briefly. They are Cambridgeshire and Warwickshire, both hung authorities, Liverpool, St. Helens, Wigan, Leeds, Birmingham, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, Newham and Ealing—all Labour controlled—Oadby and Wigston, and West Wiltshire, which are Tory controlled.
      I understand that the figures involved in those cases are fairly limited.
      Mr. Ridley: I point out, for the sake of accuracy, that Warwickshire is not doing the same thing as deficit financing. It is a separate case. Anyone who wants to raise that case can do so, but it has nothing to do with this group.
      Ms. Short: I am grateful for that information. The list was provided by the city of Birmingham. I am sure that the neighbouring county of Warwickshire will be relieved.
      What the Secretary of State is doing is truly arrogant. When he refers to what Birmingham did and talks about whether it was right or equitable, he is substituting his judgment of what is right and of how local authorities should behave for what the law said when the council took
      78
      its action. He is not entitled to do that. He has to bring forward law that applies to local government, and local government then has to act under the provision of that law. If he is unhappy with the actions that it then takes, as the Government constantly have been, he must bring in new legislation to change future behaviour rather than refer back to previous behaviour.
      It is no secret that the people of Birmingham are deeply disgruntled about the way in which they have been treated by the Government. Birmingham is a peculiarly low-spending authority in Labour hands, and all sorts of games have been played with Birmingham finances as the Government have changed the nature of local government finance to prevent high-spending Labour authorities from protecting jobs and services while allowing low-spending Tory authorities to increase spending when they wished. When the Secretary of State found that that entitled Birmingham to an increase of about £61 million in rate support grant over the past couple of years, he indulged in all sorts of manoeuvres and fiddles to take considerable sums of money away from Birmingham. This £8 million —Heaven help us if it is £17·1 million—is more of the same treatment. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be as punitive as he says that he can be under the Bill.
      The principle of retrospective legislation is deeply objectionable. The Secretary of State's justification is that his action is necessary because everyone misunderstood the law, but that does not apply in this instance. He is going beyond that justification to take away from cities such as Birmingham considerable sums of money that they desperately need.
      Mr. Corbett: The Government's case for the Bill is set out in the Secretary of State's misleading claim when he announced the Bill. He said:
      "We are merely validating the past and putting right for the future the position that the whole House thought obtained."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1054.]
      In other words, the Bill was to end the uncertainty. That qualifies for a Goebbels' award for distortion.
      At the heart of this amendment is the city of Birmingham. Not content with stealing £39 million from the rate support grant, the Secretary of State now proposes, in the name of certainty, to fine us £8 million. Was the supply of goods and services fund set up by the city of Birmingham in 1984–85 legal? Yes, says the city of Birmingham, on an all-party basis. Yes, says Price Waterhouse, its professional auditors and the Audit Commission, so loved by the Secretary of State. Then, years later, along comes the Secretary of State to say no, retrospectively. Moreover it is a Secretary of State who was not merely convicted but actually pleaded guilty when the city of Birmingham took him to court last year for another £7 million robbery. He then came down here and changed the law. In effect, the Secretary of State is accusing the city of Birmingham of something of akin to fraud, Price Waterhouse of something akin to professional incompetence and the Audit Commission of being a willing partner in those actions. Those are extremely serious charges, touching on the commercial reputation of Price Waterhouse, the integrity of the Audit Commission and the integrity and professionalism of officers of the city of Birmingham council.
      The Secretary of State says that he has an open mind about the amendment, but I fear that at the back of that open mind is an empty head. He has given no sign that he

      79
      is prepared to think again about what the amendment seeks to achieve. It gives him the opportunity to acknowledge and admit his false charges against the city of Birmingham. My hon. Friends have shown that those charges are false. The amendment enables him to accept, without damage to the stated intention of the Bill or any other local authority, that what the city of Birmingham did was legal when it did it. It was told that it was legal when it set up that special fund. Therefore, it should remain legal, as attested to by the independent auditors and the Audit Commission. If the Secretary of State meant what he said earlier about a no-change policy, he has only one honourable course. His integrity is at stake in this debate.
      The loss of £8 million is equivalent to 5p on the rates or an extra £12·75 for a family in a typical post-war three-bedroomed semi with a garage. The honourable course for the Secretary of State is to ensure that his stated no-change policy will apply under the Bill. If he is not willing to do that and prefers dogma to decency, he will perpetrate a gross misjudgment and an abuse of his powers. His honour and integrity are at stake in his worthless allegation about connivance and fiddling by the city of Birmingham, its auditors and the Audit Commission. If he insists that he is right—he has all but done so tonight—he will be shown to be weak in both judgment and prudence.
      Mr. Meadowcroft: I shall be brief, because we want to get on to major amendments. However, lest this should be solely a Birmingham argument, I make two brief points about the city of Leeds, which is caught in the same trap.
      The Secretary of State said earlier that if Leeds had a case that the accounting situation was not as alleged by his Department, it should make its case to him. It has done so and on 17 December it responded in detail to the case put by officials from the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Secretary of State's undertaking will be taken on board and the case will be considered carefully. I am certainly no advocate of many of the policies carried out by the Labour-controlled council in Leeds. I have expressed my opposition to them in the Chamber on numerous occasions.
      I endeavour to be fair about what is done in relation to local government. The city council decided on certain procedures which at that time were legal and the council could not be questioned about their legality by the Department of the Environment. It is wrong for the Government later to say that they dislike and challenge the morality of what was done and will penalise the council. Whether the expenditure, or the use of the special fund or whatever it was, was expenditure that I and my Liberal colleagues on the council would have supported, I support the argument in the House that the council should not now be penalised retrospectively for something that it did in good faith and within the law as it stood. I support the amendment.
      Mr. John Fraser: The Secretary of State says that this Bill is to regularise payments made by way of rate support grant in good faith to local authorities which had incurred expenditure or which had accrued income. It is difficult to quarrel with his proposition that it is right to try to regularise acts carried out in good faith, especially in cases where the problem has arisen as a result of the intricate controls that the Department of the Environment has sought to impose on local authorities. It
      80
      is quite understandable that once the Department interferes in such detail with the judgment of local authorities about their expenditure, trouble is bound to result.
      We give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt on the main proposition. Where local authorities and he acted in good faith there is a case for saying let byegones be byegones and for allowing the Secretary of State to make an exception to the general rule of law, even though that exception is retrospective. My next point about retrospection has been pressed upon me many times because I represent the London borough of Lambeth, where the councillors have been surcharged. The argument about retrospection runs in two ways. I have never objected to retrospective legislation that forgives and forgets and which makes lawful that which was previously unlawful. My objection to retrospective legislation is when it makes unlawful that which was lawful. That is at the centre of the debate about Birmingham.
      For the sake of argument we allow the Secretary of State to make an exception to a rule of law, but in the case of Birmingham he proposes to make an exception to the exception and to say that some things done in good faith by local authorities should be an exception to his general rule and should, if he so decides, be disallowed. If Birmingham had deliberately engaged in deficit financing or in a dishonest or illegal transaction, neither I nor any of my hon. Friends would support the Birmingham case. That is not the argument advanced by the Secretary of State. His argument is simply one of convenience.
      If one wants to find a comparison in other forms of law, one can find it in the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal and a criminal offence where it involves falsifying accounts in order to gain advantage from the Inland Revenue. Tax avoidance is what a judge has described as perfectly lawful. It means putting one's affairs in such order as to minimise tax liability. It is not only lawful for local authorities to do that in the field of rate support grant but, as I understand it from events in my own local authority, it is the duty of a local council to maximise its income. One of the reasons why my councillors were surcharged was that it was alleged by the district auditor that they failed to maximise their income. If a local authority acts within the law it may well be its duty, like Birmingham, to maximise its income —provided it acts in good faith and in a lawful way.
      The facts which have emerged from this debate are, firstly, that Birmingham acted in good faith. There is no evidence against that proposition. Secondly, I understand that it is strongly disputed by those who urged the Birmingham case—Labour and Tory alike—that the deficit, if there was one, was the consequence of the transaction that the Secretary of State seeks to impugn. Thirdly, the transaction was open and above board, had all-party support and was precedented in previous years. Fourthly, the transaction was sanctioned and authorised by a firm of accountants and auditors which is beyond reproach.
      For those reasons the matter was entered into lawfully and in good faith. That is why we object to a retrospective change in the law which would disallow that which was believed to be lawful, and was lawful at the time. It is written in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

      81
      "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
      Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
      Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
      Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
      We do not believe that the piety or the wit or even the tears of the Secretary of State should retrospectively change Birmingham's accounts.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Terry Davis: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State wishes to intervene again, but if he does I shall be happy to give way to him. Perhaps having listened to my arguments and to the arguments of my hon. Friends, he is about to give us some good news.
      Mr. Ridley: It would be courteous of me to respond to speeches made after my earlier one. One or two things have been said and I should like to comment on them. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) rightly said that Birmingham had an underspend for the year in question. In that case, how did it end up with a deficit? That point was not quite appreciated by some Opposition hon. Members. Birmingham had an underspend of about £7·5 million but transferred to the special fund about £15 million—far more than the underspend. Therefore, it was short of £7·5 million and that transaction caused some doubt in the minds of the Audit Commission and the auditor.
      The hon. Member for Perry Barr cannot and should not seek to maintain that this is in any sense revenge by the Government against Birmingham. Birmingham has the best rate support grant settlement for next year of any local authority. It has £31 million more than it got this year. Birmingham has the best figure in the country for both the percentage and the volume of increase, and for that reason the hon. Gentleman should drop his thesis.
      Ms. Clare Short: That all sounds very good, but the Secretary of State must also say that, according to EEC figures, Birmingham has the biggest area of poverty in western Europe and is well below its grant-related expenditure. Yes, it is to have an increase, but that increase will come nowhere near to meeting its need to provide services at the level at which the Government judges local authorities should provide them.
      Mr. Ridley: The Labour party's definition of a cut is that when an authority wants £60 million more it gets £30 million more and that is described as a cut of £30 million. In truth, it is an increase of £30 million. We have that trend in all Labour figures about cuts, but Labour is talking about cuts from what local government wants, but they are usually increases on what the authorities had last year. Let me put the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) right again.
      Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ridley: No, I must get on. I am taking up Opposition time. I can tell the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that the Bill is not designed to deal with Birmingham and the other authorities. The power existed under the old 1980 Act, and if we had come to the conclusion that we should deal with deficit financing we could have done so in two ways. First, we could have asked Birmingham to replace the figure of total expenditure with a figure that we thought was a fairer statement of what it had spent. Alternatively, under the 1980 Act I could have made a
      82
      direction before this Bill was ever conceived. Therefore, there were two ways in which I could have dealt with it if I had wished to. I would have employed one of those methods if I had decided that it was necessary. There is no retrospection.
      The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that there is either tax avoidance or tax evasion. With respect, it is neither of those things. Year after year local authorities up and down the land try all sorts of things to see whether they can get a little more rate support grant. I do not blame them. It has been acknowledged in the debate that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. They do not necessarily succeed. We have to see whether what they are trying is fair and right and we have to obey the law. Grant is never determined until we have the full details of all those things.
      Birmingham is well enough advised to tell hon. Members that we are not taking powers retrospectively in the Bill. The powers were there before and will be there in the future if the Bill is passed and in most cases they would have been subject to judicial review. Therefore, the case of the hon. Member for Ladywood does not stand up.
      Mr. Terry Davis: I want to correct some of the points made by the Secretary of State.
      Birmingham Members are not complaining about the cut in the amount of money we want. We are talking about a cut in the amount of money that we need— not the amount that we want. In his original proposals the Secretary of State was planning to give Birmingham a much larger amount than he is now proposing. My hon. Friends and I would want much more because we live with the problems of poverty in Birmingham. The reduction about which we are complaining is the Secretary of State's reduction in the amount that he was planning to give compared with the amount that he is now planning to give. When I talk about the reduction in the amount that we need, I mean need—according to the Secretary of State's criteria—that is, grant-related expenditure.
      The right hon. Gentleman told the House that there was an underspend of £7·5 million. That is not correct. I have looked at the reports. The underspend was twice that amount. The Secretary of State is confused. He is talking about Birmingham's expenditure being less than the money it took in receipts. We are talking about an underspend compared with budget. The underspend compared with budget was twice the figure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the deficit was the result of the transfer to a special fund, but that is not correct. I remind him that he or his officials have received correspondence from the city treasurer and other officers in Birmingham explaining that the deficit was not the result of a transfer to a special fund. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is indicating that he agrees or disagrees. My hon. Friends will tell him that I am well known in Birmingham for not accepting lightly what the city officers tell us. However, one exception to my criticism of the city officers is the present city treasurer. He has assured me that there was nothing untoward or underhand in the way in which Birmingham treated its accounts in 1984–85, and I believe him.
      The Secretary of State said tonight from the Dispatch Box that the transfer was to obtain extra grant. I have had the advantage of going through the reports that were considered by the committees of the city council and by all parties on the council. I cannot find any suggestion in the

      83
      reports that there should be a transfer to obtain extra grant. On the contrary, the transfer was recommended by the then city treasurer because the council was going to have a windfall gain as a result of reductions in interest rates. The budget was based on one level of interest rates and when the interest rates went down the council found that it was not going to spend as much as expected. The city treasurer advised the city councillors to transfer that amount of money to a special fund in case there was a windfall loss on the succeeding year as a result of interest rates rising again, The report says that they should do it not to obtain extra grant but to avoid grant penalty in succeeding years because the council would then be able to charge some items of expenditure to the special fund and thus avoid penalty.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that he approaches the matter with an open mind. If I have been correctly informed by city officers, that is not what he has said to the leader of the city council and the city officers in Birmingham. They do not think that he has an open mind. He said that there are some defects in the wording of our amendment. I make no apology for that. It is usual for the wording in Back Benchers' amendments to be defective. However, it is usual in those circumstances for a Secretary of State who is sympathetic to accept the principle of an amendment and to ask for it to be withdrawn so that he can table a suitable amendment in another place. The Secretary of State has not done that. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends representing Birmingham constituencies and those from the rest of the United Kingdom to support me in the Division Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 242.

      Division No. 71]

      [7.25 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Conlan, Bernard

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Alton, David

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbett, Robin

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Crowther, Stan

      Atkinsop, N. (Tottenham)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Deakins, Eric

      Bell, Stuart

      Dobson, Frank

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dormand, Jack

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

      Dubs, Alfred

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Eadie, Alex

      Blair, Anthony

      Eastham, Ken

      Boyes, Roland

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fatchett, Derek

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Buchan, Norman

      Flannery, Martin

      Caborn, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Forrester, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Foster, Derek

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foulkes, George

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Cartwright, John

      Freud, Clement

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      George, Bruce

      Clay, Robert

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Gould, Bryan

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Cohen, Harry

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      84

      Hancock, Michael

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Pendry, Tom

      Haynes, Frank

      Pike, Peter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Prescott, John

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Radice, Giles

      Home Robertson, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lambie, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Lamond, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Leighton, Ronald

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

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Litherland, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

      Loyden, Edward

      Snape, Peter

      McCartney, Hugh

      Soley, Clive

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Spearing, Nigel

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Stott, Roger

      McNamara, Kevin

      Straw, Jack

      McTaggart, Robert

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McWilliam, John

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Madden, Max

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Thome, Stan (Preston)

      Martin, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Torney, Tom

      Maxton, John

      Wainwright, R.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meacher, Michael

      Wareing, Robert

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Weetch, Ken

      Michie, William

      Welsh, Michael

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      White, James

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wilson, Gordon

      Nellist, David

      Winnick, David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Brien, William

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Park, George

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Patchett, Terry

      Mr. Don Dixon.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Amess, David

      Browne, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Arnold, Tom

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Ashby, David

      Budgen, Nick

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Burt, Alistair

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Butcher, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Butterfill, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cash, William

      Benyon, William

      Chapman, Sydney

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Chope, Christopher

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Blackburn, John

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cockeram, Eric

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

      Conway, Derek

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Coombs, Simon

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Cope, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Couchman, James

      Bright, Graham

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Brinton, Tim

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      85

      Dicks, Terry

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Dover, Den

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Dunn, Robert

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Durant, Tony

      Moate, Roger

      Dykes, Hugh

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Eggar, Tim

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Evennett, David

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Farr, Sir John

      Mudd, David

      Favell, Anthony

      Neale, Gerrard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Needham, Richard

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      Nelson, Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Newton, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Onslow, Cranley

      Galley, Roy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Gow, lan

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Pawsey, James

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan

      Hannam, John

      Pollock, Alexander

      Harris, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hayes, J.

      Powley, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Price, Sir David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hirst, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Jackson, Robert

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Ridsdale, Sir Jullan

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knowles, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Knox, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Lang, lan

      Rowe, Andrew

      Latham, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Silvester, Fred

      Lord, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Speed, Keith

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speller, Tony

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Spencer, Derek

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Squire, Robin

      Maclean, David John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Steen, Anthony

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stern, Michael

      Madel, David

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Major, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Malone, Gerald

      Stewart, lan (Hertf'dshire N)

      Maples, John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Merchant, Piers

      Thurnham, Peter

      86

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Watts, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Trippier, David

      Wheeler, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Whitfield, John

      Twinn, Dr lan

      Whitney, Raymond

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Viggers, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Woodcock, Michael

      Walden, George

      Yeo, Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Waller, Gary

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Walters, Dennis

      Ward, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Mr. Richard Ryder and

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mr. Michael Portillo.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 89, in page 5, line 13, leave out `and (7)' and insert , (7) and (8)'.
      No. 90, in page 5, line 27, at end insert—
      '(4A) In the application (by virtue of subsection (3) above) of sections 1 and 2 above in relation to an intermediate year beginning in 1983, 1984 and 1985, section 1 shall have effect as if for "a joint authority" in subsection (1)(c) there were substituted "the Greater London Council.".'—[Dr. Boyson.]
      Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 6

        VALIDATION OF PAST ACTS
        Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
        Mr. Straw: I should first explain that we decided not to move the group of amendments beginning with amendment No. 93 and also that beginning with amendment No. 96 solely because of the shortage of time now available to the Committee to deal with some extremely important issues before the guillotine comes down at 12 o'clock.
        I wish to make some brief points about clause 6 before we move on to a major debate on the rate-capping procedures in the Bill which come up in two groups of amendments, that beginning with amendment No. 106 and that beginning with amendment No. 107. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take them together to expedite the debate.
        We do not intend to press clause 6 to a vote. Again, that is solely because of the time constraints. The fact that we shall not push the matter to a Division should not in any sense be taken as evidence that we accept part of the purpose and force of clause 6.
        We have previously had extensive debates on the operation of clause 4(6), which has become known as the judge-proofing subsection in so far as decisions taken before the passing of the Act relate to part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We have a similar objection to the operation of clause 6(4) that relates to the rate-capping powers of the Secretary of State. Under clause 6, any orders made under section 2(3) of the Rates Act 1984 are deemed to have been estimated in compliance with part VI of the 1980 Act. That is understandable within the scheme of the Bill. The clause then goes on to state:
        "Anything done by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act for the purposes of Part I of the 1984 Act"—

        87
        which relates to selective rate capping in the years beginning 1985 or 1986 shall also—
        "be deemed to have been done in compliance with the provisions of that Part".
        Again, we comprehend why that is being included in the Bill, even if we disagree with it. However, subsection (3) states:
        "For the purpose of section 7 below and Schedule 2 to this Act"
        which are the clauses and the schedule which substitute formula rate capping for the procedure under the 1984 Act, any designation of an authority in relation to this forthcoming financial year and any determination and notification of an authority's total expenditure,
        "shall, if made before the passing of this Act, be deemed to have been made in compliance with the provisions of Part I".
        Subsection (4) of the Bill states:
        "This section shall have effect notwithstanding any decision of a court (whether before or after the passing of this Act) purporting to have a contrary effect."
        Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister why it is necessary to have such a judge-proofing provision within the clause. Already, decisions that the Secretary of State has made, or could make, up to the passing of the Act are deemed to have been made in compliance with either the 1980 Act or the 1984 Act. If that matter went to court and some issue were made about the Secretary of State's powers to make decisions once the Act had been passed, the court could read subsections (1), (2) and (3)— the courts would be perfectly capable of understanding what they mean—and apply them. Assuming that they had been applied properly, the deeming provisions would protect the Secretary of State.
        7.45 pm
        Therefore, why is it necessary, given the way in which subsections (1) to (3) will operate, for there to be the omnibus subsection (4), which prevents the court from making any decisions in circumstances in which they would otherwise be able to make them?
        I should like to give the Minister an example. Later we may hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the fact that, in Islington's view, the borough fell just below the trigger point for rate capping, which, as I recall, was 12·5 per cent. over grant-related expenditure assessment. In a sense, that is a matter of fact, and an application of the rules. As the law stood before the Bill, Islington would have been able to go to court, if the Secretary of State had disagreed with it, and argued that point. That is right because it is exactly what the courts exist for—to determine and arbitrate on an issue such as that. However, under the Bill, Islington is denied that opportunity.
        What purpose is served by preventing a borough—I know that there are political objections to Islington, but I do not think the Minister will take up that point—from going to court and arguing a point like that?
        We believe that judge-proofing provisions like those in clause 4(6) go way beyond anything that is necessary simply to put the law in good order, as was the ostensible purpose of the Bill. For that reason, we thoroughly oppose clause 6 and especially subsection (4).
        The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for letting the Committee know that he will
        88
        not seek to divide it on clause 6, but will be raising queries about cerain points about it. The clause is vitally important to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, it is about the validation of past acts in relation to rates limitation.
        There are three matters that need validating and which the clause covers. First, the clause validates any orders made under section 2(3) of the Rates Act 1984 before the passing of the Bill. These orders have the effect of exempting local authorities from being selected for rate limitation if their total expenditure is less than the specified figure. That level is now £11·1 million for English authorities and has been increased by two successive orders from the figure of £10 million, originally specified in the Rates Act.
        Secondly, the clause validates anything done by my right hon. Friends before the passage of the Bill for the purpose of part I of the 1984 Act in relation to the years 1985–86 and 1986–87. It validates rates limitations for those years.
        My third point is that made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The clause validates any designation of an authority for rate limitation for 1987–88 and any determination and notification of an expenditure level for 1987–88, before the passing of the Bill.
        As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, the clause provides that validation will have effect notwithstanding any decision of a court whether before or after the passing of the Bill purporting to have contrary effect. The clause thus provides the validation necessary if there is to be certainty as to how the law stands in relation to these decisions. The clause plays a key role in enabling us to maintain the status quo. That is why we consider that that is an essential part of the Bill.
        The reason for clause 6 is exactly the same as that for clause 4(6), mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn —to make it absolutely clear that the past decisions described in clause 6(1) to (3) are valid even if a court, having heard a case before enactment of the Bill, declares the decision to be invalid on the basis of existing law. At the late stage at which we are now, when authorities have to make their decisions and determine the rate on 1 April, it is absolutely essential that we pass the Bill with full validation and without being at risk of returning to the present position, with the problem over definition.
        Mr. Straw: The Minister says that the clause has been drafted to provide certainty and that that has to be balanced against the need for justice. Clause 6(1), for example, relates to orders laid before the passing of the Act. The minute the Act comes into force, that deeming provision will come into force. If that was the only point of issue in a court, it would find in favour of the Secretary of State. Why is it then necessary to exclude any possibility of court action, including circumstances in which, procedurally the Secretary of State may have erred?
        Dr. Boyson: As I have already said to the hon. Gentleman, I understand and appreciate why he is putting that point. We must be certain that the validation stands up without threat so that rate-capped authorities know what the situation is.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may intervene if he wants to. I know the strength of his feelings on almost every issue that comes up in Committee.
        Rate capping this year is a one-year matter. For the authorities that were rate-capped last year and those that

        89
        will be rate-capped for the first time this year, we have made special arrangements for this year only. The following year we shall revert to the normal procedure of individual decisions on individual boroughs. But this year we must act so that the authorities know where they are and so that there can be no more doubt on the level of rates that will be allowed or on the level of expenditure.
        Mr. Straw: I regard the Minister's explanation about the need for subsection (4) as tautologous and wholly unsatisfactory. As I explained, we oppose the clause, and hope to come back to it when the other place has considered the matter.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 7

        RESTRICTIONS ON RATING AND PRECEPTING
        Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 6, line 15, at end insert—
        '3(A) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to designated authorities referred to in section 2(6)(g), (h) and (i) of the Rates Act 1984.'.
        I hope that you will accept, Mr. Armstrong, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and will allow a proper debate on the rate-capping procedures in the Bill, to discuss amendment No. 107 and the amendments grouped with it, as well as those grouped with No. 106.
        The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): If that is for the convenience of the Committee, we shall discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 107, in page 6, line 17, leave out from 'determined' to end of line 18, and insert—

        '(i) The preliminary maximum limit shall be determined in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act.

        (ii) As soon as practicable after carrying out his duty under subsection (5) below, notifying in writing and consult each designated authority in respect of the preliminary maximum limit applicable to it under sub-paragraph (i).

        (iii) If the preliminary maximum limit notified to a designated authority by the Secretary of State is accepted by the authority within seven days, the Secretary of State shall serve a notice upon it specifying that limit as the maximum limit.

        (iv) If the designated authority and the Secretary of State agree on a different maximum, the Secretary of State shall serve a notice upon it specifying the agreed limit as the maximum limit.

        (v) In any other case, the Secretary of State shall, as soon as resonably practicable after consultation under sub-paragraph (i) above has concluded, prescribe a maximum limit, by specifying by Order a maximum equal to or greater than the preliminary maximum limit, and shall serve a notice upon the designated authority specifying the maximum limit prescribed for it under such Order.

        (vi) The power to make an Order under sub-paragraph (v) above shall be exercisable by Statutory Instrument and no such order shall be made until a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

        No. 108, in page 6, line 17, leave out
        'with Schedule 2 to this Act'
        and insert
        'with the procedures for redetermination set out in Part I of the 1984 Act and in accordance with the decisions of a court.'.
        No. 112, in page 6, leave out lines 23 and 24.
        No. 113, in page 6, line 26, after second 'the', insert 'preliminary'.
        90
        Government amendment No. 114.
        No. 115, in page 6, line 29, after second 'the', insert 'preliminary'.
        No. 117, in page 6, line 30, at end add—
        '(d) a period of notice, which shall be not less than two weeks, within which the Authority may apply for the application of the formula to be reconsidered; and the results of any such reconsideration may be brought into effect by the Secretary of State by Order in substitution of the relevant formula in Schedule 2 to the extent that it applies to that authority, or any other designated authority as the Secretary of State sees fit.'.
        No. 118, in schedule 2, page 11, line 33, after 'the', insert 'preliminary'.
        No. 120, in schedule 2, page 11, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
        No. 119, in schedule 2, page 11, line 35, after 'of', insert 'the Inner London Education authority and'.
        No. 122, in schedule 2, page 11, line 43, leave out from 'is' in line 43 to end of line 44.
        No. 129, in schedule 2, page 12, leave out lines 1 to 13.
        No. 126, in schedule 2, page 12, line 8, leave out '1·025' and insert '1·05'.
        No. 189, in schedule 2, page 12, line 8, leave out '1·025' and insert '1·04'.
        No. 127, in schedule 2, page 12, line 12, leave out '1·02' and insert '1·14'.
        No. 130, in schedule 2, page 12, line 14, leave out subparagraph (6).
        No. 138, in schedule 2, page 13, line 3, at beginning insert—
        'In the case of the Inner London Education Authority B is the amount which before 19th December 1986 the Authority submitted under section 65 of the 1980 Act (Information) as the amount the Authority estimates as its total expenditure for the financial year beginning in 1986 (taking, if more than one such amount was submitted before that date, the latest to be so submitted). In the case of other authorities.'.
        No. 141, in schedule 2, page 13, line 14, after 'the' insert 'preliminary'.
        Mr. Straw: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Armstrong, and I hope to catch your eye at the end of the debate as well, if it is necessary.
        Three years ago, the Rates Bill was just beginning its Committee stage. On the Floor of the House and in Committee, the Labour Opposition objected to the principle of rate capping, to the idea that it was right and sensible for the Government to seek—
        Dr. Boyson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I want to be clear about the basis of our discussions. Are we on amendment No. 106 and amendment No. 116—
        Mr. Straw: No. We are on amendments Nos. 106 and 107 and their groups.
        Dr. Boyson: I see. I am now clear what amendments we are on.
        Mr. Straw: As I said, we are seeking to use the two groups of amendments as an opportunity to debate the effects on local authorities of rate-capping procedures in the Bill.
        We objected to the principle of rate capping because we thought it was wrong and not sensible for the Government to seek to impose and substitute their judgment about the level of expenditure and the rates that should obtain in an individual area for the judgment of councillors and their

        91
        electors. That objection still stands, which is why the Labour party is committed to the repeal of the Rates Act and, pending that repeal, to refusing to use its powers.
        In the House and in Committee the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), sought to assuage the concerns not only of Labour Members but of many Conservative Members about the constitutional change that was to be made by rate capping, in the relationship between the Government and local authorities. The then Secretary of State spent many hours, as I clearly recall, spelling out a careful procedure for rate capping, which he claimed would be fair to local authorities. He said that the fairness was encapsulted in two sets of operations—first, in applying so-called principles of rate capping, which would act on all authorities equally so that an individual authority could not be picked out unfairly simply by the whim of the Secretary of State.
        Secondly, authorities having been brought into the rate-capped net by an application of general principles, they would be given careful individual consideration, on their merits, with regard to the Secretary of State's decision about their expenditure levels, by way of an appeal procedure known as redetermination. After a hesitant start in the first year, caused by the suspicions of many of the rate-capped authorities about the way in which redetermination would work and the fact that it could trigger powers of the Secretary of State to impose even lower expenditure limits than previously, I will not say that the redetermination procedure worked satisfactorily, but at least it enabled the authorities, when they felt that they were badly done by, to make their case to the Secretary of State, so that he made a decision on the individual merits of the case that they put forward.
        Now we find that all the undertakings that the then Secretary of State gave the House and the Committee about the way in which the individual merits of the authorities' expenditure would be taken into account are to be swept aside by the Bill. In place of individual redetermination and individual determination of limits, we find in schedule 2 lengthy algebraic calculations by which authorities' rate limits are to be determined by formula. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is one of the House's algebraic experts, and he knows this formula by heart:
        "(EL-(BG + E)) x 100/RV)+T"
        That formula is now to be applied without exception and without individual consideration to a large number of authorities that happened to be rate-capped last year. The same formula is applied to newly rate-capped authorities. They thought that they would get a 1 per cent. increase in their original expenditure limit but they now find, when they read the correction sheet that has been handed around, that they get a 2 per cent. correction. But in every case except one, to which I shall refer, the individual merits of the authority are not considered. The only case in which the individual merits are considered is the Inner London education authority. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will discuss its plight at greater length.
        I declare an interest not only as a former member of ILEA but as a parent of children in ILEA schools. On any examination, the way in which ILEA has been treated by
        92
        the Bill and the Secretary of State is absolutely outrageous. It is to have an uplift in its expenditure limit of 0·6 per cent. No other consideration will be given to it in respect of the teachers' pay settlement. All the other education authorities will receive what is known as the T factor to pay for the teachers' settlement, over the previously accepted rate of inflation, but ILEA will receive an increase of 0·6 per cent. I am fed up with the ignorant attacks that are made on the ILEA, especially by those who have personal knowledge of the work of that authority.
        Mr. Tony Banks: They take advantage.
        8 pm
        Mr. Straw: I gave the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) notice that I intended to say this. On many occasions in the House he has made outrageous attacks on ILEA and its profligacy, yet the hon. Gentleman has close personal knowledge of at least one ILEA primary school, and he has not offered any criticism of the standard of provision in that school, a standard of provision which may be adversely affected if this kind of expenditure limit goes through.
        I shall briefly set out how the principal amendments would operate. The Secretary of State is claiming that there is no time to operate the proper redetermination procedure. Our amendments translate the formulae in schedule 2 into preliminary maximum limits rather than final ones, and prescribe a further procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State closely based on the rate-capping model. The purpose of those amendments is to re-establish the redetermination procedure abandoned for 1987–88 in the Bill. The amendments recognise the legal difficulty over past definitions, but demonstrate that there is no necessary reason why the Secretary of State cannot follow a proper procedure which recognises individual needs, rather than a blanket set of formulae in primary legislation.
        The main amendment, No. 107, sets out a tight procedure which may be followed by the Secretary of State for the modified redetermination. The formulae in schedule 2 would be preliminary and for discussion purposes. The Secretary of State would then be required to inform authorities and consult them as soon as practicable. An authority could accept the limit within seven days, whereupon a notice would be issued to that effect. Likewise, a notice would be issued in a case where a different maximum was agreed. In the case of a disagreement, the Secretary of State would impose a maximum by order subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses, and after consultation an order could be made as soon as reasonably practicable. I will come back to the importance of the order-making procedure.
        The whole procedure could be over in a matter of weeks, and gives the lie to the urgency claimed by the Government. If they will agree these procedures and delete the other contentious and unnecessary areas of the Bill, it will achieve its objectives more quickly than seems possible at present. Designated authorities would, however, as previously, have the opportunity to argue for a redetermined limit.
        I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 108 and 117, and I shall say a word about the need for votes on affirmative resolutions. Amendment No. 108 would restore the previous redetermination process intact—

        93
        that is an alternative to amendment No. 107. Amendment No. 117 would allow a period of two weeks for local authorities to apply for redetermination and for a subsequent order to vary the application of the relevant formulae in respect of one or more authorities. Taken together, those two amendments act as an alternative to No. 107.
        I now return to the matter of orders. Not only are the individual authorities being denied proper consideration of their expenditure circumstances under the Bill, but so too is the House. We were told time and again by the Secretary of State that his decisions on expenditure limits and rate limits would be subject to proper legitimation by the House. For the last two years, there have been full-day debates on the rate-capping orders. Those debates were essential, because, since the passing of the abolition Act over 40 authorities—almost all the authorities within inner London, and many of the major joint boards outside inner London—are now subject to rate capping. Under this procedure there will be no opportunity for the House or the other place to discuss the effect of rate-capping orders upon individual authorities, save for this debate. We probably have no more than two hours for the debate, which is wholly unacceptable when we consider the consequences for many authorities and many people within those authorities of these rate-capping decisions.
        I hope, even at this late stage, that the Secretary of State and the Minister in his stead will accept the sense of what we are proposing.
        Mr. Roy Galley: May I briefly refer to amendment No. 189 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and myself? It is a point which relates to fire authorities, and more particularly to the west Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority. It is similar to many of the amendments in the section, and it is in the form of special pleading. Our motivation is concern about the financial position of the west Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority in 1987.
        There has been considerable progress on a detailed process of redetermination on the expenditure limit for that authority. The initial bid was for a total redetermination of £3·7 million. That was based on a 1985 report about fire cover throughout the whole of west Yorkshire, which attempted to improve arrangements in certain parts of the county and made a number of other desirable additions to the current provision. Such a bid for resources had to be seen in the light of a report by Her Majesty's inspector of fire services in 1986, who expressed the view that
        "The present deployment of men"—
        in west Yorkshire—
        "is insufficient to maintain appliance manning to the accepted standards."
        One has to look at the £3·7 million redetermination bid in a wider context. One has to strike a balance between what is essential and what is desirable; what the ratepayer can afford and the appropriateness of efficiency improvements. The more important figure is not so much the total redetermination of £3·7 million as the £1·7 million that will be required in 1987–1988 to maintain current levels of fire cover and general service provision in west Yorkshire. That £1·7 million, over and above the initial expenditure limit given, is the minimum amount required to provide current levels of service. My hon. Friend may say that that is greater than the rate of inflation and therefore we cannot contemplate it. But 85 per cent. of the
        94
        costs of the west Yorkshire fire authority are manpower; other overheads are only 15 per cent. and there is little that can be done to influence that 15 per cent. Eighty-five per cent. of the figure is manpower costs, and pay is determined, as my hon. Friend knows, on the basis of the national formula, which is automatically agreed. I understand that most firemen this year received an increase of 7·2 per cent., so it is necessary to build that into any calculations of the finances of that fire and civil defence authority.
        West Yorkshire fire authority seems to be quite an efficient authority which, over the last couple of years, has sought a considerable number of efficiency improvements. It has reduced the number of special and pumping appliances, taken new initiatives in regard to training arrangements, improved organisation of transport, improved property management and improved the use of non-uniformed staff. The fire authority is competent and bears comparison with that of any other metropolitan area in the country.
        The motivation behind the initial bid for redetermination was not simply to improve the provision for the fire authority but to obtain a better deal for west Yorkshire. If one compares that with other metropolitan areas it seems to do quite badly. We are treated unfairly in our part of the world and we seek to be treated more fairly.
        Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important amendment, which is similar to one that I tabled. I support his case for west Yorkshire. Greater Manchester also feels unfairly treated, but it is generally recognised that west Yorkshire is probably the least advantaged of all fire authorities. As I have a vested interest, I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would say whether he intends to put this to a vote.
        Mr. Galley: It is rather too early in the proceedings to answer that question. I shall see what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say before I decide, and I shall also have to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen.
        Mr. Allen McKay: I am a little disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's reply. Labour Members were contacted continually last week by members of the Fire Brigades Union in west Yorkshire, asking us to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment. We have decided full-bloodedly to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment in the Lobby tonight.
        Mr. Galley: I find it rather odd that members of the Fire Brigades Union in west Yorkshire should have contacted a Member from south Yorkshire but not me on this matter. I am seeking to put the case for west Yorkshire, and I shall continue to do so as well as I can and to seek to obtain the best deal possible.
        Mr. Allen Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Galley: No, I shall not. Allow me to proceed with my next major point about the fire and civil defence authority for west Yorkshire, which is the matter which I am concerned with. We seem to fare badly compared to other metropolitan areas. The most poignant point that can be made is that west Yorkshire has the highest rate per pound and next to the lowest level of total grant percentage.

        95
        It is obviously not possible in the Bill to deal specifically with individual fire authorities and others. Therefore, my amendment seeks a revision of the formula slightly to increase the expenditure level for all fire authorities. The formula in the Bill would reduce the shortfall required for current service levels to be maintained—I emphasise that—to about £800,000. Instead of the previous shortfall of £1·7 million, the 2·5 per cent. uplift formula in the schedule would reduce that shortfall to £800,000. Amendment No. 189 would add £500,000 to the expenditure level. Therefore, it would be somewhat less than the total that we sought for west Yorkshire, but it seemed to be a reasonable compromise and would come near to the £1·7 million figure that we seek. If it were accepted, it would ease the operational problems in the course of the next financial year. It would mean an increase in the precept of 4 per cent., slightly more than the rate of inflation. The total addition to public expenditure would, if my hon. Friend were to accept the amendment, be small across all metropolitan fire authorities.
        I assure my hon. Friend that I would not be proposing such an amendment if it did not relate to a vital service, about which the general public in west Yorkshire are rightly concerned, and if the fire authority was not efficient. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to make some moves in my direction to give some sympathetic consideration to this modest amendment. If he is unable to do anything this year, I hope that he will at least say that we shall have a fair redetermination in subsequent years.
        Mr. Bill Michie: I want to speak to the amendments relating to rate capping and redetermination as they affect Sheffield, and, in particular, paragraph 22 of schedule 22. The effect of rate capping and the failure to get redetermination on local authorities such as Sheffield has already been described as serious by many of my colleagues. The effect upon education, housing, transport and the south Yorkshire fire service has been explained time and time again with little effect. I am assured that my colleagues from south Yorkshire will be discussing those issues later, particularly that of the fire service, as will my colleagues from west Yorkshire.
        8.15 pm
        I want to concentrate for a short while on a report that I received at the weekend from the family and community services in Sheffield on the implications of the Department of Health and Social Services inspection of elderly people's homes in Sheffield. Obviously there has always been great concern about the standard of accommodation and services for elderly people. In August 1986, the DHSS inspected those homes and the final results have now been made known to us. Frankly, they are worrying, to say the least.
        The recommendations have considerable implications for revenue funding. Bearing in mind that Sheffield is rate capped and has no chance of redetermination, the local authority is in a catch 22 situation. The recommendations talk about the action that should be taken to maintain the fabric of buildings and the necessity for the repair and maintenance of building stock to be carried out quickly. Due to the significant building programme in the early
        96
        1970s many residential units now need considerable maintenance and redevelopment, which is obviously costly.
        The current levels of revenue expenditure available for repairs and maintenance mean that only essential and emergency repairs can be carried out. Over the years, those have been carried out, but as Sheffield was rate-capped not last year but the year before and again this year, some of those programmes have, slowly but surely, been coming out of "synch", as we call it, because of financial problems. The deterioration of existing services and maintenance will continue unless an additional £145,000 per annum is found. That will be difficult given the financial restrictions of legislation on the council.
        Maintenance programmes already identified by the DHSS include £3,000 for the maintenance of hoists in bathrooms in the homes of elderly people. That is a small item but since, as I have said many times in the House, Sheffield is top of the league in its number of old age pensioners, certainly those over 70 and 80 years of age, that is a serious problem that must be resolved. With present financial constraints, that seems almost impossible.
        The report states that funding needs to be made available for improving the environment. That includes decoration and carpeting, which may seem something of a luxury these days, but the DHSS believes that we should provide such an environment, and the Sheffield city council agrees. But the cost of that cannot be plucked out of thin air. It must be put into revenue and capital programmes, but that cannot now be carried out.
        The report also talks about three particular capital expenditure areas which have revenue consequences— the fabric of the buildings, the improvement of air and water temperatures, the provision of better storage space and toilet facilities, and so on. There is an immediate need to carry out external work to approximately 25 of the adult residential units. That would incur an additional capital expenditure of approximately £1·7 million. These projects have already been identified in the report.
        Unfortunately, due to the increasing restrictions on the social services budget over the past two or three years, delays have occurred in the regular maintenance of buildings. Strangely, my next point ties in nicely with the debate about fire service restrictions; fire precaution upgradings have not been carried out, because of the financial restrictions in the past year. It must be frightening for all right hon. and hon. Members to realise that local authorities are so severely restricted financially that they cannot carry out the upgrading of fire precautions in the homes of the elderly.
        I will leave my hon. Friends to discuss other items affecting Sheffield and south Yorkshire. However, unless we have additional input of revenue and capital there is no way that we can carry out what I believe to be our moral as well as statutory duties. There is little point in the DHSS inspecting homes and making recommendations if other Departments are severely financially restricted. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will take my points on board and I hope that at least some help will be given to alleviate the suffering and pressure on councils today.
        Mr. Allen McKay: I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) when he moved the amendment. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know why the Fire Brigades Union from west Yorkshire should get

        97
        in touch with me. The answer is obvious. As the amendment was tabled by the Conservatives, the union wanted to ensure that Labour Members would support that good amendment. That is why I was approached. The union wanted me to forget my differences. It considered the amendment to be so important that it wanted me to support it. When and if the amendment is put to the vote, Labour Members will not be found wanting in support of the amendment.
        I want to consider the fire brigade's position in south Yorkshire. The position in south Yorkshire is very similar to that in west Yorkshire, although there is a slightly different and difficult problem following Her Majesty's inspector's report and the Secretary of State's imposed reduction in the authorised establishment of existing fire service personnel. The service was inspected by the Home Office inspector. That report determined what the manpower levels in south Yorkshire should be. It authorised an establishment for the Yorkshire county fire service of 1,114 whole-time and 196 part-time posts. Those are the Home Office figures of what is considered to be adequate to cover the south Yorkshire area.
        The inspector arrived at the figures by comparing the manpower level in south Yorkshire with that in other areas and by applying a standard formula. The fire service in south Yorkshire is already below the establishment determined by the inspector, the Secretary of State and the Home Office. Rather than reduce the figures, manpower should be increased to the Home Office standard. However, the Bill will further reduce the already inadequate manpower.
        On the one hand, the Home Secretary says that we must increase the number of firemen on the books to comply with the statutory requirements. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for the Environment claims that we must reduce the number which the Home Office claims is inadequate for fire cover. That is ridiculous.
        As the hon. Member for Halifax said, 80 per cent. of fire service expenditure in any area is accounted for by manpower. The Bill is intended to save money, but there is no way that money can be saved other than by reducing the already inadequate level of manpower. The fire chief is already worried about the service, and he is now even more concerned after seeing the figures. He realises that he will not be able to meet his statutory obligations on fire cover.
        As I said in the previous debate, I was a retained fireman for 14 years in the south Yorkshire fire service. We prided ourselves on every turn-out that we could reach a fire within the time stipulated by the Home Office because of the speed and efficiency of the service. We were able to provide a back-up to every station within our locality so that, as in a puzzle or a game of chess, one mobile moved in to cover another mobile when that went out. We maintained that standard of operation, which could be achieved only by having the proper appliances, the right number of men and efficient training. We provided a fire cover on which people could depend, and the people praised us when we turned out.
        What will happen now? The Secretary of State has laid down certain objectives for the fire service. He stipulates the level of cover that must be provided. He states that efficient and sufficient machines and efficient and sufficient men must he provided. He specifies a time for the turn-out and the time to reach fires, large and small. The fire chief of south Yorkshire fire service is now worried
        98
        that fire cover will begin to deteriorate and that the turn-out time will lengthen. In an attempt to meet the requirements laid down by the Secretary of State for the Environment, the fire chief will have to stop training because he needs sufficient men to cover for fires. He will have to use the trainers to man the service.
        The south Yorkshire fire service has not had a new fire applicance for the past two years because of the need to make savings. Rather than providing a replacement for a mobile, mobiles will have to be in the garage for longer periods, they will have to be maintained more and the cost of maintenance will rise. That is a queer way to save money.
        There is also a strong possibility that redundancies will take place in what is already an inadequate level of manpower. Indeed, the new training establishment will not open. There will be no training establishment to keep up with the Home Office requirements, In addition, the superannuation scheme will have to be curtailed. That will not help the firemen's morale, as they have looked forward to that scheme and accepted it willingly.
        All these factors will lead to a loss of confidence within the fire service. Is it right for the Home Office to create a figure which is already below the stated manpower level for adequate fire cover and for the Secretary of State for the Environment to claim that he will not provide the money to supply the number of firemen and appliances which the inspector says is adequate to provide an efficient fire cover in the service? The Secretary of State must answer that question tonight.
        Can the Secretary of State explain how the south Yorkshire authority can fulfil its statutory duties when the Bill implies that there will be a reduction in essential training? Can he explain how the fire chief will be responsible for the inadequacy of his service, not because of him, his plans or his men, but simply because the Secretary of State for the Environment will not meet the financial requirements of the Home Office'?
        8.30 pm
        If the Secretary of State has read the Yorkshire Post recently, he will know why I am seeking his views on the assessment of the fire service. The Yorkshire Post has highlighted the fact that, because of the way in which home furniture is built, the rate of death by fire is increasing dramatically. We must look not only to the fire service but to legislation to prevent that from happening. To prevent such deaths, the fire service must make more inspections, but, if the money is not provided, it will make fewer inspections and the position will become worse. In south Yorkshire, during the past 10 years, the death rate from fire has doubled. We should be asking why and what we can do about it instead of cutting a service that is already not good enough. We should be examining those matters, not ways of saving money. It could—I do not say "would"—result in the loss of human life and property, the saving of which is the prime duty of any fire service. As my old fire chief used to say to me, I would sacrifice a £24,000 appliance to save one life. The Secretary of State should consider that.
        I also wish to highlight the way in which expenditure is calculated and relate it to Barnsley. At present, Barnsley has about 22 per cent. unemployment, largely because of the rundown of the main industries in the area. I have always been taught that where manpower is available,

        99
        where there are good communications and where land and factory space are available, industry would come in. That has not happened in Barnsley.
        The authority wondered why it was being treated differently from other authorities in relation to expenditure and grants, so it decided to examine what was happening in Barnsley. It discovered that it was being penalised because the grant was determined on figures based on the 1981 census. Since events have moved so quickly in the area, the 1981 census is giving the Secretary of State an inaccurate picture of Barnsley and district. With the factor in the formula, there is room to take those matters into account.
        Since April 1981, the number of people out of work in Barnsley has increased by 72 per cent., compared with 32 per cent. generally in the United Kingdom. Between January 1985 and April 1986, of the travel-to-work areas, Barnsley had by far the highest percentage increase of unemployment—22 per cent. Between April 1984 and April 1986, the number of people who had been out of work for more than a year increased by 29 per cent., compared with an average of 11 per cent.
        Recently the Minister of State said that there was a shift towards service employment. But Barnsley has less service employment than any other local authority area. It has the fourth highest percentage of people aged over 75 who are supported by the local authority. It has the twelfth highest percentage in the metropolitan districts of children aged under 18 in local authority care. Between 1979 and 1986, the number of people receiving supplementary benefit doubled. The formula does not take those matters into consideration. It must be reconsidered and altered because its application to the authorities is wrong.
        To return to my argument on the fire service and transport, the Secretary of State promised that some of the matters that I have highlighted would be taken into consideration in the redetermination. The Bill has stopped that redetermination, so his promise means nothing, unless he will meet representatives of the fire service and transport and redetermine their expenditure.
        Mr. Meadowcroft: I support the general case set out in amendment No. 106 for a fairer and more equitable way of determining rate levels under the Bill. I commend the hon. Members for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) for tabling amendment No. 189. I am well aware that the Minister is in a difficult position. He is not a Home Office Minister and he must defend the measure, but it seems that something has gone wrong with the Government's calculations. I suspect that there has been a simple arithmetical error which no one is prepared to admit. I cannot believe that the Government would be prepared to continue along the road where the nationally agreed standard of service cannot be met within the budget allowed. It is ludicrous for the Home Office to apply standards and then for the Department of the Environment to say, "You cannot have the cash to meet them." Unfortunately, that is the present position of the west Yorkshire fire service.
        The other crucial point, which is demonstrated by the fact that the amendment is in the names of two Conservative Members, is that there has been complete unanimity of approach among members of the west Yorkshire fire authority. They have formed three-party
        100
        delegations to meet the Minister and other hon. Members, and the recommendation to hon. Members came from all three political groups on the fire authority. Rarely in our debates, or, indeed, in local government, can we secure unanimity on one issue and sustain it for some time. I beg the Minister to take into account the fact that no one in west Yorkshire is endeavouring to make political capital from this. No one has said, "If you do not get this, we shall knock you over the head in the press." There has been genuine anxiety about an emergency service.
        I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke from the heart and with experience—and at some length. If we are to work constructively, as is so often commended to us by Mr. Speaker and others, this is exactly the sort of amendment that the House should support. We are not raising great scares about what might happen, but simply accepting the agreed position of all the parties in west Yorkshire and of the fire service officers that they will be unable to recruit the staff that they need. Indeed, they will have to stop recruitment to the fire service if they cannot secure a change in the legislation. I hope that the Minister of State will not think that this debate merits the good natured banter that we often have across the Chamber, welcome though that is. It is a matter that must be treated seriously. When the Committee divides on the amendment, it will be interesting to see whether we can secure the same unanimity in the House as we have in west Yorkshire.
        Mr. Allan Roberts: I rise briefly to mention the direct effect that this clause, if unamended, will have on the Yorkshire fire service, the Merseyside fire service and the police authority.
        The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) should not be surprised that Yorkshire Labour Members have been contacted by the Fire Brigades Union. The effect of his amendment has been significant in that all hon. Members of all parties have been contacted about it. I was not contacted by anyone from Yorkshire, but by the Merseyside county fire brigade chief officer, Mr. Wilmot, who sent me a telegram that he received from the west Yorkshire fire authority urging me to support the amendment and pointing out that the effect of the limitation is to leave that authority with insufficient resources to maintain existing standards of service which, it says, we should be aware, from previous material supplied, falls below nationally recommended levels.
        That telegram was sent to me and other hon. Members who represent Merseyside constituencies partly because Merseyside is in the same predicament with regard to this legislation. When the committee of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority met on 26 September its members considered a report submitted by the treasurer, who advised that the potential expenditure for 1987–88 would be £2·161 million in excess of the £29·284 million expenditure level determined by the Secretary of State.
        A request was made by the elected members of the committee for a redetermination of expenditure to £31·455 million. That was a sensible thing to do, especially as the legislation allowed for an application for redetermination. A meeting took place between members and officers of the authority and Home Office representatives, who are not here to answer. That meeting took place on 19 November

        101
        1986. Further information in support of the authority's bid for redetermination was submitted, but this legislation abolishes the right of appeal for redetermination.
        The standard formula applied to the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority and to all authorities for determining the maximum precept uses the expenditure limit as originally determined at £29·284 million, plus 2·5 per cent., which still produces a totally inadequate expenditure level of just over £30 million. That is a fait accompli. If the Bill, unamended, becomes an Act all the efforts that they thought were legal to seek redetermination and to get a level of expenditure that would enable them to provide effective and efficient fire and civil defence services on Merseyside will he for nothing.
        On 26 September 1986 the treasurer advised that the expenditure to which the authority would be committed in 1987–88 totalled £30.345 million. If one looks at the position as a result of the general blanket redetermination in this clause, one sees a shortfall of £1,745,000. The command, control and vehicle replacement programme cannot go ahead and manpower cannot be increased to fulfil the authority's full obligations for dealing with fire and the other disasters and hazards that the fire brigade has to deal with. As my hon. Friends have already said, this is a matter of life and death. The treasurer's report includes the figure of 1,593 full-time fire officers for which the authority wants money. The additional cost of maintaining that establishment, compared with the present establishment of 1,505 plus recruits, which was approved by the Home Office, is £445,000.
        In 1986, the Merseyside authority followed a detailed assessment of potential expenditure for 1987–88 and submitted an application for redetermination of that expenditure limit to the sum of £31·445 million. That application has been effectively rejected, not by a redetermination process, not after representations to a Minister who considered the whole thing in a balanced way, but by this blanket piece of legislation and this clause that is before us now.
        It is scandalous that the Merseyside fire services should be so dealt with and given such scant attention by the Minister. I am not surprised that the authority placed on record its grave concern that once again the Government have shown a callous disregard for the safety of the people of Merseyside by taking steps to provide insufficient capital resources to enable the authority to maintain the adequate fire cover in the region.
        8.45 pm
        The position is even worse for the Merseyside police authority. Since 1979 there has been a 40 per cent. increase in crime on Merseyside. This Bill takes £6 million from the police authority. In the previous rate support grant settlement—one of the first of the three arranged by the Secretary of State—that police authority suffered a £6 million cut.
        In my constituency young people are easy prey to the hard drug pushers. Five years ago there was no heroin problem. A phenomenon of the Thatcher years is high youth unemployment and heroin coming in through the port and the airport, partly as a result of the cuts in Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise staff. Those people, who see no hope for the future because they have no job and no prospects, are being led astray by drug pushers in a way that previously did not happen. There has been a massive increase in crime on Merseyside. It is a major problem, yet
        102
        the party of law and order takes £6 million from the local authority in this redetermination. That is a scandal. I have received many representations, not just from the Merseyside police authority, its officers and elected representatives, but from the community, voluntary groups and policemen who have the difficult job of policing my constituency to ask for the replacement of this £6 million.
        If the Conservative Government were serious about law and order, they would not cut £6 million off the budget of a police authority covering an area like Merseyside with its problems and with a crime wave that has been stoked up by the industrial, economic and unemployment policies of the Government.
        Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I am sorry to have to speak on this matter because, since 1979, on innumerable occasions I have pleaded with the Government to adopt a sensible, sane and reasonably generous policy towards the Inner London education authority. On all occasions my efforts have failed.
        I should declare an interest. One of my children went through ILEA schools, came out at the other end and went to university. I am grateful to all the people who taught and encouraged her in all the difficult circumstances they faced—not from her, but from the Government—during the period when she was at school.
        Similarly, my eldest son is at that secondary school and our youngest son is at the primary school. They are the nearest primary and mixed comprehensive secondary schools to where we live.
        Neither of the Secretaries of State who are involved in this matter would need to declare an interest. The old Etonian Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Education and Science—I do not know which school he attended but it was certainly a public school—would not need to declare an interest about sending their children to Inner London education authority secondary schools. It is fair to say that the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has had much influence on deciding what happens on the education aspects of the Bill, has pursued a squalid, vindictive vendetta against ILEA, certainly as long as I have been a Member.
        First, he crept on to the Front Bench by launching a squalid and misleading attack on ILEA, thus endearing himself to the Prime Minister and getting himself a junior ministerial office. Since then he has pushed his way on to the Front Bench and continues his vindictive efforts to damage the authority.
        Mr. Richard Caborn: Is my hon. Friend giving the right hon. Gentleman a character reference?
        Mr. Dobson: The truth will out.
        The propositions which are set out in the Bill would lead to ILEA having to face cuts amounting to £125 million. There would be cuts of £19 million, because the Government are so incompetent that they cannot estimate accurately the existing level of ILEA's costs. There would be cuts of £40 million because no provision has been made for pay and price increases that are taking place and are likely to take place in future. There would then be a further £71 million of cuts, which would affect every institution in ILEA. They would mean substantial cuts in every form of provision that is now being made by the authority.

        103
        If there were any Conservative Members in their places who represent inner London constituencies, I have no doubt that they would claim that ILEA spends too much money. I note that there is not one Conservative Member who represents an inner London constituency in his place this evening, yet we are debating cuts amounting to £125 million in the provision that is made for the children of those whom they falsely claim to represent. As I have said, if they were here, some would say that ILEA spends too much money.
        It is a fact that ILEA spends an average of £1,265 per annum per pupil in its primary schools. On the same basis, it spends £1,940 per pupil in its secondary schools. That is a lot of money. But how much do Conservative Members spend on their children's education? Those who send their children to Eton pay £4,950 a year. The fees at Harrow are £5,850 and £5,760 at Winchester. If it is argued by Conservative Members that those sums include boarding fees, let us take account of St. Paul's which was attended by the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he was a lad. The fees for a day boy at St. Paul's are £2,925. For a day boy at Westminster school, the fees are £3,075. It is said that ILEA is a spendthrift authority, but it is spending at least £1,000 less on those who attend its secondary schools than the fees that are paid by some Conservative Members who send their children to schools in the private sector. Yet they tell us that ILEA should reduce its spending without any consideration of the problems that are faced by ILEA.
        I am not uncritical of ILEA. I recognise that there are wrongs within it and faults in all its schools. There are faults with many of its institutions and arrangements. I agree that improvements should be made, but unfortunately the authority has never had the time to turn its attention to effecting improvements since 1979. From that time onwards it has been able to do virtually nothing, apart from defend itself against squalid attacks, which have usually been led by he who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
        I shall illustrate what would have to be done to bring about cuts of £71 million that even the Government have acknowledged they want. It is estimated that there will be slightly more than 1,000 vacancies in ILEA primary schools, and 677 of them would remain unfilled as a contribution to achieving a saving of £71 million. The Minister for Local Government introduced a Bill that addressed itself to special education. If he was serious when he introduced it, he should understand that 102 posts in special education in ILEA would not be filled as a result of the proposed cuts. Massive savings would have to be achieved in the support staff sector. They may be financial savings, but the schools will suffer.
        I regard school meals as one of the finest services that is provided. If anyone wants to help poor children, there is not a more clear, direct or cheaper way of doing so than ensuring that grub passes down their throats. Unfortunately, the service has suffered great damage under this Government. ILEA provides a holiday meals service for its children, but that will have to go if the proposed cuts are implemented. That means that for six or seven weeks during the summer some of the poorest children in the land will not get the meals that they have been receiving from the holiday meals service.
        104
        There would have to be massive cuts in the catering staff, which would do great damage to the incomes of some of the poorest families. It is usually women who work in the catering section and they perform as useful a task as anyone in the land, and certainly a more useful one than anyone who has occupied the Treasury Bench this evening.
        I accept that ILEA spends more money than many other education authorities. For example, it provides clothing vouchers for children aged over 15 years so that they are rather better dressed when they go to school. It provides education maintenance grants to enable children who are aged between 16 and 19 years to stay on at school. I thought that we were trying to encourage children to do that. The proposed cuts would entail a reduction of £189,000 in the provision of education maintenance grants. These are examples of what we are being asked to accept if the Bill is approved this evening.
        Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is unfortunate that there are no Conservative Members in their places who can speak about ILEA. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall the recent reports of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, an all-party Sub-Committee, which was complimentary about the role that ILEA has played in the education of Bangladeshi children. That is precisely because of the imaginative approach that ILEA has adopted in an important area of education. No fair parallel could be found in any other education authority.
        Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Before the Secretary of State for Education and Science did a bunk from London and began to represent Mole Valley—one of the most prosperous areas in the country with the lowest level of unemployment of any English constituency—he represented Marylebone. That constituency is now represented predominantly by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who chaired the Sub-Committee to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is a pity that he is not in the Chamber this evening to advocate that a greater effort should be made to implement its recommendations. The Sub-Committee drew attention in its report to the many Bangladeshi children in certain parts of London, including the area that I represent, and paid tribute to the efforts that ILEA was making to teach them English and to help them become literate in their mother tongue. Both aspects of that teaching are extremely valuable if these children are to become full and more valuable members of our society.
        About half of the intake of the secondary school that my children have attended are children of Bangladeshi parents. They are not a liability. They are our children. It is our duty to look after them, to bring out the best in them and help them to become the enormous asset that they can be to our country. We can only do our duty by them and the people who try to teach, encourage and help them if they have the resources.
        In the formulae of this ridiculous measure there is a key provision that would provide more money to help education authorities to pay for the forthcoming teachers' pay increase. Everybody recognises that ILEA has problems—indeed, I have outlined some of the cuts that it faces—but in this measure it is proposed that ILEA will not get a cent towards paying for the teachers' pay increase.

        105
        At present, young people in the capital city are facing the lowest and worst job prospects in its history. We face all sorts of villainy and crime outside our schools, as well as record levels of heroin addiction and all the problems that come with that. The people who work in the schools are doing their best to give our children a decent start. They are denied the necessary additional resources, and this measure would further reduce those resources.
        If the Government claim to be the Government of law and order and would like London to be a decent, orderly and civilised place in the future, they had better find more money to look after all those children because if they do not they will rue the day.
        9 pm
        Mr. Roger Stott ': I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for allowing me to intervene.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), moved the amendments as they were selected by Mr. Speaker. However, in this group of amendments there are a number which are related to specific issues. Certainly the debate has been wide-ranging and interesting. Unfortunately, it is rather distressing that so few Conservative Members are present for this debate—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) becomes too agitated I shall confirm his presence on the record. I recognise that he has been present throughout the whole of the debate. I see another Member on the Conservative Benches whose constituency I do not know—and I am sure he will enjoy the debate.
        When the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) spoke to one of the amendments I had hoped that he would be supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) but we have not had the pleasure of her company this evening. Perhaps the hon. Lady considers that the amendment she has put her name to is insignificant. That is entirely up to her.
        Mr. Meadow croft rose—
        Mr. Stott: I shall give way in a moment.
        I have listened to the contributions of my hon. Friends and the one Conservative Member on a number of issues that are concerned not just with local government. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn and Bootle (Mr. Roberts) spelt out the consequences of this legislation for local government. My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spelt out the consequences for education. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), if he catches your eye, Sir Paul, will elaborate on the difficulties of the fire services.
        The legislation impinges upon very important issues in terms of education, the fire services, local government and transport—which I shall speak about in a moment. I believe that it is a disservice to this Committee to see the Minister for Local Government in his place without the presence of a Minister from the Home Office or the Department of Transport. They should be here to listen to what my hon. Friends have had to say about the way in which the legislation will impinge upon those services.
        Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the absence of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I believe that his comments were unfair because when amendments are tabled—this happens on the
        106
        Labour Benches—a number of names are put to those amendments but not all Members are necessarily present when they are debated. It is normal practice for names to be put down from particular groups of people in support of those amendments. Surely the crucial thing is whether the hon. Lady, together with her hon. Friends, is in the Division Lobby. That is what matters at the end of the day.
        Mr. Stott: I regret that I gave way to the lion. Gentleman for that somewhat pedantic point. Whether one is here or not may not be important to him, but it is to me. The name of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen was on the Amendment Paper in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Halifax. We shall be interested to see whether the hon. Lady goes into the Lobby with us when the amendments are put to the test.
        I wish to talk about amendment No. 127, which concerns transport. It is designed to safeguard the financial interests of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority by introducing into the formula a factor that will ensure the determination of a maximum precept consistent with the authority's application for redetermination. The debate is about redetermination, whether we are talking about the fire service or the transport service. These services had been endeavouring to redetermine their budgets with the various Secretaries of State, when all of a sudden the Secretary of State for the Environment came along and moved the goalpoits 15 yards further on and left everybody in limbo.
        The Secretary of State has said that the standard uplift is designed to take account of the individual circumstances of PTAs and the information presented to Ministers in the now discontinued exercise of redetermination. My authority, and I suspect others, following the advice of counsel whom it employed, wrote to the Department of Transport asking how this could be achieved by a standard uplift. As far as I am aware, no answer to this specific point has been obtained, unless the letter from the Minister responsible for public transport that I received this evening is a letter to that point.
        The original pronouncements from the Departments that the formula would reflect the requirement of individual authorities have now been replaced by a statement that Ministers are confident that the formula included in the Bill is appropriate in the light of their policies. This was a statement in a letter to the clerk of the Greater Manchester PTA from the Department, written on 14 January.
        Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is on a very important point. Is he aware that in the recent letter, the Secretary of State for Transport said he expected the Government's proposals—to inflict a shortfall of £11·4 million on the Greater Manchester PTA—to be subjected to close parliamentary scrutiny in these proceedings? What possible opportunity is there for close scrutiny? As my hon. Friend knows, not only bus services but the concessionary support scheme will be very badly damaged. In view of the Secretary of State's letter, are not these proceedings a parliamentary outrage?
        Mr. Stott: My right hon. Friend is right. As he and other hon. Members—not just Manchester Members but others such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), and Members from

        107
        Yorkshire—know, we have been endeavouring to draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport who, I suspect, like the Home Secretary on the fire service, has been caught out by the Bill. We were almost there in the redetermination of those budgets. Incidentally, the Secretary of State for the Environment was a former Secretary of State for Transport who was taken to court on more occasions than the Kray brothers, and he has introduced a Bill to make the whole procedure judge-proof.
        My right hon. Friend is right. Those negotiations were taking place in a climate of understanding, in which a redetermination was possible. Now, the Secretary of State for the Environment is moving the goalposts and disallowing all that went on before. He is leaving not just the transport services but the fire services far short of the budget requirements that they need to perform their duties. I am just about to come to the figure of £11·4 million to which my right hon. Friend referred.
        It is an outrage that we are not able to discuss this matter properly. Here we are, on a guillotined Bill that is being railroaded through, determining the levels of expenditure for PTAs and fire services in a debate lasting an hour and a half. What is more, Ministers from neither the Home Office nor the Department of Transport have come to the Chamber to listen to our recommendations, speeches or amendments.
        The total expenditure level notified by the Department last year to Greater Manchester was £74·1 million. The authority requested a redetermination of £84·6 million. Under the arrangements proposed in schedule 2, paragraph 2(5) of the Bill, the authority will receive only £75·16 million. Additional costs recently identified increase this shortfall in resources to £11·4 million, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has already said.
        Therefore, three options are open to the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and I suspect that those options are open to other authorities. Let us look at those options. How can that money be saved, how can the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority ensure that the £11·40 million is forthcoming either from balances or from savings? I am the first to agree that scope always exists to effect relatively small savings in organisational expenditure plans. A reduction of over 13 per cent. in less than a few months leaves only a few options open, and these do not extend to rail support. Rail support in Greater Manchester is £19·2 million, one of the highest levels of rate support in the United Kingdom.
        Under section 20 of the Transport Act 1968 the Greater Manchester transport authority has to give at least 12 months' notice before it can withdraw any support from British Rail. Therefore, that is not an option at this time. That leaves two other areas in which savings could be made. One is of £12 million in the subsidised network and the other is in the concessionary fare agreements. The subsidised network tendering process is extremely difficult because of deregulation. The authority has little room to manoeuvre or to make significant savings in that direction. I am a resident of Greater Manchester and represent the people in the area and I do not want to see the authority undermining the current network. It is worse than it was before deregulation.
        108
        If any savings are to be made, I submit to the Minister of State that they ought not to come from the subsidised network. The only other option open to my local transport authority, and, I suspect, to other transport authorities, is the subsidised network. That network is the one which provides transport for old-age pensioners. When the deregulation Bill was passing through the House the Minister accused me of frightening old ladies when I told him that the legislation we were discussing and which we finally enacted was bound to have an effect upon the subsidy which passenger transport authorities paid for subsidised fares for schoolchildren and old-age pensioners. I told the Minister at the time that I was not being alarmist, that it was his Government and the legislation that we were dealing with which were causing the problem.
        If Greater Manchester is to make the savings required to make up the shortfall of £11 million and if those savings cannot come from the networks subsidised under the current legislation, they can only come from concessionary fares. Are the Government saying that, in order to make up the shortfall which passenger transport authorities have not been able to make up because they cannot have a redetermination of their budgets, they will have to make it up out of the concessionary fare scheme? If that is not the case, the only thing that the Minister of State can do is to accept the amendment that we have tabled. If he does not, we have little or no room to manoeuvre.
        If the Minister were to concede the amendment, it would put us back to our redetermination position. If he does not concede—it is a shame that the Minister's colleagues from the Department of Transport are not sitting beside him—where are we going to find the £11·4 million for which there is a genuine, understandable and a recognised shortfall in my authority and in others? Are we to get the money from the subsidised network or from the concessionary fare schemes? Are we to say to the pensioners of Greater Manchester, "You now enjoy a concessionary fare scheme where you can travel throughout the county for 12p. However, because the miserable Government have introduced deregulation and because the crazy Secretary of State for the Environment has introduced a Bill that seeks to undermine the redetermination proposals, we shall have to increase old-age pensioner bus passes because we cannot find the money to run our transport system as we would like"? Those are stark questions and the stark realities we are facing.
        9.15 pm
        The Minister will no doubt receive advice from his officials as to how the amendment would impinge on the legislation that he is seeking to defend. I hope that his officials will advise him wisely because if he does not accept the amendment, I say in all candour, he must accept the responsibility that flows from not accepting it.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Amendment No. 107 translates the formula in schedule 2 into preliminary maximum limits rather than the final ones and prescribes a further procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State based closely on the rate-capping model. The purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said, is to re-establish the redetermination procedure that was abandoned for 1987–88.
        I remind the House that during the passage of the original Rates Act 1984 Ministers made great play of the

        109
        redetermination machinery within it and encouraged all rate-capped authorities in the first year to talk to the Secretary of State to apply for redetermination. I do not recollect any of them going to the Secretary of State. I do not think that anybody went, because there was a genuine fear among Labour authorities that if they went, rather than make concessions, the Minister would just make things worse by imposing further penalties. When it was discussed in the subsequent year, the then Secretary of State—I do not remember which one because there have been so many—said that if people talked to him—he was obviously feeling lonely—he would not make things worse. He said that he might make things better. After that, some local authorities did go and speak to him.
        Our local authority—my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is in the Chamber—went to see the Secretary of State in order to apply for a limited redetermination as it was notified on 22 July that it was designated for selective rate limitation in 1987–88. Newham was notified that the expenditure level for 1987–88 on which the maximum rate would be set was £154·353 million. The expenditure level was based on the 1985–86 original budget plus 6 per cent. However, the original budget for 1985–86 is an unrealistic basis for any expenditure target or comparison unless it is adjusted for special accounting measures. We have raised that matter before. Newham applied for redetermination of its expenditure level to £175·540 million on the basis that, due to special accounting measures, the economies implied by the expenditure level determined by the Secretary of State were unachievable.
        We met the Minister of State on 27 November 1986 and emphasised that Newham was not necessarily seeking an ability to increase rates but rather to have an equitable share of resources, and recognition of the borough's special needs. We have all agreed that the meeting was cordial. I should like to run through the justification for our plea, because I want it to be on the record. I hope that, that when the Bill goes through unamended by the Opposition, perhaps a sympathetic peer will cast an eye over this part of our proceedings.
        Newham has the second highest level of urban deprivation in the country, according to the Department of the Environment's statistics. We have serious educational problems and, according to the Department of Education and Science, we have the highest level of social deprivation of the 96 local education authorities in England. We have a deepening housing crisis. We have the highest number of unsatisfactory dwellings which are unfit or lacking basic amenities and in need of substantial repair in the 32 London boroughs. We have acute housing stress and the fastest increasing homelessness in London. It has risen from 972 applicants in 1981 to an expected 1,900 this year. We have asked for extra resources to deal with the enormous homelessness problem, but our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
        Newham has a significant level of population growth—the second highest projected increase in the 32 London boroughs between 1986 and 1991. We have the third highest number of births of the 32 London boroughs and substantial increases in the number of under-fives. We have a projected 21 per cent. increase in the number of people aged over 85 between 1986 and 1991. We have a large and diverse ethnic minorities population and the fourth highest percentage in England and Wales of residents of new Commonwealth origin.
        110
        We have the third highest rate of children born to mothers of new Commonwealth origin in London and, like many other parts of the country, high unemployment—17·5 per cent. We have a male unemployment rate of 21·3 per cent.—the sixth highest in London. We have had a major reduction in local employment recently, due to the closure in 1980 of the royal docks and the decline of associated industries. We have the fourth highest number of unemployed 16-to-19-year olds.
        According to the map, Newham is an outer-London borough, but it has inner-London characteristics. The severity of its problems, which require local expenditure, is greater than is found in many inner-London boroughs. Newham's expenditure per head is considerably lower than in inner-London boroughs and resources available from the Government are also considerably smaller.
        We have often pleaded with Ministers here and in meetings for partnership status for the borough. The case is unanswerable, but we have not been able to convince the Government—in spite of the fact that they accept that we are not exaggerating the problems—that we need more resources rather than less. There can be no doubt about the strength of Newham's case. It appears to have been accepted by Ministers and their departmental officers.
        Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend knows that, if time permits, I hope to put forward a formula which would ameliorate the problems to which he has referred.
        Will my hon. Friend confirm that, at the meeting when all this information was presented to the Minister, the Minister said that the arguments were put fairly, temperately and properly? As far as we know, none of the facts to which my hon. Friend has referred has been questioned by the Minister or anybody else.
        Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what makes this so frustrating for all three hon. Members who represent Newham. It is not as if we have been accused of exaggerating or as if Ministers have said that we are telling lies. We have always been told that our case is good. I know that there are other equally deserving cases in other parts of the country. We have never argued that Newham should get something that has been taken away from another deprived area of London. God knows, there are enough deprived areas in the east end of London and other inner cities.
        All that we are saying is that the Tories do not seem to understand the depth of the problems in an area such as Newham. I realise, of course, that if one was being totally cynical, one could say that they look at a borough such as Newham, and realise that the Tories do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election there. Under those circumstances, what has the Tory Government got to gain, in terms of votes, by giving anything to Newham? That is being very cynical, but perhaps we have been refused because the Government realise that in cynical terms there is nothing for them from the ballot box. If that is the case, it is disgraceful.
        As the leader of Newham borough council, councillor Jones, a very moderate man in his views and no wild extremist by anybody's definition, has made clear time and again, if we do not get the resources in Newham that we believe our case merits and justifies, the consequences will be appalling, primarily for the people of Newham but in the end for the Government as well.
        Mr. Caborn: It is apt that I should follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because the problems that we have in the city of Sheffield and in south Yorkshire are mirrored probably to an even greater extent than my hon. Friend suggested.
        Probably one of the most despicable parts of redetermination rested on Sheffield's shoulders when we came down to meet the Minister on 17 December 1986. We sat at the Ministry and put the case for Sheffield because it was proposed to slash £41 million off the budget of Sheffield county council. We put the case to the Minister for redetermination, as did one of his hon. Friends, the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn). We were told that he would take all the points on board that we were making about the serious situation of the inner-city seat, with a decline in its industrial base of steel and engineering. When we came back to the House of Commons the following day, we found that the Bill was going to be presented and put on the statute book and that the exercise that we had run through with the Minister was irrelevant because redetermination was not allowed.
        Prior to that, for the first time in its history, the Sheffield chamber of commerce and the hon. Member for Hallam made representations about the state of Sheffield's finances after it had been taken into consultation with the local authority, and clearly stated to central Government that it was impossible to run the city of Sheffield on the expenditure levels that were being proposed by the Department of the Environment. The city council also made representations. That was because the city of Sheffield is suffering one of the worst industrial declines in its history, yet we are penalised by that reduction in expenditure levels.
        On top of that, as several of my hon. Friends from south Yorkshire have said, the fire and civil defence budget has been reduced by £1 million and the transport budget has been reduced by about £12 million. The transport authority has also made representations for redetermination. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) has been talking about the problems of Greater Manchester, if one compares them with what has been happening in south Yorkshire, with all due respect to my hon. Friend, they pale into insignificance, because as bad as the cuts in Greater Manchester are, they are 9 per cent., while south Yorkshire's support is being slashed by 21 per cent.
        On local radio in Sheffield earlier today, the depth of the problems that some people are experiencing was clearly stated. One of the callers to the phone-in programme this morning on Radio Sheffield explained her plight. Her family has moved out to one of the outer reaches of Sheffield, to a new housing estate. That was partly because there is quite nice housing in the outskirts of Sheffield but also because there was a reasonable, sound, efficient and effective system of transport in operation. Unfortunately, her husband has had both legs removed. The couple have a youngster who is at technical college. It is now very difficult for the wife and the child to get around because of the reduction in the wages going into that household.
        9.30 pm
        In the past 18 months, we have suffered from increases in fares of over 225 per cent. There have been reductions in the transport infrastructure of about 10 per cent. The number of passengers carried has fallen by about 30 to 35
        112
        per cent., and that was before deregulation. Now, in addition, we have a further 6 per cent. increase in fares. We have lost thousands of jobs in transport, and there will be a further 800 redundancies because of the Government's expenditure levels.
        Let us look at the Government's credibility. They are giving promises to people who think that they are sincere and honest when they are dealing with them. Again, for the financial year 1987–88, the south Yorkshire PTE will have to meet extra costs totalling £3·68 million arising from the scheme of transfer. That was a major point on redetermination raised by the south Yorkshire PTE and brought about by the Local Government Act 1985. The Secretary of State for Transport said that that would be seriously taken on board. It is £3·68 million out of total expenditure of £46·6 million. Clear indications were given that that would be included in the redetermination level. It was not. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, south Yorkshire PTE is saying: where does the money come from? Does it come out of the concessionary fares, which have been affected already? Where do we get the money from? It is an impossible task.
        The whole of the city of Sheffield, including business, industry, commerce, the trade unions and the local papers, is saying that the Government are now putting constraints upon a fairly deprived area, the industrial base of which has been decimated by the lack of Government industrial policies. All the organisations that have made representations are saying, "You are giving us an impossible task. It cannot be done." Further deprivation and social unrest is inevitable. Then people such as the chairman of the Tory party will come to the Front Bench and castigate Sheffield for at least trying to protect those who can least protect themselves. What the Government have done is dishonourable, in view of the many representations by people in south Yorkshire.
        Mr. Tony Lloyd: I should continue in the same vein, and refer to transport in our metropolitan areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spoke a little about Greater Manchester. I do not intend to go over the the same ground, but I should like to put a couple of points to the Minister.
        The Minister has not been directly involved in the negotiations between Greater Manchester and the Department of Transport. It grieves us greatly that, having suffered in some ways more than other authorities—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) about south Yorkshire—Greater Manchester has unique problems because of the restructuring that it had to undertake. That was recognised by the Transport Ministers, who, at one stage, described its proposals as "sensible". It sticks considerably in our throats when we hear those same Transport Ministers telling us that in Greater Manchester it is our own fault that services are being decimated while, even by the Government's own account, we read that Greater Manchester has suffered more loss of mileage and routes than any other metropolitan area in the process of deregulation.
        On Friday I visited a scheme funded by the passenger transport authority and the Manpower Services Commission, which is close to the Government's heart, or at least close to the Government's rhetoric. It is a dial-a-ride scheme for the most vulnerable and those who have the greatest transport difficulties.

        113
        That is something that the Department of Transport claims that it wants to promote. It parallels the claims made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central about the difficulties experienced by people who have specific physical disabilities and who are unable to use the public transport system. The possibility of an extension of those schemes in Greater Manchester into an area such as my own—which has some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the whole of the Greater Manchester area—is non-existent.
        Far from Greater Manchester passenger transport authority being able to extend that scheme, we are likely to see it cutting back on existing provision, and we are likely to see the concessionary fares go unless the Minister tells us tonight that he intends to accept the amendment or come up with another solution dealing with debt.
        In Greater Manchester we went through the whole process of redetermination because we believed that the Government were sincere when they said that they accepted that each local authority would be able to argue its own individual case for redetermination. In terms of the transport and fire authorities, Greater Manchester went through the motions and spent many hours of officers' and authority members' time in beating a path down to London. That is no pleasant day out for people from the north-west; it is something that they do on behalf of the community they represent. However, we found that that process was a farce and that it had been ripped up by the Bill, which takes no account whatever of local circumstances.
        The fire authority feels particularly bitter. It had a constructive meeting with Lord Caithness, who is responsible for fire services, and brought down an all-party delegation. It felt that it had managed to explain the peculiar circumstances of Greater Manchester, and left Whitehall feeling that its unique circumstances would be considered. It came as a slap in the face when Greater Manchester's fire authority found that it would be treated in exactly the same way as every other fire authority in the metropolitan areas.
        I do not want to fight a case for, and even less against, fire authorities, but it is well recognised that Greater Manchester has done badly in this settlement. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) whose authority, West Yorkshire, has been treated worse than any other. He has absented himself now but my hon. Friends will accept that he was the only Conservative Member who took the trouble to speak, not only about fire authorities and transport, but across the whole range of the debate. The rest of the Tory party has been silent on these particular issues.
        Mr. Meadowcroft: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will contemplate the possibility that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) is outside trying to drum up support for his amendment amongst his colleagues.
        Mr. Lloyd: I did not seek to criticise the hon. Member for Halifax, but the rest of his colleagues in the Conservative party, who cannot be bothered to take up the important issues affecting west Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, south Yorkshire, the west midlands and so on.
        The fire authority in Greater Manchester faces a cut of £1 million unless the Bill is amended. The Government were certain, when they put forward the expenditure limits
        114
        last July, that they had got things right, but conceded that they had got things wrong by considering the redetermination process. They conceded how wrong they were by allowing a 2·5 per cent. uplift, yet when representatives of Greater Manchester's fire authority spoke to the civil servants they were told, "We have only given you 2·.5 per cent., but there may be £800,000 in additional clawback." Whitehall clearly accepts that Greater Manchester's fire authority needs the money that it requested. Whitehall is saying, in effect, that it will match exactly what Greater Manchester asked for. barring the odd £100,000 because it will be giving—on a nod and a wink—the extra money. Unfortunately, we in Greater Manchester are not gullible. The reality is that we do not know whether we shall get this extra money through additional clawback. But even if we lid, the difficulty is that, while that might fund one year, t would not carry over to future years given the present structure of local government finance. That leaves Greater Manchester vulnerable. We have already had standstills in recruitment. Last year we lost a number of serving fire officers in the training pool. That is bad for those who must carry out essential emergency work in a large metropolitan area. Whatever happens, we shall lose even more money again this year.
        Greater Manchester already has a high death rate from fires. There were 124 deaths in 1985. The Home Office recognises that Greater Manchester is probably the most efficient of the metropolitan authorities. That can be proved by statistics. If we reduce financial provision even further we shall effectively be undermining and sabotaging the job done by firemen out on the tenders and by the fire authority in general. Ultimately, we shall be doing that at the expense of the lives and property of the people of Greater Manchester. If that is what the Government intend, so be it. The public will make up their own mind. But if the Government want to wriggle out of that. let the Minister stand up and say how they intend to make up that financial shortfall.
        Mr. Walter Harrison: It has taken me two or three weeks and quite a few days sitting in this Chamber to draw someone's attention to the fact that I wanted to have a little word about my concern over local government finance. I have put on all sorts of little demonstrations. When I look round the Chamber, as a simple rural lad, the first place that I look is the Press Gallery. The Lobby members usually ask where the Members of Parliament are, but where are they? Not a single one is present to take any interest in this business, which concerns one of the biggest problems that we have ever had to face. They check us and now we are checking them. We have two Hansard writers. The public are interested. Seven members of the public are present and here we are fighting a dynamic battle about local government finance.
        How many Conservative Back-Benchers are present? There are three in the proper positions, one Cross Bencher, and one lounging. There are more Members on the Opposition Front Bench.
        I do not know how long I have got, but I have been trying to speak for a long time. When I started in local government — my father was a local government councillor before me — we had to account for every dustbin lid. We had to account for everything, whether for wooden rafters or rolled steel girders. We had to account for boundary fences. We had to go to the regional

        115
        committee to see whether we could spend over £15. We were accountable. I am worried about the accountability of the Government, local government and everything else.
        I come to the crunch. Hon. Members know that at present I have a little bit of a running battle with one of the Ministers in the Department of the Environment. That is nothing new.
        Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Who is that?
        Mr. Harrison: I reckon that my hon. Friends are looking at him, so I shall not name him.
        I started out asking questions about accountability and I approached my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who will be Ministers at the next election, and asked them which was the best point for me to talk about residuary bodies. They told me that such and such a point would be best. My hon. Friend, who I will not name because I cannot remember his constituency, told me that such and such a place would be best. He told me that when the guillotine fell I would be cut short. Therefore, I thought that it would be advisable for me to speak now. I thought that if I was to be chopped by the guillotine, it would be best, whether I was in order or out of order, to chance my luck now.
        9.45 pm
        I want to make a point about the accountability of local government finance. I started out as an urban district councillor and became a non-county borough councillor. I became a county councillor and then I came here. What a success! I had more success as an urban district councillor than I have had here. I could receive more answers in those days.
        When I asked the town clerk or anyone else a question, he was accountable and he answered me. He did not give me distortions or fancy words, because he knew that I would see him again the next day.
        I began to ask questions about what belonged to me as a ratepayer, as a constituent, and what belonged to my father before me. I found out that there was no accountability. When the Tory Government abolished the county councils, we discovered that there was no accountability. The Government did not elect the body to replace the councils; they selected it. I told one bloke, "You have got some real ones there. From the names that I have seen, the members of that residuary body would sell their grandmothers." The Secretary of State said to me, "Why do you think that we selected them?"
        I am bothered about my property in Yorkshire. I do not have much property, just a little house with about three quarters of an acre, but I have a lot of vested interests.
        Mr. Caborn: Castle Howard.
        Mr. Harrison: No, it is not Castle Howard.
        I am bothered about county hall and what my predecessors and my father paid into. I am worried about accountability and I am concerned about the residuary bodies which are non-elected and non-accountable. The residuary body was selected for its attitude. I notice that there is one more person in the Press Gallery. Welcome to the fold.
        With all my vested interest through being a ratepayer, I wanted to see what accountability was available.
        Mr. Allen McKay: Two minutes left.
        Mr. Harrison: I have been told that I have only two minutes left. I have not spoken for 12 months. All I have done is to make interventions. I will finish in a few minutes, but I have a bit more to say yet.
        I am concerned about the accountability of local government finance. Way back, I could account each year through the local authority. Now, however, no one can account for what is happening because councillors are not in charge. The Secretary of State is in charge, but he is not accountable.
        Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend will be talking about the residuary bodies in some detail. Is he aware that the unelected chairman of the London residuary body receives more than £51,000 for dismantling London while the former leader of the Greater London council, Ken Livingstone, received only council expenses to a grand total of about £6,000?
        Mr. Harrison: I asked those questions, but the Government could not tell me. I asked the Government what the chairmen of the residuary bodies receive annually, what emoluments they receive and what other jobs they do. That is a carve-up.
        I am worried about west Yorkshire county hall. Look at the stack of questions I have asked—it is beautiful. Now the Government answer my questions in triplicate. They give the same answers to three questions because they are fed up. I asked the Secretary of State,
        "what was the estimated value of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council…complex in Wood Street, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, at the time of the abolition."—[Official Report, 19 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 635.]
        Did the Minister know? No; he told me to ask the residuary body.
        I also asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, "what were the total capital assets of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council on 31 March at the time of the abolition of that county council."
        He replied:
        "Local authorities are not required to maintain a balance sheet."—[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 9.]
        I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment about the number of vacant properties formerly owned by the county council and their annual rental values.
        The Minister replied:
        "I have no information on this matter".— [Official Report, 19 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 753.]
        He said that it was a matter for the residuary body.
        I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he had given guidance to the residuary body on the disposal of properties, but he had no information. Then comes the triplicate one. I asked the Secretary of State about the individual units of property and land, whether he would make a statement on the percentage increase of rented properties and whether he would make a statement on the total receipts from the disposal and sale of property and land. The Minister replied:
        "I have no information on these matters."—'[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 679.]
        What marvellous accountability!
        The accountability for local government finance has been removed from local councillors. It has gone to the Government, who are not accountable because they refer all matters to the residuary bodies.
        That was a short version of what I wanted to say because my hon. Friends were barracking me. But I shall return to the subject and I hope that many of my hon. Friends will take it up. The only response that I get from

        117
        the Department of the Environment is that the residuary body has the information. Its members are not elected; they were selected because they would sell their grandmothers.
        Dr. Boyson: When I came into the House, I received a letter from a noted librarian called Ivy Hill. She said that she had served under seven chairmen of library committees. One of them was my father, who was an alderman in Haslingden. Another was the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison). She paid tribute to them as the two best chairmen under whom she had served in local government. It gives me pleasure to put that on the record tonight.
        It is said that most people deplore the end of consensus in local government. However, one reason for the end of that is excessive spending by certain boroughs. The introduction of rate capping was the Government's response to the huge increase of expenditure—
        Mr. Tony Banks rose
        —
        Dr. Boyson: I shall give way in a minute; I have hardly started my speech. We shall be continuing the debate after the 10 o'clock motion.
        We believe that if rates are too high they drive out residents and businesses, with the consequent risk of creating residential and industrial deserts.
        Although I shall ask the House to reject the Opposition amendments, I must point out that one amendment being discussed in this group—No. 114—is, in fact, a Government amendment, and I shall be asking the House to accept it.
        Under redetermination, authorities were able to request a meeting with the appropriate Minister and a reassessment was then made. Until the necessity for this Bill was shown, there was every intention that redetermination should be available for the 1987–88 rating period from 1 April this year.
        Mr. Caborn rose—
        Dr. Boyson: There is a queue, and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is first in it. I shall give way in a moment.
        Half of the authorities that were rate-capped this year asked for redetermination. However, the Government decided not to give individual redetermination, but to draft the Bill in two blocks—those authorities that were rate-capped last year and those that have been rate-capped for the first time this year. With the authorities that applied for redetermination, we did what we could by bringing in the formula alongside what we would have previously given—
        Mr. Tony Banks: I do not under-estimate the significance of rates at the margin, but the Minister must accept that rates are one of the least important cost factors facing industry. Of far greater significance are interest rates, and the Government determine those. He cannot continue to attack local authorities and claim that high spending is all their fault — he knows that the Government's contribution to rate support grant has gone down from 61 per cent. in 1979 to 46 per cent. this year. That is a massive switch of taxation from central to local government. The Minister cannot pretend that that has not been a major factor in the spending policies of Labour and other local authorities.
        Dr. Boyson: The level of interest rates applies equally throughout the country, so the geographical location of businesses is not affected by them. However, the level of rates varies between authorities. For a business that requires a great deal of space and many buildings, the level of rates in a particular area is a major determinant in whether it stays in that area or moves elsewere, or even in whether it can stay in business at all. I have visited businesses in the Wembley trading estate which within the past two years have moved elsewhere because of the level of rates in Brent. Rates are important. There is no need for Micawberism to accept that success or failure comes on the margin. It is on the margin that we all make our decisions.
        10 pm
        Mr. Caborn: The Minister has given a short explanation of why the Government introduced rate capping. The South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority is the subject of minimum standards that should be met for the well-being of the people of south Yorkshire, yet the Department of the Environment is £1 million short of capital to meet the minimum standards that have been spent. If we are spending so much money in south Yorkshire that it is necessary to rate-cap the authority, how is it that the fire service is falling short of the minimum standards that have been set for it and a Government Department is saying that those standards should be achieved?
        Dr. Boyson: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question later. I have stopped using my prepared notes so that I can respond to all those who have participated in the debate so far. If I start to respond to interventions. I shall forget to reply to some of those who have spoken in the debate.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Answer the question.
        Dr. Boyson: This happens to be my speech and I shall proceed with it in my way.
        Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
        Dr. Boyson: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Rogers: When the Minister responded to a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) he suggested that rates are an important factor in the location of industry. In the area that I represent, companies have the benefit of a substantial part of their rates bill being mitigated for perhaps the first five years, yet they still do not stay in the area and they do not come into the area in sufficient numbers to relieve unemployment. If the non-levying of rates is a factor, surely my area and others like it should be attracting more companies.
        Dr. Boyson: Presumably rates were considered to be an important factor by a sufficient number, or the five-year provision would not have been introduced.
        Several Hon. Members rose—
        Dr. Boyson: I must get on, because there are many hon. Members who want to move on to Third Reading. Many amendments remain undiscussed and there are certain ones—
        Mr. Straw: It was the Government who imposed a guillotine.
        Dr. Boyson: We did so to ensure that local authorities would have their money on 1 April. If they do not have their money on that date because the Bill has not been enacted, no one will thank those who delayed its passage through the House of Commons.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and the hon. Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred to the south Yorkshire fire service—
        Mr. Kevin Barron: Halifax is in west Yorkshire.
        Dr. Boyson: Questions have been asked especially about south Yorkshire and I shall respond to them.
        Effectively, spending this year will amount to an increase of 6·9 per cent. on last year's budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is satisfied on present information that the expenditure level is adequate to maintain the existing level of service. He is of the view that it will enable the authority to maintain minimum standards of fire cover, but he has asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services to report urgently on the operational implications of the intended pre-set limit. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend will consider the chief inspector's report extremely carefully. I have heard that my noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has agreed to meet the authority to discuss the concerns which it has brought to our notice.
        Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has told us that the Minister of State, Home Office, the Earl of Caithness, will meet the fire authority, but what difference will that make when the Bill has passed through the House of Commons? At that stage everything will be cut and dried.
        Dr. Boyson: That is obviously a valid point. On the other hand, help can be given to local authorities in many ways. The very fact that the agreement has been made for the Minister to meet that authority shows the concern that is felt by the Government on this matter.
        Mr. Straw: The Minister said that help can be given in many ways. Will he spell out those ways? Will he accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has made clear, that once the Bill becomes an Act, the expenditure limits and rate limits are set in concrete and there is nothing that even the Secretary of State can do about them? He is putting into the Bill great inflexibility and forcing rate limits on authorities, even if he accepts the merits of their case.
        Dr. Boyson: I cannot comment on what my hon. Friend the Minister will say when he meets the authority. I have just informed the House that he is prepared to meet the authority and discuss the situation.
        The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) mentioned the Merseyside police authority. The increase for that is over 7 per cent. Reference has been made to the transport authorities in two areas. I have the figures here. In 1987–88 there will be a £3 million increase for the Greater Manchester area, so the argument is not over cuts but over the level of increased expenditure. All of us would like more money if we could have it. We are dealing not with cuts but with arguments as to whether the percentages that I have given are enough.
        Mr. Stott rose—
        Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way because we must move on. I know that some hon. Members have been here all the time, while others have only just come in.
        The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned inner London and made a strong case on the need for further money for ILEA. However, I bring to the attention of the Committee the huge expenditure of ILEA. It is spending twice as much per pupil in its schools as the average for the whole country. The rest of the country can manage on that average with good results, while those of ILEA are not the best. I do not have the results with me, but I have seen reports. ILEA is the highest spending authority relative to GRE. It has budgeted to spend 78 per cent. more than GRE on education this year, and the next highest, Haringey, will spend only 31 per cent. more.
        Similarly, ILEA employs twice as many non-teaching staff in schools relative to pupil numbers than the average authority. Its costs of administration per pupil are more than twice the average, even allowing for London weighting. Its refusal to manage its teacher force properly has led to overstaffing and very generous pupil teacher ratios. Last year, there were 500 supernumerary teachers without proper jobs in its schools, while there were shortages in many other authorities, even those in London. Even allowing for London weighting, ILEA spends 30 per cent. more per pupil than the inner city authorities of Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, and almost 60 per cent. more than Birmingham. ILEA educates 4 per cent. of the children in the country but spends 8 per cent. of the money available. How anybody can ask for more money for ILEA with such a background, I do not know.
        Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister recall that I pointed out that in secondary schools, ILEA spends about £1,900 per pupil, but Conservative Members, who say that ILEA should spend less, spend £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 a year sending their children to public school? They do not represent London seats, but they come here to set aside the decisions of the democratically elected ILEA to spend what it thinks is needed to provide a decent education for the children of inner London.
        Dr. Boyson: I would like the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to listen most carefully. With regard to school spending in London a conclusion was reached by ILEA last week—presumably because of financial pressure this year—regarding its boarding school, Wolverstone Hall, which costs £8,350 per pupil, or 50 per cent. more than Eton. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about saving money, he should recall that the most expensive boarding school is run by ILEA. Thank goodness that ILEA only runs one boarding school, or it would be spending six times as much per head of the population. If that is the hon. Gentleman's best case for ILEA, I do not see anything wrong in sharing out the money across the length and breadth of the country.
        I should also like to make reference to the existing rate-capped boroughs. The hon. Member for Sheffield" Heeley (Mr. Michie) mentioned Sheffield, but the fact is that that council spent 20 per cent. more over allocated GRE. In April 1986, 953 properties owned by Sheffield council have been vacant for over a year. Let us consider the money that could have been brought in had they been let.
        The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke with his usual fire and enthusiasm—he

        121
        enlivens the House with his speeches. Newham is spending 80 per cent. over GRE and the local rate is 66 per cent. above the class average. Rates have risen by 50 per cent. since 1982–83. Since 1983, rents have been down by 8p per house, which means that Newham has forgone an annual income of £3 million because of that reduction. The rates in Newham for 1986–87 were the highest in London. Some have objected to the fact that that borough will be rate-capped; one wonders whether rates would have to reach the height of Snowdonia or the Himalayas before someone would not object to the rate-capping of that borough.
        I shall not say any more, because I do not wish to disturb Opposition Members. I know that they are keen to vote upon that issue. I would be astonished if there was a vote, considering the figures I have given. However, one cannot account for human nature.
        The Government have sought to rate-cap to ensure that people are not driven out of boroughs and businesses do not go bankrupt. To protect those people we need the clauses in their entirety and on behalf of the Government I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose all the amendments, bar amendment No. 114—it is an amendment produced on the home side and I recommend it—and to go into the Lobby to vote for the retention of the clauses.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 252.

        Division No. 72]

        [10.15 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

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

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Deakins, Eric

        Alton, David

        Dewar, Donald

        Anderson, Donald

        Dixon, Donald

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Dobson, Frank

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Dormand, Jack

        Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

        Dubs, Alfred

        Bagier, Gordon A. T.

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Eadie, Alex

        Barron, Kevin

        Eastham, Ken

        Beckett, Mrs Margaret

        Evans, John (St. Helens N)

        Bell, Stuart

        Fatchett, Derek

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

        Faulds, Andrew

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

        Blair, Anthony

        Fisher, Mark

        Boyes, Roland

        Flannery, Martin

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

        Forrester, John

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Foster, Derek

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

        Foulkes, George

        Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

        Fraser, J. (Norwood)

        Buchan, Norman

        Freud, Clement

        Caborn, Richard

        George, Bruce

        Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Gould, Bryan

        Canavan, Dennis

        Gourlay, Harry

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Hamilton, James (M'well N)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

        Clay, Robert

        Hancock, Michael

        Clelland, David Gordon

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Haynes, Frank

        Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Cohen, Harry

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Conlan, Bernard

        Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

        Home Robertson, John

        Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Craigen, J. M.

        Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

        Crowther, Stan

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Janner, Hon Greville

        122

        Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

        Redmond, Martin

        John, Brynmor

        Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Lambie, David

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Lamond, James

        Rogers, Allan

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Rooker, J. W.

        Leighton, Ronald

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

        Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Litherland, Robert

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Loyden, Edward

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        McCartney, Hugh

        Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Silkin, Rt Hon J.

        Maclennan, Robert

        Skinner, Dennis

        McNamara, Kevin

        Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

        McTaggart, Robert

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

        Madden, Max

        Snape, Peter

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Soley, Clive

        Martin, Michael

        Spearing, Nigel

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

        Maxton, John

        Stott, Roger

        Maynard, Miss Joan

        Straw, Jack

        Meacher, Michael

        Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

        Meadowcroft, Michael

        Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

        Michie, William

        Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Thorne, Stan (Preston)

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Tinn, James

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Torney, Tom

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Wainwright, R.

        Nellist, David

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Wareing, Robert

        O'Brien, William

        Weetch, Ken

        O'Neill, Martin

        Welsh, Michael

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        White, James

        Park, George

        Williams, Rt Hon A.

        Patchett, Terry

        Wilson, Gordon

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Winnick, David

        Pendry, Tom

        Wrigglesworth, Ian

        Pike, Peter

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Prescott, John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Radice, Giles

        Mr. Ron Davies and

        Randall, Stuart

        Mr. John McWilliam.

        Raynsford, Nick

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

        Alexander, Richard

        Browne, John

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Bruinvels, Peter

        Amess, David

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

        Ancram, Michael

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Arnold, Tom

        Budgen, Nick

        Ashby, David

        Bulmer, Esmond

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

        Burt, Alistair

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Butcher, John

        Batiste, Spencer

        Butterfill, John

        Bellingham, Henry

        Carlisle, John (Luton N)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Carttiss, Michael

        Benyon, William

        Cash, William

        Best, Keith

        Chapman, Sydney

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Chope, Christopher

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Churchill, W. S.

        Blackburn, John

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Cockeram, Eric

        Bottom ley, Peter

        Colvin, Michael

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Conway, Derek

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

        Coombs, Simon

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Cope, John

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Couchman, James

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Critchley, Julian

        Bright, Graham

        Crouch, David

        Brinton, Tim

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Dicks, Terry

        123

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lilley, Peter

        Dover, Den

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Lord, Michael

        Dunn, Robert

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Durant, Tony

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Dykes, Hugh

        McCrindle, Robert

        Eggar, Tim

        McCurley, Mrs Anna

        Evennett, David

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Eyre, Sir Reginald

        MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

        Favell, Anthony

        MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

        Forman, Nigel

        Maclean, David John

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Forth, Eric

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Gale, Roger

        Madel, David

        Galley, Roy

        Major, John

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Malone, Gerald

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Maples, John

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Marland, Paul

        Gow, Ian

        Marlow, Antony

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Greenway, Harry

        Mates, Michael

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon

        Mather, Sir Carol

        Gummer, Rt Hon John S

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Hannam, John

        Mayhew, Sir Patrick

        Harris, David

        Merchant, Piers

        Hayes, J.

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Hicks, Robert

        Mills, lain (Meriden)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

        Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

        Miscampbell, Norman

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

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

        Moate, Roger

        Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Jackson, Robert

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

        Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

        Mudd, David

        Knowles, Michael

        Neale, Gerrard

        Knox, David

        Nelson, Anthony

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Neubert, Michael

        Latham, Michael

        Newton, Tony

        Lawler, Geoffrey

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Onslow, Cranley

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Ottaway, Richard

        Lester, Jim

        Page, Richard (Herts SW)

        Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        124

        Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

        Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

        Pawsey, James

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

        Pollock, Alexander

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Portillo, Michael

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Powley, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Price, Sir David

        Terlezki, Stefan

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

        Rattan, Keith

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Thurnham, Peter

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Trippier, David

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Trotter, Neville

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Rost, Peter

        Viggers, Peter

        Rowe, Andrew

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Ryder, Richard

        Walden, George

        Sackville, Hon Thomas

        Walker, Bill (Tside N)

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Waller, Gary

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Ward, John

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Watson, John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Watts, John

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

        Shersby, Michael

        Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

        Silvester, Fred

        Wheeler, John

        Sims, Roger

        Whitfield, John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Whitney, Raymond

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Speed, Keith

        Wolfson, Mark

        Speller, Tony

        Wood, Timothy

        Spencer, Derek

        Woodcock, Michael

        Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

        Yeo, Tim

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Squire, Robin

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Steen, Anthony

        Mr. Peter Lloyd and

        Stern, Michael

        Mr. David Lightbown.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. David Clelland: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in page 6, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
        '(4) For the purposes of section 8 below the maximum limit in relation to a designated authority shall be such amount in the pound, expressed in pence, the effect of which shall be that the authority's relevant expenditure (as defined in section 3(1) of this Act) for the financial year beginning in 1987 shall not be less than the authority's relevant expenditure (as so defined) for the financial year beginning in 1986 as adjusted to take account of any increase in the Index of Retail Prices which may have occurred since the beginning of that financial year.'.
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 190, in page 6, line 17, leave out
        `determined in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act' an insert—

        '(a) the limit determined in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act, or

        (b) an amount in the pound equal to the actual rate made (exclusive of any excluded part) or precept issued by the authority for the financial year beginning in 1986 whichever shall be the higher.'.

        No. 191, in clause 8, page 7, line 18, after 'section', insert 'and of section 7 above.'.
        I gather that it is also for the convenience of the Committee to consider amendment No. 192, in clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
        '(2A) If a designated authority makes a rate, or issues a precept, whether before or after the passing of this Act but before a notice has been served on it and the amount in the pound of the rate (exclusive of any excluded part) or of the precept is lower than the maximum limit, the authority may, if it thinks fit, make a substituted rate or issue a substituted precept before the expiry of the permitted period.'.
        Mr. Clelland: The Government want to control the national and the local contribution to local government finance. That has been their declared policy since they were elected, although I do not recall it being talked about too much before they were elected, and the Bill reaffirms that policy.
        Whereas previously the concept of rate capping was assumed by most people to be a method of limiting rate rises, we find that in some cases it also means that the Secretary of State can force a rate reduction without also assuming responsibility for deciding whether and how services can be maintained at the same level on a lower income or, if not, which should suffer.
        It is predictable that there are some people who welcome rate capping as a relief to ratepayers. They pay scant regard to the possible consequences of such remote control of local government affairs. I propose to use one local authority as an example, but there are many others which face similar problems to differing degrees.
        The council which I intend to highlight is Gateshead metropolitan borough council, for which the Bill would mean a massive 9 per cent. reduction in rates, which translates into a £12·5 million reduction on what is needed to maintain services at current levels. I ask those people who welcome the prospect—local newspapers and the local business community in particular—to consider what their reaction would be if some politician or civil servant devised a formula which dictated that they must reduce their charges by 9 per cent., that they had three months' notice in which to do it, yet the reduction should have little or no effect on their services. I doubt very much
        126
        whether they would be glad to hear such news, especially from people who are not directly affected by the consequences of such a reduction and who have little or no knowledge of the circumstances of the business concerned.
        That, however, is what is being done to Gateshead. For what offence? Is Gateshead a high spending authority, whatever that means? The definition of high or overspending is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. On any method of comparison with relevant authorities, Gateshead cannot be described as a high spender.
        Do the people of Gateshead suffer disproportionately high rate payments? If we compare average rate payments in Gateshead with those in other authorities, we find that that is not the case either. Of 107 comparable authorities—the metropolitan districts, shire counties and London boroughs—Gateshead comes 64th in the league table for rate payments; it comes 27th out of the 36 metropolitan districts; and it has the lowest average weekly rates among rate-capped authorities.
        Gateshead has lower average weekly rates than every Conservative-controlled metropolitan district council, none of which, of course, is rate capped. The average rates in Gateshead are also lower than those in Buckinghamshire, Surrey, Berkshire, Westminster, Barnet, Kensington and Chelsea, Harrow, Hillingdon, Enfield, Sutton, Kingston-upon-Thames, Havering, Croydon, Merton, Bromley and Redbridge, all of which are Conservative-controlled and none of which is rate capped. There is no reason, based on any definition of justice, why Gateshead should be so badly treated.
        10.30 pm
        The treatment meted out under the Bill and by the Secretary of State is in sharp contrast to the other measures that recognise the council as having special needs and requiring special grant assistance, such as inner area partnership. The nonsense is that the £12·5 million reduction in the council's budget implied in the Bill is double the total annual Government grant through inner area partnership. How can the Secretary of State explain the ludicrous situation in which £6 million is given with one hand and £12 million is taken away with the other?
        It is not as though any of that comes as a surprise to the Minister. On 24 November 1986, he met my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), and myself, along with the leader, deputy leader, chief executive and director of finance from Gateshead. We pointed out to the Secretary of State that Gateshead had been rate-capped not because of any sudden lurch in spending on the part of the council, but purely because he had chosen, for no explained reason, to reduce the excess of expenditure over GRE from 20 per cent. to 12·5 per cent.
        We explained that 81 per cent. of the current year's GRE was related to population and that, in contrast with an increase in population of 0·6 per cent. in England and Wales between 1976 and 1984, Gateshead's population fell by 6 per cent. Therefore, the distribution of resources on a pounds per head basis, implying that an authority can shed its costs in direct proportion to the fall in population, is grossly disadvantageous to Gateshead and is further aggravated by the comparatively rural nature of much of the borough. Hence, the council has lost about £8 million on GRE at current prices between 1981 and 1986, and it is estimated that that will increase to £11 million by 1990.

        127
        Like many authorities, the council has endeavoured to minimise the effects of grant penalties on the ratepayers by the use of special accounting arrangements and funds to the best advantage. However, it is likely that such funds will be exhausted in the current year, further aggravating the comparison of expenditure to GRE.
        Again, it was a change in practice by the Secretary of State, not by the authority, that put the council in a so-called overspending position. While, for instance, expenditure over GRE on the council's 1984–85 outturn amounted to to 9 per cent., expenditure over target, which was also set by Ministers and was used as a measurement of expenditure until 1985–86, was only 1 per cent. Surely, it is grossly unfair that the council should now be accused of being a high spender under one set of criteria, while under the other criteria, it would not have been.
        All of that comes at a time when the Government are encouraging the council to spend money in certain directions. The Government initiated an enterprise zone, for example, the initial success of which has been in no small part due to the co-operation and participation of the council. There is also the inner area partnership that I mentioned earlier, which not only costs the council over £2 million per year, but adds to the strain on its finances as the projects reach the end of their period of Government support and have to be fully funded by the authority. The 1990 national garden festival, which will be held in the borough and which the Government approved will add further financial burdens, as the Secretary of State is well aware. There is also inflation at 6 per cent., which was allowed on 1985–86 budgets, not current budgets, so the adjusted figure represents a mere 3 per cent.
        The considerable improvements in services, environment and status in the borough have been widely acknowledged. Various Audit Commission reports have demonstrated that Gateshead is an efficient authority. Indeed, at this very time, the council's plans for a review of the provision of secondary education in the light of falling school rolls is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Unfortunately, that is being delayed because of a judicial review of the council's consultation process by a group of parents pursuing what I believe to be a misguided and parochial motive. However, in the meantime, the council is subject to considerable grant penalty, as a result of the effects on GRE of falling school rolls, and the prospect of a much improved education system for Gateshead's young people is, of course, postponed.
        As the council said to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the current regime of local government finance militates against effective long-term planning and takes no account of the many complexities inherent in local government service provision. That statement is true of the current system and will remain true if the Bill is passed.
        At our meeting with the Secretary of State, we explained that the proposed expenditure level of £96 million implied cuts in the council's 1987–88 budget of £15 million, which would have had a horrendous effect on the budget. However, because of the criteria involved in the redetermination applications, the council applied for an increase in the proposed expenditure level of £10·5 million. We explained that the proposed expenditure limit had been underestimated by over £9 million because proper
        128
        account had not been taken of the special accounting arrangements adopted by the late Tyne and Wear county council in its 1985–86 budget. All that, and more, was submitted in evidence of the council's just and proper case for a redetermined expenditure level.
        Mr. Bernard Conlan: At that meeting with the Secretary of State, there was a great deal of hypocrisy. Although we put the council's case, it had already been decided that there was no validity in it because the introduction of the Bill had been predetermined.
        Mr. Clelland: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The representations that we made to the Secretary of State on 24 November fell on deaf ears, because the right hon. Gentleman was aware when he spoke to us that the Bill was being prepared, and our representations came to naught.
        Now that the Bill is before us, we find that all the newly rate-capped authorities—regardless of whether they applied for redetermination, the arguments and explanations, the individual circumstances, needs, demands and developments of the different areas—have been subjected to the same formula and given the same treatment. As a result, Gateshead's expenditure level, as proposed in the Bill, will be £98 million, leaving the council still £12·5 million short of its budget and £8 million short of its redetermination application.
        Gateshead's position has now been compromised, not on the merits of its case, but because the Secretary of State had to avoid his Bill becoming hybrid. The only way that he could do that was to treat all the rate-capped authorities in the same way, regardless of their merits. That means that Gateshead, with the lowest average weekly rates of rate-capped authorities, excluding the non-metropolitan districts, has to reduce its rates while other authorities with far higher average rates are allowed to increase rates. What nonsense that is.
        Let me take an example, in which there is by no means any implied criticism of the authority concerned. Indeed, I am well aware that the Bill has serious implications for that council also. Just to show how barmy the system proposed is, let me compare North Tyneside metropolitan borough council with Gateshead metropolitan borough council. At the moment North Tyneside's rates are within about 5p in the pound of Gateshead's. Gateshead's current rates are 251·25p in the pound and North Tyneside's are about 247p. Yet, under the Bill, North Tyneside will be allowed to increase its rates to around 266p in the pound and Gateshead will have to reduce its rates to about 228p in the pound. Thus, instead of Gateshead being 5p more than North Tyneside, the latter's rates will be 28p ahead of Gatehead's. Where is the sense or reason in a Bill that creates such a situation?
        The purpose of amendment No. 193 is in some measure to retrieve the situation, but by no means to the total of the £12·5 million that Gateshead is set to lose. I recognise that the Secretary of State would be unlikely to accede to that. If the prime intention of the rate-capping legislation is to prevent large increases in rates, that is one thing. The amendment takes account of that and recognises that the Government will not be moved from that position. But what it does is to prevent the nonsensical forcing of reductions in rates on councils that are by no means profligate and it at least protects their rate income in real

        129
        terms. I hope that the Secretary of State will concede the arguments that I have advanced on Gateshead's behalf and accept the amendment.
        Dr. Boyson: As I have said on previous amendments, rate capping applies to the authorities that have the highest GRE in order to bring them under control. The fact that we have had to do it in the Bill this year has meant that they have had to be put into two groups—those that have been rate-capped before and those that are rate-capped for the first time.
        We cannot accept the amendments. Gateshead is spending 14 per cent. over GRE, and total expenditure has increased by 11 per cent. since 1985–86. The local rates in Gateshead are now 27 per cent. higher than they were in 1985–86, and no attempt has been made, by competitive tendering or in any other way, to reduce the cost of those services.
        Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister saying that every authority in Britain whose expenditure has increased by 11 per cent. over that period has been rate-capped?
        Dr. Boyson: No. My right hon. Friend was not saying that; he was illustrating the increase in expenditure. The hon. Gentleman put forward an articulate argument as to what consideration should be given to Gateshead; I was quoting the figures as they exist. The question related to the level of expenditure over GRE, on which the decision was made. If expenditure is 14 per cent. over GRE and local rates are up by 27 per cent. since 1985, I do not think that the country will bleed in sympathy when the borough of Gateshead is rate-capped.
        The Government cannot accept the amendment. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should vote against the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
        Amendment negatived.
        Amendment made: No. 114, in page 6, line 28, after lists', insert
        ', and the other information relating to hereditaments and rateable values.'.—[Dr. Boyson.]
        Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 6, line 30, at end add—
        '(d) the amount of the variable X for that authority (another component of the maximum limit)'.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 121, in schedule 2, page 11, line 39, at end insert—' + X'.
        No. 123, in schedule 2, page 11, line 45, at end insert—'+ X'
        No. 124, in schedule 2, page 12, line 3, at end insert '+ X'
        No. 125, in schedule 2, page 12, line 7, at end insert—'+ X'
        No. 128, in schedule 2, page 12, line 12, at end insert—'+ X'
        No. 131, in schedule 2, page 12, line 16, at end insert—'+ X'
        No. 136, in schedule 2, page 12, line 45, at end insert—
        '(6A) "X" is the variable amount for each authority (which shall be not less than zero) which the Secretary of State shall determine for that authority having regard to its individual circumstances.
        (6B) A determination under this sub-paragraph shall have regard to any factor relating to the expenditure of a local authority or its financing which is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State by the local authority or its statutory consultees.
        130
        (6C) A determination under this sub-paragraph may be revised upwards not downwards.
        Mr. Boyes: With permission, I should also like to discuss amendment No. 132, in schedule 2, page 12, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
        '(1) EL is:—
        (a) In the case of an authority whose maximum limit is determined by reference to paragraph 2(2) above, the higher of

        (i) The level for the authority's total expenditure in the relevant financial year which before the passing of this Act was determined and notified to the authority under section 3(1) and (3) of the 1984 Act.

        or

        (ii) its GRE for the financial year 1987–88 plus 10 per cent.

        Where GRE is the amount shown as the grant related expenditure in relation to the authority in the Rate Support Grant Report for England for the financial year beginning in 1987.
        (b) In the case of all other designated authorities the level for the authority's total expenditure in the relevant financial year which before the passing of this Act was determined and notified to the authority under Section 3(1) and (3) of the 1984 Act,
        Due to my mathematical and statistical background I shall be happier discussing the algebraic formulae in schedule 2 than some of the highly technical legal implications of the Bill. I shall make a few remarks on the formulae.
        Anyone who has worked regularly with mathematical formulae will have recognised the flaw, or perhaps the deliberate omission of an important variable in the formulae in schedule 2. As the formulae stand, with the variable X which we propose, any reader would assume that the environments to which the formulae were being applied were all the same. Clearly they are not, and therefore variable X must be added. The addition of this variable does not make the situation satisfactory, but it is a big advance on the present formulae. One wishes to keep the algebra to a minimum. However, to take the many differences between the authorities into consideration, a much more advanced model is needed.
        10.45 pm
        We define the variable X in amendment No. 136. Basically, it is the amount, which is different for each authority, which has to be added to their formulae in schedule 2. The additional figure shall be determined by the Secretary of State either by agreement with local authorities or in an order subject to the approval of both Houses, but shall only be so determined after consideration of any relevant matter brought to his attention by the authority concerned.
        The formulae in the Bill would, therefore, serve as a working basis for discussion and further consideration, The amendments would operate within the overall framework of the Bill but have the following features. First, they would prevent the blanket application of formulae regardless of local need. Secondly, they would substitute a proper opportunity for Parliament to reach a decision on the limits to be applied after the full details of a particular case are known, not before. Thirdly, they would give a proper right to be heard to statutory consultees, such as local ratepayers and businesses. Fourthly, they would allow authorities to make proper representations on the effects of the formulae on balances and proper financing arrangements. There is no reason why that procedure should be a lengthy one.

        131
        The amendments provide in particular that regard should be had by the Secretary of State to any representations from statutory consultees and to representations on, first, the practicality of meeting his proposed spending restrictions within the very short time scale before the beginning of the new financial year, and, secondly, the need for proper and prudent local authority financing in the maintenance of balances, contingencies, and so on.
        The point on restricted time scale is of particular relevance to those boroughs and districts which are education authorities, such as the one of which my constituency is a part, Sunderland borough, and to the ILEA. The September-July basis of a school year means that the opportunity to change spending levels is not available for a full financial year. I have discussed that matter with the treasurer of the Sunderland borough council and that matter concerns him greatly.
        Decisions relating to the period 1987–88 up to September have in many cases already been taken. Only two thirds of the year is available to such authorities to match their plans to spending restrictions, and those authorities may wish to make representations in that regard.
        I want to illustrate the consequences of applying the formulae in schedule 2 to the Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority without the addition of the variable X. The members of the passenger transport authority are extremely concerned about the Bill's implications and the formulae in particular. In a letter to Members of Parliament, Mr. G. N. Cook, the clerk to the passenger transport authority, argues that the use of the standard formulae for the assessment of maximum precepts for classes of authorities means that the particular merits of any individual authority's redetermination bid has been given little consideration.
        For example, the 2 per cent. standard uplift for the expenditure limits of passenger transport authorities is significantly lower than the redetermination bids of the five passenger transport authorities that made the redetermination bids. Those vary between 10 per cent. and 22 per cent.
        The Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority expresses particular concern about the expected loss of its right of appeal against the maximum precept set of 1987–88 which currently exists under the terms of the Rates Act 1984. Further, the Government's use of rateable value in the formulae rather than the penny rate product for calculating the maximum precept for 1987–88 means that the Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority will be faced with a significant shortfall of some £389,000 between the uplifted expenditure limit and the resources of block grant and income based on the maximum precept.
        It is for all those reasons that Opposition Members, and, in general, those who have to administer its consequences, are against the Bill.
        Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for calling me, because amendment No. 132 applies in particular to the needs of the London borough of Newham. I use the word "needs" specifically because, under the previous formula—"means and needs"—there was more equity in respect of formulae. The formula in schedule 2 particularly hits the London borough of Newham.
        132
        The needs of Newham are very great. On a national level, Newham is the second most deprived urban borough in the country. Among 96 education authorities, it is the top of the list of the most deprived according to the Government's figures. As everyone knows, education accounts for half of local authority expenditure. Newham is fourth in respect of the proportion of population with a new Commonwealth background. There is 17·5 per cent. unemployment and 21 per cent. male unemployment in Newham and that is the sixth highest level in London.
        The borough applied for partnership status and was recognised as being statistically well inside the required margin, but for a number of years it has been refused that status. Although the borough has been given programme status, I understand from the council that that has meant that we have received less support than we would have received had we not been a programmed borough.
        In respect of housing, no fewer than 46,000 houses in Newham are in an unsatisfactory state of repair. Newham has the highest number of statutory unfit houses among the London boroughs. Homeless cases increased from 1,000 in 1981 to an estimated 1,900 in 1987, and that figure is rising. There are 1,000 empty dwellings in tower blocks, including the now dismantled Ronan Point, which have caused the housing lists applications and the number of homeless cases to rise. The results of the scientific tests on the eight blocks that remain will not be known for some time.
        Newham has one third of its area under the domain of the London Docklands Development Corporation although 94 per cent. of the population live outside that area. However, the criterion for regeneration adopted by the LDDC is not that of regenerating the borough as a whole. It is a process of regeneration along the lines of the LDDC and we therefore do not get any succour in that direction. Indeed, there is more expenditure in the borough on the services to cater for the number of people coming into that new area.
        There is a legitimate argument therefore over how much is to be spent. There were exchanges earlier between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about what would be an appropriate figure to spend. The Minister takes exception to the £167 million in the current Newham revenue account. The Government said that Newham should only spend £149 million in relation to its needs. We were therefore short of £18 million. However, as the Minister knows, but as many people in London do not, that meant that in order to get the £18 million Newham would have to raise about £36 million because of the clawback.
        When the Minister says that the rates are too high, he must acknowledge that part of the reason is that to get that money in, the borough is, in effect, paying a tax on rates. By my calculations and those of the borough, the tax on rates in the current year is no less than £18 million. Ratepayers are paying £18 million more than they need because of the clawback provision. That amounts to about 20 per cent. of the rate itself. When the Minister says that Newham is spending too much on the rates, part of the reason for that lies in the clawback provision—the taxation on rates—which is part of the Government's present proposals.
        I do not wish to be too controversial about what is coming next. Although I detest what the Minister did until that point, I wish to discuss the position after the

        133
        publication of the Bill. We came to see him on 27 November and put forward a clear, cool and compelling case. I hope that the rest of my speech will be in a similar vein. We did the same with the Under-Secretary of State when he saw him the day after the Bill was published. We did not talk about the Bill on that occasion; we talked about Newham's needs and how the Government would meet them.
        Mr. Tony Banks: It did not get us anywhere.
        Mr. Spearing: The problem with the schedule 2 formula is that it is unfair. Like all formalae, it has a fixed base. This formula is based upon expenditure in 1985–86, which we claim was not typical. It is unfair to use it because it distorts the calculations. Full details have been supplied by the officers of Newham to the Department of the Environment, and it is generally accepted—it was in the conversations that I mentioned—that the formula distorts the result.
        Mr. Ron Leighton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the common formula which was cobbled together in haste to rescue the Government from a legal fiasco is freakishly harsh on Newham and has led to grotesque consequences? Normally, we would have the right of appeal and the right to redetermination, which we attempted to exercise with the Minister of State. But because of the Government's haste, we shall not be allowed to appeal or have a redetermination. Indeed, we cannot even have a proper debate tonight. It will be truncated by the guillotine, and Newham's needs will not be properly considered. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another reason for their Lordships giving careful consideration to the borough of Newham?
        Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that what the Minister says in reply will give us some inkling that there might be further discussion on the facts that I shall put before him. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of judicial retrospective action. As I understand it, the Bill locks everything up in the words "taking into account". We must accept that the Minister has taken something into account if he says so, and no court can challenge it. In contrast with redetermination, once the Minister says that he has taken something into account, that is that. Once he sends a letter to the court saying that, the court can do nothing. Until now, there has been at least some flexibility.
        Another thing that is agreed is the table that was produced by the London borough of Newham and presented to the Minister during the Second Reading debate, on which he kindly replied in a letter to me on 19 January. In the table, we showed in order, from the most advantageous position in Basildon to the most disadvantageous in Newham, the limits of expenditure over GRE. Taking into account the plus 2 per cent., but not the teachers' uplift, which we are all discounting, we showed that Newham's expenditure limit was only 3·6 per cent. above GRE. That was pretty ludicrous considering that our expenditure in the current year is 18 per cent. above GRE. Yet Basildon, which is not far away from Newham, has an expenditure limit of 70 per cent. over GRE. Tower Hamlets stands at 19·3 per cent. and Haringey stands at 17 per cent.
        The Minister in his letter, for which I thank him for his courtesy, said:
        134
        "You asked whether the table of figures given to Nicholas Ridley on Monday showing expenditure levels in relation to grant related expenditure for each of the 20 rate limited authorities is broadly correct. It is, but the extent to which the expenditure level for 1987–88 exceeds GRE is related to the starting position in 1986–87."
        Of course it is correct, because that is part of the formula. When people use the word "but" it sounds as if it is a restricting or qualifying phrase but, in this case, the skill of the Sir Humphreys in the Department have added something which is an uncontrovertible fact, so it is not as heady as it sounds.
        11 pm
        The formula has hit Newham hard for reasons that the Minister knows and I suggest that, in justice and even to fulfil his own objectives, there should be some adjustment in the formula to enable hard cases like ours to increase our GRE to somewhere around—I put this in the amendment—10 per cent. That would only bring us up to about 14th in this pecking order of one to 20. It would not fulfil Newham's concerns because, on our calculation, we will need about another £33 million in the coming year to make up the gap.
        I said in a letter to the Minister that, on the borough's calculations, we would have a deficit or an unfillable gap of £33 million in the financial year 1987–88 or 15 per cent. of the borough's current expenditure. The Minister says that is not the case. He says that it will not be as big a gap as that. He says that it will be only a 5·8 per cent. reduction of the current 1986–87 expenditure.
        I put it to the Minister that a 5·8 per cent. reduction next year on this year's expenditure—bearing in mind first of all inflation and secondly greater needs, not least in respect of the homeless and other difficulties—means that there will be a considerable gap next year.
        We may argue whether it is £33 million, as I and the borough think, or whether it is rather less, as the Minister thinks, but I put it to him that, in terms of actual cash expenditure, it cannot be much less than £20 million. If that is the case—I am coming down a long way from £33 million to £20 million—that means that the pro rata reduction in expenditure on each service within the borough will be great indeed. Education, as I said, takes up half the revenue, so there will be a cut of roughly £6 million from somewhere in that—£2·5 million for housing, perhaps £2 million for social services. These are not hard figures; they are pro rata to existing expenditure. Of course that is only illustrative, but it is illustrative of the almost sheer impossibility of achieving these figures. The Minister knows only too well, especially in respect of education, that one cannot do that if one tries it mathematically with redundancy payments and all i he rest of it.
        What about the voluntary services which Conservative Members praise and laud? We do a lot for voluntary services in Newham. It is not much in terms of expenditure in proportion to the total; nor indeed are the activities to which Conservative Members may take some exception. They are minor in terms of the global total, but if one must cut money and there is no way out, then of course it is those very important things, the oil in the social structure, which can be cut and which come first and cause the sort of social damage that the Minister knows will occur in our multiracial community.
        Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend well knows that the figure that Newham spends in terms of the voluntary

        135
        sector is about £5 million. The impact of the services and the community of Newham of wiping out the voluntary sector in one go, which will have to be done because that is the only obvious area to go to immediately, would be absolutely dire. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?
        Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that figure, because it illustrates the problem of boroughs like Newham. If there is a legal straitjacket, a procrustean formula into which the borough is forced without any legal redress or any redress in justice whatsoever, and we go to the court, the court may say that there is no contractual relationship for those culpable things. There may be no liability for redundancy: there may be no redundancy agreements or whatever because the voluntary organisations are the last sort of organisations to be able to carry those. Where do they get the money anyway? There must be some flexibility in the formula in schedule 2.
        I and my hon. Friends have tabled a flexible formula in the form of amendment No. 132. It stands almost in its own right—I am glad to see the Minister nodding—although it may not be a perfect legal formula. Some consequential adjustment may be required to the definition of block grant. As block grant is related to expenditure limits, if we change those limits in the formula, some adjustment must be made to block grant.
        The amendment had to be tabled some time ago, which is an example of the difficulties being caused by the time scale of the Bill. Therefore, we are not saying that this, holus bolus, is the formula that we want. We have drafted an alternative formula that would, at least, give a GREA for the financial year 1987–88 plus 10 per cent.
        The table that the Minister kindly said was broadly correct would move Newham from GREA plus 3·7 per cent. to GREA plus 10 per cent. That is a modest request, although the Minister might not think so and may wish to substitute another figure. However, in principle there is an unassailable case for amendment No. 132. It does not move away from the formula; all it does—to use a phrase common in ministerial circles—is to state "whichever is the greater". One can follow one formula or another, but whichever is the greater and the more just is the one that is accepted. That is the basis of the structure of this rather complex amendment.
        The Minister may want to think about that suggestion. He has not had a great deal of time to consider the amendments, because of all the other things that have happened. I ask you, Mr. Armstrong, to give us the opportunity to agree or negative the amendment should that be necessary. However, I hope that the Minister will agree to consider the matter and, at a later stage in another place, give his thoughts to others who will take up this theme. If he agreed to that, we might not then need to press the amendment.
        Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the way in which he so eloquently put his case for an increase in GREA. No one in my constituency denies the very real needs they perceive in Newham. However, I suggest that they are not related to the GREA. If they are, it means that Hertfordshire has to pay to Newham the additional money that Newham believes it needs. The rate support grant system is a total grant that
        136
        is distributed according to GREA, or however it is distorted by whatever means Ministers find convenient to hand -when they are considering it.
        Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely there is a limited premise here—the assumption that increased expenditure in one borough must come from another borough. Why does not the hon. Gentleman press the Government Front Bench to do something about effective corporation tax and actually get some tax into the Exchequer from companies that are making thousands of millions pounds, or put a tax on the speculative profits made in the City of London? Then we would get that recycled into housing, health, education and social services, which the country desperately needs. The hon. Gentleman should be attacking the Government Front Bench and not seeking to restrain expenditure in other boroughs.
        Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is advancing arguments that I shall not take up, if he will excuse me. I want to make a limited contribution on GREA and the unfairness that the system inflicts on Newham, Vauxhall and Hertfordshire.
        Hertfordshire has had a continuous reduction in its rate support grant settlement. That is because the system equates rateable value with low needs or high needs, whatever the case may be. Hertfordshire has seen a series of new towns and other developments, and these have come mainly since 1945. Thus it has a high rateable value and is assumed to have low needs. The system is so distorted that, although Hertfordshire is considered to have low needs—its income over the national average is only 13 per cent. —the way in which the RSG system and GREA work mean that it is considered to have an income that is 45 per cent. over the national needs calculation.
        In this year's settlement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State inserted certain safeguards such as rate caps and safety nets. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend did not want to do that, but they did so because they recognised the unfairness that was being inflicted upon Hertfordshire, which was reflected in the services given to Hertfordshire people.
        Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), who made his plea on Second Reading, as I did, I have urged that an end should be brought to the current argument, which if not interrupted will continue indefinitely, as the hon. Member for Newham, South has illustrated. Let us freeze the present system so that it is not changed next year or the year after that, until we inyroduce a new system that will not have the serious implications that the GREA formula has for Newham, South and the new town of Basildon, for example. The hon. Member for Newham, South will know that the new towns have a particular problem when it comes to GREA because they are more expensive to run than other towns. For example, Stevenage has no rate support grant because of the way in which it impacts upon that town and Hertfordshire generally. Basildon is a similar example.
        The GREA and the entire system of calculating RSG is thoroughly unfair to Newham, South and Hertfordshire. Having arrived at a settlement this year, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has striven over this issue and I am deeply grateful to him for taking into account my

        137
        complaints and those of others, courteously, if not productively, including those of the hon. Member for Newham, South. I ask him for an assurance that he will leave the system alone. Let us freeze it with the rate caps and the safety nets that have been introduced this year. That means that it will be equally unfair next year as this to Newham, South and Hertfordshire, but at least we shall not have the appalling arguments and tensions that we have had this year and for the past 15 years. We have argued picayune points about the way in which the system impacts upon various factors in the RSG formula.
        I earnestly ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give serious consideration to my plea. Let us leave the grant in Hertfordshire as it is so that people can predict what will happen. We may have a system that is unfair, but let us make it clear that that system will not change and that people must live with it until we introduce something better. If things continue to change Hertfordshire will probably not receive any RSG assistance, especially if the Minister listens to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
        11.15 pm
        Mr. Stuart Holland: I support this group of amendments and 1 draw particular attention to amendment No. 136 in schedule 2, page 12, line 45, at end insert—
        '(6A) "X" is the variable amount for each authority (which shall be not less than zero) which the Secretary of State shall determine for that authority having regard to its individual circumstances'.
        I also wish to echo the views of my hon. Friends and to draw attention to the problems and deprivations in Lambeth. In a key range of indicators only one other authority in the country, Hackney, has a higher incidence of deprivation than Lambeth. In five of the eight indicators used by the Department of Environment Lambeth comes in the top dozen authorities. With regard to the indicators that directly relate to housing deprivation, Lambeth ranks ninth in the indicator on overcrowded households and eleventh in the indicator of households that lack the exclusive use of amenities. It ranks second highest for the proportion of one-parent families and is sixth in the indicator relating to the proportion of the ethnic population in local authorities.
        The widespread nature of urban deprivation in Lambeth causes great concern. The council needs to adopt a wider base of programmes and policies even to begin to alleviate its problems. The ending of the strategic housing role of the Greater London council has meant slamming the door on inner boroughs such as Lambeth. Families cannot now be moved out of the borough. Thus it is increasingly difficult for the council to deal with the housing crisis.
        There has been much criticism about housing benefit from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) made certain allegations about the difficulties that Lambeth has in collecting rents, earlier in the debate but has now decided to quit the Chamber.
        It is extremely difficult for a borough such as Lambeth to collect rents from certain categories of people who are on the margins of survival. For example a recent survey carried out in Lambeth in 1986 showed that over 40 per cent. of the residents have an income of less than £5,200 a year and two thirds of those people were in council housing. When such families face delays in payments in
        138
        security benefits—there is a backlog of some 13,000 unrelated claims in at last two social security offices in my constituency—they are literally faced with having to decide whether to feed their children or pay their rent.
        The Government have failed to put resources into social services and they have also cut the housing investment programme for Lambeth in the manner that I illustrated earlier today. When 40 per cent. of council tenants are in receipt of housing benefit and therefore supplementary benefit it represents a major problem for the borough. It is compounded by the fact—I do not believe that it has been stressed in the debate so far—that 36 statutory instruments have been introduced by the Government that affect the payment of housing benefit. There were nine in 1982, eight in 1983, 10 in 1984, six in 1985 and three in 1986.
        It is virtually impossible for any local authority to undertake computerisation or other programmes to ensure an effective payment of housing benefit when there are so many changes in regulations introduced by the Government. Housing benefit has been thrown on to councils. Previously rent rebates were paid by the social security offices. But with the soaring rate of unemployment, now averaging 25 per cent. In my constituency, the Government have shifted the responsibility for those payments from the DHSS to the local boroughs. They cannot cope with the complexities.
        I have one further reservation. The X formula is excellent in principle, but I am not sure how it will be applied in practice under the Government. I suspect that they will think of a number, divide it by two, subtract X and still impose cuts on Labour boroughs. But we could make X an effective calculation I therefore support the amendments.
        Mr. John Fraser: I represent a Lambeth seat, and Lambeth is a rate-capped borough. The one small measure of mercy for us is the ability to have our expenditure limit redetermined, and rightly so. In December 1985, as a result of the borough taking legal proceedings against the Department of the Environment, an approach was made by the Department to Lambeth, and eventually there was an agreed redetermination, to avoid a court case. which came to almost exactly the same figure as the expenditure limits suggested by the borough for that financial year. In the current financial year, the Department threw out some pretty broad hints that if Lambeth applied for a limited redetermination, it would be given a redefined expenditure limit. The consequence of the Bill is that the opportunity for the Department to admit that it was wrong in setting the limit will be thrown away.
        Redetermination means an admission that the limit was set too low. I wish that we could find a more simple vocabulary for local government expressions. I used to sit in on the finance consultative council and listen to it talk about things such as regression annalysis, which I translated as repeating in the future the mistakes that had been made in the past. There was exemplification, which was a method of showing how a national disaster was translated into a local disaster. Now there is redetermination, which is a method of admitting that the initial calculation was wrong.
        There must be the opportunity to go back, which the Bill denies, and take into account local and special factors. One or two of these factors need to be accounted for. The first is the growth in equalising. A recent survey carried out

        139
        by an independent body, the Centre for Environmental Studies, shows that between 1979 and 1984, the average income of families in Lambeth decreased by 5 per cent., whereas in the country as a whole incomes rose by 4 per cent. before tax and about 1 per cent. after tax.
        However, the survey also shows something that is at the root of social tensions—that the average is not shared by all people. It found that since 1979, the poorest 25 per cent. of households experienced a 10 per cent. decline in their income before tax. The group with the largest drop in income—single parent family households—experienced a drop in income both before and after tax of between 17 and 18 per cent. One cannot make judgments about the extent of need in such communities on the basis of a desiccated calculating machine in Marsham street. I know that Visa used to advertise that it took the waiting out of wanting. The Department of the Environment, with its computer and formulae and algebra in schedule 2, is taking the caring out of calculating. We want the X factor, which puts it back in again.
        A second example of what needs to be taken into account is the level of unemployment. Today, Lambeth has provided me with figures that show that on the official statistics there is almost 26 per cent male unemployment, and over 13 per cent. female unemployment. Those are the statistics from the Department of Employment. However, the unofficial, and probably more reliable, statistics provided by Lambeth show male unemployment at 30 per cent. and female unemployment at 17 per cent. In the riot epicentre of Brixton unemployment is 32 per cent. The formulae fail to take into account the social strains that result from that degree of deprivation.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and I are lucky enough to be so close to our constituencies that we can visit them during the course of debates. I was able to attend the opening of a social centre by Lord Scarman. That centre was opened partly as a result of Lord Scarman's 1981 inquiry report. The Scarman report was about what happens when a Government ignore the needs of ordinary people. On two occasions in Brixton we have seen the consequences of ignoring the needs and demands of ordinary working people. I hope that the Government will accept factor X, because it can put caring back into calculating.
        Mr. George Park: The introduction of an X factor into the formula would allow the different situations of the various transport authorities to be taken into account. Put briefly, in the west midlands there is a shortfall of £4·5 million. That poses for the public transport authorities some unpalatable choices. One of them is to reconsider the concessionary fare scheme, and that would be highly unpopular as well as unjust.
        Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 allows district councils to fund a concessionary travel scheme. Responsibility could be shifted from the public transport authority to the district councils. Unfortunately, every district in the west midlands will be in a penalty situation in 1987–88 with a negative marginal rate for grant ranging from minus 54p in Coventry to minus 96p in Birmingham for spending below threshold. Therefore, unless there is a degree of flexibility, which the application of an X factor would allow, some of our forebodings about schemes, such
        140
        as concessionary fares, are likely to come true. For that reason, the amendment should be supported by all hon. Members.
        Mr. Lofthouse: I shall be brief. The formula laid down for the rate support grant will have devastating effects on many local authorities. Looking at the amount allowed for assistance to local government to cover claims under the Housing Defects Act 1984—the miserly sum of £50 million this financial year and £14 million next financial year—we see that the formula is tight. Many local authorities will not attract grant. Many authorities like the Wakefield metropolitan council in my area, will find themselves unable to meet their statutory obligations. On the one hand, the Governent produce an Act to cover people in defective houses and, on the other hand, do not provide the money to enable local authorities to meet their statutory obligations.
        Tenants on the Townville estate in Castleford, owned by British Coal, are in defective houses. An improvement scheme has been accepted by the Secretary of State, but the local authority cannot find the money to meet that obligation. The owners cannot purchase the houses in accordance with the Act, nor can they get them improved. The houses are completely blighted and unsaleable. What will the Minister do to assist local authorities in situations like that? The Government have produced the Act, but they cannot possibly expect local government to fulfil its statutory obligations if they do not assist with grants. The only course open to the owners is to go the courts and take on the local authorities, but the local authorities are not guilty.
        11.30 pm
        Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to speak in support of amendment No. 132 in the name of the three Newham Members.
        In an earlier debate the Minister talked about the level of rates in Newham. As a Newham ratepayer, I can assure the Minster that I do not like paying such heavy rates. However, I know why I have to pay those rates even though I do not particularly welcome them.
        The Minster mentioned the problems attached to rent arrears and the fact that rents have not gone up as fast as he felt they should in the borough of Newham. I should remind the Minister of a recent survey of residents in the borough which showed that in 1985 only 13 per cent. of Newham's residents had gross household incomes in excess of £13,000. In terms of our council housing 63 per cent. of all households receive housing benefit. In the private sector, 29 per cent. of all households receive housing benefit. That is the scale of the poverty in the London borough of Newham. It is not surprising that people get themselves into problems with rent arrears. That is why it is ludicrous for us to continue pushing up the rents in Newham when we know that the people in the borough will not be able to afford them. The problems will shift to another area because more and more will be claiming housing benefit.
        Newham is being told that in 1987–88 it can spend £157·4 million. That is £37 million less than we need and £10 million less than the borough is spending during the current year. It is impossible for the London borough of Newham to make cuts of the order of £10 million. I cannot believe that the Government seriously expect the borough to make such cuts knowing the problems and poverty

        141
        there. If they are expecting us to do that, they have no heart, no compassion and no decency. That is a telling indictment of the Government.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): Before I answer the points that have been made on this group of amendments I should say something in response to a matter raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) about the residuary bodies and on the point he raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings of the Committee when I suggested that the Opposition were reluctant to divide on their amendments for fear that they did not have all their troops in place. The Division that followed that suggestion proved that is always wise not to underestimate the ability of the Opposition Whips to rally their forces in such circumstances. Although we have had the better of the Opposition in the Divisions, and I have no doubt that we have won the arguments, if I did cast a slur on the determination of the Opposition and their Whips I did not intend to do so and I am happy to confirm that I withdraw any slur that the right hon. Member for Wakefield thought that I had cast.
        Mr. Harrison: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have had to wait a long time, five days, and four hours, but it has been worth it. I was dismayed at the time because, as an ex-Chief Whip—I was given that acknowledgement by the Minister—I knew that our troops were around. I knew that our amendments were worthy of consideration and I knew that we were doing what we have always done, which is follow a code of conduct that exists in this place because of this type of Bill, with all its problems. Our Front Bench spokesmen were marvellous as were our Whips. I did not like it, but they consulted the Government Whips and the Bill was proceeding beautiful. The Minister gummed it up. I am pleased that he has had the guts to come to the Dispatch Box and, although they are belated, I accept his apologies.
        Shall I tell the Committee something about the Whips? am the guy who can. I shall not be long, Mr. Armstrong. Just a little indulgence. You know that I do not do it much. Our Whips whipped against me better than they whipped against the Government. Quite unsolicited, I had 171 who supported me. That was without consulting anyone. It was great; I had done the right thing. When the Wapping picket took place on our Lobby, however, only 10 came through. 1 was told that it was better than Wapping. Our Whips whipped better for the Government than they whipped for me. I had only 10.
        I appreciate the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box. It is a little lesson that we can all learn. I am very pleased that the Minister has had the guts to do it, although it has taken a little time. I thank him very much.
        Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a lot to learn about the whipping system, compared with the right hon. Gentleman.
        The residuary bodies have an administrative task. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to write to the chairman of a residuary body, I am sure that he can expect a speedy answer.
        Mr. Harrison: I have done all that.
        Mr. Chope: The hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who are strong advocates of their borough, argued
        142
        in favour of amendment No. 132. I have listened to the arguments, but I am not persuaded that we should accept the amendment. I shall not explain again the process by which the formulae were derived as it is now well known. Representations that the hon. Gentlemen and local representatives made when they met my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government were not ignored. They may not like the result of our consideration, but we considered all that they had to say.
        It is true that Newham gets less grant than if it spends at a lower level, but it is wrong to see that as a tax on rates. It is the direct consequence of the council's decision to spend up. We have constructed the settlements in this way to keep pressure on high spending authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) put his finger on the point. We could make further concessions to high-spending authorities only at the expense, under the present grant distribution system, of authorities such as Hertfordshire. Newham is spending 18 per cent. above its GRE while Hertfordshire is spending only 2·2 per cent. above its GRE this year.
        Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he say now, or later if he does not have time now, which of the facts that I presented are incorrect or, if they are correct, where he departs from their logic so as to enable him not to accept the amendment? He said that we are spending 18 per cent. above GRE, but does he think that that justifies a cut to 3·7 per cent above GRE, especially when his penalising clauses of clawback operate only when we get to 10 per cent.?
        Mr. Chope: I do not think that I have time to go into all of the facts about Newham. I am far from satisfied, however, that it is doing all that it can to help itself. A £1·5 million Manpower Services Commission scheme for the borough's long-term unemployed was turned down as cheap labour, according to the Newham Recorder in October 1986, although it would have provided 300 places. We hear from Labour Members about Newham, but it shows that the people and the council in Newham are not doing all that they can to help themselves. When one hears of a firm in Newham with a turnover of £3 million that is paying £500,000 a year in rates, one realises that there is a strong case for some system of rate capping.
        I should like to refer briefly to the comments made by the hon. Members representing seats in Lambeth—the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Lambeth is a vastly overspending authority. I am amazed that those hon. Members come to the Committee and pronounce an apologia for what has been happening in Lambeth. Later this week I hope that they will be among the first to go out and purchase copies of the Audit Commission report on what has been happening in our inner boroughs. Perhaps they will be able to get them free. I hope that they will read and inwardly digest what is said in those documents, because then they might be able to make more constructive comments about the problems of Lambeth and how the borough could do something to help itself.
        The hon. Member for Vauxhall made considerable play about the housing benefit arrangements. However, I remind him of what the researcher from the Shelter Housing Aid Centre stated in June last year. Lambeth has an enormous housing benefits backlog of 64,000 unprocessed claims, 932 of which are three years old. The researcher stated:

        143
        "it's not the scheme which is at fault. Three years into the scheme you can't say that. The problem is much more to do with managerial and administrative methods".
        The problem in Lambeth is a wilfulness to try to become as irresponsible and badly managed as possible.
        I know that time is running short so, in the limited time available, I should like to mention the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), who spoke about the very real problems of defective housing. I am well aware of those problems because there are large numbers of defective houses in my constituency. However, I am bound to say that the Government have been extremely generous in bringing forward schemes for housing repairs. If a local authority can make a case for additional funds, it only has to put that case to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, and that will be considered. However, one of the tests will again be to what extent that local authority has done everything to help itself, from its own resources. That is one of the issues between the two sides of the Committee. I hope that it will reject the amendment.
        Amendment negatived.
        Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        Schedule 2

          RATES: MAXIMUM LIMIT
          Amendment proposed: No. 189, in page 12, line 8, leave out '1·025' and insert '1·04.'.—[Mr. Galley.]
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 232.

          Division No. 73]

          [11.45 pm

          AYES

          Abse, Leo

          Corbett, Robin

          Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Alton, David

          Craigen, J. M.

          Anderson, Donald

          Crowther, Stan

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Cunlitfe, Lawrence

          Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

          Bagier, Gordon A. T.

          Deakins, Eric

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Dewar, Donald

          Barron, Kevin

          Dixon, Donald

          Beckett, Mrs Margaret

          Dobson, Frank

          Bell, Stuart

          Dormand, Jack

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Dubs, Alfred

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

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Eadie, Alex

          Bidwell, Sydney

          Eastham, Ken

          Blair, Anthony

          Evans, John (St. Helens N)

          Boyes, Roland

          Faulds, Andrew

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

          Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

          Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

          Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

          Fisher, Mark

          Buchan, Norman

          Flannery, Martin

          Caborn, Richard

          Foot, Rt Hon Michael

          Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

          Forrester, John

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Foster, Derek

          Canavan, Dennis

          Foulkes, George

          Carter-Jones, Lewis

          Fraser, J. (Norwood)

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Freud, Clement

          Clarke, Thomas

          George, Bruce

          Clay, Robert

          Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

          Clelland, David Gordon

          Godman, Dr Norman

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

          Gould, Bryan

          Cohen, Harry

          Hamilton, James (M'well N)

          Conlan, Bernard

          Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

          Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

          Hancock, Michael

          Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

          Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

          144

          Haynes, Frank

          Pendry, Tom

          Heffer, Eric S.

          Pike, Peter

          Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

          Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

          Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

          Prescott, John

          Home Robertson, John

          Radice, Giles

          Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

          Randall, Stuart

          Hoyle, Douglas

          Raynsford, Nick

          Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

          Redmond, Martin

          Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

          Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

          Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

          Richardson, Ms Jo

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

          Janner, Hon Greville

          Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

          John, Brynmor

          Robertson, George

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Rooker, J. W.

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

          Lambie, David

          Rowlands, Ted

          Lamond, James

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Leadbitter, Ted

          Sheerman, Barry

          Leighton, Ronald

          Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

          Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

          Shore, Rt Hon Peter

          Litherland, Robert

          Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

          Silkin, Rt Hon J.

          Loyden, Edward

          Skinner, Dennis

          McCartney, Hugh

          Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

          McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

          McKay, Allen (Penistone)

          Snape, Peter

          McNamara, Kevin

          Soley, Clive

          McTaggart, Robert

          Spearing, Nigel

          McWilliam, John

          Stott, Roger

          Madden, Max

          Straw, Jack

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

          Martin, Michael

          Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

          Maxton, John

          Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

          Maynard, Miss Joan

          Thorne, Stan (Preston)

          Meacher, Michael

          Tinn, James

          Meadowcroft, Michael

          Warden, Gareth (Gower)

          Michie, William

          Wareing, Robert

          Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

          Weetch, Ken

          Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

          Welsh, Michael

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          White, James

          Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

          Williams, Rt Hon A.

          Nellist, David

          Winnick, David

          Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

          Young, David (Bolton SE)

          O'Brien, William

          O'Neill, Martin

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Park, George

          Mr. Ron Davies and

          Patchett, Terry

          Mr. Derek Fatchett.

          NOES

          Alexander, Richard

          Browne, John

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Bruinvels, Peter

          Amess, David

          Buck, Sir Antony

          Ancram, Michael

          Budgen, Nick

          Arnold, Tom

          Bulmer, Esmond

          Ashby, David

          Burt, Alistair

          Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

          Butcher, John

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Butterfill, John

          Batiste, Spencer

          Carlisle, John (Luton N)

          Bellingham, Henry

          Carttiss, Michael

          Bendall, Vivian

          Cash, William

          Benyon, William

          Chapman, Sydney

          Best, Keith

          Chope, Christopher

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Churchill, W. S.

          Biggs-Davison, Sir John

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Blackburn, John

          Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

          Body, Sir Richard

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Cockeram, Eric

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Colvin, Michael

          Bottomley, Peter

          Conway, Derek

          Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

          Coombs, Simon

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

          Cope, John

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Couchman, James

          Boyson, Dr Rhodes

          Cranborne, Viscount

          Brandon-Bravo, Martin

          Crouch, David

          Bright, Graham

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Brinton, Tim

          Dickens, Geoffrey

          Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

          Dicks, Terry

          Brooke, Hon Peter

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

          145

          Dover, Den

          Newton, Tony

          du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Dunn, Robert

          Onslow, Cranley

          Durant, Tony

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Dykes, Hugh

          Ottaway, Richard

          Eggar, Tim

          Page, Richard (Herts SW)

          Evennett, David

          Patten, Christopher (Bath)

          Eyre, Sir Reginald

          Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

          Favell, Anthony

          Pawsey, James

          Forman, Nigel

          Pollock, Alexander

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Forth, Eric

          Powley, John

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Price, Sir David

          Franks, Cecil

          Proctor, K. Harvey

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Raffan, Keith

          Glyn, Dr Alan

          Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

          Gow, Ian

          Rathbone, Tim

          Gower, Sir Raymond

          Rhodes James, Robert

          Griffiths, Sir Eldon

          Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

          Hannam, John

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

          Harris, David

          Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

          Rost, Peter

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

          Rowe, Andrew

          Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

          Rumbold, Mrs Angela

          Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

          Ryder, Richard

          Jackson, Robert

          Sackville, Hon Thomas

          Knowles, Michael

          Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

          Knox, David

          Sayeed, Jonathan

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

          Latham, Michael

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Lawler, Geoffrey

          Shelton, William (Streatham)

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

          Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Shersby, Michael

          Lester, Jim

          Silvester, Fred

          Lightbown, David

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Lilley, Peter

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

          Speed, Keith

          Lord, Michael

          Speller, Tony

          Luce, Rt Hon Richard

          Spencer, Derek

          Lyell, Nicholas

          Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

          McCrindle, Robert

          Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

          McCurley, Mrs Anna

          Squire, Robin

          Macfarlane, Neil

          Stanbrook, Ivor

          MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

          Stanley, Rt Hon John

          MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

          Steen, Anthony

          Maclennan, Robert

          Stern, Michael

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

          McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

          Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

          McQuarrie, Albert

          Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

          Madel, David

          Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

          Major, John

          Stradling Thomas, Sir John

          Malins, Humfrey

          Taylor, John (Solihull)

          Malone, Gerald

          Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

          Maples, John

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Marland, Paul

          Terlezki, Stefan

          Marlow, Antony

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

          Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

          Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

          Mates, Michael

          Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

          Mather, Sir Carol

          Thornton, Malcolm

          Maude, Hon Francis

          Thurnham, Peter

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Mayhew, Sir Patrick

          Trippier, David

          Merchant, Piers

          Trotter, Neville

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Miller, Hal (B'grove)

          van Straubenzee, Sir W.

          Mills, lain (Meriden)

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Miscampbell, Norman

          Viggers, Peter

          Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

          Wakeham, Rt Hon John

          Moate, Roger

          Waldegrave, Hon William

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Walden, George

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Walker, Bill (T'side N)

          Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

          Waller, Gary

          Moynihan, Hon C.

          Ward, John

          Neale, Gerrard

          Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

          Nelson, Anthony

          Warren, Kenneth

          Neubert, Michael

          Watson, John

          146

          Watts, John

          Wood, Timothy

          Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

          Woodcock, Michael

          Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

          Yeo, Tim

          Wheeler, John

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Whitfield, John

          Whitney, Raymond

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Wiggin, Jerry

          Mr. Peter Lloyd and

          Wolfson, Mark

          Mr. Michael Portillo

          Question accordingly negatived.
          Amendment proposed: No. 135, in page 12, line 42, leave out '19th' and insert `20th'.—[Dr. Boyson.]
          Mr. John Fraser: We would like some explanation as to why a Sunday has been substituted for a Saturday. The suspicion is that the Bill was published on 18 December and that one or two Tory authorities may have been helped by switching the date for the notification of information from a Saturday to a Sunday. We would be interested to know about those authorities which can manage to get some information to an unmanned Marsham street on a Sunday rather than a Saturday.
          Dr. Boyson: We felt that the Bill was so important that we should give it the holiness of a Sunday being built into it. The better the day, the better the deed. The basis of the Bill is that local authorities should know what rates they will have to fix for 1 April. If the Bill were not enacted, we could not give rate support grant to local authorities for 1 April and that would cause uproar the length and breadth of Britain, including all Labour authorities. The rate-capped authorities now know that there can be no change. Similarly, other authorities will know what their grant should be so that they can fix their rate. Just as the good Lord rested on a Sunday, we too shall rest having done this for the good of local government through the length and breadth of Britain.
          Mr. Fraser: We thought that it was only the chief constable of Manchester who had a message from the good Lord. We now realise that such is the state of the Department of the Environment that it has to rely upon not just temporal but divine inspiration to put together its legislation. But we do not regard that explanation as adequate. We want to know which authorities would be disadvantaged as a result of having Saturday 19 December in the Bill rather than Sunday 20 December. It is not enough simply to tell us that a kind of religious quality is now being imparted into local government legislation. That is too flippant an explanation. We want to know who gains by having Sunday instead of Saturday.
          Dr. Boyson: When a tram first brought me to the House in 1961 there were three or four postal deliveries on a Saturday. I remember my amazement when, returning home with my children to Chingford in Essex, the area to which I had moved at that time, having been boating with them, I found that at five o'clock that afternoon there was a postal delivery. Now, if I get my post at some time on a Saturday morning I have to be grateful for it. The postmen are very nice when they come, but the deliveries are not reliable.
          However, I can put the mind of the House and of the hon. Gentleman at rest, because one thing that we do know is that there is no postal delivery on a Sunday and, as far as I know, neither the Secretary of State nor I was in the Department of the Environment on that day. Nobody communicated with us on that day. If the hon.

          147
          Gentleman thinks that there was some subterranean advantage in doing this, it just shows how suspicious he is.
          The message that we must get to the country is that just as the date is a Sunday, not a Saturday, the guillotine will fall on a Monday at 12 pm and a cheer will go up the length and breadth of the country. As we pass the Bill to another place, local authorities will know where they stand on their rates and rate capping for this year with all certainty.
          Mr. Fraser: That load of blather will not do. The Minister was asked why there was a change from a Saturday to a Sunday. We simply do not believe that kind of explanation. There must be some reason, some authority, perhaps some little favourite of the Department or the Welsh Office—
          It being Twelve O'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
          Amendment agreed to.
          THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.
          Amendments made: No. 137, in page 12, line 47, leave out '19th' and insert '20th'.
          No. 139, in page 13, line 9, leave out second 'the' and insert 'an'
          No. 140, in page 13, line 10, after 'charges', insert
          ', or by way of provision for pay and price changes, or on school meals and milk,'.—[Mr. Neubert.]
          Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

        Clause 8

          SANCTIONS
          Amendment made: No. 147, in page 7, line 26, at end add—
          '(11) This section applies only in relation to rates for, and precepts in respect of, the financial year beginning in 1987.'.—[Mr. Neubert.]
          Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        Clause 9

          POWER OF SPECIFYING: GENERAL
          Amendments made: No. 150, in page 7, line 29, leave out '(4), (5)' and insert '(1)'.
          No. 152, in page 7, line 40, leave out '(4), (5)' and insert '(1)'.
          No. 153, in page 7, line 41, leave out from 'principles' to 'all' in line 42 and insert `to be applied to'.—[Mr. Neubert.]
          Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          Clause 10 and 11 disagreed to.
          Clauses 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        Schedule 3

          AMENDMENTS
          Amendments made: No. 174, in page 13, line 40, at end insert—
          '1A. In section 56(6) and (7) of the 1980 Act for "the total expenditure to be incurred by them during" there shall be substituted "their total expenditure in relation to".'.
          148
          No. 175, in page 13, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 12 on page 14 and insert—
          "Information
          '2. The following shall be substituted for section 65 of the 1980 Act—
          65.—(1) Each local authority shall submit to the Secretary of State in respect of each year, in such form and by such date as he may specify, such of the information mentioned in subsection (2) below as he may from time to time require for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 8 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, section 2 of the Rate Support Grants Act 1986 and sections 1 and 2 of the Local Government Finance Act 1987.
          (2) The information is information as to the following matters—

          (a) the expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, by the authority during the year,

          (b) their relevant expenditure in relation to the year,

          (c) their total expenditure in relation to the year, and

          (d) their accounts for the year.

          (3) The information required under subsection (1) above may include any of the following—

          (a) what the authority calculate as the amount of expenditure incurred, or likely to be incurred, by them during the year,

          (b) what the authority calculate as the amount, or likely amount, of their relevant expenditure in relation to the year,

          (c) what the authority calculate as the amount, or likely amount, of their total expenditure in relation to the year,

          (d) what the authority calculate as the amount of any addition or subtraction to be made in relation to the year by virtue of any specification under section 3(1) or (7) of the Local Government Finance Act 1987, and

          (e) information about the items of account which are likely to be (as well as those which have been) debited or credited to the authority's accounts for the year.

          (4) Where no or no sufficient information as to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) above has been submitted to the Secretary of State in respect of a year, whether under subsection (1) above or otherwise, he may for the purpose of making a supplementary report, an adjustment under section 62 above or an estimate under section 66(1) below make such assumptions as to those matters as he thinks appropriate.
          (5) Where any information as to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) above is submitted to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above after the date specified by him, or otherwise than under that subsection, he may for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (4) above disregard it if he considers that it is not reasonably practicable to take it into account for that purpose.'.—[Mr. Neubert.]
          Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

        Schedule 4

          REPEALS
          Amendments made: No. 182, in page 15, column 3, leave out line 34 and insert—
          'In section 9, subsections (2) and (3)
          In Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 and 9'.
          No. 183, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—

          '1986 c. 54.

          Rate Support Grants Act 1986.

          In Schedule 1, paragraph 13'.

          Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

        Clause 13

          INTERPRETATION
          Amendment made: No. 187, in page 9, line 25, at end insert—
          '(2A) In relation to an intermediate year beginning in 1983, 1984 or 1985, "local authority" in this Part of this Act also includes the Greater London Council but does not include a joint authority.'.—[Mr. Neubert]
          Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          Clauses 14 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        New Clause 4

          SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO RATE SUPPORT GRANT
          'Schedule (Rate support grant: special provisions) to this Act (which contains special provisions as to rate support grant) shall have effect.'—[Mr. Neubert]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added
          to the Bill.

        New Schedule

          RATE SUPPORT GRANT: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
          Consultation
          1.—(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below apply as regards the Rate Support Grant Report for England for the year beginning in 1987 and the Rate Support Grant Report for Wales for that year.
          (2) If the Secretary of State proposes to include in such a Report any specification under section 1(6), 2(4) or 3(1), (7) or (8) of this Act in respect of that year, section 60(5) of the 1980 Act shall not require consultation to be made (as regards that Report) as to any matter relating to such a specification.
          (3) The requirements of section 60(5) of the 1980 Act may be satisfied (as regards such a Report) by consultation before the passing of this Act.
          (4) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) below apply as regards—

          (a) the first supplementary report proposed to be made after the passing of this Act for England for the year beginning in 1985,

          (b) the first supplementary report proposed to be so made for England for the year beginning in 1986, and

          (c) the first supplementary report proposed to be made for Wales for the year beginning in 1986.

          (5) If the Secretary of State proposes to include in such a report any specification under section 1(6), 2(4) or 3(1), (7) or (8) of this Act in respect of the year concerned, section 60(5) of the 1980 Act (as applied by section 61(2)) shall not require consultation to be made (as regards that report) as to any matter relating to such a specification.
          (6) The requirements of section 60(5) of the 1980 Act (as applied by section 61(2)) may be satisfied (as regards such a report) by consultation before the passing of this Act.
          (7) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above also apply as regards any Report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for any Report mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.
          Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) above also apply as regards any report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for—

          (a) the first supplementary report made after the passing of this Act for England for the year beginning in 1985,

          (b) the first supplementary report so made for England for the year beginning in 1986, or

          (c) the first supplementary report so made for Wales for the year beginning in 1986.

          (9) In a case where sub-paragraph (2) or (5) above applies, section 9(4) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the exercise of the power to specify.
          Certain matters to he disregarded
          2.—(1) In making any determination or doing any other thing (other than making an excepted specification) after the
          150
          passing of this Act for the purposes of any relevant report, the Secretary of State shall leave out of account information and representations received by him on or after the relevant date.
          (2) Part VI of the 1980 Act shall have effect subject to this paragraph.
          (3) In this paragraph "relevant report" means any report as regards which paragraph 1(2) and (3) above or 1(5) and (6) above apply.
          (4) In this paragraph "the relevant date" means 20th December 1986 in the case of

          (a) the Rate Support Grant Report for England for the year beginning in 1987.

          (b) any Report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for the Report mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

          (c) the report mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(b) above, or

          (d) any report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for the report mentioned in paragraph 1(8)(b) above.

          (5) In this paragraph "the relevant date" means 11th December 1986 in the case of—
          (a) the report mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(b) above, or
          (b) any report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for the report mentioned in paragraph 1(8)(a) above.
          (6) In this paragraph "the relevant date" means 4th December 1986 in the case of—

          (a) the Rate Support Grant Report for Wales for the year beginning in 1987,

          (b) any Report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for the Report mentioned in paragraph (a) above,

          (c) the report mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(c) above, or

          (d) any report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for the report mentioned in paragraph 1(8)(c) above.

          (7) In this paragraph "an excepted specification" means a specification made under section 1(6), 2(4) or 3(1), (7) or (8) of this Act.
          Submissions as to total expenditure
          3.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies where before the relevant date a local authority submitted to the Secretary of State an amount which it estimates as its total expenditure in relation to any relevant year.
          (2) In doing any of the acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below the Secretary of State shall treat the a mount submitted as the amount of the authority's total expenditure in relation to the year.
          (3) The acts are—

          (a) making any determination or doing any other thing after the passing of this Act for the pruposes of any relevant report, and

          (b) making under section 66(1) of the 1980 Act the first estimate and notification to be made after the passing of this Act as regards the authority concerned for the year for which the amount was submitted.

          (4) Part VI of the 1980 Act shall have effect subject to this paragraph.
          (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above—

          (a) if the authority and the Secretary of State agreed before the relevant date an amount to replace any amount submitted, the amount submitted shall he taken to be the amount agreed, and

          (b) subject to paragraph (a) above, if more than one amount was submitted before the relevant date, the amount submitted shall be taken to be the latest to be so submitted.

          (6) For the purposes of this paragraph years beginning in 1985 and 1986 are relevant years as regards England, and the year beginning in 1986 is a relevant year as regards Wales.
          (7) In this paragraph "relevant report" means any report as regards which paragraph 1(5) and (6) above apply.
          (8) In this paragraph "the relevant date" means—

          (a) 20th December 1986, in the case of an amount submitted by an English authority for the year beginning in 1986,

          151

          (b) 11th December 1986, in the case of an amount submitted by an English authority for the year beginning in 1985, or

          (c) 4th December 1986, in the case of an amount submitted by a Welsh authority for the year beginning in 1986.

          Teachers' remuneration
          4.—(1) In making any determination or doing any other thing after the passing of this Act for the purposes of any Report as regards which paragraph 1(2) and (3) above apply, the Secretary of State shall leave out of account the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below.
          (2) The matters are scales and allowances which relate to the remuneration of school teachers and provide for remuneration greater than the aggregate of—

          (a) the remuneration in payment on 19th December 1986, and

          (b)3·75 per cent. of the remuneration mentioned in paragraph (a) above (3·75 per cent. being the approximate increase in the GDP deflator for 1987–88, as predicted in the Autumn Statement 1986 presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1986).

          (3) In making any determination or doing any other thing after the passing of this Act for the purposes of—

          (a) the report mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(b) above or that mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(c) above, or

          (b) any report proposed to be made in substitution (directly or indirectly) for the report mentioned in paragraph 1(8)(b) above or that mentioned in paragraph 1(8)(c) above,

          the Secretary of State shall leave out of account the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below.
          (4) The matters are scales and allowances which relate to the remuneration of school-teachers and provide for remuneration greater than the remuneration in payment on 19th December 1986.
          (5) Part VI of the 1980 Act and paragraph 3 above shall have effect subject to this paragraph.
          (6) In this paragraph "school-teacher" means—

          (a) a teacher in a primary or secondary school maintained by a local education authority, or

          (b) a person employed by a local education authority as a teacher in the provision of primary or secondary education, other than a person employed as a teacher in an establishment maintained by a local authority in the exercise of a social services.'.—[Neubert]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
          Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
          Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
          12.3 am
          Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In Committee, amendment No. 189 was moved and put to a vote. Both the movers of the amendment probably either voted against the amendment or abstained. That kind of precedent is unusual and would have been debated on Report. However, we have been denied a Report stage. Will it be possible to ensure that the other place debates that amendment and the significance of hon. Members tabling amendments and then voting against them, so that Halifax and Batley and Spen can know what is happening?
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There was nothing out of order in the proceedings.
          Question put:—
          The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 165.

          Division No. 74]

          [12.05 am

          AYES

          Aitken, Jonathan

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Alexander, Richard

          Hannam,John

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Harris, David

          Amess, David

          Hayes, J.

          Ancram, Michael

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Arnold, Tom

          Hicks, Robert

          Ashby, David

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

          Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

          Batiste, Spencer

          Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

          Bellingham, Henry

          Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

          Bendall, Vivian

          Jackson, Robert

          Benyon, William

          Knowles, Michael

          Best, Keith

          Knox, David

          Biffen, Rt Hon John

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Biggs-Davison, Sir John

          Latham, Michael

          Blackburn, John

          Lawler, Geoffrey

          Body, Sir Richard

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

          Bottom ley, Peter

          Lester, Jim

          Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

          Lilley, Peter

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

          Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Boyson, Dr Rhodes

          Lord, Michael

          Brandon-Bravo, Martin

          Luce, Rt Hon Richard

          Bright, Graham

          Lyell, Nicholas

          Brinton, Tim

          McCrindle, Robert

          Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

          McCurley, Mrs Anna

          Brooke, Hon Peter

          Macfarlane, Neil

          Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

          MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

          Browne, John

          MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

          Bruinvels, Peter

          Maclean, David John

          Buck, Sir Antony

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Budgen, Nick

          McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

          Bulmer, Esmond

          McQuarrie, Albert

          Burt, Alistair

          Madel, David

          Butcher, John

          Major, John

          Butterfill, John

          Malins, Humfrey

          Carlisle, John (Luton N)

          Malone, Gerald

          Carttiss, Michael

          Maples, John

          Cash, William

          Marland, Paul

          Chapman, Sydney

          Marlow, Antony

          Chope, Christopher

          Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

          Churchill, W. S.

          Mates, Michael

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Mather, Sir Carol

          Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

          Mayhew, Sir Patrick

          Cockeram, Eric

          Merchant, Piers

          Colvin, Michael

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Conway, Derek

          Miller, Hal (B'grove)

          Coombs, Simon

          Mills, lain (Meriden)

          Cope, John

          Miscampbell, Norman

          Couchman, James

          Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

          Cranborne, Viscount

          Moate, Roger

          Crouch, David

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Dickens, Geoffrey

          Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

          Dicks, Terry

          Moynihan, Hon C.

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Neale, Gerrard

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

          Nelson, Anthony

          Dover, Den

          Neubert, Michael

          du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

          Newton, Tony

          Dunn, Robert

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Durant, Tony

          Onslow, Cranley

          Dykes, Hugh

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Eggar, Tim

          Ottaway, Richard

          Evennett, David

          Page, Richard (Herts SW)

          Forman, Nigel

          Patten, Christopher (Bath)

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

          Forth, Eric

          Pawsey, James

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Pollock, Alexander

          Franks, Cecil

          Portillo, Michael

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Glyn, Dr Alan

          Powley, John

          Gow, Ian

          Price, Sir David

          Gower, Sir Raymond

          Proctor, K. Harvey

          Griffiths, Sir Eldon

          Raffan, Keith

          153

          Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

          Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

          Rathbone, Tim

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Rhodes James, Robert

          Terlezki, Stefan

          Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

          Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

          Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

          Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

          Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

          Thornton, Malcolm

          Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

          Thurnham, Peter

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Rost, Peter

          Trippier, David

          Rowe, Andrew

          Trotter, Neville

          Rumbold, Mrs Angela

          Twinn, Dr lan

          Ryder, Richard

          van Straubenzee, Sir W.

          Sackville, Hon Thomas

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

          Viggers, Peter

          Sayeed, Jonathan

          Wakeham, Rt Hon John

          Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

          Waldegrave, Hon William

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Walden, George

          Shelton, William (Streatham)

          Walker, Bill (T'side N)

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Waller, Gary

          Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

          Ward, John

          Shersby, Michael

          Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

          Silvester, Fred

          Warren, Kenneth

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Watson, John

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Watts, John

          Speed, Keith

          Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

          Speller, Tony

          Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

          Spencer, Derek

          Wheeler, John

          Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

          Whitfield, John

          Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

          Whitney, Raymond

          Squire, Robin

          Wiggin, Jerry

          Stanbrook, Ivor

          Wolfson, Mark

          Stanley, Rt Hon John

          Wood, Timothy

          Steen, Anthony

          Woodcock, Michael

          Stern, Michael

          Yeo, Tim

          Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

          Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

          Mr. Francis Maude and

          Stradling Thomas, Sir John

          Mr. David Lightbown.

          Taylor, John (Solihull)

          NOES

          Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

          Corbett, Robin

          Alton, David

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Anderson, Donald

          Craigen, J. M.

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Crowther, Stan

          Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Bagier, Gordon A. T.

          Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

          Barron, Kevin

          Deakins, Eric

          Beckett, Mrs Margaret

          Dewar, Donald

          Bell, Stuart

          Oixon, Donald

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Dobson, Frank

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

          Dormand, Jack

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Dubs, Alfred

          Bidwell, Sydney

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

          Blair, Anthony

          Eadie, Alex

          Boyes, Roland

          Eastham, Ken

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Evans, John (St. Helens N)

          Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

          Fatchett, Derek

          Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

          Faulds, Andrew

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

          Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

          Buchan, Norman

          Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

          Caborn, Richard

          Fisher, Mark

          Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

          Flannery, Martin

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Foot, Rt Hon Michael

          Canavan, Dennis

          Forrester, John

          Carter-Jones, Lewis

          Foster, Derek

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Foulkes, George

          Clarke, Thomas

          Fraser, J. (Norwood)

          Clay, Robert

          Freud, Clement

          Clelland, David Gordon

          George, Bruce

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

          Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

          Godman, Dr Norman

          Cohen, Harry

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Conlan, Bernard

          Gould, Bryan

          Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

          Hamilton, James (M'well N)

          Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

          Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

          154

          Hancock, Michael

          Pendry, Tom

          Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

          Pike, Peter

          Heffer, Eric S.

          Prescott, John

          Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

          Radice, Giles

          Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

          Randall, Stuart

          Home Robertson, John

          Raynsford, Nick

          Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

          Redmond, Martin

          Hoyle, Douglas

          Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

          Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

          Richardson, Ms Jo

          Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

          Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

          Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

          Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Robertson, George

          Janner, Hon Greville

          Rooker, J. W.

          John, Brynmor

          Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Rowlands, Ted

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Lambie, David

          Sheerman, Barry

          Lamond, James

          Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

          Leadbitter, Ted

          Shore, Rt Hon Peter

          Leighton, Ronald

          Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

          Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

          Litherland, Robert

          Silkin, Rt Hon J.

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Skinner, Dennis

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

          Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

          Loyden, Edward

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

          McCartney, Hugh

          Snape, Peter

          McDonald, Dr Oonagh

          Soley, Clive

          McKay, Allen (Penistone)

          Spearing, Nigel

          McNamara, Kevin

          Stott, Roger

          McWilliam, John

          Straw, Jack

          Madden, Max

          Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

          Martin, Michael

          Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

          Maxton, John

          Thorne, Stan (Preston)

          Maynard, Miss Joan

          Tinn, James

          Meacher, Michael

          Warden, Gareth (Gower)

          Meadowcroft, Michael

          Wareing, Robert

          Michie, William

          Weetch, Ken

          Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

          Welsh, Michael

          Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

          White, James

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Williams, Rt Hon A.

          Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

          Winnick, David

          Nellist, David

          Young, David (Bolton SE)

          Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

          O'Brien, William

          Tellers for the Noes:

          O'Neill, Martin

          Mr. Frank Haynes and

          Park, George

          Mr. Ray Powell.

          Patchett, Terry

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

          BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
          Motion made, and Question proposed,
          That, at the sitting on Tuesday 27th January, Mr. Speaker shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Mr. Speaker's decision of 22nd January and of any Amendments thereto which have been selected by him and which may then be moved at Seven o'clock, or not later than three hours after the Motion has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Neubert.]
          Hon. Members: Object.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Objection taken.

        STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
        URBAN DEVELOPMENT
        That the Trafford Park Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1986, dated 8th December 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

        TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
        That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]
        Question agreed to.

Forestry (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
12.16 am
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of afforestation in Scotland. Some 90 per cent. of forestry activity in the whole of the United Kingdom takes place in Scotland, and an increasingly rapid scale. During the past 10 years alone, an additional 750 sq miles of trees have been planted in Scotland, of which almost 99 per cent. have consisted of sitka spruce and lodgepole pine, which are conifers not native to Scotland. Indeed, in some parts of Scotland, such as the world famous—I hesitate to say this, but it is true —flow country, more than one third is under forestry ownership.
In Scotland, unlike in England, there is no protection of environmental interests arising from the national parks. The environmental damage has been pointed out by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Countryside Commission, all of which have expressed concern at blanket afforestation.
There is also widespread concern among the fishing interests—for example, about the damage to salmon beds, which may interest my hon. Friend the Minister, and the damage caused through the increased acidification of ground water.
However, the nub of the argument is that ecologically important wild land is being destroyed. If the environmental argument was all that it was necessary to consider, that would be sufficient in itself. However, the National Audit Office studied the issue and has produced a report, which was presented to the House on 4 December.
Mr. John Home Robertson: It is a very good report.
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The NAO commissioned Peider to consider the economic effects of forestry and to review the impact of afforestation —the first major review for some time. It made some startling conclusions. First, it strongly questioned the value of planting trees on poor land. It also questioned the value of planting trees for externalities—the social costs, whether there is a benefit to rural employment, whether there is a balance of payments argument, whether there is a strategic benefit, and so on. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend the Minister rehearsed any of those arguments in the light of the conclusions in the report.
The report also concludes that afforestation would be of greater worth to the nation if it were carried out on better land. That is hardly surprising, and it is worth explaining exactly what is happening in Scotland. Land is bought at £100 an acre by a private forestry company on behalf of an individual who is paying tax at 60 per cent. He pays the company fees of about £400 a year to cover the management for the first six years. He receives a grant of £100 an acre. The £300 net is set against tax, which means a net cost to the investor of £120. After 10 years the crop is sold to the institutions, which now own half of the forestry land in Scotland. Capital gains tax has to be paid only on the land, not on the trees. Taxable income has been converted into untaxed capital. In the flow country, the cost of afforestation is about £1,100 per hectare. A

157
grant of £240 per hectare is available, and 60 per cent. of the remaining costs are covered by schedule D. In the flow country alone, the public subsidy has been 68 per cent. of the total sum invested, amounting to £12·2 million.
Mountain forestry has about 40 staff. The employment losses in other activities are not known, but the cost to public funds is about £305,000 per job. My hon. Friend the Minister will doubtless argue that the jobs will last for a period. If we are to be charitable and say that they will last for five years, that is still a cost of £61,000 per job. On the figures of the Highland board, which is hardly the most frugal of spenders, the costs are £2,000 to £6,000 per job. That means that we are talking of a cost per job that is 10 times that which applies to the most costly jobs to be created by the Highland board. Even with the next generation of bulk tree planting, there will be a further subsidy paid by the taxpayer of £11,000 per job. It is hardly surprising that the National Audit Offices report concluded that it was unclear whether the Exchequer costs of tax incentives estimated at £10 million a year in grants to private forestry
"were matched by commensurate economic benefits in national economic terms."
If the system were merely wasteful and did not damage the environment, it might be worthy of consideration, but, because tax relief is given regardless of where the trees are planted, investors look for cheap land. That is the only part of the transaction on which they do not have a tax shelter. This means that they look for the most environmentally sensitive, most remote and wildest country in Scotland, and the least productive in terms of tree planting. There are few farmers, certainly in my constituency, who pay tax at 60 per cent., yet the subsidy to encourage the planting of trees is available only to higher rate taxpayers. The effect is to exclude farmers and local people from the business of planting trees and to bring in a new generation and class of absentee landlords, consisting of pop stars, snooker players and others who are anxious to convert high marginal tax income into a tax-free capital gain.
The scheme means that the forestry companies, which make their money on the management charges in the first six years, are interested only in the first few years of the plantation's life. They are not interested in long-term management because the plantations are sold off to the institutions. Permission to plant merely involves agreement to provide a grant. Tax relief is given for planting whether or not it has been approved by the Forestry Commission. Investors can plant in areas against the wishes of the community and with the strong disapproval of the commission, and all they sacrifice is the planting grant. They still get the tax relief. That is why a number of owners have gone ahead, to considerable public consternation.
The grant of £100 per acre is payable regardless of the size of the plantation. This creates an enormous incentive to produce blanket afforestation. The fact that the tax device depends on the institutions buying after 10 years or so from the initial investor means that there is a tendency to produce large plantations, because the institutions wish to deal in large parcels with a value of about £250,000. There is an urgent need for control of this activity and some sort of strategy to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places. It is wholly disingenuous for the forestry companies and others who have strong interests in these matters to try to represent those of us
158
who are concerned about what is happening as being anti trees. On the contrary, we want trees to be planted where they will do best. We do not believe that the system should be operated in the interests of a tax shelter.
The regional advisory committees, responsible for making recommendations, should consist of wider interests. At the moment they are dominated by the forestry interests. The tax relief that is available should be conditional on approval. The Minister should review whether tax relief is an appropriate mechanism by which to subsidise tree planting and that when tax subsidies are provided they are justified. The National Audit Office report suggests otherwise.
No doubt the Minister will have considered the arguments about job creation advanced by the forestry companies. As regards job creation, one should consider tourism, which is the major creator of employment in Scotland at the present time. The Forestry Commission employs almost the same number of employees as it did in 1935—3,000 square miles of plantation later. My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Office scored a notable victory this week with the news that a new paper mill is to be established at Irvine.
The import substitution argument has a long way to go. Private forestry companies tell us that we are importing £4 billion worth of timber and that we need to grow our own to avoid such imports. They do not tell us that two thirds of those imports are in finished products—chipboard and paper. They do not tell us that the tropical growth rate of trees is five times quicker than it is in Scotland. They do not tell us about the impact of imports from the developing countries.
The Minister may grumble, but perhaps I should read these words:
"It is by no means clear that import saving has any special merit. Participation in international trade gives the opportunity for a country to achieve an overall higher level of economic welfare by allowing production resources to he concentrated in activities to which the country is best suited. The resulting output can then be traded for goods which can be produced more cheaply in other countries."
Is that a quotation from Adam Smith or some Right-wing economist? It is a quotation from the Forestry Commission published in "Wood Production Outlook 1977." I agree with the Forestry Commission, but it is strange that it does not heed its own advice.
One of my constituents announced to the local press that hill farming had had its day and that trees were the answer to the problems of the rural areas. If this present system is allowed to continue, hill farming will have had its day. Hill farmers will be forced out of business. They will sell out because of the inflated land values that result from the capitalised benefit of the subsidies.
When the Minister replies, I hope he will give some figures. What is the difference in cost to the taxpayer between traditional hill farming and forestry? I understand —no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will correct me if I am wrong—that land that would support 200 ewes over six years would get a total subsidy of £14,400. I understand that that is broadly equivalent to 500 acres of the type of land used for forestry, and that same ground would receive a public subsidy of £140,000 over six years—10 tiimes as much. I know that there are problems of overproduction, but they are greatest in the lowlands, in the more fertile areas. If we

159
are concerned about that, we should be planting trees there, saving far more, and leaving the hill farmers and the traditional patterns of Scotland as they are.
Mr. Home Robertson: Surprisingly, I agree with practically everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, and it applies in my constituency. I strongly agree that there is a case for reviewing the tax incentives that are being used. Is there not a case for some kind of planning controls to prevent undesirable planting, such as that about which he has been talking.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am concerned about what is happening in my constituency, and that must be evident from the fact of this debate. I find it difficult to imagine that Stirling district council coming on the scene would improve matters, and I am not certain that the planning process is the right way to deal with this matter. It does not cope with the nub of the problem—the system of subsidies and grants, which is driving planting and production into the wrong areas. The matter needs a far more radical overlook than the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Each generation is simply the trustee for the next. We in Scotland have a comparative advantage in our uplands in one thing—the marvellous native scenery, with its opportunities for tourism and sporting and leisure activities. It would be perverse for this Government, of all Governments, aided by our financial institutions, to subsidise their destruction.
12.31 am
Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has had the chance to raise the subject of forestry in this short debate, because, despite the need for one, we have not had a major debate on forestry for a long time. This need is made more apparent by the many excellent reports that we have had in the past 12 months, from the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain, the National Audit Office, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Foresty Commission, the new Verney report for the Country Landowners Association and that from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. All are asking important questions, and all are worthy of a major debate. I hope that we shall have one soon. They all want to know where we are going in forestry.
My hon. Friend has raised the issue of import saving and we need to ask whether it is more economic. Are we producing more jobs through the Forestry Commission or through private forestry? In my part of the world, the most afforested region in Britain, I doubt whether we have as many jobs in the forests as we used to have when the same ground was in agriculture. Would the cash flow from the new idea of substitution of agriculture by planting trees be effective in the long run were a tax incentive not an important point to the average farmer?
I wish to highlight the point made by my hon. Friend about the environment. I am a member of the NCC and we are concerned about the planting of sites of special scientific interest. The examples of the Caithness flows, and of Islay, which my hon. Friend mentioned, are important. Can we afford the management agreements that are necessary to conserve these sensitive areas from afforestation? I support what my hon. Friend said about
160
tourism and the scenic beauty of Scotland. The more that I drive about Scotland, the more infuriated I get at seeing some of our more beautiful areas becoming a blanket of foresty. This will be to the detriment of the tourist trade that we require in the years ahead.
I support the many private forests that have been planted on existing estates. I am more concerned about the major planting by private forestry groups that my hon. Friend mentioned. Unless we look carefully at where planting should take place, my hon. Friend will be only too right about the problems that will occur now that the controls that we used to have through grants are a failure, and the private forestry groups can go ahead without grants and still receive sufficient income through tax relief. Clearly we must look at that in future if we are to get the right planting of the right trees in the right place. We need broadleaf planting as well as the conifers that are presently being planted. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling that we should have a major debate on forestry to enable us to look at all these issues. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will pass our views to the Leader of the House.
12.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I have listened with interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling when I say that I do not entirely agree with everything that he said. I find it difficult to reconcile some of my hon. Friend's comments and his pessimistic assessment of the worth of forestry, with the stimulating news that came only days ago that the internationally renowned Kymmene-Stromberg corporation of Finland, better known at Kaukas, has decided to go ahead with the building of a new pulp and paper mill at Irvine in Ayrshire.
That mill is a £200 million-plus project. It is a major addition to Scotland's industrial base and to the nation's forest products industry. Indeed, it is the largest ever single inward investment to Scotland. In full production, the mill will use 200,000 tonnes per year of Scottish timber. That timber will come from trees planted many years ago by people who had faith in forestry and in the jobs which would one day be realised. The timber may be spruce. I know that some people criticise spruce and, if I have time, I will come back to that. As hon. Members know, that species is grown extensively precisely because it meets the need of the market.
About 1,000 jobs will be created or protected by this development in Irvine, many of them in areas suffering at present from high unemployment. The jobs will not just be in Irvine but, I suspect, in constituencies like those of my hon. Friends and certainly in constituencies like mine where I expect to see jobs in the forests and in the haulage industry as a result of this project coming to Irvine.
This mill is part of an ever-increasing payoff of the policy of forest expansion, a policy that has consistently been supported by successive Governments, but with notable success by the present Government. The decision to invest in the mill was taken by hard-headed business men who looked in depth at the forest industry in Britain. I compliment the Forestry Commission on the work that it has done to get this project to Scotland. The leading parts were played by my right hon. and learned Friend the

161
Secretary of State for Scotland, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) when he was Industry Minister at the Scottish Office.
Mr. Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the timber was planted in the lowlands rather than in the uplands the quality available to the pulp mill would be considerably better?
Mr. MacKay: I shall deal with that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling tended to suggest in his speech and has just said in his intervention that afforestation is taking place on the wrong land. I heard criticism that the timber is of the wrong species, that the planting is being carried out by the wrong people and, in any case, it is a waste of public money.
To a certain extent much of the campaign against forestry has come about in recent months because of problems in an area known as the flow country in the north of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries spoke about that. This controversy arises from a fear that much of this extraordinarily large area is about to disapper under a blanket of conifers planted in a totally uncontrolled way. No planting there has taken place without being carefully considered and cleared through the consultation procedures of the Forestry Commission. Only about 17 per cent. of the area has been planted or has been given approval for planting. On the other hand, large parts of the area have already been designated as sites of special scientific interest with more designations to come, and, with much of the land unsuitable or unavailable for forestry, the scope for further planting is limited. There is, therefore, no question of most of this area being covered by forests.
Because of the concern expressed by conservation interests, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has set up a working group, including the Nature Conservancy Council to look at future land use patterns in this area with the aim of identifying a reasonable balance between forestry, conservation and other land uses. Conservation interests need to define their requirements and develop with other land use interests the best strategy to meet conservation and social and economic needs. This process will be greatly assisted by a major research project being undertaken by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds into the effect of existing plantations on bird habitats. This project is being funded by the Forestry Commission and Fountain forestry, the company that is carrying out much of the planting in the area. I read with interest that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) opened the local office of Fountain Forestry in Laid at the end of last week.
I understand the need for forestry planting to think not just about the birds and the butterflies but about the view. Nobody appreciates the value of tourism more than I do, representing as 1 do an area that accounts for one tenth of the total bed nights passed in Scotland. The tourists like the forests. They provide nice walks and a nice habitat. As the forests mature they will improve. For a variety of reasons we are seeing forests that are very much all one age. If one goes to some of the continental countries and looks at forests such as those in Finland and the Black
162
forest in Germany, not that I have ever been there but I am sure it is similar, one sees a range of things. I am amazed that the conservationists are all in favour of the Black forest in Germany but do not seem keen that we should create forests of a similar type in Britain.
The Forestry Commission has a statutory duty to seek a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and the environment. It has updated its conservation policy to stress the need to increase the environmental value of its whole estate. It has drawn up conservation plans for each of its forests, set up local consultative panels involving the voluntary bodies to seek advice on the environmental aspects of managing those forests and shown its willingness to make conservation a major feature of its management.
The private sector has not been slow to respond. In November 1985 Timber Growers United Kingdom published its booklet, "Forestry and Woodland Code", designed to encourage the highest standards—including environmental standards—in forest design and management.
Part of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling's case against forestry is the assertion that much of the poor quality and insensitive forestry is a direct result of the present forestry tax relief. The fiscal arrangements for private sector planting do not determine the type of planting that takes place. That is influenced by practical forestry considerations such as the availability of land and its price and the future needs of the market place. The deicions reached on planting proposals under the commission's consultation procedure are not affected by the financial standing or the tax position of the owner of the land.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, there have been two cases where planting has gone on when the commission refused to give grants. As I have said many times from the Dispatch Box, we do not like that but it is only two cases among innumerable cases of forestry planting applications over the years. We should not be so obsessed with those two cases that we try to devise an enormous system to prevent such things happening. If the incidence was to increase, as I have always made clear, we would then look at it. However, two cases against the number of forestry grant applications we have had over the years, does not justify setting up considerable procedures other than those already in operation.
My hon. Friend referred to the National Audit Office report. He will not be surprised when I say that taxation matters are primarily the concern of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the NAO report will be considered by the Public Accounts Committee of the House. The House will appreciate therefore, that I am not in a position to offer a specific response to the points raised in the report, but tax reliefs for forestry have a very long history, and have been seen by successive Governments as a legitimate and effective means of encouraging investment in forestry. Anyone investing in forestry has a long time to wait to get his return, and that investment will simply not take place without the right incentives.
What the report has to say about the low economic returns from investing in the planting of poorer land is not new. That has always been recognised. But forestry has been deliberately confined, by successive Government policies, to the relatively poor and inhospitable sites in the uplands, because of the overriding priorities accorded to food production and by reason of the contribution that

163
forestry can make to socially fragile areas. As my hon. Friend said the situation is changing as a result of the problem of agricultural surpluses. The establishment of forestry on better quality land will provide a promising alternative use, and the NAO report indicates that on better land there are opportunities for achieving financial rates of return significantly higher than 5 per cent. The argument for sitka spruce will still be there because it grows well in our climate and it is what the market wants. That is what the new plant at Irvine will want. It does not want any other species.
In return for the public investment in forestry we have a productive estate of about 2 million hectares that
164
provides enough timber to meet 12 per cent. of our needs and which will meet 20 per cent. by the turn of the century. That is significant. Downstream, we have seen about £500 million of private investment going into the timber-using industries since 1980. We have created a modern timber industry that currently provides or supports some 40,000 jobs in Britain and more than 12,000 jobs in Scotland. That is important for the rural areas and it is important for the places that the timber using industries set up.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Insider Dealing
  Insider Dealing
  Northern Ireland (Juries)
  Northern Ireland (Juries)
  Zircon Satellite
  Zircon Satellite
TRANSPORT
  Private Hire Vehicles
  Private Hire Vehicles
  Public Transport (Merseyside)
  Public Transport (Merseyside)
  A1 (Road Accidents)
  A1 (Road Accidents)
  Transport-Supplementary Grant
  Transport-Supplementary Grant
  Marine Pollution
  Marine Pollution
  Midlands Link Relief Route
  Midlands Link Relief Route
  Roads (Study)
  Roads (Study)
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
  Bicycles
  Bicycles
  Bicyclists
  Bicyclists
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Westminster Bridge
  Westminster Bridge
  Skips (Lighting)
  Skips (Lighting)
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Airlines (Passenger Control)
  Airlines (Passenger Control)
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
  A419 (Blunsdon—Cricklade)
  A419 (Blunsdon—Cricklade)
  Roads (Appearance)
  Roads (Appearance)
  Remould Tyres
  Remould Tyres
  Legislation
  Legislation
  General Lighthouse Authorities.
  General Lighthouse Authorities.
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Deaf People (Teachers)
  Deaf People (Teachers)
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
  Young Children
  Young Children
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Unit Costs)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Unit Costs)
PRIME MINISTER
  European Community
  European Community
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Ministerial Telephone Numbers
  Ministerial Telephone Numbers
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Zircon Satellite
  Zircon Satellite
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  UNICEF
  UNICEF
  EC (Food Aid)
  EC (Food Aid)
  Scientific Units
  Scientific Units
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Animal (Experiments)
  Animal (Experiments)
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Automatic Cameras (Traffic Lights)
  Automatic Cameras (Traffic Lights)
  Bail (London)
  Bail (London)
  Myra Hindley
  Myra Hindley
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Hon. Member for Gower (Correspondence)
  Hon. Member for Gower (Correspondence)
  Overseas Voters
  Overseas Voters
  Mrs. Cherry Groce
  Mrs. Cherry Groce
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Amphetamines
  Amphetamines
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
  Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
  Manchester University (Ministerial Visit)
  Manchester University (Ministerial Visit)
  Criminal Injuries
  Criminal Injuries
  Nuclear Accidents
  Nuclear Accidents
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
  Box Junctions
  Box Junctions
  Greater Manchester (Civil Defence)
  Greater Manchester (Civil Defence)
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Transport International Routier
  Transport International Routier
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Work Leave
  Work Leave
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Job Training Schemes
  Job Training Schemes
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Disciplinary Procedures (Code of Practice)
  Disciplinary Procedures (Code of Practice)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Employment Measures
  Employment Measures
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Legislation
  Legislation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnamese Boat People
  Vietnamese Boat People
  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Departmental Staff (Languages)
  Departmental Staff (Languages)
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Soviet Jews
  Soviet Jews
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
  Tripartite Commission
  Tripartite Commission
  Zircon Satellite
  Zircon Satellite
ENVIRONMENT
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Heveningham Hall, Suffolk
  Heveningham Hall, Suffolk
  Housing Development
  Housing Development
  Weather Damage (Payments)
  Weather Damage (Payments)
  Environmental Research
  Environmental Research
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Conservation Measures
  Conservation Measures
  EEC Directives
  EEC Directives
  North Sea
  North Sea
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Housing Defects
  Housing Defects
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Urban Regeneration
  Urban Regeneration
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Nitrates
  Nitrates
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Departmental Lawyers
  Departmental Lawyers
  Windsor and Maidenhead (Planning Appeals)
  Windsor and Maidenhead (Planning Appeals)
  Royal Opera House
  Royal Opera House
  Fuel Conservation
  Fuel Conservation
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  PSA (York Office)
  PSA (York Office)
  Water Legislation
  Water Legislation
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
  National Water Grid
  National Water Grid
ENERGY
  Energy Efficiency Year
  Energy Efficiency Year
  Coal Firing Scheme
  Coal Firing Scheme
  Sacked Miners
  Sacked Miners
  British Coal Enterprise Limited
  British Coal Enterprise Limited
  Chernobyl
  Chernobyl
  Sizewell
  Sizewell
  British Coal (Productivity)
  British Coal (Productivity)
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Coal Industry (Privatisation)
  Coal Industry (Privatisation)
  Cavity Insulation
  Cavity Insulation
  Leicester (Combined Heat and Power)
  Leicester (Combined Heat and Power)
  Gas and Electricity (VAT)
  Gas and Electricity (VAT)
  CEGB (Capital Requirements)
  CEGB (Capital Requirements)
  Cold Weather (Energy Demand)
  Cold Weather (Energy Demand)
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  Domestic Heating Costs
  Domestic Heating Costs
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Sizewell Power Station
  Sizewell Power Station
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Civil Nuclear Power
  Civil Nuclear Power
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow (Health Board Manager)
  Glasgow (Health Board Manager)
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Fish
  Fish
  Fotestry
  Fotestry
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Criminal Injuries
  Criminal Injuries
  Repairs Grant
  Repairs Grant
  Gill Nets
  Gill Nets
WALES
  HMI Reports
  HMI Reports
  School Inspectors
  School Inspectors
  Staffing Statistics
  Staffing Statistics
  Specialist Subject Advisers
  Specialist Subject Advisers
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Childhood Leukaemia
  Childhood Leukaemia
  Central Heating
  Central Heating
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Mid-Wales Development
  Mid-Wales Development
  Key Workers (Housing)
  Key Workers (Housing)
  Information Technology Centres
  Information Technology Centres
  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Welsh Office (Parking)
  Welsh Office (Parking)
  Woodland
  Woodland
  Legislation
  Legislation
THE ARTS
  Clore Gallery
  Clore Gallery
  Marketing
  Marketing
  Public Funding
  Public Funding
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  News International Publications
  News International Publications
  Gallery Collections
  Gallery Collections
  Royal Opera House
  Royal Opera House
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Companies Acts Investigations
  Companies Acts Investigations
  2,4,5-T (Imports)
  2,4,5-T (Imports)
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Cement Imports
  Cement Imports
  Lloyd's
  Lloyd's
  Aircraft (Retrofitting)
  Aircraft (Retrofitting)
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
  Car Sales
  Car Sales
  Insider Dealing
  Insider Dealing
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Timeshare Properties
  Timeshare Properties
  Share Dealing
  Share Dealing
  City Investment Centres
  City Investment Centres
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
CIVIL SERVICE
  Management and Personnel Office
  Management and Personnel Office
  Management Reform
  Management Reform
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Transport International Routier
  Transport International Routier
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Staff)
  NHS (Staff)
  Pharmaceuticals (Code of Practice)
  Pharmaceuticals (Code of Practice)
  Drug Companies (Monitoring)
  Drug Companies (Monitoring)
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Health Expenditure
  Health Expenditure
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Departmental Computer Network
  Departmental Computer Network
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Board and Lodging Payments
  NHS (Thames Regions)
  NHS (Thames Regions)
  Drugs and Medicines
  Drugs and Medicines
  Childhood Leukaemia
  Childhood Leukaemia
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Unemployment and Health
  Unemployment and Health
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Organ Transplant
  Organ Transplant
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mrs. M. Godley
  Mrs. M. Godley
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Child Deaths
  Child Deaths
  Occupational Health
  Occupational Health
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Legislation
  Legislation
  NHS Regulations
  NHS Regulations
  Adjudication Officers
  Adjudication Officers
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Crewe District Health Authority
  Crewe District Health Authority
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Vehicle Loans
  Vehicle Loans
  Patient Care
  Patient Care
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Influenza Vaccine
  Influenza Vaccine
  Local Offices
  Local Offices
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Livestock Exports
  Livestock Exports
  Crabs
  Crabs
  Mackerel Transhipment
  Mackerel Transhipment
  Woodland (Felling)
  Woodland (Felling)
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Beef
  Beef
  Livestock Exports
  Livestock Exports
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Cargoes (Road Accidents)
  Nuclear Cargoes (Road Accidents)
  Service Men (Accommodation)
  Service Men (Accommodation)
  DROPS
  DROPS
  Stores and Clothing Research and Development Establishment
  Stores and Clothing Research and Development Establishment
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Sleeping Bags
  Sleeping Bags
  Service Children's Schools
  Service Children's Schools
  Honduras (US Exercises)
  Honduras (US Exercises)
  Caribbean (Naval Visits)
  Caribbean (Naval Visits)
  Industrial Programme (Expenditure)
  Industrial Programme (Expenditure)
  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Boeing AWACS
  Boeing AWACS
  L/Cpl. S. J. Cockton
  L/Cpl. S. J. Cockton
  Zircon Satellite
  Zircon Satellite
  Mr. Trafford Boughton
  Mr. Trafford Boughton
  "The Secret Society"
  "The Secret Society"

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

Treasure Trove Rules
The Earl of Perth: 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 will set up a body to inquire into the working of the rules of treasure trove and the use of metal detectors, with special reference to archaeology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, there is concern that the use of metal detectors has transformed the activities of treasure hunters, and that the present arrangements—including the treasure trove rules—provide an inadequate basis for ensuring that valuable archaeological finds are properly reported and recorded. This warrants a thorough investigation, and the Government therefore intend to invite views from interested parties on the best way of tackling the problem, including the case for an independent review. I will inform the House of my conclusions in due course.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will give great pleasure to English Heritage, the British Archaeological Society, the British Museum, to me and to many others? Is he further aware that in view of happenings such as the saga of the Middleham Jewel, which was discovered a short while ago and whose fate is unknown (we do not know whether it will stay in this country), the inquiry is a matter of great urgency and public interest?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept the noble Earl's view that this matter is of great public interest. Many bodies are involved in this problem and they will find that they have conflicting interests. I should expect major contributions from the Council of British Archaeology, the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Museums Association and English Heritage and from several different government departments.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree—I think that he does—that the existing old law, which I believe dates from the 16th century, is ridiculous and hedged around by a great many completely arbitrary assumptions? Is he aware that in Surrey recently coin hoards on private property, thought to be valued at some £750,000, were taken out of the ground largely at night and appeared in Europe, and that some of the prosecutions brought against the few offenders who were found did not succeed because the law is so unsatisfactory in that respect? Finally—
Lord Denham: My Lords, no. That is three questions. One question only!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should expect the review to discover anomalies in the present arrangements, and it is those that we have sought to investigate.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his statement will give great pleasure to this side of the House? Is he also aware that, apart from the treasure trove aspect, the indiscriminate use of metal detectors by untrained people is doing irreparable damage to many important archaeological sites? Will he be concerned for that aspect also in the deliberations that take place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware that that is a widespread view. But, of course, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 makes it an offence to use a metal detector on scheduled monument sites or areas of archaeological importance without the Secretary of State's consent. Reputable operators of metal detectors are well aware of that, but I accept that there are others who are not so well informed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the Treasury exhibited any interest in this matter? Does it have it in mind to seek to benefit from any change that may conceivably take place on purely environmental grounds?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when I was being briefed on the noble Earl's Question, I was also advised by the Treasury. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although I was pleased to hear what he said to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I seem to remember answering in the same way, saying that the matter would be looked at soon? Does that really mean that it will happen?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, God, your Lordships, and the electorate willing, I hope to be doing it myself.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, are the users of metal detectors required to have licences? If so, what sort of information or advice are they given when they apply for the licences?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they do not have to have licences.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a good Bill amending this legislation went through all its stages in this House and was lost in another place purely fortuitously?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am well aware of the Bill on this subject promoted in 1982 by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger. That, of course, will be one of the starting points for the review.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that metal detectors are very valuable in finding rings or other items which may be lost in woods?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, and I understand also on beaches.

Takeover Bids: Servicing Costs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 can confirm that £500,000,000 was spent in the last year on servicing takeover bids, as reported in The Times of 24th November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, no. Information on the costs incurred by companies is a matter for the companies concerned.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is it not rather strange that the Treasury can spend so much time in examining future plans of the Labour Party without looking at what is happening in the City at the present time? Although it is impossible to confirm this precise figure, is there any reason to believe that there are now hundreds of millions of pounds being gained by these people without any extra wealth at all being created? Is it not also one indication among many of a new breed of operators springing up in the City who are more interested in short-term massaging of balance sheets rather than in long-term industrial investment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, companies themselves are in a better position than those in government to decide on the most profitable use of their resources. It remains for them to make those commercial decisions. It may be—and I quote the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—that a new breed of people are emerging in the City. This is perhaps not unusual since the changes that are occurring in the City bring new and different forces to bear.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Government have already condemned many of these takeovers in very drastic terms. In order to prevent this kind of thing ever happening again, what do the Government intend to do with regard to legislation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government, with the takeover panel, will be considering the lessons of the present investigations that are going on. Certainly the speed and flexibility of the panel remain considerable assets.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I left the City in 1932 but was aware even then of the breed to which the noble Lord referred?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly was not aware that the noble Lord had left the City at that time. I am glad to hear his view.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, is it not a fact that this Government have done far more than any previous government in tightening up the arrangements in the City over these matters?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. With the passing of the Financial Services Act further tightening has taken place.
I should like to make one other point in answer to the noble Lord. In the present affairs now being investigated by inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry there was a demonstration of the Government's continuing determination to investigate irregularities in the City.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while it may be that this Government have done more than any other to tidy up the City, would the noble Lord not agree that a good deal more tidying seems to be needed?
On this Question, is he aware whether the City itself, or the Bank of England, has issued any guidelines about takeovers? Most of these takeovers are by companies owned by large institutions, and these companies as shareholders must also pay these enormous sums of money. Is the noble Lord aware whether the City itself has taken any steps to stop this kind of expenditure?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not agree that it is necessary at this time for the Government to take any measures to further tighten those which are already in place. On the point about what the Bank of England is doing with the City institutions, that is its business. As I have said in answer to an earlier supplementary question, at the present moment we have no plans to change the existing measures.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in view of the Government's new-found desire to tighten up company law considerations in the City, will they now reconsider the relaxation of the measure, introduced in 1981, on the long-standing prohibition of companies financing their own shares? Will they now reconsider their own relaxation of that central rule which is in the middle of many malpractices at the moment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this Government have consistently sought to eradicate misdemeanours and wrongdoings not only in the City but elsewhere and will continue so to do. The noble Lord will know that an inquiry is in place right now dealing with matters in regard to mergers, takeovers, and also the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it would be a mistake to condemn all takeovers because of the irregularities which are at present being investigated? Is my noble friend aware that where the assets of a company are being under-used, if another company can make a proposition which would absorb those assets and make better use of them, that would be to the benefit of the whole

1117
economy; that it is a matter of balance and that therefore we should not lose our heads because of the present irregularity?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for his question and, embraced within it, his comments. There is in place a policy that takes account of what my noble friend is suggesting. This has worked extremely satisfactorily.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that companies reveal the total fees that they pay for an acquisition in their shareholders' circular in the case where they have to circulate to shareholders? In the light of the disquiet expressed in this House would it not be a sensible and modest proposal to make sure that those fees are itemised so that shareholders know how much is spent on merchant banking fees, underwriting, legal expenses and others that would shed light on the problem?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is asking. However, in the light of recent events I do not think that it is for the Government to insist upon disclosures of that kind. Surely it is for the shareholders to require their companies to disclose the information which they want. There is nothing illegal in how the companies spend their money, in terms of the way in which the Question is asked.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that this is one of the provisions of the Yellow Book of the Stock Exchange? It is therefore within the Government's power to ask the Stock Exchange to amend the Yellow Book accordingly.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this is really a matter for the Stock Exchange. If there are breaches of the Stock Exchange rules and regulations which are, in their turn, in breach of the law, of course the Government will not hesitate to take steps.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that such inquiries as have been made have not disclosed any improvement in the industrial structure of this country as a result of these takeover bids? If so much has been done to clear up the City, why are we hearing so much more about leverage loans, junk bonds, greenmail payments and the activities of the latterday arbitrageur?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's first supplementary question could possibly be embraced in the original Question and I should not like to comment on it this afternoon. As regards his second supplementary question, I do not think that over the past 12 or 18 months we have heard any more or any less about the matters which he raised.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, is it not rather strange to hear from the Labour Party an argument that a change in the ownership of assets should never have any effect on creating the wealth of the nation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that is a question that would be better addressed to the Labour Party rather than to me.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree that there was one case when a change of assets did not lead to any deterioration in industrial performance?

Iran: Alleged Human Rights Abuses
2.53 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: 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 will define their attitude towards any violation of human rights in Iran.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about allegations of human rights abuses in Iran, and will continue to do all we can bilaterally, in concert with our European partners, and within the United Nations machinery to ensure that the Iranian Government live up to their international obligations and respect the international covenants to which they are party.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that constructive Answer. Nevertheless, does she agree that human rights violations in Iran are on a larger and more terrible scale than anywhere else in the world, including even Latin America? Is she aware that according to well documented evidence some 52 different types of torture are carried out in Iran in 500 prisons, quite apart from the slaughter of thousands of boy soldiers in the war against Iraq, some of them as young as 12 years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as my original Answer indicated, we have taken all the steps that we can bilaterally, in concert with our European partners, and at the United Nations to make our position clear. In 1982 we co-sponsored the relevant resolutions on human rights in Iran adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, including that of appointing a special representative for Iran. We shall continue to take all suitable opportunities to press for improvements in human rights on the issues raised by the noble Viscount as well as on others.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following a resolution of the United Nations in March 1984, a rapporteur was appointed by the United Nations and I understand that he has now published an interim report. Will the noble Baroness say what the response of the Iranian Government has been to that report? Will she further say whether the rapporteur was given access to Iran and within Iran, and if not, why not? Will the noble Baroness say briefly what is the present position as regards the Bahá'is in Iran?
Baroness Young: My Lords, of course we shall continue to take all the opportunities we can to press

1119
the Iranians to co-operate fully with the special representative appointed by the United Nations. As regards the Bahá'is, we took the lead in a Community démarche in Teheran on 25th August in our capacity of the Community presidency to press the Iranian Government on this matter. The Bahá'i community has expressed its thanks for the active British role and believes that such action has resulted in some amelioration of the situation of the Bahá'is.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, does not the Government agree that it would, to say the least, be counterproductive to sell arms, or anything which could materially increase its striking power in war, to this wholly deplorable and profoundly anti-Western government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an important point. However, I think that it is outside the terms of the original Question. If he cares to put down a Question on that subject I shall be happy to answer it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have a particularly good record on this issue? However, one of the big failures which we have to face is the appalling attitude of the United States of America, our primary ally. Cannot the Europeans try to get the Americans to understand that they are absolutely on the wrong tack and should take a lesson from the British Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me to speak on behalf of the United States Government. However, I believe that if the noble Lord looks at their record he will find that they too have condemned violations of human rights wherever they occur.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is there any recorded instance of a nation paying the slightest attention to protests from external areas as to the way in which they treat their own citizens?
Baroness Young: My Lords, when an improvement takes place it is always difficult to show whether it has happened because of representations made from outside. However, I make it clear that we have condemned violations of human rights wherever they have occurred.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House some information about prisoners of war in the following respects? Have Iran and/or Iraq signed the Geneva Convention about prisoners of war? Whether or not they have done so, are they treating their prisoners of war decently? In the case of the boy soldiers, to whom reference has already been made, is there any possibility that those who are lucky enough to be captured could be handed over to UNICEF, the Red Crescent or some other organisation better suited to children than a prisoner of war camp?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the latter point is an interesting one, and perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the subject. I have no detailed information as regards the other matter.

Child Care Workers: Suitability
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 what action has been taken to ensure the suitability of those who work with children.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government introduced arrangements in July last year for police checks to be made for the first time on teachers, social workers, probation officers and other staff and volunteers engaged by local authorities in England and Wales who will have substantial access to children in the course of their work.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging Answer. I know that it will go a long way towards relieving the minds of a number of people wo have been deeply anxious about the matter for some years. I should like to ask her what further plans there are with reference to national health and independent homes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the National Health Service I understand that circulars are at an advanced state of preparation and should be issued shortly. In relation to the voluntary sector as a whole, consideration is being given to devising a means of checking which would be more widely available in that sector.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of people involved in the care of children are doing a magnificent job? They are as much disturbed as anyone could be at the tiny minority of queers and odd people who have been given jobs. Is it not time that this Government asked those local authorities who are responsible for these absolutely extraordinary appointments how they ever came to make such appointments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the new arrangements did not affect the need to apply the normal good recruitment practices, including the taking up of references, which are essential to any selection process. But it appears that some of these good practices were not carried out to the full, and that is why we instituted the arrangements that we did for the benefit of the children.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind the very disturbing increase in the number of cases of child abuse is the Minister satisfied that there are an adequate number of properly trained social workers, people who usually have to deal with these difficult situations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I do not have the figure to hand, but perhaps I could write to the noble Lord.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on disorders at Wapping.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1986 will be taken.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Termination of existing arrangements]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("until") insert ("the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that arrangements have been made in accordance with section (Collective agreements on remuneration etc.) and Schedule (Provisions relating to arrangements recognised under Section (Collective agreements on remuneration etc.) of this Act for the establishment of a National Joint Council for the negotiation of school teachers' remuneration and other conditions of employment) and").
The noble Lord said: Without any desire whatsoever to go over the more general points made at Second Reading, in moving this amendment it is necessary to refer briefly to recent past history of the negotiations and to explain why we are moving this series of amendments to establish a national joint council for the settlement of teachers' pay and conditions. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 27, 53, 63, 65 and 73.
A great deal of the Second Reading debate was taken up with consideration of the recent past history of teachers' pay negotiations. Several noble Lords not only from the Opposition Benches recognised that substantial progress had been made in recent months towards a satisfactory agreement on teachers' pay and conditions.
First of all, the ACAS deliberations over the period between May and December, and then finally the Burnham meeting on 17th January, made a number of advances on the situation in which we found ourselves earlier in 1986. Perhaps most important, as a result of the ACAS agreement there is now virtually complete agreement on the conditions of service for teachers, not only between the teachers and their employers but
1122
also between teachers and employers together, and of the conditions which were set down by the Secretary of State in the course of the year.
Secondly, there has been agreement, though perhaps not complete agreement yet, which is why these amendments are necessary, as to the nature of the new negotiating machinery which will undoubtedly be necessary to replace the Burnham machinery. There has been no dissent from any part of the Committee (nor indeed in another place) that the Burnam machinery has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced. Thirdly, there has finally been substantial agreement by a majority vote which was accepted democratically by those who did not vote for it, on nearly all the issues on the structure of teachers' pay.
Finally, there has been agreement about the budget within which the teachers' pay and conditions agreement ought to be finally determined. Such an agreement can be subject only to the Secretary of State and therefore finally the agreement was in the form of a private letter from the chairman of the Burnham Committee to the Secretary of State, rather than a formal decision.
It is true that the cost of the final agreement voted on by a majority on both sides is beyond that which the Secretary of State wished to provide. Both the teachers and the employers have indicated that there is scope for further negotiation, particularly on the timing of the introduction of the conditions. They have invited the Secretary of State to indicate under what conditions those further negotiations could take place so that the legitimate demands of the Secretary of State that teachers' pay and conditions should be agreed within a budget can be met.
So why are we now introducing the machinery for a national joint council? The first negative reason is that the Bill proposes not just one set but two sets of interim arrangements in place of the arrangements which we already have. First of all, there are the interim arrangements which are proposed for the period between now and later this year, the period before the establishment of an advisory committee in which the Secretary of State has dictatorial powers over the settlement of teachers' pay and conditions. Then there is the period between October 1987 and 1990, with the possibility of renewal, in which we have a further series of interim arrangements which are only less objectionable than complete dictation by the Secretary of State in that they provide for an advisory committee to help the Secretary of State reach his conclusion on teachers' pay and conditions.
The negative position must be that what the Government are proposing is insecure and a recipe for continuing uncertainty. There are positive advantages in the amendments which we are putting forward, which go a very long way to meeting the legitimate requirements of the Secretary of State, as well as the democratic rights of teachers and employers.
First, the proposals link together the determination of pay with conditions of service. It has been said from the Government Benches that this is the overriding reason for the introduction of this legislation. I should like to remind the Committee that previous Secretaries of State for Education and Science in this

1123
Government have not always been so clear on this matter. Mr. Mark Carlisle, when he was Secretary of State, certainly indicated an intention to abolish the Burnham machinery. But Sir Keith Joseph threw aside any of the plans which existed to replace the Burnham machinery. It is only the present Secretary of State who has returned to the previous position that the Burnham machinery must be replaced.
Secondly, our amendments, in particular Amendment No. 73, actually spell out the membership of the national joint committee, and the role of the Secretary of State both in membership and, perhaps more important, in voting power. In other words, they revive the concordat which was abrogated in 1985 and they meet the legitimate demands of the Secretary of State in that respect as well.
It is not said that such memberhsip of a national joint council is ideal. It reflects the membership of the existing Burnham Committee, which, as Ministers have rightly said, could be accused of being unwieldy. But our amendment provides that there should be an opportunity for revision of memberhsip of the national joint council after 1st September this year, by agreement of all those concerned. What it does not do is abrogate democracy in order that further negotiations on membership should take place. It continues democratic negotiations and proper negotiating rights for teachers and employers and makes provision for their improvement as and when teachers and employers can get their act together.
Another advantage of the amendment is that it provides membership for the representatives of the Churches; in other words, of the voluntary schools. In that respect I suggest it is preferable to the Government's alternative, which is simply that the representatives of the Churches should be consulted by the Secretary of State's advisory committee. The fundamental point here is that the Secretary of State has constantly said, as he did in another place only last Tuesday, that it is essential that any counter-proposals to his proposals should spell out the membership of the national joint council and the role of the Secretary of State. This is what our amendments do.
May I say a little more about the role of the Secretary of State. We go a good deal further than simply making the Secretary of State's representatives members of the joint committee. We give them, by statute in a proposed new schedule, an enhanced vote of 15 votes on the employers' side, which ensures that if they can reach agreement with only one side of the political spectrum on the employers' side they can almost certainly outvote the other side. The Secretary of State's position therefore is not purely token. It is real.
It reflects justified interest in that the Secretary of State is responsible for 45 per cent. of the payroll for teachers.
There is a fourth point. The Secretary of State has, in our proposals, a further veto. He has the opportunity to say that if national economic circumstances demand it, the agreement reached by the national joint council shall not take effect. He has the right to appeal to the sovereign Parliament to make sure that national economic interests are jointly
1124
secured, on the proposal of the Secretary of State, by both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to explain something before he moves on? His amendments have not been on the Marshalled List long enough for us to get to know about them and their intention. In Amendment No. 73, which I take it the noble Lord is discussing at the moment, it is said in paragraph 1(1) that the Secretary of State shall have two representatives. Paragraph 1(2) says that,
"the representatives of the Secretary of State shall be entitled to cast 15 votes in the negotiations".
Does that mean 15 votes spread right across all the negotiations and that when those 15 votes have been expressed there shall be no more votes by the representatives of the Secretary of State? Or does it mean that on each occasions these two people—only two people—shall cast 15 votes between the two of them? Or are they each to have 15 votes? The trouble is that owing to the uncertainty, so many possibilities are opened up. We should know which of them the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has genuinely found a possibility of misinterpretation that I had not thought of. The procedures of such national joint councils are normally left to the members of the joint council to determine. However, I felt that it was not fair to the Committee to assume that this should always be the case. Therefore, in paragraph 3 of the amendment, we have spelt out the provision which normally exists in joint councils:
"No resolution shall be recognised as carried by the Council unless it has been approved by a majority of the representatives of each side".
In statute we have the concept of the employers' side and the teachers' side in these negotiations.
We come to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raises. My answer is that the representatives of the Secretary of State shall have 15 votes in any vote that takes place, and they shall have that vote as members of the employers' side.
Lord Renton: That is not for each of them. That is for the two of them combined?
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The words,
"The representatives of the Secretary of State"
mean the two of them combined. I believe that that point is clear from the wording, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention which has enabled me to make that additional point clear.
May I return to the question of the veto in terms of national economic circumstances. It leads on to the final point which is that these arrangements recognise, with references to the affirmative resolution, the sovereignty of Parliament. That will be of the most fundamental concern to the Committee.
We are not only contrasting arrangements which we have had to put together, on a basis of limited resources, with the abrogation of negotiating rights which have already been considered. We are

1125
specifically replacing them with a machinery which leads up to, and includes, affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. These arrangements, although possibly defective in wording, are enormously more democratic, enormously more effective, and much less likely to lead to continuing uncertainty and unrest than the Government's proposals.
I make one last point to noble Lords on the Liberal and SDP Benches. I do not know their intentions with regard to this series of amendments, I should however like to point out that their colleagues in another place voted for a re-formed national joint council. I hope that they would feel that this is the alternative to the Government's proposals which not only most effectively replaces the dictation of the Secretary of State imposed in these measures, but also replaces it with genuine negotiating rights and builds most effectively on the advances that have been made in teachers' pay and negotiations. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I served on the Burnham Committee for 30 years. Let me say at once that I agree that the stage has been reached where it should be abolished. I say this with some sadness. The essential reason is, I believe, that over the last 13 years, party politics have destroyed the Burnham Committee and are now threatening to damage seriously the education service.
May I remind the Committee of what happened between 1945 and 1970. I served together with Ministers and Secretaries of State of both major political parties, and no issue of party politics came into these discussions. The 1944 Education Act was made a reality in those 25 years. Ellen Wilkinson saved the Act when the age was raised to 15. George Tomlinson laid the foundations of the building programme. David Eccles made a reality of secondary education for all children.
Edward Boyle tried to resolve the beginning of the party-political dispute which started with the Conservatives, strangely enough, in Scarborough when they passed a resolution committing the party to the tripartite system in the organisation of secondary education, and inevitably the Labour Party promptly passed a resolution in favour of the comprehensive system. Edward Boyle tried to resolve that by saying that this was a matter for each local education authority to determine. Unfortunately that did not solve it, and we were in real trouble. But no solution to this problem, which leaves bitter dissatisfaction with teachers and local authorities, will lead to peace. We must find a solution which has a large measure of common consent.
I believe that the series of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has introduced is probably the best hope of finding a solution which will lead to peace and avoid further friction. There can be no reasonable doubt in my judgment that a machinery to be set up must not rest on the dictatorship of the Secretary of State. That will never be accepted either by the teaching profession or by the local authorities. It must rest on negotiating rights remaining.
However, this concession to the Secretary of State must be made—that in the ultimate he has a right, with the approval of Parliament, to say that the nation
1126
cannot afford this solution. That obtained during the whole of the period I served on the Burnham Committee. We reached agreement, but if the Secretary of State found that the nation could not afford what was proposed he had the right to go to Parliament and say, "This is not on".
That happened when David Eccles was Secretary of State. I and my colleagues offered the teachers £47 million, which at that time was a lot of money. The teachers, in my judgment rather foolishly, rejected it. David Eccles told us that the most we could afford was £42 million and fortunately the teachers had enough sense to accept £42 million.
This series of amendments would still leave the Secretary of State with that power. This is surely the vital element if Parliament is to be the ultimate authority. It could lead also—and this is what is vital—to an agreement with the teachers and the local authorities and to the feeling that their rights had been reasonably protected.
The two representatives we had when I served on Burnham played an important part in any matter with their 15 votes. The Secretary of State, through his representatives, thereby had a reasonable say in all the arrangements that were being made, as well as the ultimate power on the economic issue.
I plead with the Government to consider very carefully whether a solution along these lines is not much more likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement, to peace and to the chance of the education service returning to the state it was some 13 years ago, rather than pressing this Bill through, which in my opinion will lead to continued disruption in the schools for an indefinite period of time.
Baroness Cox: The amendment moved so plausibly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is still a form of reincarnation of Burnham, albeit with certain significant modifications. If politics is the art of the possible, it must be essentially pragmatic although also principled. On pragmatic criteria, we cannot countenance any serious consideration of an imminent return to the type of negotiating machinery which has proved so disastrous for over two years.
In spite of the reassuring words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the teachers' unions are still in disarray. They still cannot agree among themselves on a number of key issues, and only two weeks ago members of the Inner London Teachers' Association were out on strike yet again. As a nation we cannot continue to condone or to endure continuing educational malaise and disruption in our schools.
That is why the Bill before us, which I think everyone recognises is a crisis measure, is both pragmatic and principled on its own terms. It can allow the representation of educational expertise and interests. But most important it is an interim measure. Its purpose is to give a breathing space; to allow truly satisfactory long-term solutions to be devised and agreed.
One of the most worrying aspects of so much of the material that has been circulated about the Bill, and particularly perhaps that which has been disseminated by the largest of the teachers' unions, the National Union of Teachers, is that it fails to remind people of

1127
the interim nature of this Bill. In that it has often led to unwarranted alarm and hostility, particularly among teachers.
There is also the question of timescale. If we consider what the national joint council proposed in the amendments before us to be the most worrying aspect, if I understand Amendment No. 73, changes in membership could be achieved only if they were agreed by all parties concerned. Given past track records, particularly the intransigence of the National Union of Teachers in fiercely opposing the inclusion of the Professional Association of Teachers, the membership of that national joint council may as well be written on tablets of stone if change is to depend on the agreement of all concerned.
Therefore I urge most strongly that it would be wrong to rush into the proposal before us in this amendment. I reiterate that the Bill, with the emphasis on its interim nature, is absolutely acceptable both in principle and in practice. I hope very much that the Committee will resist this amendment which will destroy the very essence and nature of the Bill before us.
Lord Parry: It is necessary for me to declare a personal connection with the National Union of Teachers which goes back for more than 34 years. I am still a member of that organisation and I still believe it to represent the great body of professionally trained teachers in the primary schools of this country. Its contribution to education in Great Britain has been enormous and should not be detracted from despite the fact that there are difficulties in the education service. Both sides of the Committee need to get the matter into proper proportion.
I was deeply grateful for the words of wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, with which he led the Committee. I should not want to do anything to detract from the common purpose that he is seeking to establish on the amendment. I heard him make contributions from the employers' side. I remember Sir Ronald Gould making contributions from the side of the National Union of Teachers, and I was conscious that there was a great need for the various unions in the teaching profession to present that consensus of approach.
For us to get into a black paper situation in relation to the education service, concentrating perhaps almost entirely again on the city of London and the great difficulties facing education here, would be quite wrong. In the amendment we are seeking to put forward something which could indeed win the support of all those people who see it as essential to maintain proper control by the Secretary of State through Parliament of the education system and at the same time break the log jam of difficulty that is building up.
I read today in a Welsh newspaper an article which is wholly positive until its final chapter. I shall not read a Second Reading speech into this debate on the amendment. But that wholly positive article on the creation of the technology we need and the development of courses within schools to provide the
1128
things that I have heard Members opposite appeal for at the end says this:
"If parents wonder why industrial action is surfacing again in schools, they need to understand that teachers are experiencing deep frustrations"—
he goes on to make a political point—
"when faced with a Government who expects reform and advance in education, but who will not put up the money".
This is really in the end a question of the financing of the education service and what this country can afford to do. This experienced teacher, and I quote the name of Dr. John Herbert, says:
"But it is all pie in the sky anyway. Teachers are so badly paid that adequate numbers of recruits are not coming forward to teach CDT [design and technology]. Just like physicists, mathematicians, chemists, linguists and other high-flying university graduates, suitable teachers of CDT are very rare and even when they do come forward, they are never paid what they are worth".
I would say that I believe everyone in this Committee who cares about British education, realising that we have been in a stagnant, divisive stalemated situation in education in this country for far too long, should find a way of putting into this Bill a clause that will be acceptable to us all. It may be that this clause we have put forward needs detailed care, but I think it needs to be approved. I make this particular appeal to those with radical sentiments, people who believe that our education service needs at this time to be given confidence to continue the work, much of which has been bedevilled by dispute: please support the amendment and let us take the argument back to the teachers and to the country in the way that probably the Minister wishes it to go.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The debate has moved somewhat from the debate that we had on Second Reading, and I was certainly very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say frankly that Burnham must go, and equally conditions. I understood the noble Lord to say that, but of course he can deny it if he wishes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no intention of denying it but I want just to point out that I said on Second Reading that Burnham should go.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am delighted to have that further emphasis, but I do not understand why it was necessary for the noble Lord to intervene. We have also had from him—I do not know whether he wishes to intervene again—an acceptance that pay and conditions of service should be negotiated together. We have therefore got a considerable measure of agreement and the atmosphere in that respect this afternoon, as I see it, is a little less contentious than it was on Second Reading.
I suppose all of us would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that what we want to secure in the education service is peace. We certainly do not want to buy peace by unlimited concession to excessive demands but we certainly want to see an end to the disruption in schools which has not only done a great deal of damage to the children—a point on which some of us feel very strongly—but has also greatly damaged in the eyes of the public the reputation of the teachers as a profession.

1129
We certainly do not want that to continue; so it is now suggested that there should be this large and, I suggest, somewhat unwieldy body put in the place of Burnham. It is suggested that the Secretary of State should have only two representatives, though those representatives should have 15 votes. But is that kind of body likely to produce a generally acceptable solution to these problems affecting the profession? I very much doubt it. All our experience in recent years has been that in the last throes of Burnham excessive demands were made and, more important than excessive demands, wrongly balanced demands. The more progressive proposals of the Secretary of State in respect of the better teachers and in respect of provision for head teachers have been ignored and simply voted down by the large majority, wielded particularly by the National Union of Teachers on behalf of the ordinary teacher.
I see nothing in this amendment that would bring an end to that. Indeed, if Members of the Committee look at the figures in the proposed council they will see that the voting strength lies overwhelmingly with the National Union of Teachers and the other bodies, and hardly at all with those representing the higher grades of teachers.
I have had a letter from the secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, bearing on the present Burnham arrangement, which seems to me wholly relevant also to the scheme proposed in this amendment. With permission, I will read it. It says:
"I have to point out, however, that under the existing Burnham machinery, and indeed under the provisions of the ACAS Agreement, our members would not have the right to negotiate directly with their employers. Their interests would be subordinated to those of the majority of the profession because the unions representing that majority would always be able to use their voting power in the interests of that majority. Such a situation is becoming increasingly ludicrous, not least in the context of the provisions of the ACAS Agreement and indeed your own package."
I should explain that this letter was addressed originally to the Secretary of State. It continues:
"I say this because in both instances … Heads and Deputies are on totally separated single point salaries. Heads and Deputies would have vastly different contracts and responsibilities. Heads and Deputies will have to carry the burden of the new national appraisal system."
Nothing in this new system would get rid of that difficulty. I am sure the Committee will realise that although the head teachers are a very small minority in the teaching profession they are a minority of crucial importance. I think it was said on Second Reading that a good head teacher makes a good school and a bad head teacher inevitably makes a bad school. They are of crucial importance, and this amendment does not resolve that problem.
Also, I suggest to the Committee that it is not going to produce peace. If we have a body constituted as proposed in this amendment it would almost certainly continue to put forward proposals which will be financially unacceptable to the Secretary of State, or indeed to any Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, after all, has the responsibility on behalf of the taxpayer of providing very nearly half the money required for these salaries; he has a position of real importance in the matter.
What is proposed is this. If he finds his 15 votes voted down, as of course they would be, on any
1130
proposals with very large increases for the ordinary run of teachers he can redeem the position, as I understand it, only by taking an affirmative resolution through both Houses of Parliament. Constitutionally of course the Secretary of State could do that, but what the Committee, particularly those noble Lords who are asking for peace in our schools, would have to work out in their own minds is what that would mean. You would have an agreement, probably for many teachers a very attractive agreement, approved in this body—a body which is itself, if this amendment is carried, constituted by Parliament. No doubt you would have general support among the teachers for it and then the Secretary of State, if the amounts are excessive (as they very likely would be) has to come to Parliament and take an affirmative resolution through both Houses.
Can the Committee contemplate the reaction in the teaching profession and in the schools if teachers offered quite substantial increases, as teachers now have been, are still disrupting the system in our schools, are still inflicting damage on the children in their care? What would be their reaction to having the prize dashed from their lips by the Secretary of State at the ultimate stage, using the Government's majority in both Houses of Parliament, if they have one, to vote down what has been otherwise agreed after long discussion?
I doubt whether it is possible to find a situation or system more calculated to maintain confusion, ill-will and ill-feeling in our schools. It is surely much better, as proposed by the Bill, to have the matter settled reasonably and quietly after full discussion, after consideration by a distinguished advisory committee, than to have the whole thing built up again, as it has been, and then stopped at the last stage because the Secretary of State is unable, as he probably would be, to accept the financial consequences and so is forced at the last minute to deprive the teachers of what they were expecting to get.
The Committee may have worked out what would happen. We would then be back to square one and the whole negotiation and discussion would have to be resumed. During that long period the teachers would be getting no increase at all. Can the Committee consider anything more calculated to cause the disruption which we all want to see stopped? Although no doubt as always the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is well-intentioned, I suggest it would be quite disastrous in effect.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I acknowledged that those of us who were critical of the Government's approach under this Bill must be prepared to say what alternative suggestions we had to offer. As I saw it, there were three possibilities. One was to establish an independent pay review body such as those now available to doctors, nurses and to other people. The second was to establish a national joint council composed of representatives of government, local authorities, the teachers' organisations and people representing the interests of voluntary schools. Therefore, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I recognised that as a practical possibility at Second Reading. The third possibility which I then mentioned was a development of the second one; namely, to provide that a dispute should be referred to

1131
arbitration for settlement when, as in the current case, no agreement could be reached which was acceptable to all parties.
In the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just moved he has opted for the national joint council approach. I of course respect that view. During the past two weeks my noble friends and I have given further earnest consideration to this whole question, and Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 which I shall be moving later outline the solution which we have come to favour. I recognise at once that this is not the time for me to explain those amendments in detail but I feel that I must say now briefly why Amendment No. 1 is in my view inferior to them.
Taken together with other amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his noble friends, it does not appear to me to deal adequately with the urgent need to settle the current dispute. As I acknowledged at Second Reading, the Secretary of State is now faced with a negotiating procedure which has clearly broken down and the threat of further disruption in our schools. In my view, the proposals made in these amendments for establishing a joint negotiating council retain too many features of the discredited Burnham arrangements either to help solve the present intractable dispute or in future to be workable on their own. In particular, they do not appear to be capable of eliminating the basic divisions between the teachers' unions and to reconcile the conflicting interests that those unions have to serve.
In our amendments we shall be seeking to do no more at this stage than set out the general principles under which, in our view, the pay and conditions of teachers should in future be determined. But in the context of these amendments which we are now discussing and in contrast to them, I think I should say at this point that when I come later to amplify the provisions of the new clause which we wish to see inserted in the Bill after Clause 1 I shall be endeavouring to show how under our proposals teachers' organisations on the one hand and employers on the other would be encouraged, first, to act in each case as single units and then to be drawn together in the negotiating process.
It would be inappropriate, I think, for me to say more than that at this stage, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate why the procedure that I shall be advocating later is to be preferred to the arrangements set out in this amendment.
Lord Beloff: Debates on the first amendment in Committee stage always begin with an assertion that we are not going to have the Secnd Reading again and that is proved demonstrably false before proceedings have gone on for very long.
This Bill is in the first instance, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords, to provide an emergency solution, an interim solution to a situation which it is generally agreed is untenable. In spite of the reassuring words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is a fact that the teaching unions are still very far apart. The letters which have been circulated by or on behalf of the National Union of Teachers would give one to understand that agreement is round the corner but
1132
there seems to be no hard evidence which could convince one of that.
The revising function of this Chamber in the Committee stage ought surely to be directed towards these interim arrangements. Are they good ones? Are they bad ones? Could they be improved? Instead of that, what both the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Rochester, have done is suggest procedures which might or might not in the fullness of time prove to be appropriate as permanent machinery for settling this question.
Looking at the amendment in front of us and the associated amendments, it is quite clear that there are changes, perhaps for the better, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would have it, but the proposed new committee is in fact only Burnham again. Why one should expect or believe that not merely the machinery but the very same individuals who have been occupied in finding a solution and failing to find one should suddenly be transformed in the light of these minor changes has not been pointed out by anyone who has so far spoken.
In a few years' time when this Act comes to its terminal date—we are dealing with a restricted number of years as was pointed out on Second Reading—there will have been time for changes. There may have been time for changes in personnel in the unions which make them more susceptible to seeing the good points in each other's point of view. There may have been changes on the employers' side. There may even have been changes in government. In other words, there will be an opportunity for a fresh start.
Whether that fresh start takes the form of a negotiating council, or whether it takes the form of the Alliance proposals, which we are to hear, is perhaps something that we can wait to deal with. Surely, our business now is to restrict ourselves to the immediate purpose of the Bill. We should be dealing with the immediate situation now and over the next few years. We should not be tempted along the very interesting speculative path of what an ultimate permanent arrangement might well turn out to be.
Lord Glenamara: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. And may I say that no one in either House of Parliament has had as much experience of Burnham as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. For the whole of my adult life, I have been associated with teachers in schools and colleges. I have never known a time in those 50 years when morale in education in Britain has been lower than it is today. To say that morale is low is putting it too mildly. There is despair in almost every educational institution.
One can only come to the conclusion that this state of affairs has been deliberately induced by the Government. Scarcely a week has gone by since they came into office without an attack on the teachers. We are told constantly about bad teachers—the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, used the words "bad teachers"—and bad schools. We are constantly hearing about what a bad lot the teachers are and how low standards are. The whole country is beginning to believe this. It is getting into the bloodstream of the education system, and the Government themselves are to blame for that.

1133
Of course, it has been done with other groups. The Government have never ceased to attack the trade unions. They have never ceased to attack local authorities or, at any rate, Labour ones. The BBC is the latest victim. Even the Church of England is attacked when it dares to disagree. The Government have completely destroyed the broad consensus that used to exist in this country.
If it had been possible for, say, the late Lord Attlee, to meet with the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx and Lord Home, and Mr. Edward Heath, I believe that there would have been a great deal more on which they could agree than disagree. For there used to be broad consensus on the basic way in which the country should be run and about our national priorities. But this Government have completely destroyed that consensus not only in education but in other parts of our national life as well.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham and I—and maybe the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—are probably the only Members of your Lordships' House who have seen teachers' pay negotiations from both ends. My noble friend Lord Stewart and I were teachers—I do not think that the Lord Chancellor was—and we were eventually Secretaries of State for Education and Science. I can tell your Lordships that every Secretary of State, every Minister of Education, has problems over teachers' pay. It is one of the difficulties. But until the present Government came along, we got out of those difficulties. We solved them within the ambit of the Burnham machinery.
I disagree with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I am sorry to see the Burnham machinery going. It is only under this Government that it has fallen apart, because this Government would not allow it to succeed. We all succeeded previously. Previous Tory Secretaries of State succeeded. Edward Boyle got into tremendous difficulties but he got out of them.
Hitler had a very good technique. When he could not get his own way he did not just ignore the rules. He abolished the rules. And that is precisely what this Government are doing. They have been unable to get their own way in Burnham; so they are abolishing Burnham. It is as simple as that. What an appalling thing to do! We used to hear about an elected dictatorship. What about that for an elected dictatorship? They cannot get their own way through the rules. So they are abolishing the rules. That is precisely what is happening. I do not know what the solution is. I am sure however that the solution which the Secretary of State has put forward in this Bill is not the right one.
I invite the Committee to consider the matter. The Government are removing from the teachers of this country, from this great body of workers, the right to have a say in negotiations on their pay. They will have no negotiating machinery. They will be almost the only body in the country without that. Instead there will be an advisory committee, not elected by the teachers or the local authority associations but appointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can appoint a body of nine people who will produce exactly the kind of report he wants. I would
1134
not trust this proposal as far as I could throw it. It is a sheer iniquity to take away from the teachers of this country, who are, by and large, an excellent body of people, doing a marvellous job, the right to negotiate their own pay. That is quite wrong. The proposal being put forwad is, if I may say so, disgraceful.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was a Minister in the Department of Education, and a not unsuccessful one. I know that he had very good relations with the teachers. But that was at a time when Ministers tried to preserve the consensus—not under this Prime Minister. I am surprised at the noble Lord being willing to put forward this Bill. I appeal to the Committee to support the group of amendments and the schedule put forward by my noble friend. They go some way to mitigate the appalling proposal put forward by the Government.
Lord Elton: I do not have the breadth of experience of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, but I have taught for 10 years in the grammar school section, in comprehensive schools and at teacher training college. Like him, I have the interests of teachers at heart, but I ask the Committee to remember that in any debate on education it is neither the teachers nor the Government who are the first concern; it is the children. We are here because the machinery, which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, in sweeping terms condemned the Government for abandoning, had failed for two whole years to produce the goods and during those two years the sufferers were the children. Hundreds of children have been denied portions of their education which can never be restored to them and which are lost for life.
The noble Lord can point at the Opposition Benches if he wishes, but I have to tell him that I have also served in government. I am close friends with people who have been in every Department of Education since we came into office. To liken the machinations of my friends to the machinations of Hitler is so to overstate the case as to make it absurd. The Government have the interests of the children at heart. They also have, and have a duty to have, the interests of the taxpayer at heart; and the Government produce a very large proportion indeed of the money that is at stake in these debates.
I return to the amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because I too am a little puzzled as to how we have got where we are. The background to this is the dispute that I described, and it was brought about under arrangements which consisted of a group of, I think, 55 people, divided 27 as against 28 between the employers and the teachers. We have here an almost exactly similarly composed body of people, divided within one into the same proportions.
The proposal on the Marshalled List foresees a body with two voices for the Secretary of State for Education, as was the case with the Burnham Committee. When the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responded to the justifiable puzzlement of my noble friend Lord Renton concerning the number of votes those two people had, he did not refer to the concordat of 1965 in which there was an exactly similar 15-vote voice given to the Secretary of State's men on the committee.

1135
It seems to me that the noble Lord has gone out of his way to reproduce Burnham and not to produce something which will work better. Therefore, if it is not on the Marshalled List, one has to look for the difference. The difference seems to be that there is no mention of the concordat which operated from 1965 and throughout many of the years when the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, was putting in the distinguished and admirable service which he did on that committee. It was said:
"No claim will be accepted or offer made or agreement given to the making of representations on a draft document or order under Section 2(4) or Section 2(6) of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 if the Secretary of State objects to the total cost involved".
That is not in the amendment. In place of that we have a parliamentary procedure involving the whole of both Houses of Parliament. That does not seem to me to be the way that a Secretary of State for Education can be expected to manage his budget, nor the way that the Secretary of State for the Environment can be expected to measure the input for local government services generally.
My next observation is that the noble Lord seems to be putting forward within the parameters of a Bill to produce an interim solution a permanent solution. All his histrionics were addressed to the iniquities of forcing upon the profession something which he was treating as a permanent foundation for the future. If he wishes to moderate that position later, I shall be happy for him to do so. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, was also addressing the Bill as though it were designed to last for a decade or a generation.
We have a formidable problem. It will not be solved overnight. Least of all will it be solved by an amendment tabled on Thursday night, printed on Friday and seen by most of the Committee on Monday morning. We have a problem which has exercised more than 55 good men and true for two mortal years. We cannot expect to get it right permanently by proposals on the Marshalled List. What Parliament is being asked by the Government to produce is something to keep the system working while tempers cool and the right solution is produced. That is in the Bill already. I ask the Committee not to be tempted by siren voices (if I can flatter the noble Lord by so describing his delivery) of amendments which are dressed up as being different but which are identical to the status quo which has led us into the morass in which we are now floundering.
4 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, attacks the amendment particularly on the ground that it contains provision for the Secretary of State in certain circumstances to set the results of the advisory council aside. He regards that as a great defect which will arouse ill-will. But exactly the same objection can be launched against the Bill itself in its present form. Under the Bill as it stands we have an advisory council which is created by the Secretary of State; it then proceeds to make recommendations. It is open to the Secretary of State to make an order which either agrees with those recommendations, makes modifications in them or—in a sweeping phrase—makes "other arrangements".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does the noble Lord appreciate that there is all the difference in the world between the Secretary of State being advised by an advisory council (whose views he may or may not fully or in part accept) and putting the Secretary of State at the end of a long chain of negotiation, faced ex hypothesi with a solution agreed by all the other interests in education, expecting him at the very last moment, when the teachers are expecting additional benefits, to come to Parliament and take an affirmative resolution to wipe that out? Surely there is all the difference in the world in that.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I cannot see that there is all the difference in the world between the two. The Secretary of State will take the action at the last moment in any case. Under this Bill, first we have the advisory council making recommendations. They will then be considered by the Secretary of State. Then he will decide whether he agrees with them in whole, in part or not at all. There will possibly come back from him the disappointing reply to the teachers that he is either making modifications or what are called "other arrangements". If he does that, he then must come to Parliament and get an affirmative resolution of both Houses. The procedure is exactly the same in both cases.
I think it is possible to make out a case for the Secretary of State having those powers. It can be argued that he is not only the Secretary of State for Education but also a member of a cabinet and a government having responsibility for the finances of the country as a whole. That is the reason for arrangements like this applying not only to teachers' pay but to a good many other topics. To suggest that a particular evil of this amendment is that it gives this power to the Secretary of State is to misunderstand the whole matter. If they cannot do better than that in their view against the amendment, I think that the opposition to it had better reconsider their position.
The other main argument which has been used is that we ought not to make too much fuss about this Bill because it is only temporary. We have heard that phrase before. I remember going to the European Parliament and receiving there a sort of briefing from an experienced official who told us how certain things worked. He began with the phrase so well known to people interested in international politics, en principe. He said that that phrase meant, "This is not what usually happens". Similarly, "temporary" does not usually mean what it says. This is particularly apparent from the text of the Bill. Not only can it be renewed once; it can be renewed year after year by the device of an order subject to parliamentary approval.
If the Government want us to believe that they really think this is a temporary measure, they can accept some of the amendments which we shall be dealing with later that will have that effect. There are amendments which will make it impossible, without starting afresh with a new Act, to continue this measure beyond a certain point. However, as this Bill now stands, it can be continued year after year indefinitely by orders subject to the approval of Parliament. We cannot defend the Bill on the grounds that it is merely a temporary measure. If the Government really have faith in that, they will proceed

1137
to accept those amendments which will make it merely a temporary measure.
One thing they will not be able to do is to get any respect from the teaching profession for the so-called advisory council. It is quite clear from the very start that this is the Secretary of State's creation. That is why it will not command the degree of sympathy and respect from the teaching profession that will give it any chance of success. We have been told how difficult it has been for the last two years to get agreement among the teaching unions and the profession as a whole. So it has. However, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that the teaching profession will be won to any greater degree of good will towards a decision made by the Secretary of State which may or may not agree with the recommendations of an advisory committee in the formation of which the teaching profession has had no hand whatever. This is what the Bill puts before us and why I think we are justified in pressing an amendment to remove that vital defect.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has overlooked a very important part of Clause 1 which makes it clear that the arrangements proposed in the Bill are to prevail only until they are superseded. That cannot be a rush job; it must be done after adequate negotiation with all concerned.
I am sorry to have to say that the tabling of this group of amendments, which is undoubtedly the most important group of amendments to the Bill, is a rushed job. As my noble friend Lord Elton has pointed out, they were not available to us until this morning, and owing to my own travel arrangements I did not see them until a few minutes before the debate began. Surely, when we have to make a very important decision, fundamental in the sense that it will completely alter the whole purpose of the Bill and will have far-reaching effects for many years to come, it is not right that we should legislate in this way.
I share the concern that has already been so well expressed by a number of my noble friends. As my noble friend Lady Cox put it, to the extent that a negotiating machinery is established by the Bill it is merely a reincarnation of Burnham—out of the frying pan into the fire. So far as concerns the Secretary of State, it is acknowledged by all that he should have a responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the power given to the Secretary of State by the Bill is dictatorial. But of course the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to lay an order and that order will require approval by Parliament.
By contrast, what does the noble Lord propose? As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, pointed out just now, under the amendments the Secretary of State will have a veto. That, prima facie, indicates something pretty dictatorial in itself. The noble Lord suggests that if the Secretary of State approves a settlement provided by the negotiating body it shall require an affirmative resolution of Parliament as well. We are getting into some confusion on this fundamental matter.
I should have thought that it is far better for us to accept, as has been accepted by another place, that we have a Bill which deals immediately and temporarily with a situation that cannot be allowed to prevail. Better that we should give time for that situation to be
1138
properly resolved than that we should now be asked to rush into this hotch potch of amendments which so far as one knows have not been fully considered by those outside the Chamber. Certainly none of us in this Committee has had the opportunity to discuss them with people who might have been able to advise us well. While one accepts all the authority of former Secretaries of State, I must say that I have been rather surprised at the mistakes made by one of them. He said that the Government should have kept Burnham, whereas the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said at Second Reading that the,
"Burnham machinery has outlived its usefulness".—[Official Report, 12/1/87; col. 376.]
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: He said it again today.
Lord Renton: And he said it again today. May we not end this very confusing state by letting the Bill have a run and rejecting this group of amendments?
Baroness Phillips: I should like to make a very small Committee point which so far nobody has raised. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made it quite plain that this is a temporary measure. Several noble Lords have referred to what I shall refer to. We all know what temporary measures are. Certain temporary measures on the statute book are still in force which were described as "temporary" 40 years ago.
There is one curious point about the Bill. If it is a temporary measure and if it is only for three years, why under "Financial provision" in Schedule 1 is it necessary for the Secretary of State in relation to pay to determine pension, allowance or gratuity in respect of anybody serving at retirement or death? They are going to be very unlucky if they die in the course of a year and payments have to be made. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will say that this is the usual kind of schedule, but this is what it says in the Bill and this is what we are supposed to be discussing. Let us forget the idea that this is temporary. It may be called temporary but we all know that it is not temporary.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: A good many disingenuous speeches have been made from the other side of the Committee. One of the disappointments of the debate has been that we have not heard any constructive criticism of the Bill from the other side of the Committee. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, talking about the disruption of the schools over the past two years. I wonder whether when the noble Lord was a Minister—and he was a Minister at that time—he would have maintained that if the same amount of money had been on the table two years ago there would ever have been the two years' disruption.
We have heard a remarkable reference from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to "rushed" amendments. Is not the Bill rushed? How long did it take to get through the other place? When was it brought forward? Surely the whole of this Bill has been rushed by the Government and rushed in a most disgraceful manner. I should like to return to the perfectly valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who said that some alternative should be put before this clause in the Bill. There is an alternative. The alternative to

1139
the diktat of the Secretary of State is a national joint council, which is part of the tradition and in particular of the education and social tradition of this country, in which employers, workers, government and trade unions are all represented.
Those of us who have been looking at manufacturing industry in countries such as Germany, France and Japan have recognised that this is the way in which one can achieve national unity and national consensus. I hope that at least some Members on the other side of the Committee will recognise that the clause as it stands is quite distasteful in terms of the whole history and tradition of this country. The proposed amendment provides for precisely the kind of institution which has worked and which could work again provided it is given the support of Parliament and especially of this Chamber. The other place never had the chance that we shall have over several hours to put over the arguments.
Finally, I must express some amusement at the kind of arguments that were put forward at the beginning of the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. They seemed to think that if the Bill is passed it will bring peace to the education system of this country, that it will bring peace to the classrooms, that the parents will all go home smiling knowing that their small James's and Johnnies will now be taught as they wish them to be taught with no disruption in the schools and with lots of extra-mural activities by the teachers. This is not going to happen. I should like to know from the other side, and from those who have already spoken from the other side, which educational organisation, which parent organisation, which teachers' organisation and which teachers' trade unions give any support to the Bill.
Only this morning in the mail there came a denunciation of the Bill from the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. Where is the support? Where is the evidence that anything in this Bill is going to do other than inflame nerves which have already been frayed over two years of conflict? Where is the evidence from the government side that there is any support in the education world for this Bill? Unless we amend the Bill, and amend it substantially, it will bring about an even greater tragedy to the education system of this country.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I spoke at Second Reading and I do not want to make a Second Reading speech in support of the amendment, but there are one or two comments that I should like to make.
First, I have listened closely to the debate and I cannot understand why it should be assumed that the creation of an advisory council with simply consultative access by the teachers' organisations should be regarded as producing an opportunity for peace greater than if there were an improved negotiating machinery. In industry and commerce the general way of conducting industrial relations—and I should know because I have been a trade union official for many years—is through a negotiating procedure,
1140
through negotiating machinery and through joint councils.
Consultation means something quite different. No trade union worthy of its salt will simply settle for consultation in relation to terms and conditions of employment because, as we know only too well, consultation frequently is where the employer tells you what he wants you to know and there is not much opportunity to come back on it.
The whole idea of negotiation is that both sides compromise and, as a result of compromise, agreement is eventually reached. Often that procedure is long, arduous and time-consuming; but if you take away those rights what do people have left? The only course is to indulge in the kind of disruption to which the Government are taking exception. There is no other way in which their views can be expressed.
There are 400,000 people, organised in various teachers' organisations, who over the years have evolved their own practices and arrangements for negotiation. There have been many criticisms of those negotiating procedures but the only real answer is to devise alternative NJC arrangements. Peace will not be produced in our schools, or an effective system of determining terms and conditions of employment, unless you negotiate; certainly not with 400,000 people.
For those reasons, even though it is said that the advisory committee is only to be on an interim basis—and as several of my noble friends have said, "interim" can last for a very long time—we cannot allow our teachers to believe that they are so undervalued that they cannot be trusted to have negotiating procedures. Even the National Association of Head Teachers, from whose letter the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quoted, said that it wants negotiating rights too. It has differences of view about the way in which those rights are exercised but it does want negotiating rights. Therefore I believe that we should support these amendments.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find some slight reassurance in a growing tendency among speakers on the government side to emphasise the interim nature of the Government's proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, all dwelt on this point. That is at the heart of the amendment. That being so, the issue before the Committee is: when are we to be favoured again with negotiating machinery to settle teachers' salaries? The assumption is that people who have been involved in finding agreements are much more likely to work with that agreement, and to honour and respect it, than people who have an agreement inflicted upon them. I should have thought that would be common ground.
The issue is: when is it to be? Is it to be sooner or later? That is the essence of the amendment. The amendment argues for it to be sooner rather than later. It does so, first, because we are now in the new situation of building on progress, not only in the form of the negotiating machinery but in the context of that negotiating machinery. To discuss that would take me too far away from the amendments, but the Committee is aware of the improvements that have

1141
been made already within which the negotiating machinery will be operating.
If the amendment is rejected and we proceed down the line favoured by the Government that progress will be lost, and it will be lost for a long time. The bad blood, the dissidence, the resentments that will be caused will set back what has been a favourable tendency among the unions and employers.
The argument for the amendment that has been developed is that we need it in order to stop disruption in the schools. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there has been no industrial action in the schools since last May, except for some brief activity by the NAS/UWT during one week in November. The disruption has calmed down. There is a chance to build on what has been achieved so far and make that into a permanent state of affairs.
The argument for the amendment is therefore that there is a tide in the affairs of education which can be taken and needs to be taken. If we lose this opportunity, not only is there a danger of permanency in the arrangements envisaged by the Government—and governments have a tendency to say "Lord, make me virtuous, but not yet"—but I believe that we shall regret not having made the extra effort to build on the progress that has been made already and which at least in principle (and with respect to my noble friend it must be subject to discussion) is established by the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: We have had a lengthy debate on this group of seven complex looking amendments. However, as I believe my noble friend Lord Renton rightly said, the issue we have been discussing is straightforward and indeed fundamental. The issue is whether the Committee should agree with these amendments, which would immediately set up a new national joint committee for negotiating teachers' pay, or do we need some time, as the Bill proposes, in order to find new negotiating arrangements which will have a brighter prospect of working than the present system which has not worked in recent years?
We are faced with this question because—certainly as the vast majority of the Members of the Committee agree—it is now high time that the existing negotiating machinery for teachers' pay, the Burnham Committee, was ended. As the Committee knows, the Government are offering a very substantial pay increase to school teachers. I do not conceal that we believe that not only should this go towards giving more pay to all teachers but that it should also contribute to a better career structure.
A point which has not come out clearly from this afternoon's interesting discussion is that it therefore seemed a major step in the right direction when, in 1981, a Burnham agreement established a working party to review the salary structure of the teaching profession. But what happened? Between 1981 and the autumn of 1985 there was virtually no progress on that work. During that time the employers twice offered a package linking pay and duties; and twice the teachers' majority refused to consider those offers. Therefore for about four years there was no progress on a better career structure for teachers' pay.
1142
The autumn of 1985 was one of severe disruption in many schools. In January 1986, just over a year ago, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service was called in, but after a further 10 months of ACAS-led talks with the employers and the teachers, and with no agreement on the main issue, on 30th October my right honourable friend offered the huge sum of over £600 million for a new pay deal and he outlined the pay structure which the Government regarded as necessary for the future of the teaching profession.
In response, an agreement was signed on 21st November by the organisations which had been taking part in the ACAS talks. But it was not a satisfactory response because it failed to provide a proper career structure for teachers with adequate differentials and incentives and because it was also £85 million above what my right honourable friend had offered. That is enough money to build about 100 primary schools. It was not really an agreement, because within two weeks only two of the six teaching unions supported the response.
After six years therefore the Burnham Committee had been unable to agree on a proper pay structure for teachers. While that story unfolded, there was constant disruption in the schools and those who suffered were the children. Faced with that story, if we agree now that the Burnham Committee should go, surely the one thing that we should avoid is the setting up of yet another similar committee. That is almost precisely what these amendments would do.
My noble friend Lord Elton put his finger on one significant omission, however. From 1965 to 1985 an agreement operated which gave the Secretary of State a veto over the global sum which could be offered in any year for school teachers' pay. It was called a concordat. It was not written into statute. In 1965 the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, explained the importance of government having control over the total sum. In effect, it is fair to say that the noble Lord, in another place, said that he relied on the honour of the local authorities to make the concordat work.
In July 1985 the local authorities tore up the concordat. These amendments would not restore that agreement. Instead, they ask the Committee to agree that pay decisions of the national joint council which the amendments want to set up should take automatic effect unless both Houses of Parliament were to resolve that national economic circumstances ought to prevent the agreement. That is a tight rule which could be used only in dire economic circumstances. It is a world away from the concordat which for 20 years recognised the ultimate responsibility for the education service conferred on the Secretary of State by the noble Lord, Lord Butler's Education Act 1944.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked: where is the support for the Bill? The noble Lord disregards the fact that something must be done. Parents and children need relief from the disruption that there has been in schools over recent years. Teachers are now entitled to expect early payment of the first stage of the promised large increases in pay which were due on 1st January. That is why my right honourable friend has brought forward this Bill. It provides for early payment of the new pay increases, and it proposes that changes in pay and conditions, after next October, should, for an

1143
interim period, follow advice from an independent advisory committee but subject to final check by both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who I well remember speaking a few years ago on education matters in this Chamber for the Government on the other side of the House, said that she was suspicious whether it would be an interim arrangement. Every time we speak about this advisory committee, government spokesmen say that it is interim. The Bill's Long Title makes it clear that it is temporary or interim, and the Bill provides for its own expiry and consequently for the expiry of the advisory committee.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The Minister has fairly stated the question that I asked. What he has not done is answer it. I asked: where do the Government find, among teachers, local authorities, parents or the public, any support for the Bill and, in particular, for this clause which gives dictatorial powers to the Secretary of State? Where is the support coming from? What support can the Minister quote in advancing his argument?
Lord Belstead: There is overwhelming support from parents and people in the country who feel that at a time when an unparalleled pay increase is being offered there should be something in return and that that something should be a better education service and peace in our schools. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is however right. There is no agreement among teacher unions as to the way forward.
That brings me to the last point that I should like to make. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said that he felt that this group of amendments was right and that in particular the Secretary of State should be given a proper place in the affairs of this national joint council. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, are always important because he has unparalleled experience, but I regret that his view is not shared by the teacher unions.
A statement was issued today to the Press Association by the Professional Association of Teachers. It said that the Secretary of State was being misled about the new negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions. The press release continued:
"A letter sent to the Secretary of State on 12th January, over the signatures of the Chairman of the Management Panel, Mr. John Pearman, and the Deputy General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers writing on behalf of the teachers' associations, Mr. Doug McAvoy, gave the false impression that some kind of agreement had been reached as to the place and powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the National Joint Committee. There has been no such agreement."
It is for that reason that something must be done. With an unparalleledly generous pay offer, it is reasonable that the Government should say, "Let us try to buy a breathing space while everybody can make up their minds."
Lord Parry: Will the—
Lord Belstead: I shall not give way at the moment. I thought that my noble friend Lady Cox was right when at the end of her words she said that we must
1144
have time to work out reliable negotiating procedures for the future. That is what these amendments would not allow; but it is what the Bill would allow. It is for that simple reason that I ask the Committee not to agree to these amendments.
Lord Parry: Before the Minister sits down, could he tell us the membership of the Professional Association of Teachers?
Lord Belstead: The Professional Association of Teachers is not a large association, though it represents an important section of the teaching profession. I forbore to read out the whole of the press statement, which ends:
"Both the National Association of School Masters and Union of Women Teachers"—
the second largest teaching union—
"and the Professional Association of Teachers have protested to the National Union of Teachers. An explanation is going to be demanded at next Monday's meeting of the Burnham Teachers' Panel."
It is in those circumstances that I repeat that something needs to be done. If the Committee were to agree to this group of amendments, this history of disagreement and disruption would continue.
Baroness Lockwood: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he will comment on another aspect of the time schedule. He talked at length about the time that it has taken to bring about agreement among the various parties on the employees' side, from 1981 until 1986 I believe he said. He did not tell us the extent of the agreement which has been reached now. Will he compare that time with the time it has taken successive Secretaries of State to come forward with proposals for amending the Burnham machinery? In 1980 the then Secretary of State said that he was coming forward with proposals which would involve all the parties concerned. It is now 1987 and no proposals have been forthcoming from a Secretary of State. How long must we wait for permanent machinery?
Lord Belstead: With great respect to the noble Baroness, I endeavoured to cover that in my speech. From 1981 onwards by an agreement of Burnham there was a working party to work out a future structure for teachers' pay. Of course from 1985 onwards the Government were more or less excluded from Burnham except for the two seats which they continued to have on the committee.
Baroness Lockwood: I was not talking about the career structure of the teachers but the machinery for negotiating that.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may say a final word. If it could be avoided nobody would want to do away with a negotiating machinery which had been part of the education scene for so many years. But the time has now come when all Members of the Committee who have spoken this afternoon, except I think the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, agree that Burnham must go. That is what Clause 1 of the Bill will achieve.
Lord Glenamara: The noble Lord said that his proposals had overwhelming support from parents. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president has between 4 million and 5 million members and it firmly condemns his proposal. How can the noble Lord say that it has the overwhelming support of parents?
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, if the noble Lord will take the trouble to talk to parents he will find that there is no parent who wants to see his or her child going to a school where there is disruption. As my noble friend Lady Cox said at Second Reading, sometimes teachers were there and sometimes they were not. This is not good for the profession either.
I beg the Committee to take on board that if we agree to the amendment under discussion this constant history of disruption will continue. I feel that there is nothing else that I can say on it.
Lord Glenamara: The noble Lord is right—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Glenamara: This is a Committee stage. I do not know what the Chief Whip is shouting his head off about.
The noble Lord was talking about parents. He said that they did not want disruption to continue. It is for that reason that they are opposed to his proposal. They know quite well that it will lead to further disruption. That is why they are opposing it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In responding to this lengthy and dense debate it would be wrong of me not to start by referring to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others. I owe the Committee an apology in that I was not able to put these amendments down earlier than last Thursday morning. I should have preferred to put them down earlier. However, during virtually the whole of the period since Second Reading—and my lack of vocal chords is testimony to that—I have been talking with the teachers and with the employers' organisations in a successful effort to reach the highest common factor of agreement between them, in a series of amendments which would be acceptable to the Committee but which could immediately be implemented by the largest number of teachers' unions and employers' organisations. The whole purpose of the series of amendments is to build on the advances that have been made in agreement about negotiating procedure and to remove the obstacles to them which exist.
I was surprised at the lack of analysis of the defects of Burnham in a number of speeches from the Government Benches. Everybody agrees that Burnham is defective, but nobody analysed in what respect it was defective and what alternative might be put forward. I hoped that in presenting these amendments I had made it clear that almost all the objections which the Government have expressed to the Burnham machinery are answered by these amendments. I say "almost" quite deliberately because there is an exception to which I shall have to
1146
return. The objections which have been raised by members of the Committee include the separate consideration of pay and conditions (and those objections are overcome); the details of the membership (which the Secretary of State had demanded in another place within the past seven days); the spelling out of the role of the Secretary of State and the enhanced vote for the Secretary of State; and a veto for the Secretary of State in national economic circumstances.
If there is any misunderstanding on this matter it will have to be put right at a later stage; but it is our intention that the thrust of the concordat which applied between 1965 and 1985 should be revived by these amendments. That is what is intended by the increased voting power of the Secretary of State. That is what is required by the reserve powers. If necessary there will have to be more detailed amendments which spell out the Secretary of State's power to convey to the national joint council that these are the financial constraints within which the NJC must work in order that it may realistically tackle these problems.
The one respect in which the amendments do not meet the requirements of the Secretary of State and the Government is that they do not allow the Secretary of State to spell out and to dictate in detail the structure of pay which should be agreed to. We believe that to be totally wrong. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referring a number of times to a "proper" pay structure, and a "proper" career structure. These were the phrases that the noble Lord used. "Proper" is in the ear of the person who says it. There may be different views about what is a proper pay or career structure. The Government are entitled to have a view, but surely the teachers and employers are entitled to have their view. Is it not likely that the view of the teachers and employers is based on closer and more detailed experience than that which the Government are putting forward?
The noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Beloff, seemed to think that there is something virtuous in having interim arrangements for their own sake. Interim arrangements are valid only if they lead to something better as an alternative. The alternative offered to these amendments—which take the bull by the horns and spell out what should be done—is a blank cheque. No suggestion is being made by Government either in the medium or long term as to what final machinery will be set up. No proper alternative is being given to the proposals which we are making for negotiating arrangements.
In the short term the alternative is clear. The alternative is dictatorship. The combination of these two leads to an absurdity. It is an interim dictatorship. The Committee have objected to the references to Hitler. I accept that that is objectionable and that those references ought not to be made. However, a dictatorship which claims to be interim, to come in only when everything else has broken down, may not be characteristic of Hitler but it is certainly characteristic of ancient Rome and of Latin America over the past 100 years. The experience of those societies has always been that dictatorship breaks down when its own internal contradictions make it necessary for there to be a return to democracy. That is not a recipe

1147
for peace in our schools. That is not the way in which we shall overcome the problems that we have at the moment.
I do not believe that anybody except the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, put forward any positive alternative proposals for a solution to the problems which our schools face. I should like to say to the noble Lord that I should be delighted to debate his proposals with him—perhaps on Channel 4. However, we are a revising Chamber; we have legislation here to revise. I invite the noble Lord to take the responsibilities of a part of the Opposition, of an independent political entity, and to consider what is most achievable. I ask the noble Lord to consider what is most likely to bring about the changes to this Bill which he agrees are necessary in considering how he advises his friends to vote on this amendment.
The amendments here are designed to build on the advances that have been made in recent months. They are designed specifically to remove the obstacles to advances which still exist. They may not be perfect, but they are worth trying. I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 148.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Alport, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mar, C.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Denington, B.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayter, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Heycock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Annan, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Atholl, D.

Allerton, L.

Auckland, L.

1148

Bauer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lothian, M.

Bellwin, L.

Lovat, L.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lurgan, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Manchester, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Butterworth, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Byron, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molson, L.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cowley, E.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Derwent, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Reilly, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rugby, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

Saint Levan, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somers, L.

Greenway, L.

Strafford, E.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Sudeley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Suffield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Teynham, L.

Hives, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Torrington, V.

Hood, V.

Tranmire, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vickers, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kearton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kimball, L.

Wise, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wolfson, L.

Kintore, E.

Wynford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ypres, E.

Layton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Wapping: Disorders
5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement about the disorders at Wapping, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary. The statement is as follows:
"I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the disorder followed a march from central London marking the anniversary of the News International dispute. The police estimate that 12,500 people took part. When the march reached Wapping at 7.15, disorder broke out almost immediately. Cordons of police officers in ordinary uniform came under attack with missiles. At about 7.40 a lorry being used by the demonstrators was overturned, and an attempt was made to set it on fire. Disorder then continued for some hours. Missiles were thrown at the police, including rocks, bottles, ball bearings, darts, railings, scaffolding poles and pieces of paving stone. The police used mounted officers, and foot officers in protective equipment, to restore order. I understand that calm returned by about midnight.
"In all, 162 police officers were injured. The injuries included a broken bone in the hand, injuries to the face and legs and concussion. Two officers were detained in hospital overnight. I am glad to say that they have both now been discharged. The police know of 40 members of the public who were injured; there will have been others whose injuries did not come to police attention. I understand that 67 people were arrested of whom 65 have now been charged with public order and other offences. Fifteen of these arrested are print workers.
"This is the latest in a series of disturbances connected with demonstrations at Wapping. Over the last year, including last Saturday, 572 police officers have been injured, 1,462 people have been arrested, and over 1.2 million police man-hours have been spent. The total additional policing cost up to the end of 1986 is estimated at £5.3 million.
"It is clear that some of those attending Saturday's demonstration armed themselves with ferocious weapons intent on violent attacks against the police. No serious attempt was made to stop the lorries leaving the plant, and they were able to do so without significant difficulty.
"It also seems clear that the organisers of these demonstrations are unable to prevent violence or to control the activities of all their supporters. They must now find some other way of making their point, without providing occasions for violence and disorder.
"I have conveyed to the Commissioner my full support for the action taken by the Metropolitan Police to deal with this disgraceful incident, and my sympathy for the police officers who have been injured. The vicious attack on Saturday evening had nothing to do with peaceful protest or the peaceful furtherance of a dispute within the law. I trust that it will be condemned unreservedly by both sides of the House."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Mishcon I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for repeating the Statement of the Home Secretary. While expressing deep regret and sympathy with the police and also innocent members of the public who were injured, we are very glad to note that only two police officers had to be detained overnight in hospital, and that both have now been discharged.
The whole House will lament and deplore what can only be described as a series of the most dreadful occurrences at Wapping. It is significant that, as the Statement has described, out of the 65 people who have been charged with public order and other offences (no-one yet knows whether or not they were guilty) only 15 were print workers.
The union concerned expressed itself as wanting a perfectly legal demonstration which it was entitled to have, marking, as it did the anniversary of the News International dispute. The general secretary of the print union SOGAT 82 is quoted in the press as saying:
"There were elements who came along not to support the workers on strike but to cause trouble".
The members of the union, and certainly the union itself, on the evidence available to date, do not call to be castigated at this time. This also applies to the police. On any view, in the light of the concern that exists as to what did occur and as to the identity of the people who attached themselves to the demonstration, must there not now be an inquiry which should cover certain aspects? First, who was responsible for causing and stirring up this violence? Secondly, how can such people be stopped and deterred without interfering with the right of peaceful demonstration? Thirdly, are the rules governing police action in such situations, including charges by police officers on horseback, properly formulated, and do they meet with public approval?
Of one thing there can be no doubt. This House is united in the belief, and it is certainly the view of my noble friends on this side of the House, that there can no condonation of the use of violence from whatever source it may come.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. My noble friends and I would like to be associated unequivocally with the statement of the Home Secretary in support of the actions of the Metropolitan Police over a matter which the Home Secretary rightly describes as a disgraceful incident.
Is the noble Earl aware that since this dispute began, over 600 police officers have been injured during a series of disturbances outside the News International premises, and that more than 1,000 people have been convicted of criminal offences associated with the disturbances? The noble Earl has told us that the public expenditure implications are substantial with over £5 million of public money involved. Is he also aware of the profound counsequences being experienced by the people of London in terms of the manpower implications of such disturbances so far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned?

1151
Is the noble Earl aware that one full police division, on an average basis, is now fully committed in Wapping, and that some noble Lords are beginning to be seriously concerned about this aspect? Is he also aware that some of us would find it difficult to support any demands for a public inquiry into the police action? There is no comparison between what happened in Wapping on Saturday night and, for example, the incident in Red Lion Square which led to the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to conduct an inquiry?
If, by chance, there were to be a public inquiry, some noble Lords would wish to have one particular issue in the terms of reference, namely, how it can be that, month after month, the trade union leaders concerned call for large scale demonstrations in the highway at Wapping knowing that there will be riots as a result of their calls for such action. Is the noble Earl aware that there is no doubt at all as to who bears the full moral responsibility for what happens? Twelve thousand people gathered in the dark at Wapping, against a background on every previous occasion of extreme violence. This is the one matter that would be worth considering at a public inquiry.
Is the noble Earl aware that on Saturday night the weapons used against the police included spears, sharpened sticks, petrol bombs, bottles, hammers, darts, paving stones and bricks? Is he aware also that nylon rope was stretched across a darkened street in order to bring down police horses? There were shouts from the crowd, as reported in the Financial Times today, of "Blakelock was just the first".
Is the noble Earl aware that many noble Lords believe that this long running series of violent episodes in the highway must now be rapidly brought to an end? Is he aware that the legal basis of picketing is based on peaceful persuasion? How can anyone believe that what happened on Saturday night had anything whatever to do with peaceful persuasion?
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl specifically whether he will consider asking his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to discuss with the law officers of the Crown whether some aspect of the civil law can be considered now. Obviously the criminal law has direct application so far as individuals are concerned, but week after week and month after month the road there is being wilfully obstructed, and if this is going to continue for much longer the government law officers are going to have to consider what other action can be taken.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies may I mention one point? I did not refer to a call for a public inquiry. I did not have that in mind.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he said, "We lament and deplore the events at Wapping." We believe that the trade unions—and our belief is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—reneged on their responsibility by letting a demonstration take place where there has been the whole history of violence at Wapping. It was there to be used as a catalyst, which blatantly it was, and theirs is the obligation to see that it does not happen again.
1152
I am grateful for the unqualified support of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the police, and we on this side give our total support to the police. Yes, we are aware that some 572 officers have been injured. Of course the situation requires manpower. As the noble Lord will recall, he asked me a Question on 17th October on this matter. I was able to report that manpower had been reduced and that in fact the commissioner of police was able to continue to reduce the manpower at Wapping until it came to the demonstration, when over 1,000 officers were involved. This is a sad tale. The situation lessened the police force in the rest of London, and that is a moral obligation that the union leaders must bear in mind.
The question of an inquiry was raised by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord. My right honourable friend does not think it is appropriate to raise an inquiry on this matter. We understand that some complaints about the police have been made. Those will be pursued through the police complaints procedures approved by Parliament. The outcome of any such police investigation is referred to the independent Police Complaints Authority. The courts will deal with the cases of those charged with criminal offences. This is surely the right way to proceed. An inquiry is neither necessary nor justified.
The noble Lord asked about petrol bombs. So far as I am aware no petrol bombs as such were thrown, but I can confirm that across Wellclose Street, apparently in order to injure police horses, a wire was stretched. I am glad to be able to report that on that occasion no police horses were injured, but 11 horses were injured during the evening's performance of terror and violence.
On road obstruction and whether this should be met by a civil case, as I understand it this would be inappropriate because obstructing the roads is a criminal offence. If there is to be a civil case it is to be taken not by the Government but by the residents. I am sure that the noble Lord knows of a resident who lives nearby as leader of his party who might want to start that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend in reading the Statement referred to the organisers of this matter. Given the experience of the past year, and given the legal presumption that a sane man is deemed to contemplate the natural consequences of his acts, will my noble friend consider consulting the law officers of the Crown to see whether criminal proceedings can and should be brought against those who have organised this continuing riot culminating in this appalling one, whether they be trade union officials or other people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certain police action has been taken, as my noble friend knows, but I shall of course pass that important point he has made to my right honourable friend.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a strong view among trade unionists that one thing which Saturday night's events proved beyond doubt is that the legitimate and proper grievances of the trade unionists in this dispute will not be resolved by mass picketing, or by the

1153
violence into which mass picketing invevitably degenerates, and that the unions concerned would be well advised to call an end to mass picketing? It provides only a Roman holiday for hooligans and Trotskyites.
However, would the noble Earl further agree that as a means of promoting a peaceful resolution of this dispute it would be helpful if his noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment would help to promote discussions and negotiations between News International and the trade unionists concerned?
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, the dispute is between the employers and the employees and is not a matter for the Government. Of course ACAS is available to help should either or both sides require it. I am grateful, however, to the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, for his condemnation of the irresponsible action, and I hope that the unions will heed his wise words, which are filled with experience.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, has the noble Earl read a report in the Independent and The Times this morning that a team of 20 legal observers, including barristers, was present? If so, can the noble Earl help us as to who comprised that motley crew? Who organised their presence? Who instructed them? Who were their clients? And what political faction, if any, do they belong to? Above all, can the noble Earl help us as to why anybody who was intending a purely peaceful demonstration should have taken the trouble to arrange for such people to be present?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for that question from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I shall remember to refer to barristers and legal advisers as a motley crew in the future. I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord about the 20 so-called legal experts. As I understand it, they range from students studying law to various other people. Also as I understand it, they are employed by the organisers, so they cannot be independent. They are there to witness from their particular viewpoint the actions of the police. I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord much further.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend give us some guidance? Of the 65 who have been charged, only 13 seem to have been printworkers. What were the occupations of the other 52? After one year of riotous assembly every Saturday and to a lesser extent every Wednesday, surely my noble friend must have some information as to who is organising and paying and renting the buses to take those who have no connection whatsoever with the print industry to cause this riotous assembly.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it there were 15 printworkers who were charged, of whom two said they were unemployed. The remainder come from various occupations including some students, a teacher, a trade union official, a miner, a postman, a driver, a civil servant, a shop assistant, a library clerk, a surveyor, a salesman, a butcher, a
1154
musician and various others. They come from various parts of the country. Most came from London but some came from as far afield as Liverpool, the West Midlands, Warwickshire, Bristol and Derbyshire. I am afraid that I am unable to help my noble friend as to who is behind paying them.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is a year since the 5,000 people were dismissed from News International in Wapping, and that that was the reason the senior trade union officials had this demonstration? As evidence of the fact that they wanted it to be a peaceful demonstration they actually had a jazz band fixed up to play at the demonstration. The disruption was caused by elements other than those organised and led by the official unions, and therefore the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in this connection are entirely unwarranted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that, he may recall that I made no statement, as has been attributed to me quite inaccurately by the noble Baroness. I asked a question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, it was the lorry on which the jazz band was brought to the demonstration that was used by some of the violent people. If the union is going to organise such a demonstration—as I said on numerous occasions during the passage of the Public Order Act through this House this Government do not want to stop peaceful demonstrations—the union must put its own house in order to be able to control those who will join it and seek to use it as a catalyst on an occasion such as this.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that efforts are being made to establish the common affiliation of the 50 members of the 65 who were arrested and who is co-ordinating their efforts? Will suitably strict measures be taken against them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is a matter for the police and I am sure the police will be looking into the points raised by my noble friend.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House will accept and it has already been established that there is at this stage no difference on either side of the House in the attitude to the terrible things that took place. Such things should never happen in a civilised society. The answers that have been given to the House are so far short of real information that surely it would be intelligent for an inquiry to be held. No one has asked for a public inquiry. We have asked for an inquiry so that answers to all these speculations could be absolute.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think I have dealt at some length with the point about an inquiry. It would be wrong for me to repeat what I have said. My right honourable friend does not think an inquiry is suitable, because other processes are there.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, following the catalogue of occupations given in response to the question of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, can the House assume on the principle of exclusio alterius that no barrister is included in that number? Can those of us who follow or have followed that calling take some modest crumb of comfort from that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot answer for the 11 students. They might well have been training in the law. Looking through the list, the civil servant might have been a legal adviser, so I am afraid I am unable to help my noble friend.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister, in view of what is happening in Europe, and in the interests of law and order and the peace of the population in this country, whether we are yet again considering the use of water cannon, which have proved most effective in Europe and could prove equally effective and efficient here in avoiding injury to the police and to the public.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are, as my noble friend reminded us, some situations where water cannon are used on the Continent, but they are not at present operationally available to the Metropolitan Police because their use in some situations of mass disorder is currently being evaluated. I must tell my noble friend and the House that there are limitations on their effectiveness in a confined area.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I merely remind the Minister that it is far better to wet them than to hit them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be much more preferable if demonstators did not hit the police.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
5.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 2, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert—
("by provisions agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers, subject in the case of school teachers to provisions having effect under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 4. Like the amendments we were discussing earlier, these amendments offer a different procedure from that proposed by the Government for determining the pay and conditions for school teachers in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in the course of our earlier discussion that we should not now be concerning ourselves about the future but rather about the interim arrangements. As a number of noble Lords have already said, the trouble about that is that it takes
1156
insufficient account of the fact that for an indefinite period during the lifetime of the advisory committee collective bargaining rights are to be withheld from teachers' organisations and from local authorities. I do not think that is good enough. My fear is that teachers will not either and that this will ultimately have a further damaging effect on the children in our schools.
That, then, is the reason for proceeding with this amendment. I make no apology for so doing. As I said earlier, we are seeking at this stage to do no more than set out the general principles of the negotiating procedure that we propose should operate for school teachers and to elicit the support of the Committee. I recognise, however, that in approaching the matter in this way I owe it to the Committee to outline now in a good deal more detail what we have in mind. To take first Amendment No. 2, our intention is simply to indicate that in future all teachers, and not alone teachers in further education, should retain collective bargaining rights but that in the case of school teachers they should be exercised within a framework that is set out in the new clause contained in Amendment No. 4.
In that new clause, first place is given to the establishment of a standing independent review body. The criteria for membership of that body are that those appointed should have experience of or an interest in education and that they should include a number of people drawn from local education authorities, teachers' organisations and bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools.
We envisage a process of consultation aimed at obtaining the widest possible agreement among interested bodies—even including the main political parties, if they can bring themselves to face such a prospect—before the membership of that body is decided on. Once set up, the review body would take evidence from local education authorities, teachers' organisations and any other individuals or groups from which it might wish to invite representations. Before putting forward its proposals on pay and conditions of school teachers the review body would also be made aware of the views of the Secretary of State, including those concerning the financial contribution that the Government were willing to make towards the cost of any changes in pay and conditions.
In respect of the method proposed for the appointment of the review body, its composition and the extent to which its agenda would be free from direction by the Secretary of State, the review body would enjoy considerably more independence than the advisory committee is to be accorded under this Bill, even taking account of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will no doubt later be moving.
A further function which Amendment No. 4 envisages for the review body is that it would provide a basis on which teachers' organisations and employers would negotiate. In this way collective bargaining rights would be retained but they would be exercised within a framework constructed in a more objective, coherent and generally realistic way than the arrangements provided by Burnham in recent years.
Next, we have in mind that teachers' organisations and local education authorities should be able to

1157
submit amendments to the review body's proposals, but only amendments submitted by the teachers' organisations as a whole or by local education authorities as a whole would be admissible. Any amendments that were agreed between the unions and local education authorities the review body would be obliged to accept, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Where agreement could not be reached between the teachers' organisations and the local education authorities, or where the Secretary of State withheld his approval from an agreed amendment, we propose that the matter should be referred to arbitration by ACAS or by some other acceptable agency.
A process which we favour for arbitration is that which goes by the name of pendulum bargaining. This means that in making an award the arbitrator would have to choose between the positions of the parties in dispute. He could not choose an intermediate position. In my view it may also be helpful if the arbitrator's award was made on explicitly stated grounds that included summaries of the parties' submissions. Finally, the award of the arbitrator would be binding, subject only to ultimate parliamentary authority.
Thus our overall aim is to establish a negotiating procedure which at every stage will encourage the parties to adopt responsible attitudes, to act as single units within each party and then to draw closer together in the negotiating process. We would also aim in this way to discourage extravagant claims and generally to weaken the influence of extremists of any kind.
In conclusion, I simply remind the Committee that our amendments are deliberately framed at this stage in general terms, which I have endeavoured to amplify so that our overall intention is plain. I invite the Committee to consider and to support these amendments in principle. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, seems to have ignored in moving this amendment the discussion which we had at considerable length on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on the point that it is unwise to try to rush a permanent and final arrangement by way of amendment at the committee stage of this Bill. I think, a good many of your Lordships on the previous occasion took the view that the Government were right to go, as the Bill does, for an interim solution, during which a sensible and permanent system could be worked out in discussion with all concerned. However, this amendment, if adopted, excludes that and produces a new system intended no doubt to be permanent.
I confess that I do not wholly understand the terms of Amendment No. 2, which read:
"('by provisions agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers, subject in the case of school teachers to provisions having effect under this Act.')".
It does not appear to bear any specific relationship to the structure of the Bill at all.
However, my even stronger objection to this amendment occurs over the last sub-section of Amendment No. 4 which as I understand it we are discussing with Amendment No. 2. In the event of the
1158
Secretary of State not agreeing with the proposals put forward from the body which has been discussing them, there will be arbitration.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to, "subject to overriding parliamentary authority". Looking at his amendment, I do not know what he means by that. Perhaps I have overlooked some further amendment. But on these amendments as they stand it looks as if there is to be arbitration, and when legislation lays down that there shall be arbitration, then arbitration is final and binding on the Secretary of State, as on the other parties. I do not know whether the noble Lord has some explanation to give, but that last almost give-away line which he put to the Committee about, "subject to overriding parliamentary authority", does not seem to be followed up anywhere in these amendments.
If that is right, this amendment treats the Secretary of State and his responsibilities even worse than did the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendment of the noble Lord, although it put the Secretary of State rather on the spot, ultimately gave him the right, if he could command a majority in both Houses of Parliament on an affirmative instrument, to vote down an agreed proposal. This, on the other hand, unless the noble Lord can point to what he means by the reference to overriding parliamentary authority, seems to leave the final decision to the arbitrator.
In view of the very large expenditure of public money involved in teachers' salaries—and I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that the central government share is 46 per cent., which amounts to a very large sum indeed—and in view of the importance both of that sum in itself and the example which it gives to the national economy for which the central government are responsible, I do not see how any Secretary of State whatever could accept this.
As I have said to the Committee, this puts the Secretary of State in an even worse position than did the kindly nature of the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It seems to me that if this is intended as a contribution to the solution of the problem, and a permanent solution, it is a terribly bad one.
Baroness Cox: Let me speak briefly, as one who, I confess, was initially in favour of an independent review body and was rather puzzled, and indeed disappointed, that the Government had not opted for this other solution, I had a certain inherent sympathy for the amendment now before us, but rather like Paul on the road to Damascus I saw the light and became understanding as to why the Government were not going for this option at this stage.
Lord Renton: If my noble friend will allow me, we find ourselves fortunate that she was not blinded by the light as Paul was.
Baroness Cox: I thank my noble friend for that correction and stand very embarrassed by my misrepresentation of the Holy Book. Paul regained his sight, and I hope I have now seen why this amendment

1159
is not acceptable to us at present. Perhaps I may briefly give three reasons why I would not feel happy about supporting the amendment. First of all I must emphasise, as has my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is something which could be considered in due course. As an interim measure, it may well be that a review body could be the solution in due course. But as this amendment stands I am a little worried because it seems to fall between two stools. As I understand it, the other professions which have independent pay review bodies, whether it be the nurses, doctors, dentists or the armed forces, are truly independent; whereas it seems to me that the composition proposed for this body would contain or represent interests within education. Therefore it is not independent in the sense of being a truly independent body from the professions and the vested interests.
Secondly, the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the exclusion of the Secretary of State, as I understand it, from the direct considerations makes it absolutely unacceptable, given the very high proportion of money involved paid for by the Government. The fact that the only role for the Secretary of State is at the end of the line in terms of referring matters to arbitration seems to me quite unacceptable.
Finally, I feel that the whole series of procedures outlined in the amendment before us could well be, I am afraid, a recipe for protracted chaos. The concept of proposals first of all being created, then going as a basis for negotiation which may be sent for arbitration worries me, given the realpolitik of the situation. In an ideal world with good faith that might well be an acceptable series of steps, but in the present situation, much though I sympathise with the idea, it seems to me that these proposals could set the scene for continuing protracted hassles, interminable wrangling and continuing disarray, during which our children continue to suffer.
So I hope that the concept of a pay review body will receive very favourable consideration in the talks and discussions about the final outcome after this interim period. However, I feel that at the moment I must support the Government on their proposals for the interim period, and unfortunately I cannot support the concept of a pay review body at present.
Lord Kilmarnock: I should like to support the amendment because it attracts me on the grounds that it seeks to introduce some balance into this Bill. Whether this year's settlement is imposed or reluctantly accepted, it is quite clear to us on these Benches that there must be some quid pro quo in the Bill. It is absurd to expect teachers not only to accept an imposed settlement but also to be obliged to contemplate an indefinite future without any negotiating rights or mechanisms. That is what the Bill as drafted would mean.
Like my noble friend Lord Rochester, I am in disagreement with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on the last amendment when he suggested that it was inappropriate to discuss the longer term at the Committee stage of this Bill. As I suggested at Second Reading, the Secretary of State could have
1160
written a one-clause Bill to empower him to impose a settlement on a single occasion. We could have dealt with it simply on that issue.
Instead, he has chosen to arm himself with an advisory committee which would be in place for a minimum of three years and potentially a great deal longer. He has thus himself introduced the medium-term to long-term considerations into the Bill. That is why we say that the Bill should incorporate, if not the ultimate detail, a broad outline of a permanent structure so that teachers know that there will be a limit on their relegation to limbo. It seems perfectly possible on those grounds to be exploring this idea at Committee stage.
One of the great sins of the Bill in our view is that not only does it confer unlimited power on Mr. Baker but it also enables each and every one of his successors to subject the education system to destabilising reversals of policy when what is most wanted is continuity. It is precisely continuity that would be provided by an independent review body along the lines suggested by my noble friend. This is surely the only fair and sensible way ahead, though we may perhaps discuss details at a later stage of the Bill.
Incidentally, it is worth noting that there has been some speculation on the views of parents about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, spoke of the opposition of the National Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations to the Bill. I think he is a vice-president of that body and he strongly advanced their opposition to the Bill. What he did not say was that they are advocating an independent review body very much on the lines of what has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Rochester.
If the Government are interested in the views of parents, there is a body of associations representing some 4 million who seem to be tending to favour the Alliance solution rather than the national joint committee which has been proposed by the Labour Party. So I hope many Members of the Committee will feel that the noble Lord has moved an amendment which will not only bring a measure of balance into the Bill but will also indicate the type of structure that would create the conditions for long-term stability in our schools.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: Amendments are sometimes tabled in this Chamber, with a view to discussing the principle and exchanging views about it but without seriously deciding whether the amendments should be made to the Bill. I think this is an interesting principle to discuss but I find difficulties about the amendment in addition to the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
The first difficulty is that if it were made it would require a number of consequential amendments which have not so far been tabled. I do not say that if the principle were found acceptable they would not eventually be tabled, but we have the disadvantage at any rate that some of the necessary consequential amendments have not been tabled and therefore we do not know precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would have in mind with regard to that.

1161
However, there is another difficulty and I hope the Committee do not think it is too technical to be considered. As I see it, the proposals in these two Amendments, Nos. 2 and 4, create a precedent. They break entirely new ground. The independent review bodies which we have at the moment are very rare. So far as I remember, they are bodies which have been appointed by the Prime Minister. They report to the Prime Minister and are therefore non-statutory. As an alternative to the present arrangements, to the arrangements envisaged in the Bill or to any arrangements which might emerge after negotiation when the Bill eventually expires, I very much doubt whether in principle it would be right to have the kind of independent review body which, though rare, is well-established. I have serious doubts about that.
Also, I think one should perhaps bear in mind that the review bodies we have had so far, the best known of which is the Top Salaries Review Body, which simply gives guidance to the Government and is not binding on the Government, are not subject to arbitration. That is very different from what is envisaged in these amendments. I do not think there is any independent review body which deals, for example, with a large number of people in government service or local authority employees. So, although this is an interesting principle to discuss, it would be wrong to make the amendments to the Bill.
Lord Beloff: The time has come—if I may use a phrase that we shall hear from the Alliance more than once, I suspect, this week—to look at their comments and proposals—
Baroness Seear: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the advance publicity.
Lord Beloff: The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has suggested that the advisory committee might outlive the Bill and that it is therefore a move in the direction of a permanent arrangement. I find it very difficult to construe a Bill which declares itself to be temporary and which sets up a permanent institution. I should have thought that all the provisions of the Bill would expire on the date of expiry, and what that date will be we shall discuss later. So I do not think that that can be used as a precedent for these proposals.
The proposal for an independent review body has an enormous attraction. The attraction is the word "independent" which, in the language of the modern philosopher, is a "hurrah" word rather than a "boo" word. Indeed, I sometimes think that the success of a newspaper which was referred to earlier in our proceedings is largely due to its genial choice of title. The only trouble about this independent review body, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has pointed out, is that it is in no sense independent, because the notion of independence is at the opposite extreme from the notion of representation.
If a body represents no doubt honourable institutions—trade unions, employers' organisations and so forth—then it has a role, and that is the kind of body to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Harringey, drew our attention. That is a possible model. But one cannot conceive of a body intended to
1162
be independent which is also composed of representatives.
Let us suppose that the National Union of Teachers is asked to nominate to this body and nominates Mr. Fred Jarvis. Why not? Would one really suspect that on this body he would hold different views or be amenable to different pressures from those when he is representing his union in a negotiating stance either on Burnham Mark I or, if we had agreed to it, on Burnham Mark II?
The other difficulty is that of arbitration. Arbitration is not a "boo" word; it is roughly a "hurrah" word. Pendulum arbitration is very fashionable, but I am rather surprised that, with his experience of industry, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, thinks that pendulum arbitration would be suitable in this case. As I understand it, the fear has been that if you have, in an ordinary wage bargaining situation, two positions, one side saying "Let us give them £5" and the other side, the employees, saying, "Let us have £10", you will finish up with £7.50 if you put it to arbitration, because arbitrators will not want to offend either side. Pendulum arbitration means that you have to go for either the £5 or the £10, and there may be something to be said for that.
What has caused most of the trouble over teachers' pay and conditions is that you cannot dissociate the structure of the profession—the various arrangements made for the different grades, jobs and responsibilities—from their pay. Therefore, I cannot see how an arbitration could ever be faced with something so simple that it could be solved in a pendulum fashion, because any arbitrator might say "I like the proposed structure that the employers have put up, but I think that the teachers ought to have more money." Therefore, it seems to me that this must be appended simply to make the thing more palatable. For that reason, as with the rest of the amendment, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. It is nice to discuss it, but it is not for us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Opposition are naturally sympathetic to any constructive proposal to replace the provisions of the Bill by something which could take place more quickly, more effectively and on a more long-term basis. Precisely because we are opposed, as is well-known, to the interim nature of the proposals and the fact that no long-term solution will be reached for a very long time, we are favourably disposed to the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
However, there are a number of questions about them on which I should very much welcome the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who, I understand, is to speak in a minute, not least because she has a hundred times more experience of industrial relations than I have. My understanding was that independent review bodies tended to be set up when there was no existing negotiating machinery and when it was felt that something had to be done to put some colour into an existing procedure where somebody laid something down and that was that—with no independent or outside consideration—as regards the pay and conditions of a group of employees. This tended to happen particularly when there was no procedure for review or negotiation to take place on an annual basis.

1163
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will tell us whether it is intended that there should be annual review or whether it should be on an ad hoc basis. My personal predilection would be not to have the kind of review which takes place when things have got out of hand and when massive efforts have to be made to catch up on behalf of those whose pay and conditions are being considered.
As has already been said, an independent review body really ought to be independent if it is to be worthy of the name. How do representatives of the teachers or employers, or anybodyt else, come to be on such a body and what is their status? Are they in some way different, as regards voting procedure, from the other members who are presumably independent? Who appoints the non-representative members of the review body? What is the balance between them? Is there a majority for the representatives or a majority for the independents? All of these points make a great deal of difference to the kind of consideration which the body will give to the issues before it.
Most important is the phrase:
"… which shall form the basis of negotiations between those teachers and their employers".
Here, it is open to the review body virtually to pre-empt any negotiations by setting out a very detailed structure of pay and conditions and by analysing and setting out the cost of that structure. In those circumstances, the negotiations provided for in subsection (2) of the new clause would not be very meaningful. On the other hand, it is possible within the terms of the amendment for the independent review body to state its conclusions only in the most general terms. In that case, it is the negotiations which would be more important, not the constitution of the independent review body. That is a matter on which the noble Baroness might like to comment.
Similarly, can the negotiations actually overturn the detail of the recommendation made by the independent review body? That is not clear from the amendment. But it is of the greatest importance if we are to know whether the negotiations will be meaningful. Then there is the question of the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may withhold
"his approval of an agreement between the parties".
Presumably, he has no role in the conclusions of the review body which go into negotiation.
We then have the possibility of four different stages in the procedure. First, we have the review body; secondly, we have the negotiations; thirdly, we have the consideration by the Secretary of State of the result of negotiations; and, fourthly, we have the appointment of an arbitrator by somebody who is not specified and the conclusions of the arbitrator.
Despite all our sympathy, as it stands it seems that this could be an excessively complicated and long drawn out procedure which, on the face of it, does not achieve any of the objectives which we want to see as regards teachers' pay and negotiations. It does not establish full negotiating rights for teachers and their employers. It does not recognise the fact that 54 per cent. of teachers' pay is met by local authorities. It does not establish adequately the interests of the
1164
Secretary of State either in the remaining 46 per cent. of pay negotiations or in his responsibilities as a member of government for the overall control of public expenditure. It does not set out clearly the point at which procedures move from one stage to another or the force of the recommendations and proposals put at any of the intervening stages.
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has good answers to all of those questions. If she does, we shall be delighted to support her in the Lobbies. However, this is a difficult proposal and it deserves the most serious consideration.
6 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: Before the noble Baroness speaks, perhaps I may add two points which she may care to take on board when she replies. The amendment says:
"An independent review body shall be established".
Those are curious words to have in a Act of Parliament. An independent review body shall be established by whom? Who is the power being given to? Within what limits will the power be exercised? An independent review body shall be established—shall come out of the air—and in whom is the power to be vested?
Secondly, as a matter of industrial relations, I should have thought it unfortunate to talk about arbitration and not to make clear whether the decision of the arbitrator is to be binding. In industrial relations, if one goes to arbitration it is generally far better that any award should be binding. The clause is silent upon that point, and it is probably silent because a difficulty lies behind it which has already been referred to. It concerns the responsibility of the Government and the power of the Secretary of State.
I thought that in the debate we had earlier this afternoon we were moving to a very interesting consensus springing out of the concordat. It was clear that both sides of the House recognised that the Secretary of State, because the Treasury contributes almost half of the salary of teachers, must have a position which should be not less than that given to him by the concordat which was abandoned in 1985.
Under the concordat the Secretary of State had a right of veto. However, he undertook not to exercise it at the beginning of negotiations. There is therefore in Clause 3 an apparent difficulty about whether arbitration should be binding and how one marries that with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Baroness replies, can she also take on board the fact that it would be most helpful if she could tell the Committee how it is expected to treat this amendment? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that there may be occasion for him to march into the Lobby in her not unfamiliar company should a Division take place. However, it is evident from his speech that there is so much which is not said in the amendment that none of us would know what we were voting about.
If the noble Baroness wishes us to vote, I shall have a great deal to say about what is wrong with the amendment. However, if she is here to trawl for opinions about a general principle so that she can

1165
come back at Report stage enriched and wiser with a new proposal, while I regard it as a not very beneficial use of time, I should not hold the Committee up by arguing against it.
Baroness Seear: I have been asked to reply to a number of points. Let me say straight away in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that at this stage we do not intend to put the amendment to the vote. I do not agree with him that it is therefore a waste of time. This is an attempt to discuss a proposal which we believe may be most appropriate when developed and discussed in detail, as we intend to do in the later stages of this Bill. At this stage we are discussing the principles that we are putting forward and the reasons for putting them forward.
The reason for putting this amendment forward is that we, like the Government, are extremely concerned at the lack of progress in the negotiations in relation to schools, at the chaos in schools and at the anxieties of parents, and indeed all of us, about the condition of children who have in many cases been denied the education to which they are entitled because of our inability to solve these problems.
My reasons for putting the amendment forward are that we do recognise that special measures are needed. Although we are determined to get back to negotiations, as we said at Second Reading, we do not accept that a strict return to negotiation along the lines of a reformed national joint council is possible at the present time. We believe that if we had followed the lines of the Labour amendment that has been voted upon this afternoon, we should not get a solution and we should be back to where we have been over recent months. That is why we did not support the Labour proposals in the Lobby this afternoon. However, that does not mean that we are in the least happy with what the Government are putting forward, and this is why we intend to put forward another option as a better way of dealing with the difficult problem which confronts us.
We do not like what the Government have put forward because it gives arbitrary powers to the Secretary of State to appoint a council when it does not say where that council is to come from. We are told that this council will exist for a limited period of time. However, the time built into the Bill goes up to 1990 and the Bill includes the power to add year by year to the life of the council.
While many speakers in the Committee today have suggested that because the Bill is said to be temporary we need have no fears and it will disappear, surely the experience of other temporary legislation does not lead us to believe that merely stating that a Bill or any other measure is temporary means that it will disappear at the date built into it or indeed for some considerable length of time.
We have other reasons for objecting to the Government's proposals. Not the least of those is that we do not think it will achieve the results that the Government want. An imposed settlement on the teachers at this stage will not bring peace in our schools. Secondly, we do not believe that if the settlement is imposed in the way the Government propose that they will get the co-operation of the
1166
teachers in carrying out what they need to have done, which is essential if we are to make progress.
The new conditions of teachers' work which are built into these proposals—and quite rightly so in our view—that pay should be matched by conditions of employment, are to be monitored by the teachers and their organisations, as I understand it. They and their organisations undertook that they would see that the conditions were complied with. That is essential. If it is not going to be monitored by the teachers or their organisations, by whom is it to be monitored? Without the willing consent of the teachers, how will the Government see that they conform with what is required, which is one of the major objectives of the Government; that they will substitute where teachers are away; and that they will do the out-of-school duties? All this requires consent from teachers.
From where will consent come when the Government impose a settlement with a council on which the teachers have no say and where they have no opportunity to come forward to say what they want and what they consent to? How will they get the good will of the teachers from this proposal? Without that the whole thing falls. Under these extremely difficult circumstances we have attempted to see whether there is another way.
I am glad that a number of Members of the Committee have said that it is an interesting proposal for discussion. This other way is put forward to try to get back to genuine negotiations. But to do that we believe that there has to be some kind of review body. It has been called a review body and we have called it a review body. There has to be a body set up after consultation with people with interests and knowledge in this field. Let me emphasise that it is not to be a representative body. If it were a representative body in the strict sense of the term, it simply would be another negotiating body. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The people on it will be people recognised as having expertise, interest and knowledge in the field. They are not to be representatives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree that the amendment does not say "representative" but it says:
"persons … drawn from local education authorities, teachers' organisations"
and so on. How does the noble Baroness conceive that those who are drawn from these bodies will somehow distance themselves from the bodies from which they are drawn? Does she think that they will take a view independent from the collective view of the bodies from which they are drawn?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: One of the great objections to the Government's proposals was that the people who are to be on this council were not people who would be recognised as being knowledgeable in the field. If such a body were established—and there are a number of ways in which it could be done—the teachers, knowing that they were not representative, knowing that it was not a negotiating body, would at least know that people experienced in this field and with knowledge of the various aspects involved would be sitting on the body. They would not be a group of people brought

1167
together by the Secretary of State, who would be, as was said in the previous debate, or who might be, simply the Secretary of State's poodles.
I know that there are difficulties. I should like to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that this is a very unusual kind of review body. Having sat for 13 years on the Top Salaries Review Body, I agree with him that it is an unusual kind of review body. In fact, it might be better to give it a slightly different name. It is an independent body, a body that is not representative. But the point is that it would put forward proposals and the Secretary of State would make his input. Having taken evidence and having listened to what people had to say, it would put forward those proposals to the negotiating body.
We want to get back to negotiation. I want to underline that point. That is our purpose. When one has sat on a review body one begins to know what are the limits beyond which one cannot go; that certain things are likely to be accepted and other things are totally unacceptable. One has heard evidence from all these people and one puts forward informed proposals. It is on the basis of those informed proposals that negotiation then takes place.
If we had confidence that one could have satisfactory negotiations without this body, of course it would not be necessary. But we do not. Experience of the last years has shown that one cannot have that confidence. This body prepares the ground and puts forward proposals, and the negotiation takes place on the basis of those proposals. It sets the limits within which negotiation can take place, those limits having been set by means of factual information and advice; ideas and proposals put forward by people who have an interest and knowledge in this field. In that case the people putting forward the proposals would represent interests. At the Top Salaries Review Body we saw all the union people and all the interested parties and then we began to know within what boundaries it would be possible to arrive at a satisfactory negotiated settlement.
What is not said in the amendment but what will be said at Report stage is that if the negotiation then reaches agreement, the body that has put forward the proposals will not have the right to reject it. This is quite unlike the other review bodies. I accept that point. In saying that I think one would have to devise a new name for it. It is not a review body like the TSRB. It is a way of forcing negotiation to work and to come to effective decisions within the limits which are acceptable. This is what we are trying to do. In this whole area of public sector pay it is very difficult to arrive at settlements. This is a new idea. It is a quite difficult idea, as a number of Members of the Committee have said, but as an idea it is well worth exploring.
One hopes that in this way, and with the incentive to arrive at an agreement, in the great majority of cases agreement would be arrived at. If it is not, the Secretary of State then says what he believes is or is not acceptable. If agreement still cannot be arrived at, we go to the question of arbitration. The advantage of pendulum arbitration—and this is not written into the Bill and is not written into the amendment but it is
1168
what we should like to see—is that it is a disincentive for people to put forward ridiculous proposals. If they put forward ridiculous proposals the arbitrator almost automatically will go the other way. Pendulum arbitration encourages the putting forward of rational proposals. That is the idea of putting it in and that is why we have put in this stage of arbitration.
Arbitration would normally be binding. We say that the Secretary of State would not veto except when both Houses of Parliament had done so. This means that in the last resort the Secretary of State could do so, because with the majority that any government would have it would go through both Houses of Parliament. There is that last resort which the Secretary of State plainly has to have.
That is the thinking. I am not saying that it is perfect as it stands. We are putting the idea forward because we believe that it is far more acceptable to the teachers than the proposal put forward by the Government, which is arbitrary, imposed and will not win their collaboration. That must be of the greatest importance to the Government. The scheme cannot work unless the teachers collaborate. We believe that it is far more realistic than the proposal Labour has put forward, because Labour is simply asking for the update of Burnham and the update of Burnham at this stage is not practicable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the noble Baroness clarify one or two points? She said that the members of the review body would not represent the specific areas from which they were drawn, but the amendment says,
"representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools".
Would they represent the interests, or is that not intended?
The second part of the amendment refers to proposals relating,
"to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers in England and Wales which shall form the basis of negotiations between those teachers and their employers".
Does that mean that the negotiations can go outside what has been recommended by the independent review body? Can they go beyond it, or are they the ultimate parameters within which the negotiations would take place?
The third point, if the noble Baroness will bear with me, is that she said an imposed settlement is in her view out of the question. Does that mean that the teachers would at present have to wait for their money, part of which is already due to them and the rest due in October under the proposals that the Secretary of State has in mind? Will they have to wait until the review body is set up, by whoever is to set it up, and until that body has done its work and proposed what the award should be?
Baroness Seear: Where the amendment says "bodies representing the interests" I believe I have explained that it is not representative in the sense that they are elected by those bodies. They are chosen from those bodies. The Secretary of State would set this up. He would have to, because they cannot come out of space. The Secretary of State would look to those various groups so that on the committee there will be

1169
knowledgeable people. They will be representative not in the sense that they are elected, as are Members of Parliament, but they will be knowledgeable people who have experience in that field. Perhaps the noble Baroness could repeat the second part of her question.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Could the items for discussion which form the basis for negotiations go outside what the independent review body puts forward?
Baroness Seear: No, the whole idea is that the independent review body puts forward the parameters to the negotiating bodies. It sets the limits within which negotiations can take place. If the negotiators wish to come back and amend that, they can, but the review body can refuse it. If within those parameters the negotiating bodies reach agreement, the review body cannot refuse it. It then becomes a negotiated and accepted settlement, because all the bodies concerned have agreed to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My third point, and the most important one, is whether the teachers would have to wait for their money until the review body had done its work.
Baroness Seear: No. They could have this immediate money because we want to get on with it now. We can set up this arrangement quickly if we want to. The Secretary of State knows that he has to set up something and it is a matter of the speed at which he decides to work.
Lord Parry: The noble Baroness is a persuasive advocate. It is strange that she wishes to get back immediately to the negotiating panel and that she wishes to do so with haste, but I understand that her amendment, which has won my support, is not to be put to the vote this afternoon.
A great many teachers will just about now have arrived home from their schools and will be looking at their television sets to see what the Committee has done in this debate so far and at the proposals which are before us this afternoon. They will not be much encouraged by what has been achieved in the past couple of hours. We have had a debate on one amendment which has failed to carry the support of—may I say?—the Right-wing of Her Majesty's Opposition. It has not been able to support what the moderate and non-self-seeking part has put forward. In the deeply serious matter of the disillusionment and disappointment of teachers, they will be further disappointed by what we have done this afternoon.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the teachers will not get their money any quicker if we put this amendment to a vote now or if we do so on Report because the Bill will not become an Act before then.
Lord Parry: I have always maintained that the matter of money gets far more prominence in this place than it does in the staff rooms of the country, because it is conditions and their general feeling of commitment to education that mostly attracts
1170
teachers' attention. They will be feeling that we should have put this amendment to the vote if it is a serious proposition. Nothing would hasten its discussion more than to see it put to the vote this afternoon.
Lord Belstead: I have enjoyed the debate on this amendment. I have done so because I always enjoy listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. As she spoke I was thankful that I was not called upon to answer questions about two apparently quite innocuous amendments which turned out to be amendments of almost Byzantine complexity.
My conclusion is that of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. An independent review body may well be a solution for the long term, but not yet and certainly not in the way that it is laid out on page 1 of the Marshalled List. Members of the Committee, including my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Beloff, Lord Butterworth, Lady Cox and Lady Carnegy, have put forward searching questions, not to mention those questions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, from the Front Bench opposite.
I shall content myself with answering one question only. I do think—and I wonder whether the noble Baroness will agree that I have some right in thinking this—that subsection (2) of Amendment No. 4 shows the problem with which Members on the Alliance Benches are having to wrestle. By tabling the amendments, and as shown in that subsection, the noble Baroness and her noble friends are in effect recognising that there is a grave problem and that something must be done. They are grasping at trying to have both a review body and a negotiating process at one and the same time.
Therefore, we have the proposal that the review body is to make proposals which are to form the basis of negotiations between teachers and employers, and that is an odd task for a review body, independent or otherwise. It sounds more like the activities of ACAS in seeking to bring together the different sides, which as we have seen has failed in the case of the teachers; and there is no mention in these amendments of the Secretary of State at the negotiating stage.
I suggest to the Committee that the procedures in the Bill are greatly preferable because they involve my right honourable friend in a dialogue with the employers and unions after the advisory committee has reported.
I should like to take this opportunity to give an assurance that before the Secretary of State lays a pay or conditions of employment order under the Bill he will be ready to see, individually or collectively, any of the bodies he is statutorily required to consult. That is a significant commitment which brings employers and teachers into direct dialogue with my right honourable friend in a way which the Burnham machinery did not do and which these amendments do not do.
Therefore, I join with many other Members of the Committee in asking, but not going through them, the many questions about these amendments. I have to say that the Government reach the conclusion that because something must be done the procedures in the Bill are greatly preferable to the procecdures in these amendments.
Lord Rochester: I thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this debate. At the outset I made it plain that at this stage we are putting forward the proposals in general form as a matter of principle. One of the advantages of taking that course of action is that it enables what has actually happened this afternoon to take place; namely, many questions have been asked and views have been expressed. We should like to take those views into account and at this stage I simply reserve our position with the view of possibly bringing forward some other amendment on Report based on the principles we have just been discussing. Therefore, I shall not detain the Committee further and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, after ("State"), insert ("after consultation with representatives of teachers, local education authorities, voluntary schools, parents and other interested parties").
The noble Lord said: One of the main objections to the Bill, which has been stated many times this afternoon—I shall not weary the Committee by going into it again—is the Secretary of State's unfettered freedom to appoint members of the committee. It is feared that the advisory committee may be a row of puppets who will bob, nod and smile at the behest of the master puppeteer and who will have no other qualifications for being there.
If it is to be he who moves Amendment No. 9, the Minister will stipulate that the committee should include suitably qualified persons. I fear that that may not be an adequate safeguard. We must remember that the Secretary of State may not always be the present incumbent of that office and that the Government may eventually be of a different political nature. There should be a requirement for full consultation with interested bodies before appointment to the committee. They should include representatives from the private sector of education because teachers move in and out of the private sector. That would offer some reassurance to those who have misgivings about the implied autocratic powers of the Secretary of State in his appointments.
It is partly the public image that is important. Surely it would cost the Government nothing to invite nominations from teachers' associations, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Association of Governors and Managers and the Headmasters' Conference and to consider such nominations before appointment. That important public image would surely be worth the additional time and trouble.
It must be borne in mind that the Bill is meeting great opposition from the education world. I do not say that that opposition is universal because there is no
1172
means of knowing. I have never received—I am sure many Members of the Committee are in the same position—so many letters protesting the writers' dismay at what is proposed. They are not only from local education authorities and their representatives and of course from teachers' associations but from individual teachers and schools. Most significantly, they have come from parents' organisations. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has already been mentioned this afternoon as being dismayed at the proposals. The All-London Parent Action Group has also been mentioned.
It should be pointed out that parents have the strongest vested interest in this matter. The Government always insist that parents should have a pre-eminent position in making decisions relating to their children's education. If they are dismayed at the Bill, they should be listened to. This speech looks like developing into a Second Reading speech. I do not intend it to do so. Any amendments of this type that can be made to the Bill will help to allay the misgivings and anxieties of those involved. Parents are closely interested. Like everyone else, they are aware that their children's education depends on the teachers, and teachers will not give of their best if they are not happy and prepared to co-operate.
The institution of an appraisal system is totally dependent on teachers' co-operation. If they do not co-operate, that is one important field in which all our hopes will break down. I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is in no way destructive or wrecking and that it is worthy of support. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: After the more dramatic changes in relation to previous amendments which have been discussed, this is a modest little amendment, but it deserves the Committee's support. I do not wish to add at great length to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I think it is worth saying that this proposal fits in well with the present structure of the Bill. Under Clause 3(6) the Secretary of State would have the power before 1st October 1987 to impose a solution without going to or taking account of the views of the advisory committee. To insert the proposed provision for consultation on the membership of the advisory committee would in no way delay the immediate settlement which it is the Government's intention to impose. No teacher need have any fear that his pay packet will be affected by a single day as a result of this amendment.
I believe that the proposal is the minimum that could be put forward to reassure teachers, employers, parents and voluntary schools that there is some vestigial intention by the Government to pay attention to the concerns about education and the Bill which have been expressed.
A number of Members of the Committee have referred to the postbag they have received and the degree of concern which has been expressed in letters from individual teachers, groups of teachers, bodies representing parents and groups of parents in individual schools and, at a more official level, from the county organisations and the central lobby of the teachers' unions and the local authority associations.

1173
The least the Government should concede now is that the representatives of such people should be consulted about the advisory committee. I know that the Government do not like the suggestion that I made on Second Reading that the advisory committee could be the Secretary of State's poodle. If I am wrong, this is the Government's opportunity to show it.
Lord Renton: We should bear in mind that Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1), states:
"The Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than five or more than nine members."
It is unthinkable that the Secretary of State would not make careful inquiries before making such appointments. I must say that I like Amendment No. 9, tabled by my noble friend, which provides:
"The members of the Committee shall include persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education."
That is obviously what such members should be like.
If we make it a statutory provision that there should be consultation with representatives from the five bodies representing teachers, the local education authorities (the Welsh education authorities may want a separate consultation), the voluntary schools—I should have expected, in view of my interest in MENCAP, that special schools should also be among those consulted—parents, of whom there are several millions, and other interested parties, that is a tremendous volume of statutory consultation. I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that if we make this provision statutory a judicial review, which could hold things up, could be requested by anyone who claimed that he was one of the other interested parties.
Many parents may feel that the person whom they heard had been consulted as a representative of parents had not been consulted and therefore the matter could be held up. It could become a quite unnecessarily elaborate exercise. I should have thought that rather than specifying the consultations in the way that the amendment so innocently appears to do, we could be making a mistake and that honour will be satisfied and the right choices made by accepting the Government's Amendment No. 9 when we come to it.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the concerns about the composition of the advisory committee. It is of the utmost importance to get it right. However, most of us are agreed that the most important aspect of the advisory committee is that it should be independent. It should not represent various interests, each with its own self-interest, but should consist of independent minded people who can look at difficult problems objectively and come up with an appropriate and helpful solution. I am not convinced that the committee's independence would be enhanced by formal consultations about its membership such as are proposed by Amendment No. 5.
My right honourable friend has made it clear on many occasions that it is his intention to appoint independent minded members to the interim advisory committee as he has done with bodies such as the University Grants Committee, which performs a controversial task without evidence of political bias.
1174
He will take this responsibility seriously and consider any suggestions about membership which are put to him, whether from teachers, local education authorities, parents or others.
I trust that this assurance will go some way to allay the misgivings to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, referred. We therefore think that it is misconceived for the amendment to be pushed hard that members of the interim advisory committee should be there in any representational role or that there should be a requirement for formal consultation, which is the basis of Amendment No. 5.
However, in response to concerns that have been expressed both here during Second Reading and in the outside world, we are prepared to see inserted into the Bill the subsection which is contained in the Government's Amendment No. 9. It would require that members of the committee shall include persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education. Clearly an entirely independent component within the interim advisory committee will be very important for reasons of objectivity and the valuable comparative experience that it can provide. But we acknowledge at the same time that there will need to be included within its membership people having relevant knowledge of and experience in education. In view of this amendment offered by the Government, I trust that Members opposite will feel able either to withdraw their amendment or that the Committee will reject Amendment No. 5 and accept the Government's Amendment No. 9 when we come to it.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, decides what he will do about this amendment, in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, am I not right in thinking that the advisory committee is not due to come into any operational role until well after the current year's settlement, which I think I am right in saying is 1st October this year? In that case there would be plenty of time to trawl for opinion concerning its composition and to have it set up well in time for the purposes set out in the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord responds, surely the objections of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are entirely misconceived. There is no suggestion in this amendment that after consultation the members of the advisory committee should be representatives of the teachers, the parents or anybody else. It is simply that they should be consulted about the membership. Why should they not be consulted about the membership in this form? Would the noble Lord care to suggest independent people who have a knowledge of education in the terms of Amendment No. 9 who would be acceptable to him or to whose presence on the advisory committee he would not object?
This is not a very major amendment but it is a vestigial attempt to involve those who are most concerned with education in the setting up of the advisory committee. It forms no threat whatsoever to the Government's intentions.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord must have overlooked the fact that the amendment calls for consultation with representatives of these various people. That becomes a statutory requirement. They would therefore have to be properly constituted representatives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That could be on the basis that they were asked to suggest suitable independent members. That would be a minimum gesture by the Government to a democratic process.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is apparently intended that it should be, as my noble friend Lord Renton says, a statutory provision. Perhaps either the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches could tell me who is a suitable statutory representative of parents.
Lord Kilmarnock: It is right to say, as the noble Lord is well aware, that a body exists that has already been referred to during this Committee stage. That is the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations, with over 4 million members.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord tell the Committee what percentage of the parents in this country that rather aggressive body represents?
Lord Elton: I was going to ask the noble Lord again—if I can have his attention—whether if I were to set up an organisation to represent parents of my way of thinking I should then have the statutory right to be consulted. If any noble friend was to do the same thing, what is the criterion? Does it have to be a statutory body?
Baroness Hooper: The suggestion that this amendment is in any way necessary must be nonsense. Perhaps I can reassure any noble Lord in doubt. I draw attention to the fact that the Main Committee which looked at teachers' pay and conditions in Scotland included within its membership a head teacher and a former member of an education committee. It has been a much respected committee and no such formal requirement or limitation was placed on the Main Committee.
Perhaps I can respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the timing of the formation of the committee. On the basis of a further pay increase on 1st April 1988, the advisory committee would have to be established long enough in advance to be able to take its own first process of consultation very seriously and to make recommendations in time for the Secretary of State to have his consultations prior to 1st April next year. The committee will therefore need to be established by the early autumn, although it is a possibility that the name of the chairman of the advisory committee may be announced during the course of the summer.
Lord Parry: Am I wrong in thinking that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not find it necessary to dismantle the negotiating machinery?
Baroness Hooper: We are not talking about that. We are talking about the composition of the committee
1176
that was set up. We are proving that the possibility of choosing an independent committee lies there without any formal statutory requirement.
Lord Parry: The noble Baroness will understand that I was making the point that I should like to be in the same position as the people of Scotland.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have listened carefully to the arguments and would like to make some further points in response to them. My main reason for introducing this amendment is that in the present overheated and stressful state of affairs in the teaching profession many teachers and others involved will be greatly reassured by the very use of the word "consultation". It is the absence of the word and of the idea of consultation that is causing so much anxiety about this Bill. The mere suggestion of consultation at this stage would allay a great deal of anxiety. I accept that there would be difficulties about the many bodies that would have to be consulted. My idea is simply that the Secretary of State should use those bodies to get ideas. Where else will he look for ideas? They may just come out of his head. We have all turned to interested parties and asked, "Who do you suggest?" In effect, they will be nominating members of a committee. However, the Secretary of State does not have to follow the suggestions that are made.
I believe that the noble Baroness made reference to the Secretary of State undertaking that he would appoint an independent-minded body. That seems to me to be the vaguest and most indefinite phrase. Who is to decide whether or not a body is independent-minded? How will he know what is inside their minds? If he does, he may use it to his own purposes.
The amendment to be brought forward by the Minister which has already been mentioned—the amendment providing that the persons sitting on this committee should be those who are interested in education and have some knowledge and experience of it—is altogether too vague. All of us who are parents have had some experience of education and have some knowledge of it. What is to be the criterion of that?
In all the circumstances, I should like to pursue this matter and test the opinion of the Committee.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Falkender, B.

Beswick, L.

Fitt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brockway, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chitnis, L.

Grey, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

1177

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kennet, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stedman, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

Milford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mulley, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whaddon, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Northfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Oram, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Parry, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Ampthill, L.

Killearn, L.

Atholl, D.

Kimball, L.

Bauer, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Beloff, L.

Kintore, E.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boardman, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Layton, L.

Brentford, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Lurgan, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Manton, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nathan, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rugby, L.

Falmouth, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hives, L.

Suffield, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hood, V.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tranmire, L.

1178

Trefgarne, L.

Windlesham, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wynford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Young, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Westbury, L.

Ypres, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 16, after ("an") insert ("Interim").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the duration of the proposed enactment. We have already spoken about the matter this afternoon and therefore it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to the proposed committee as an "interim" committee and the words "interim" and "temporary" have been spoken many times in committee this afternoon. The drastic measures that the Bill proposes have been largely justified on the grounds of temporary expediency aimed at achieving an immediate peace in our classrooms before further damage is done. Noble Lords will be aware of the fact that a considerable amount of anxiety exists among teachers and education authorities and their representatives that the measures may become permanent, as have the portakabins in which they have to teach. Surely therefore it makes sense to have the temporary nature of the Bill proclaimed on the face of it at an early stage. I feel this would do much to allay mistrust and anxiety about the intentions of the Government. That is all I should like to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: It is true that we have always sought to emphasise the interim nature of the advisory committee and frequently refer to it as such. Therefore we are very happy to accept this amendment. There is a consequential amendment that may be required in Clause 6 to the definition of the term "advisory committee" which will then relate to any reference to the committee throughout the Bill. I suggest that we may be able to cope with this by tabling this evening a government amendment which could be dealt with tomorrow during the later stages of the Committee.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I accept that with thanks. I never quite know what to do in these circumstances; but I express my gratitude and appreciation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper: This may be a convenient moment to take a break in the proceedings. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Before that Motion is put, perhaps the noble Baroness can indicate whether or not we shall return to this particular business before 8 o'clock.
Baroness Hooper: I should have said that the break will be until 8 o'clock. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1986
7.3 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which concerns amending regulations that are laid under the powers contained in Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We have also taken the opportunity to make a small number of relatively minor changes to the fees scheme itself, in the light of our further experience of its operation.
It remains our view that we should take no drastic action to correct the shortfall on the planned 50 per cent. recovery but rather continue on the basis of staged increases. Given that the level of inflation has been progressively reduced, the increases proposed in this order will give a greater element of progress towards the 50 per cent. objective.
Under the arrangements comprised within this order an application for the erection of dwellinghouses, for example, will therefore be charged at £60 per dwellinghouse in the case of a full application, or an application for the approval of details, and £60 per 0.1 hectare of site area in the case of an outline application. In each case the figure will rise to £66 on and after 1st July 1987. The householder who wishes to extend his house will—assuming he requires specific planning permission—need to pay a fee of £30, and later £33, instead of £27. Applications for the erection of non-residential buildings, such as factories or offices, will incur a fee of £60, and later £66, per 75 square metres of floor space, and so on throughout the fees scale. The maximum fee at the cut-off point in each fee category with a sliding scale will be increased pro rata.
Turning to the other changes proposed in the amending regulations, they are required to make the scheme work in a fairer and more equitable manner. The first—and perhaps most substantive—change concerns applications for onshore oil and natural gas exploration, which are presently charged for at the rate of £27 for each 0.1 hectare of site area, subject to a maximum charge of £270. However, these applications often involve difficult technical and environmental issues, and the Association of County Councils have pressed for a substantial increase in fees for such applications, on the grounds that the income they receive leaves their members with much too high a share of the handling costs.
We therefore propose that a more realistic provision be made for oil and gas exploration applications. We propose a fee—at the first of the new rates—of £60 per 0.1 hectare of site area, subject to a maximum of £4,500 (the prescribed maximum for minerals operations generally). In practice we understand that few oil and gas exploration sites exceed one hectare in area, so that the normal maximum would be around £600; but there would be (as is not the case at present) provision for a higher charge in respect of larger sites.
1180
Following the second increase, the unit charge would rise to £66, and the maximum to £4,950.
The second change also concerns a minerals matter, but goes in the opposite direction by proposing a new category of exemption from fees in respect of applications for the consolidation of existing mineral working permissions. Mineral operators would often be willing to make an application for the consolidation of existing permissions, but are inhibited from doing so because the application would attract a fee of up to the maximum prescribed. This is at present £4,050, and it will be increased ultimately to £4,950, as I have said.
The proposal that such applications should be exempted from the payment of a fee is strongly supported by the CBI and the local authority associations, and we are happy to agree to it in the interests of securing comprehensive and up-to-date controls over existing mineral workings. Applications for new or extended workings will of course continue to be charged fees in the normal way.
The remaining changes we propose to make to the regulations are minor technical matters, and amount to little more than a fine-tuning of the existing fees scheme. One I should like to mention is that we are—perhaps better late than never—making specific provision for a local planning authority to refund the fee paid where an application is found to be invalid. Those who need to make use of the development control system should, we believe, continue to make a contribution towards its cost. These contributions help to reduce public expenditure because both rates and rate support grant can be reduced accordingly, and thus the burden of taxation on the community as a whole may be correspondingly reduced.
It remains our view that, even after taking into account the increases proposed in the amending regulations before the House, and the longer-term aim of moving towards a 50 per cent. development control costs recovery objective, fees for planning applications will continue to be modest—in some instances virtually negligible—in relation to the overall costs of the development which are the subject of the application. I commend the present amending regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee. ]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on this draft statutory instrument and for the explanations that he has given on some of the complicated matters involved. I am aware of the convention that abounds in the House on the question of statutory instruments and I certainly will not overstep the mark on that score. However, I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions.
The Minister and other noble Lords may recall that in 1983 there was no general welcome at all for these charges. Certainly in the world in which I lived, in those days if anything, there was opposition to these charges. The opposition was, first, on the general principle that some people felt that the introduction of yet another charge for local government services which ought to be provided by a local authority without

1181
charge was a retrograde step. We were always concerned about the deemed applications and there has not been general acceptance yet of that new animal that was increased then—deemed application.
At this moment we are certainly concerned about any increase in cost to home buyers, who would be the people applying for planning permission for extensions and for back additions because they have a family and the old house which they are buying is not big enough. Any extra cost on the people in those families is to be deprecated. It could be a disincentive to some people who might otherwise wish to improve a semi-derelict property. Therefore we want to register a criticism of the general costs in that respect.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions that he may be able to answer now. Has he any breakdown of the income derived generally from these charges? Has he any statistics on the administrative costs? I assume that the local authorities still collect these charges and administer them. Are the administrative charges calculated or charged against revenue before the abatement for any rate support grant is made by the Treasury?
Those are the few questions I should like to ask. I hope that the noble Lord can give me a reply before we finally pass this statutory instrument.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we also are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained this instrument to us. We are not opposed to the increased payments or the exemptions and remissions. They are in line with what was always uderstood were to be the phased increases, and this is one of them. I understand that the instrument has had a more or less non-controversial acceptance in another place. All parties were agreed on it. I hope that that applies tonight.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the charging of fees for planning applications has been the law of the land since 1980. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, says, that there was no general welcome in 1983. But since 1983, with the operation of the scheme, there has been no general consternation at it either. Therefore, I suggest that the principle of the fee scheme is past history.
The noble Lord asked what was going on at the moment. The latest figures of expenditure and fee income available to us, £106.5 million and £37.4 million respectively in 1985/86, show that we are still at 35 per cent. a fair way from the cost recovery objective which I told the House last year was what we all intended.
So far as rate support grant goes this will make no difference. The important point is that local authorities will get the money from whichever source. In other words, we are not in the Government being as hard hearted as I suspect the noble Lord was suggesting, in that we would reduce our rate support grant money first and expect the fees to come in afterwards. There is a pari passu situation.
I was asked about fees for house extensions. Many such matters would be exempt from the fee as permitted development under the general development order. But inevitably there will be some
1182
fees which will accrue in this situation. It has been the experience, as I understand it, of local planning authorities that officers of the various committees up and down the country have been asked for advice before the application has been put in.
The noble Lord also asked about invalidity. A planning application can be invalid for a variety of reasons, of which I shall name just two: that it is not in the proper form of application, or that there has been a failure to advertise to neighbours if that is required under that sort of application. It seems unfair to us, and indeed to the local planning authorities themselves, that fees should be charged in such circumstances.
So far as deemed applications are concerned, where enforcement action is taken and the developer appeals to my right honourable friend against the enforcement notice, he can grant planning permission for that particular development. It is only right that the fee should then be payable as it would have been if a proper planning application had been made in the first place.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her general welcome of this order. I think in answering the points raised by the noble Lord, I have probably answered the one point she raised. Unless any noble Lord has further questions, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.16 until 8 p.m.]

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("or as they may consider relevant").
The noble Lord said: We should like to add the words,
"or as they may consider relevant",
to the clause as it stands. We are of the opinion that if the committee is to make a useful contribution to solving problems—and incidentally if it is to have any self-respect as a committee—it must have the freedom to range outside its immediate terms of reference into territories, one might say, which are adjacent to the problem.
It may well not be possible to solve one problem without considering another. In this connection other amendments are linked with this. We feel that the same principle applies; the wording of the Bill should avoid unnecessary authoritarianism. This is an example, and the committee should be given the freedom to consider matters other than those immediately referred to it by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: If I may, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11, 12B, 13A, 23 and 24. I understand the intention behind these amendments, which is to broaden the remit of the advisory committee—if not perhaps to turn it into an independent review body as proposed in an earlier amendment, but by the back door. But doing so could prove counter-productive in terms of what the committee can achieve.
The first amendment, No. 7, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, referred, would effectively allow the advisory committee indefinitely to extend its remit over teachers' pay and conditions. For the long-term machinery that eventually emerges it may be desirable that all aspects of teachers' pay and conditions should be examined as necessary. But let us not forget that we have all agreed this evening that the advisory committee is an interim arrangement.
As was agreed by many at Second Reading, the advisory committee's function is to help clear up the mess left by the discredited Burnham machinery. To achieve this the committee needs terms of reference which define the key aspects of teachers' pay and conditions that it will consider. I hope that your Lordships' Committee will agree that there should be no risk of the committee coming under pressure from outside interests in such a way as to delay its report and a resolution of the problems referred to it. The Secretary of State's power to define the committee's remit is intended to help guide it and to enable its work to be appropriately focused.
Amendment No. 23 is consequential, requiring as it does that the committee's report should contain its recommendations on any matters it considers relevant. This again we believe will tend to extend and delay the committee's work in an undesirable fashion, as also would Amendment No. 24.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12B, the noble Lord's amendment recognises that the advisory committee's remit needs to take into account the financial position of local authorities. With that we are certainly in agreement. From 1965 to July 1985, a concordat operated, as has been said, giving the Secretary of State a veto over the global sum and a weighted vote on the Burnham management panel. The provision in the Bill reflects the position before the concordat was unilaterally repudiated by the Labour-controlled local authorities.
Even under the concordat which operated within Burnham the Government's role was wider ranging than the noble Lord's amendment recognises. It allowed the Secretary of State to exercise a veto; not simply to inform the Burnham Committee of financial constraints. The Government believe that for the interim period a more precise power to give directions is needed. The committee will need to operate within a realistic framework of what is affordable and it may well aid realism in its recommendations if it is given some indication of any financial constraints.
Whether or not my right honourable friend gives a direction to the advisory committee about financial constraints to which it is to have regard will depend on the circumstances at the time. The provison in the Bill would allow any direction to be in the form of a general reference to affordability or guidelines about
1184
an overall quantum. Merely to give the Secretary of State a duty to inform the committee of financial constraints and a time limit would be inadequate and would make nonsense of his other powers and duties under the Bill.
Amendment No. 13A sets out rather a strange procedure. The purpose of the committee is to examine carefully matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, to consult, to take evidence and then to report. But here it is suggested that the committee should fire off a response as soon as it gets the reference. That seems most inappropriate to say the least. Members opposite need have no fear. The committee will have ample opportunity to make plain its opinion of the matters referred to it or of the directions given to it to the Secretary of State and to the world. It is to report to the Secretary of State, and that report is to be published. The committee will include in that report anything it wants to say about the matters referred to it and any advice relating to those matters, as members may think appropriate. Therefore, the procedure in this amendment is unnecessary and I ask your Lordships' Committee to reject it.
I also ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 12B, 23 and 24 for all the reasons I have given and especially because we want the advisory committee during its short existence to work efficiently and effectively, unencumbered by all the additional duties and requirements which Members opposite seek to introduce in this series of amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 12B and 13A grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, which I entirely support. I think that the noble Baroness has given a rather misleading impression of the purport and impact of those two amendments in our names. The first, in the context of the financial or other constraints, seeks to change the wording from:
"to which their recommendations are to be subject,"
to:
"which they may take into account in their recommendations".
There is plenty of provision for the Secretary of State in the end to impose such financial constraints as he thinks fit on the final settlement of teachers' pay and conditions. There is no conflict or disagreement on that. It was provided for in a series of amendments on the national joint council which I moved this afternoon. But it seems churlish, to say the least, to introduce onto the face of the Bill financial or other constraints to which the committee's recommendations are to be subject.
This is only an advisory committee. It is not a departmental committee working under the terms of reference that the noble Baroness seems to think are appropriate. If the advisory committee has any meaning whatsoever and we are not to have what perhaps this should be, a one clause Bill saying that the Secretary of State shall do what he likes—for that is what it comes down to in the end—if it is to have any self-respect, it ought not to be burdened with phrases such as:
"their recommendations are to be subject".
Having been appointed, the advisory committee

1185
should do what it thinks fit and the Secretary of State will do what he thinks fit, and that is what the Bill provides.
The noble Baroness seemed to think Amendment No. 13A was curious and that the committee should publish a response as soon as it received any direction. The amendment does not say that. It says:
"The Committee may after the making of any reference … publish any response which they may wish to make, and any such response shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State".
Anybody who knows anything about the establishment of advisory committees or other committees of government knows that government manipulate them by manipulating the terms of reference. This manipulation is particularly effective because, by the time the committee comes to report, whether it is months or years later, the restrictions in the terms of reference which distort the activities of the committee—and this is not a habit confined to this Government: all governments do it—are entirely forgotten. The fact that the committee cannot do a sensible job under its terms of reference can only be referred to at the time of the final report of the committee.
What the amendment suggests is that if the Secretary of State—heaven forbid!—is setting unnecessarily restrictive terms of reference for his advisory committee, it should be entitled to say so, not as soon as it receives them but as soon as it is ready to do so. It should be able to say that the terms of reference which the committee has been asked to consider do not seem to enable its members to do the kind of job they think they ought to be doing in order to advise the Secretary of State.
These are modest amendments, but I think they are worthwhile.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: In these amendments, as well as in a number of others, what those of us who have moved amendments are bearing in mind is the public image. I know that many people are concerned about the authoritarian, almost dictatorial, tone of some of the provisions of the Bill. If that could be avoided, the Bill would commend itself much more readily to those it is going to affect.
I was thinking as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was speaking, of the words in Clause 2(3)—
"The Secretary of State may give directions".
This demeans the committee in that it will have directions given to it. It is told what to have regard to and told of other constraints, not merely financial ones. I want to know what other constraints will be involved. It is also said that there are to be constraints to which the committee's recommendations are subject. Again, it is being put into the position of mere underlings or puppets, who do just what the Secretary of State demands and no more.
It is for that reason that we have moved these amendments. In the circumstances however I suppose that we have to accept the position and to be content with the assurance from the Government that these arrangements are going to be temporary. However we would like to reserve the right to come back at Report stage with further amendments to the same effect. In
1186
the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert, ("or as may be referred to the committee by one or more of the Local Education Authorities").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. We are still in the modest amendment business. We are saying that with all the powers which the Secretary of State has over the appointment of the advisory committee—and those powers are absolute, with the very, very minor restriction proposed under Amendment No. 9—it should not only be the Secretary of State who makes references to the advisory committee. It could not conceivably limit the scope of action of the advisory committee if our amendment, which provides for reference to the committee by local education authorities, were agreed to.
Similarly, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which provide that it should take into account considerations referred to it by the Secretary of State or the associations representing local education authorities or the recognised organisations representing school teachers, and publish an annual report, could not conceivably limit the scope of action of the advisory committee if they were agreed to.
Also, it would not seriously limit the committee's course of action if, in accordance with Amendment No. 13, the various parties should refer matters concerning the remuneration and other conditions of school teachers in England and Wales with equal authority to the references made by the Secretary of State. This imposes no particular duties on the advisory committee. It does not restrict the course, substance or content of debate. What it does is to make sure without any doubt whatever that the committee lives in the real education world. As the Bill stands and as the provisions for the advisory committee stand, it could retreat to the Isle of Man or the island of Sark and carry out its deliberations entirely without reference to the views of those involved in education.
These amendments represent modest attempts to see that attention is paid to those who are responsible for the employment and the conduct of education in our community. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I should like to support the amendment for a very simple reason. I have no doubt that this Bill will go through. That seems quite obvious to me. Perhaps the only issue on which there might be some movement is making sure that the temporary nature of the Bill, which so many Members on this side of the Committee have stressed, is quite definitely temporary.
However, there is another important consideration. If the Bill is to go through, it is surely desirable that we should avoid what might be called "aggravation" to the teachers' associations or the local authorities. This seems to me to be an aggravation. It is virtually saying,

1187
"You do not matter: I, as the Secretary of State, will decide everything."
This amendment would soften that approach. I do not think it would do any harm to the essential nature of the Bill but it might make it a little more acceptable to those who are now so bitterly opposed to it.
Baroness Hooper: These amendments may indeed be modest and we do want to avoid any aggravation, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has just referred to it. However, I must repeat what has been said on many occasions. The Secretary of State's door is open and he is very happy to receive contacts from the organisations that have been referred to.
In fact Amendment No. 7A would mean that the advisory committee could be required to report on 105 different matters, since each local authority as well as the Secretary of State would be able to refer matters to it for a report. I do not think that either the committee or teachers would thank noble Lords for that.
As many of your Lordships agreed at Second Reading, the advisory committee is an interim arrangement which is needed to replace for an interim period the existing Burnham machinery. For this interim function, the committee needs terms of reference which are not infinitely variable but which will define the key aspects to teachers' pay and conditions that it will consider.
The Secretary of State's power to define the committee's remit should help to guide it in this difficult task and enable it to work with an appropriate focus. For this purpose there must be a single, coherent source of terms of reference for the committee and it is surely right that that source should be the Secretary of State.
On Amendment No. 12, the Opposition again seem most anxious to load work onto the advisory committee. Here they want it to publish an annual report on considerations referred to it or on other matters which it considers relevant. Perhaps that is why they seek to remove the Secretary of State's power to set a time limit for the committee's reports to him on matters which he refers to it. The committee will have so much to do that its reports will be indefinitely delayed if this amendment goes through.
The amendment also seeks to make the committee take account of considerations referred to it by associations of LEAs or by teacher organisations. That seems entirely redundant. Associations of LEAs and teacher organisations already have the right to submit evidence and representations to the committee. In their evidence they will presumably include any considerations which they think the committee should take into account. Under the general principles of administrative law the committee will then be obliged to take them into account so long as they are relevant.
The amendment would also deprive the Secretary of State of the power to give directions to the committee, including directions about financial constraints. But the Government believe, as I said, that for the interim period a power to give directions is needed.
Turning to Amendment No. 13, if this were to be passed the committee could be deluged not only with
1188
a multiplicity of references but with conflicting references. In this interim period the advisory committee will need clear guidance about the matters it is to consider. No doubt teacher unions and local authorities will let the Secretary of State know their views, but we believe that it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters are considered. When the Secretary of State asks the advisory committee to consider the pay for school teachers, say, for April 1988, it would be absurd if the teacher unions could refer the question of whether there should be a pay increase also for May 1988. I hope that Members of the Committee will feel it necessary to reject these amendments.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may say one thing to her which has worried me throughout this discussion. She said that the Secretary of State's door is open and he is willing to listen, consider and take advice from all kinds of people. I accept that the present Secretary of State has been doing that since he has been in post. But in the lifetime of this Bill, no matter what it is, as it is at present or as it is proposed at present, there could be one or two Secretaries of State. I have known Secretaries of State whose door has not always been open.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the noble Lord's concern, but in view of the debate which has taken place and the points which have been made from all sides of the Committee, and indeed from outside the House, I think that any Secretary of State must take into account the need to consult and take evidence and have his door open.
Baroness Lockwood: On all sides of the Committee today we have been agreed that it is a good thing that teachers' pay and conditions should be taken together and that they should be negotiated together. The Secretary of State is not the employing body. It is the local education authorities that will be the employing body and will therefore have to enforce the employment contract covering conditions of service as well as pay.
The noble Baroness mentioned the number of areas which could be referred to the advisory committee, but I remind her that the advisory committee is on school teachers' pay and conditions. It is quite possible that the local authorities will have information relating to conditions of pay that would be unkown to the Secretary of State. It is not the same thing to say to local authorities, "The Secretary of State's door is open. You can go and talk to him". They are responsible for enforcing the contract. Therefore they surely should have a right to be able to refer areas which concern them and about which they are worried to the advisory committee.
Baroness Hooper: That is why there is provision in the Bill for the local education authorities and representatives of the teachers to give evidence or to be required to give evidence to the advisory committee as well as to the Secretary of State. I think there are two stages in which these bodies have the opportunity to make their views well known. I believe that those opportunities are adequate within the Bill as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would not dream of accusing the noble Baroness herself, but the brief with which she has been supplied seems to me to smack of paranoia. The horrible effects which she anticipates as a result of these amendments—which she herself called modest—could not possibly be taken seriously. For example, if we give powers to one or more local education authority to refer matters to the committee, that does not mean the committee has to make 105 reports because there are 105 education committees.
Committees of any sort—we shall come to the matter of their secretariat on a later amendment—will take very good care that they analyse, rationalise and bring together the evidence submitted and other matters referred to them. They will make reports in such form as they think fit to the Secretary of State without feeling under any obligation to frame their report around any single individual reference by an individual education authority.
The point about this part of Clause 2 is that the only power to refer any matter to the committee is in the hands of the Secretary of State. Therefore, any provision which makes the committee give notice of that matter to education authorities or to teachers' organisations so that they can be consulted is subordinate to the fundamental impropriety—I put it no less strongly than that—of saying that only the Secretary of State can make a reference to a committee of this sort.
An annual report is by no means a delaying tactic. There is no objection whatsoever to the committee acting speedily. What we are saying is that the committee may from time to time have a number of different matters referred to it for consideration. It is in the public interest that everybody should know what view the committee is taking and what consideration it is giving to the various matters which have been referred to it and which it is considering.
Finally, the question of reference to the organisations representing school teachers and to the associations of local authorities having equal authority and the reference made by the Secretary of State is, I think, consequential on what I have already said. It is an attempt to give credibility to the activities of the committee, to give the Secretary of State the kind of support from his own advisory committee which he would be well advised to wish for, and to avoid, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, correctly said, the kind of aggravation which is implicit in the way in which this clause is framed.
However, we are dealing with an advisory committee which we do not want in the circumstances of a Bill which we do not want. It would be inappropriate to pursue the matter and seek to divide the Committee on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7B:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("after consultation with such organisations representing teachers as may appear to him to be concerned").
The noble Lord said: This is another attempt in more general terms to seek reference to organizations
1190
representing teachers. After what has taken place in the last 15 minutes it is sufficient for me to say that the case has been made for organisations representing teachers to be consulted. It is almost impossible for me to conceive of what objection there could be by the Government to such consultation. Consultation rather than negotiation is their chosen way of proceeding.
It is left to the Secretary of State to say what teachers' organisations he thinks should be concerned. Therefore there can be none of the problems which arose when we considered the composition of a national joint council. I end with this question. What consultation do the Government propose to have and what organisations of teachers would the Secretary of State wish to be consulted by the advisory committee? I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a word in support of this amendment. Being in close touch with teachers as I am most of the time, I know the state of mind that they are in at the moment. I also know that any such concession as this, knowing that they will be consulted, would be some balm to their hurt feelings. I cannot see that any harm could be done by it. I think that they would be reassured to know that there was at least to be consultation on the decisions of the Secretary of State in this connection.
Baroness Hooper: I can inform the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the objection in this instance is that the amendment would introduce yet another round of consultations. The wording of the Bill is perfectly clear. It is for the Secretary of State to decide what matters are referred to the advisory committee. I am sure that the teacher unions and the local authority associations will not hesitate to make their views known to the Secretary of State about matters that they feel should be referred to the advisory committee. Indeed there is no limitation upon the associations and organisations that may do this.
Therefore the Secretary of State will be making decisions about matters that he will refer to the advisory committee in the knowledge of any views that are expressed by the teacher unions or the local authority associations. I stress that my right honourable friend has emphasised the fact that he is prepared to see individually or collectively any such bodies.
However, we are not persuaded that there is any need for statutory consultations, as I said earlier. The context in which consultation is important is in the period between the receipt of an advisory committee report and decisions by the Secretary of State on what is to be included in the consequent order which will then be laid before Parliament. We feel that this is quite adequate and we hope that this amendment too will be rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Needless to say we are disappointed with that response. We have failed to achieve any concessions whatsoever in the terms of reference of the committee. It is entirely the preserve

1191
of the Secretary of State to make any references he wants. He is not even obliged now, if we take in what the noble Baroness said, to pay attention to the views of teachers.
The noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will listen to teachers. He could hardly have avoided that. The teachers will ensure that he listens to their views. But what we were seeking was slightly more than that he should listen to their views, or that he should hear their views, which I suppose is more accurate, and would actually consult them. The provisions in the Bill are a recipe for confrontation between the teacher unions, the local authorities and the Secretary of State. Everything that we hear from the Government in response to the modest and reasonable amendments which are being put forward to try to improve the situation confirms that point of view.
The teachers, the employing authorities, the parents and everybody concerned with education will take that message away from this evening's debate. It is a tragic situation that we find ourselves in. The Government are inflexible and unable to take account of the reasonable changes which are proposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7C:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("after the making of an Order the draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: I am not much of a one for team games. I do not know about positions on the cricket field, in American football or wherever it may be, but whatever is behind the wicket keeper, and perhaps behind the longstop, we have failed in everything else. But could the Secretary of State not agree that the reference to the appointment of the advisory committee should be subject to the sovereignty of Parliament, to a final decision by both Houses of Parliament? At the very least that would ensure that the Secretary of State, who presumably can command majorities in both Houses, has to put in writing and explicitly an order giving effect to his wishes. It would presumably mean that there was an opportunity for the legality and propriety of such an order to be examined, if necessary by a joint committee. The amendment does not provide at all for such an order to be amended; and I can see that the Secretary of State would wish to avoid debate on amendments to his order.
But for Parliament to have the ultimate say in a matter of this kind, which affects the lives of so many people, and which in every other way is removed from their responsiblities except through their representatives in Parliament, is not an unreasonable request. I hope that the Government, having rejected everything else, will look with a little more sympathy on this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord once again, but as things stand both
1192
Houses will have every opportunity to consider the Government's decisions as they emerge from the advisory committee arrangements, and the Secretary of State will have to secure the explicit authority of both Houses for any decision which is other than in accordance with the committee's recommendations.
It would, we feel, be both cumbersome and unnecessary to add to these very proper safeguards the further requirements proposed by Amendments Nos. 7C and 12A, which provide that explicit parliamentary authority should be secured both for the initial reference of any matter to the committee and for the terms of that reference. Surely the best course is to give the independent advisory committee the opportunity to consider matters referred to it in a dispassionate way, unclouded by sharp political controversy which could only reduce the prospects of recommendations emerging which could command the support of all those concerned. I therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments also.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like to support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for two reasons. The Government are continuously doing things by negative resolution, which reduces the power of Parliament again and again. It is all part of the Tory Party's arbitrary, centralising way of dealing with matters. The noble Baroness said that it is sufficient that the Secretary of State does not vary the recommendations from the committee. Then he can just put them through. We feel that this gives practically no say whatever to anybody, except the Secretary of State and this committee which is to be set up from people of his choosing. This is a totally unsatisfactory way of dealing with matters of this very great importance and it will only reinforce the feeling of the teachers; the bad feeling that the Government have generated by pushing this Bill through.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise to the Committee for not having referred to Amendment No. 12A when I moved Amendment No. 7C. The noble Baroness was quite right to remind the Committee that the orders which we are proposing should be required both after setting up the committee and in consideration of the constitution and procedures of the committee. The two amendments very properly go together and I ought to have introduced them at the same time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right. This is another example of a Conservative Government giving full rein to their centralist tendencies. They have no intention whatsoever of securing even that the advisory committee of the Secretary of State has any independent credibility. There is no intention whatsoever of seeing to it that Parliament has an opportunity to express a view on the composition, the constitution or the terms of reference of the committee. If I were Secretary of State, I should wish Parliament to take such a view.
There is no desperate hurry and there is no terrible delay caused by the affirmative resolution procedure. An order could very well be made, debated and voted

1193
upon by both Houses of Parliament. It having been debated and, if necessary, voted upon, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be immensely strengthened in convincing the country that the advisory committee was truly independent and—I shall gladly give way.
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord enlighten me? He is making so much of the reference to Parliament and the authority it gives that it is important for us to understand. As I understand it, the Secretary of State is already required to obtain the authority of Parliament, either tacitly if he is going with the committee or explicitly if he is going without it. That is in the Bill as it is drafted. Why is it such a staggering lack of sense and reasonableness on the part of my noble friend if she will not require him to do it twice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is very simple. It is the other end of the process. The reference to Parliament is only by negative order and affirmative procedure, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly says, when the committee reports. We are talking here about the time when the committee is established and when its composition and terms of reference are being considered.
Lord Elton: I can see no grouped amendment which deletes the second reference to Parliament. Is the whole thing to be debated by both Houses of Parliament twice? Is that not an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First of all, the two amendments provide that the appointment of the advisory committee, which is contained in Clause 2(1), shall be subject to an order,
"the draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Under Amendment No. 12A, in Clause 2(2) the constitution and proceedings of the committee are described as also being,
"after the making of an Order, the draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
There is no reason why the two orders should not be taken together, as orders frequently are in this Chamber and in another place. There are times when we have half a dozen social security amendment orders coming up at the same time and being debated concurrently. We should have a single debate and a pair of orders at the time when the advisory committee is established and at a time when its constitution and—
Lord Elton: I think we are at cross-purposes. I am not talking about those two orders but rather the pair of orders referred to as being debated once. I believe that has been done together. We have in the Bill as now drafted the requirement that the Secretary of State shall go to Parliament at the end of the process under Clause 3. The noble Lord does not propose to delete that, so presumably we have a pair of orders and then the individual order after that to be debated again. That seems to me to be an excessive use of parliamentary time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But these orders could be many months apart. The constitution and the setting up of the committee takes place at one time; the committee then deliberates and the decision of the committee is communicated to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State then agrees with the committee's decisions, he uses the negative resolution procedure, and if he disagrees he uses the affirmative procedure. These amendments concern what happens when the committee is constituted and not when it reports.
Lord Elton: I am sorry to detain the Committee. Perhaps my noble friend can put me right. I understood that Clause 2(3) referred to directions which the Secretary of State could give on any individual case and that that is the beginning of each process. When there is a reference to the committee, the Secretary of State will give directions as to what the committee can then consider. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting that there is one sort of direction as soon as the committee is set up and thereafter, no matter how many references there may be to it, there will be no new directions. That is not as I understood it.
Perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether there will be one set of directions or a series of directions. If there is to be a direction each time there is a reference, then my question to the noble Lord remains as it was. There will be directions, an order, a debate on a pair of orders, and then the committee will consider and make its report. The Secretary of State will then have to go back to Parliament for another order and another debate. It seems silly to ask Parliament to debate three orders on two occasions to get one direction agreed.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no doubt that the Minister will confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is correct in his interpretation of the text of the Bill and that my Amendment No. 12A does require that each time the Secretary of State gives directions to the committee there should be the order procedure. However, if the Secretary of State has any concern whatsoever for the stability and self-respect of the education system in this country surely he is not going to be constantly giving directions to his own advisory committee.
The advisory committee is concerned with the pay and the conditions of teachers. Those are not matters which are reconsidered on changing references or directions every 10 minutes or even every three months or six months. The Secretary of State must establish a settled policy with regard to the way in which he wants to consider the pay and conditions of teachers. He must not go on changing it. There must not be continued references to the advisory committee which change the way in which it goes about its work, which confuse the teachers, which confuse the education authorities and which make it impossible for it to work in a consistent way.
A reference or direction once a year is surely quite enough for an advisory committee of this sort, and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to see to it that his mind is clear before he makes a direction. In those

1195
circumstances, I fail to see that this is an impossible burden on Parliament. It is simply considering at not more than annual intervals the directions given to the advisory committee, making observations on them and, if necessary, saying that they are not satisfactory and are not meeting the requirement.
I am afraid that I think the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to my amendments are relatively trivial in relation to the rather signficant matters which are referred to in them. This is a matter in which, were it not for the hour, I should strongly feel obliged to take the opinion of the Committee. I believe that when the record of this debate is studied the Government will be seen to have been totally intransigent. They have made no concessions whatsoever to the feelings of those involved in the education service. It may be that we shall find some better way of expressing our views and ask that the House as a whole expresses an opinion at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I think that in the circumstances it is better for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("provided that no matter shall be referred to the Committee which is the subject of any agreement reached after negotiation between teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers").
The noble Lord said: It has been suggested that this amendment should be grouped with Amendment No. 21. However, looking at the content of the two amendments, I think that it is better for this one to be treated by itself.
This is another approach to the question of the advisory committee acting in a responsible way. It was stated by a number of noble Lords on the government side at Second Reading that the existence of an advisory committee did not stop negotiations taking place between employers and teachers. The only thing that it stopped was the obligation upon the Secretary of State to take notice of the negotiations and the power of the negotiations to have any legal effect. It may well be that there will be negotiations taking place between teachers and local authorities, not so much on pay (because that is so clearly in the hands of the Secretary of State) but rather on conditions of service. There may be matters which the teachers' unions and the local authorities wish to discuss and negotiate with each other as regards amendments to conditions of service. Although pay negotiations should not change more frequently than every year, conditions of service are not immutable.
The worst conceivable matter would be if negotiations were taking place in good faith between teachers and employers on such matters and the advisory committee, on the direction of the Secretary of State, were to intervene while the discussions were taking place and the Secretary of State were to have the ability to refer to the committee matters which were the subject of any agreements reached after negotiation with the employers and the organisations representing school teachers.
It is not affording a very great status to those negotiations to say that the work done in the negotiations and the agreement reached in the negotiations should not be duplicated by the advisory committee. That in effect is a possibility unless this amendment is taken into account by the Government. It could be used by a Secretary of State—not of course by this Secretary of State—as a way of intervening quite improperly and unnecessarily in voluntary agreements reached between teachers and their employers. I suggest to the Committee that that would be most undesirable and that this amendment is a way to avoid that possibility. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is a quite substantial amendment because it would deprive the Secretary of State of the possibility of referring to the advisory committee any matter which had been agreed between organisations representing teachers and local authorities. It is precisely in that kind of situation that, before making up his mind what he is going to do, the Secretary of State might well wish to have the views of the advisory committee.
I can see no justification whatever for excluding the possibility of his referring to the advisory committee any matter simply because it has been agreed between the teachers and the local authorities. Indeed, there is a point of drafting. The amendment refers to,
"organisations representing school teachers".
Does that mean all organisations, or would the Secretary of State be excluded if one or two organisations—there are at least six organisations, as the noble Lord knows, in the field at the moment—had agreed with the local authorities and others had not? The noble Lord knows that that is a reality. The head teachers and the secondary masters' organisation are very often in disagreement with the organisations representing large numbers of teachers at lower levels. On one reading of this amendment, even an agreement with some of those organisations would exclude reference by the Secretary of State. On the broad issue it must surely be wrong to deprive the Secretary of State of any opportunity of taking advantage of the views of the advisory committee simply because some of these organisations had come to an agreement.
Lord Belstead: I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Indeed for once I would go further than my noble friend and say that I think it is difficult to see how the situations which this amendment apparently envisages could actually arise unless noble Lords opposite are looking to a world in which there would be no role at all for the Secretary of State. Where then would the money come from? What is the meaning which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, attaches to the word "agreement"? Are the noble Lords sponsoring this amendment looking at a situation like that which has arisen recently in the Burnham Committee in which the local authorities and some of the teacher unions have reached a consensus on a course of action which they know my right honourable friend cannot accept? It is precisely because it has not proved possible to reach an agreement which is supported by the local education authorities, all the unions and the Government that

1197
the Government have been obliged to bring forward this Bill. I am afraid that this amendment would be a recipe for continued disagreement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I seem to recall that during the Second Reading debate a number of noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber made it quite clear that for the Government there was nothing in the Bill which prevented the teachers' unions from negotiating to their heart's content, if I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at col. 399. In this amendment all we seek to do is to assure teachers' organisations which are going to be sufficiently resentful of the Bill as it now stands that that is the position. I do not see why this amendment cannot be supported by the Committee for the sake of assuring teachers who will feel a great deal of resentment about the way in which the Bill has been introduced that there is still an opportunity for negotiations as was assured during the Second Reading debate.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps this is the moment just to say that we have been listening for the past three quarters of an hour to a catalogue of criticism against the Bill and the resentment which it will cause. Let us be absolutely clear about one matter before we go any further this evening. The fact that pay and conditions for teachers have never been negotiated together is extremely unusual. When I made a speech on the first amendment this afternoon I said that an agreement of the Burnham Committee was that in 1981 a working party should be set up to try to get a better structure for teachers' pay.
However it is fair to say that a lot of people had been extremely worried before 1981 that one could not bring pay and conditions together. It really is extraordinary that in the six years since 1981—and, as I said, the concern goes back further than that—and despite the fact that genuine attempts have been made by people in the teachers' unions and among the employers and with the Government, it has not been possible to bring about a proper pay structure for teachers and also to bring that together with pay and conditions, although as we all know we have gone some way down the road with regard to conditions.
It is no good noble Lords opposite chiding the Government that this Bill is in some way going to cause resentment. Something had to be done. We have had two pretty fatuous amendments this afternoon from Members of the Committee opposite. Amendment No. 1 was very heavily defeated and was shown to be heavily defective. Then we had Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. If noble Lords on the Alliance Benches will forgive me for saying so, Amendment No. 4 was so riven with impossibilities that it was almost laughed out of court and was not even put to the Committee. We have a Bill which at least does something. One of the important things it does is that it makes it possible for teachers who quite rightly believe that they ought to have a very generous pay settlement in their pockets, to be paid with the money in their pockets and it would give a chance, in contra-distinction to what has been said about resentment, for everybody to just think for a bit and to try to bring some sensible negotiating arrangements into being in the future. There are two points of view
1198
about this Bill. I and many other noble Lords in this Chamber believe that the Bill will serve the teaching profession well.
Baroness Seear: I must intervene to protest against the statement by the Minister that Amendment No. 4 was so absurd that it was laughed out of court and was not even moved. It contained a great many ideas, some of which were difficult for people to take on board as I fully understand. Perhaps when they have read what we said they will understand it better than they understood it when it was put forward this afternoon. It had never been our intention to move it, and we intend to put it down again in greater detail at Report. At that time perhaps the Government Front Bench will understand it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: Perhaps I may add that during that exposition of the amendment the Committee was very far from laughing. I noticed that noble Lords were extremely attentive and I do not think it would be at all accurate to describe it as having been nearly laughed out of court.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: As I understand it, there is no question of opposition to teachers' pay and conditions being negotiated together. That has been agreed by the teachers and the local authorities. I entirely agree that the teachers have not accepted it in earlier years, as I know to my cost. I tried 20 years ago to get them to agree. But they have now agreed. Therefore I cannot see that that constitutes a problem.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the Minister should have been driven to over-react in that way. The use of the word "fatuous" regarding amendments seriously moved and seriously debated for a number of hours in the Committee is unusual to say the least. I can only assume that the noble Lord has been driven to it by the tunnel vision from which he suffers in relation to the negotiations that have taken place over the past year. Of course it is true that Burnham as such, the official machinery, has not come up with a way to deal with pay and conditions of service at the same time. That is excluded by the legal statutory constitution of Burnham.
What did happen in 1986 was that the reference to ACAS produced not only agreement as to how pay and conditions of service shall be dealt with at the same time but an actual agreement on pay and conditions of service confirmed by a majority on each side in the Burnham Committee on 7th January. If the noble Lord does not recognise those facts he is ignoring a large part of recent history in teachers' pay negotiations.
For the noble Lord to say that because an amendment has been heavily defeated it is therefore defective is illogical. If he reads the record he will find that the accusation of defects against our first group of amendments holds very little water.
I readily acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the present amendment is defective. I recognise that he is correct in saying that to refer to "organisations" without saying "the

1199
organisations" or "recognised organisations", or something of that nature, means that the scope for excluding matters from reference to the committee is very wide indeed and could be damaging. Certainly, there is no possibility of my proceeding with the amendment as it is at present worded. However, I remind the Committee, coming back to the question of what matters should be referred to the advisory committee, that the whole justification for the Bill is that negotiations cannot succeed. For the advisory committee to intervene when negotiations have succeeded and when agreements have been reached appears to me to be totally at variance with the public statements of the Government, as, indeed, is so much of the present Bill.
If we can table an amendment at a later stage which properly reflects the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that the Government will see the sense behind it and agree that it is undesirable for the advisory committee to duplicate or ride roughshod over proper agreements, properly reached between employers and employees. However, because of the defects, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The members of the Committee shall include persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 5. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not wish to detain the Committee. We dealt with this amendment as a consequential amendment to an earlier amendment. But it is proper to ask the Government what they mean by "persons". Does that mean two persons other than the minimum of five and the maximum of nine who have,
"relevant knowledge of or experience in education"?
The amendment is phrased so broadly that it appears to have no significant effect. Surely, anyone who is appointed to this advisory committee should have,
"relevant knowledge of or experience in education."
It is impossible to envisage how the Secretary of State would wish to appoint anyone else. Instead of saying "shall include persons", the Government should be saying "should consist of persons".
Baroness Hooper: If it helps the noble Lord, I can say that "persons" means more than one person. I think I made it fairly clear in my earlier intervention that we feel that an entirely independent component within the interim advisory committee will be very important for reasons of objectivity and the wider experience that this can offer. Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary to have the committee consisting exclusively of educationalists. We would welcome other points of view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The phrase "knowledge of or experience in" does not mean
1200
educationalists. I accept that "experience in" means educationalist although it could mean ex-educationalist. "Knowledge of" means the absolute minimum qualification which a person should have to consider the matter.
I do not wish to pursue the matter and I do not invite the noble Baroness to reply but she did not give a satisfactory answer. The wording of the amendment is not satisfactory if there is no distinction between the two.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("including rights to submit evidence and make representations").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of amendments that attempt to give genuinely modest rights to those concerned with education. This amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 20, 70 and 71. It suggests that the constitution and proceedings of the committee shall include,
"rights to submit evidence and make representations".
Amendment No. 70 proposes a new paragraph under Schedule 1 providing for evidence and representations submitted,
"by any of the local authority associations or organisations representing school teachers, or any organisation of parents or of churches involved in the provision of education".
That collection of people who might give evidence or give representations is repeated in Amendment No. 71.
The amendments do not affect the composition of the committee. They do not affect the terms of reference of the committee. They do not affect the rights in any way of the Secretary of State. They simply seek to ensure in the schedule that the committee shall go about its job in a proper way.
If we had received any assurance from the Government's reaction to previous amendments that they are willing to listen to the rights of those involved in education, vis-à-vis the advisory committee, I would withdraw these amendments without the slightest hesitation. They should not be necessary. It should not be the case that we have to draw the Government's attention to the need for the advisory committee—which the Secretary of State has appointed at his own whim and to which he pays attention at his own whim—at least to receive evidence and to listen to representations from those concerned with education.
How else is the advisory committee to proceed except in the terms we have suggested in the amendments? Are its members, as I suggested earlier, to sit on the Isle of Man or the island of Sark and commune with each other and with nature? If they are to do an effective job they must listen to the people who know about the subject, particularly if the Bill refers only to "persons" rather than "all persons" having knowledge of or experience in education.
If two of the members of the committee have knowledge and experience and the other seven do not, how will they be informed about what is happening in the education world unless they receive evidence and

1201
listen to representations from teachers, education authorities, parents and those who are concerned with the voluntary sector of education? I should have thought that this amendment would appeal to anyone who is concerned for the Government's public reputation for seeking to produce, in the word of the Prime Minister quoted from Saint Francis of Assisi when she first arrived at 10 Downing Street—"harmony". This is the minimum requirement for harmony in the advisory committee's proceedings and the minimum requirement for any acceptance of its work by the teaching profession, the local authorities, parents and the schools generally.
I hope that the Government will not feel it necessary to make a blanket condemnation of this series of amendments. I hope that they will be able to give some assurance, even if not on the face of the Bill, that this is the way that the advisory committee will proceed and this is the kind of activity which they expect it to pursue. In order that the Government may have an opportunity to make those points, I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Could the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explain, certainly to me and perhaps to other Members of the Committee, whether the right to make representations or to submit evidence means oral evidence or oral representations or whether the requirement would be satisfied by the submission of written documents? I shall be interested to know that because I think it has some bearing on the amendment's degree of acceptability.
I am bound to add that the second reference that the noble Lord has made to the Isle of Sark and the Isle of Man seems to suggest that he has been taking seriously Mr. Hattersley's proposal to increase taxation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord's first question deserves a reply, though I do not think that his second observation deserves a comment. The answer is that unless the amendments were to say specifically "oral representations", that is not what is meant. Representations in writing would fulfil the requirements of the amendments. The advisory committee would be well advised, just as the committees of this place are well advised, to read the written submissions made to it; to consider whether there are any points on which it would wish to seek any oral evidence and which it would wish to discuss with those who have something to say to them; and to consider also the status of those putting forward representations. It may then wish to invite oral evidence. That, I believe, in the traditions of this place would improve the quality of the committee's debate. We do not require that that should be provided for on the face of the Bill.
Lord Belstead: If I may go some way towards what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said at the end of his remarks about making clear what the advisory committee would do in the context of these amendments, the amendments are unnecessary because the advisory committee will do what the proposers want in taking evidence from associations of local education authorities and organisations representing school teachers. A government amendment to Clause 2(4) will be moved to ensure
1202
that interests representing voluntary schools, as we promised, are also consulted by the committee. The committee will be required specifically to give all those bodies a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence and make representations with respect to the issues arising from matters referred to the committee by the Secretary of State, and having invited evidence and representations in that way it will be bound to have regard to any relevant evidence and representations submitted.
It is true that the Bill does not require the committee to invite evidence and representations from parents' organisations though there is no doubt that the committee, in considering a particular matter, will be able to take into account evidence submitted by any parents' organisations or individual parents and any representations they may feel they would like to make to the committee.
I must point out in this connection that the committee's function under the Bill is to examine and report on specific matters referred to it by my right honourable friend. It will have its hands full concentrating on that task. Clause 2(5) provides expressly that the committee's report is to contain not only its recommendations but,
"such other advice relating to that matter"
that it thinks fit. That will give the committee ample scope to include ideas that it thinks important in the representations it has received on the matters referred to it.
I know that that does not go as far as the noble Lord would wish me to go, but I hope that it at least gives the Committee some idea of how the Government feel the committee provided for in the Bill will work, and to that extent goes some way towards what the noble Lord asked me to say in reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am pleased to hear a rather different tone in the reply of the noble Lord from that which has prevailed in preceding amendments. What he has said deserves close study. I would have wished the noble Lord to say that the Secretary of State would, in the terms of reference which he alone has the right to give to the Advisory Committee, indicate that they ought to be listening to evidence and representations from teachers, employers, voluntary schools and parents. Before the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord might like to consider whether he would be willing to indicate that that is what the Secretary of State would do. It would be enormously helpful and might simplify the proceedings later on.
However, in the meantime, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, it is better if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 11, I have to inform Members of the Committee that if Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12A or 12B.
[Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, and 13A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to ("a") in line 10 and insert ("give notice of the matter and of any relevant direction—

(a) to such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned and to any local education authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable,

(b) to such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to them to be concerned, and

(c) to such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned,

and shall afford them").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 15 to 19.
This amendment is the first of a series which give effect to the commitment which I gave at Second Reading that the position of governors of voluntary schools should be reflected on the face of the Bill. This amendment provides that the advisory committee shall also give notice of matters referred to them to bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools, and shall afford them a reasonable opportunity for submitting evidence and representations.
The governors of voluntary-aided schools employ 20 per cent. of school teachers. Moreover, they have a general responsibility for the succesful running of voluntary schools. Those schools are a very important part of our education service. I am therefore happy to bring forward this amendment and I hope that the Committee will welcome it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 15 to 20.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Having referred to the matter in dealing with the previous amendment we considered, I can on this occasion invite the Government to go a little further with regard to parents' organisations. I appreciate that the parents' organisations have no formal concern with teachers' pay and conditions, as do the employers, the teachers' unions, and indeed the voluntary schools. However, the whole thrust of the Government's thinking over the past couple of years has surely been to involve parents more strongly in the governance of our schools. In particular, with the passage of the 1986 Act, parents have a position as of right in governing bodies and will be concerned with the way in which conditions of service pan out in practice.
If the Government are serious in giving increased authority to the parents in the running of individual schools, then they must accept that organisations of parents—self-help, mutual-help organisations of parents to ensure that parents exercise those rights and powers under the new legislation—will spring up if they have not sprung up already. Reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Glenamara and others to the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. This is not the only parents' association in the country. There are a number of others who have a very substantial membership which have been going for a number of years. The Confederation for the Advancement of State Education is an obvious example which comes to mind. These parents' organisations played an active role in the deliberations
1204
of the Chamber on the Education Bill in 1986. They have established their positions as representing very considerable numbers of parents—those parents who now have an increased role in the running of our schools.
It would be a not ungenerous act on the part of the Government now in making these provisions for teachers, employers and voluntary schools, to include the parents in the provision. It would perhaps improve their image among a large number of their own supporters as well as the supporters of Opposition parties if they were to do this. If they reject such pleas outright then such a rejection will be conveyed to the organisations of parents which are by no means party political organisations, and by no means organisations of parents opposed to this Government or wishing to take any party political stance. The Government would help themselves very greatly if they were to indicate, even if not in an amendment now, an understanding and acceptance of the point which is being made in these amendments.
Lord Kilmarnock: I was rather alarmed to hear the Deputy Chairman say that if this amendment were agreed to, Amendment No. 16—which according to my understanding has been grouped with this amendment—would not be able to be called. I say that because parents are not mentioned in Lord Belstead's Amendment No. 14.
I should like once again to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that so far parents have received very cavalier treatment during the course of our debates in Committee. Members of the Committee will recall that when the last Education Bill—which is now an Act—was before the House, parents were "top of the tops" and the Government were doing everything conceivable to increase their role on governing bodies. However, now, when we come to this Bill, we find that they do not get a mention or a look-in anywhere.
It seems strange that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill for any input of the voice of the guardians of the principal consumers of education. It is also worth reflecting that as a result of the last Education Act the role of parents on governing bodies will be considerably increased and they will also be responsible for implementing provisions under this Bill. Reference has already been made this evening by the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord McIntosh, and also by myself, to the Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations. That covers something over 4 million people, but no doubt there are also other associations. It would not seem to me to be going beyond the bounds of what is reasonable or rational to allow them to make some input and some suggestions which the Secretary of State does not have to accept. It is quite possible that parents throughout the country might decide, for example, that they preferred not to have an additional penny off income tax, but to have additional money invested in education and in the payment of teachers. The Secretary of State may not agree with that view, but it is certainly one which parents should be allowed to put forward.
It seems to me to be rather extraordinary that no provision has been made for them to make an input either—as was rejected earlier—as regards their being

1205
consulted on the appointment of the committee or (as is the case at this stage) as regards their associations being consulted at all on matters which are referred to the advisory committee or which the advisory committee decides it can investigate. I find that very odd indeed. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, or the noble Baroness, will say something at this stage of the Committee proceedings to reassure parents that their views will be considered. The Government have promoted the involvement of parents in education; but they have produced a Bill in which there is no single mention of them whatever. Therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness—if it is the noble Baroness who winds up the debate—would say a word about the role of parents as proposed in the Government's Bill.
Lord Parry: Does not the wording also suggest that in addition to having the Secretary of State with direct and total authority, we shall have a committee which at each point, as regards the noble Lord's amendment, seems to be given a quite cavalier approach to those with whom it will have consultations. It is only when it appears to the committee that people have a direct involvement, that they will be consulted.
Baroness Hooper: Of course, we believe that parents have an important role to play in the education of their children and we have already referred to this point in dealing with a previous amendment. There may be no statutory requirement to consult parents, but there is nothing to prevent organisations representing parents from presenting their views to my right honourable friend who will, I feel sure, be glad to hear those views and will take them into consideration. As a result of last year's Education Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already referred, governors of schools and the parent body now more generally have a right to be involved in determining the culture of the school and what is being taught to the children. Such involvement must benefit the children. However, when it comes to pay and conditions of service of a particular group of workers, in this case teachers, that must surely be the province of those directly affected—the employers and the employees, and the Government, who provide approximately half the money and have a general responsibility for ensuring an effective education service.
We have included governors of voluntary schools in the statutory consultations because in their case they employ 20 per cent. of school teachers and are directly responsible for their conditions of service. We believe that the amendment we are proposing affords them a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and we believed that we were responding to a definite need in introducing this amendment to deal with the position of voluntary schools.
Baroness Seear: It is very odd that the noble Baroness should say that parents have no interest in the conditions of service. Conditions of service, as I understand them, cover such things as the teachers' obligation to stand in and take a class if somebody else is ill. When that does not happen the children are sent home. Such a situation is of very direct interest to the parents. I regard the contents of the conditions of
1206
service as something to which they would very much like to have an input.
I should like to add that to say that parents can speak if they wish, and the Secretary of State or the committee will graciously listen to them, is a quite different matter from saying that they have a right so to do, and have that right on the face of the Bill.
Lord Parry: It is especially so when that is attached to the question that I asked, which has not been answered, inadvertently, about the fact that the committee itself can decide whether or not the people have an interest, as in each of the three paragraphs of the Minister's own amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness says that there is something special about the interests of the local education authorities and the teachers and governors of voluntary schools in the pay and conditions of teachers. All I can say is that you could have fooled us because the whole import of this Bill is to take away any real influence on the pay and conditions of teachers from the employers and the teachers themselves.
The objection to the inclusion of parents really does not wash. The Governments' amendment is phrased in the weakest possible way. It is:
"(a) to such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned and to any local education authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable."
"Desirable" means that they can exclude any education authority they wish to exclude. They can decide that an association of education authorities was not concerned if they choose to do so.
The amendment continues:
"(b) to such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to them to be concerned."
Again, that gives a great deal of power to the advisory committee to pick and choose if they so wish. I am not saying that they will, but the provisions of this amendment are very weak.
The next paragraph reads:
"(c) to such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned."
One could imagine an advisory committee set up by a government of a different political persuasion from that of noble Lords opposite which said that an organisation cannot claim to represent school teachers unless, for example, it is a member of the TUC. I imagine that noble Lords opposite would find that situation deeply objectionable but it is permissible and it is possible for a Secretary of State of another political persuasion to appoint an advisory committee which would secure that.
When we return to the face of the Bill there is no real right of submitting evidence and representations. There is "a reasonable opportunity", a phrase which is put in presumably to weaken the power of these organisations. With such a feeble gesture towards the teachers, the local authorities and the governors of voluntary schools, is it totally beyond the wit of the Government to make another small feeble gesture towards the parents? I find it difficult to believe that they are so bent on unpopularity as to wish to insist on this matter.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I should reply briefly to the points that have recently been made. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I believe that I was not guilty of saying that parents have no direct interest in these matters. Of course we hope that they, as responsible parents, take an interest. But it is not within their province to be involved as a statutory right in the pay and conditions considerations of the advisory committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, felt that the committee was going perhaps not to be graciously pleased to admit evidence from every organisation. I can only say that we intend to create an independent advisory committee composed of responsible people. We believe that it will be prepared to take into consideration the views of groups such as those referred to in the Bill and in this amendment.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt unable to welcome the concession provided by this amendment to introduce the people responsible for the running of voluntary schools into the process. It seems to me that Members opposite have rather taken the opportunity to thump the drum yet again on a point they have made. In view of his concern over the wishes of parents being reflected in the Bill, I ask the noble Lord whether parents were brought into his Amendment No. 1, or indeed were referred to in Amendment No. 2 in the earlier discussions. I said at the outset that we believe that parents have an important role. In the process of this short-lived advisory committee, we expect them to follow its proceedings and to take an interest in them, and I believe that the views of parents will be welcomed.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: With due respect to the noble Baroness, parents were brought into an earlier amendment, which was not accepted, concerning the choice and the recommended people to belong to the advisory committee. When she says that it is not within the province of parents to have anything to do with pay and conditions, I agree that the Secretary of State does not have to accept their recommendations, but there seems to be no good or just reason why they should not make them known. If such a provision is not written on to the face of the statute, how are they to make them known? Will they just write in and get an acknowledgment slip, a printed thing, saying, "Your communication has been received and noted"? Is that the plan?
The Government were going so hard on parent power in the last Education Bill, but, as I say, the parents seem to have got sucked out of the window. It is possible that parents associations may want to say to the Government in a run up to a general election, "We don't want an additional penny off income tax. We want more money spent on teachers' pay". It is a view that the Government may not accept, but it is one that ought to reach the Government, and there is no provision in the Bill for that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Surely in this context we must remember that councillors are elected by the people of the area, which includes the parents, to do
1208
the job of employing teachers on their behalf. Governors are elected by the parents to do the job of governing the school. We should put ourselves in the position of a teacher. Would it be right to have just any odd parents' organisation consulted as to what your conditions of service should be? We all know that that team includes many things. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the cover for absent teachers is of great interest to parents, as is everything that goes on in the school. There are some aspects of the whole subject on which it is inappropriate to consult parents' organisations as such. You would get some very awkward situations for teachers. This is carrying a bit of political gamesmanship, quite honestly, a bit far.
Lord Kilmarnock: I should not have said this was mere political gamesmanship. I should be very surprised indeed if parents were not concerned. I think they will be extremely concerned. I am suggesting that a body of 4 or 5 million people should be able to put a view—no more, no less.
Lord Parry: I shall return just once more to the question to which the noble Baroness has addressed herself and has answered to a degree. The debate which is taking place will continue for some time. However immediate the changes that will take place—assuming that the Bill is carried—the whole issue of education may become central to the escalating noises and voices in an approach to a general election. How can we be assured—this is a genuine concern—that a committee so set up, given its wide-ranging right to choose among options about whom to interview, might not be affected by the political noises of the day? How can we be certain that the criteria of independence can be valid in selection processes?
Baroness Hooper: All I can say to that is that the process envisaged is that once the committee's recommendations are passed to the Secretary of State, the report will be published and Parliament itself will have an opportunity to scrutinise the provisions of the order. It seems to me that that gives ample opportunity for any matter in the order that has been considered by the advisory committee to be fully and widely debated.
On Question amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("(c) afford the teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers a reasonable opportunity to negotiate an agreement on the matter referred to the Committee, and where any such negotiated agreement has been reached between the employers and teachers' organisations before the date of any report to the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below, no such report shall be made").
The noble Lord said: I did not speak to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 8 because I thought that although it referred to the negotiations, it referred to them in a slightly different

1209
way. The reference here is to the opportunity which could under this amendment be afforded to the teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers to negotiate an agreement on matters referred to the committee. This is not a restriction on what matters should be referred to the committee, but it is an opportunity for the Government to say whether they really want an advisory committee and the abolition of negotiations for their own sake, or do they want it because they claim that negotiations have broken down. If their reason for getting rid of negotiations is because negotiations have broken down, there can be no objection to Amendment No. 21. If, on the other hand—as appears to be the case from a number of the other answers given this afternoon—the Government are just as determined regardless to go ahead with the Bill, despite any progress that might be made towards negotiations, I have no doubt that they will reject the amendment.
As it stands, the amendment gives the committee—which has been established in all the ways the Government wish and all the ways that the Secretary of State controls—the duty to afford the teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers an opportunity to negotiate an agreement made on a matter referred to the committee. In other words, it retains an alternative to the consideration of the committee which would seem to us to be—and always has seemed to us to be—a second best to proper negotiations.
I invite the Government on a further occasion to stand up for negotiating rights, to give an opportunity for negotiation as opposed to consultation and diktat by the Secretary of State and to give sympathetic consideration to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is substantially the same point that the Committee discussed a little time ago on Amendment No. 8. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accepted—and most of us accept—that it is a good thing if teachers' organisations and local authority organisations negotiate. Indeed, he read out the part of the amendment which relates to that aspect. But he did not read out—and I make no complaint of this—the crucial words at the end:
"when no such report shall be made".
In other words, the advisory committee is to be cut out whenever there is an agreement between the teachers and their employers. That would very seriously alter the shape of the Bill.
It is more than possible—recent experience certainly suggests it—that local authorities, particularly a good many of them under their present control, and the teachers' organisations will come to a happy agreement involving substantial increases in public expenditure. In those circumstances, if this amendment is accepted that is simply dumped at the door, or on the floor, of the Secretary of State without his having the advantage of having had the matter looked into by the advisory committee.
It is precisely in that sort of situation that the views of the advisory committee will be of the very greatest value not only to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State but also, I would suggest, to both
1210
Houses of Parliament when, as may well be the case, both Houses have to consider the matter.
It would be very damaging to the whole structure of the Bill, and also it would be really rather contrary to common sense, to cut out the advisory committee in precisely the situation in which its views would be of the greatest value. I am all for—in the words used earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden—negotiation between the employers and teachers. It can do nothing but good; but it must not be treated as being necessarily final. That is surely the lesson we have learnt from the events of the past year or so; and to deprive the Secretary of State, in dealing with that situation, of the advantage of the advice of the advisory committee would take away a great deal of the value of this Bill. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether it was the Government's case that the negotiating process had broken down. I would not put it quite like that but, as recent history has shown, the negotiating process has certainly not been working. I would also add that that is why matters need to be referred to the advisory committee, and that is the reason for the Bill.
However, the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if I may say so, did not recognise at all is that there really can be no reason for thinking that the difficulties over negotiations have just in some way disappeared unless the negotiating process is somehow to have the authority to write blank cheques without reference to the Secretary of State—and to do that, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so shrewdly pointed out, in a process which would cut out any chance for the advisory committee to make a report at all.
However, that said, perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Government are certainly not going to close their doors to the teachers' unions or the local authority employers just because the committee has been established. Once a reference has been made there will surely be an advantage in the committee being able to make their independent recommendation, reflecting full consultation with all the interests concerned, as the Bill requires.
But, as I said on an earlier amendment, once the committee has reported, there is the assurance that my right honourable friend will talk, individually or collectively, with any of the bodies he is statutorily required to consult. That is a very significant commitment, and it brings the employers and teachers into dialogue with my right honourable friend in a way which the present Burnham machinery certainly has not done.
Therefore, for the main reason advanced by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I oppose this amendment; but I also oppose it because I must say that it would be an invitation for blank cheques to be written without reference to the Secretary of State. That is another reason why we are in the position today of having to introduce the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That reply shows an astonishing lack of understanding not only of the amendment—for which the noble Lord can be forgiven—but also of the Government's own Bill. So far as concerns the amendment, it is the intention to give a further opportunity for negotiations to replace the work of the advisory committee. It must be common ground that the negotiations are better than an advisory committee. We may make our own judgment about whether it is necessary now to establish an advisory committee on the grounds that the negotiations have broken down. But when this interim Bill comes to an end there will have to be negotiations again because they are better, because negotiations are the only ones that recognise the interests involved and because negotiations are the only form of settlement which will be accepted and recognised by the employers and teachers.
What this amendment does is to reinstate the possibility of negotiations even at the late stage when the advisory committee has been established, when the 1987 settlement has already been made unilaterally by the Secretary of State at the stage where the Secretary of State has established, constituted and directed the advisory committee—a last chance, if you like, for negotiations to succeed.
1212
But if either of the noble Lords, Lord Belstead or Lord Boyd-Carpenter, thinks that this gives a blank cheque to negotiators to override the wishes of the Secretary of State, then all I can say is that they have not read Clause 3 of the Bill. The advisory committee as proposed in the Bill is subject to the view of the Secretary of State. Its recommendations cannot be given effect except by order laid by the Secretary of State. If he likes the recommendations of the advisory committee he can give effect to them by negative instrument. If he does not like them, he can make modifications and do so by an affirmative instrument. However, nothing in this amendment takes away the power of the Secretary of State to have the ultimate decision. Nothing in this amendment gives a blank cheque to the negotiating body. You must not look at an amendment to Clause 2 except in the context of the overriding safeguards for the Secretary of State which are contained in Clause 3.
I am sorry that the Government should react in that way. We still have to find some way of giving an opportunity for negotiations to take place and indeed to continue when the interim provisions of the Bill are at an end. We shall continue to search for a solution to this problem which will not go away. However, in the meantime I think it better if we seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 12, after ("State") insert ("shall be published and").
The noble Lord said: We seem finally to have arrived at the area of the Bill where we are all in substantial agreement. I could not find in the debates in another place any pledge to bring forward an amendment of this sort, although I think there were some assurances. I think we must take it that it is due to the disquiet expressed in your Lordships' House at Second Reading that we have the noble Lord, Lord Belstead's Amendment No. 25 which I understand has been grouped with my Amendment No. 22 and Amendment No. 26 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
I think we must take it that the disquiet expressed in your Lordships' House on the question of publication of the reports of the committee has had some effect. These reports will obviously be of considerable importance for the general public to be able to form a view as to whether the committee is proceeding along the correct lines. It will be too late to get any input from the parents whom we have just been talking about but at least the method of decision of the committee will be open to public scrutiny. I think this is of considerable importance.
Perhaps the only question which remains is whether I am speaking to Amendment No. 22 which simply says that the reports shall be published. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has a slightly different formula and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Irving of Dartford have a third formula. I think on balance I am able to concede that I slightly prefer that containing the word "immediately", which means that reasonable expedition must be made to publish the reports.
Obviously, we have to accept that we are in the hands of the Government here. I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, might conceivably prefer Amendment No. 26 to his own Amendment No. 25, or to my Amendment No. 22. But I am not particularly concerned about that. It is the principle that matters. The Government seem to have agreed to it. I beg to move my own version of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am quite satisfied with the Government's version.
Baroness Hooper: I will rush in. I am very relieved to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is happy with the Government's version and since the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has suggested that he is, too, I think I need speak no further. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that he will in due course support Amendment No. 25.
Lord Kilmarnock: After that short debate, I am perfectly happy to withdraw my amendment and to accept the Government's Amendment No. 25.
Lord Elton: From the Back-Benches, may I say that a concession from the Opposition Front Bench brings
1214
almost as much pleasure to us as a concession from the Government Front Bench does to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall, upon receiving a report from the Committee, arrange for it to be published.")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power of Secretary of State to make provision by order]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 36. The principal amendment, Amendment No. 36, refers to the possibility of modifications to the recommendations of the advisory committee being,
"accepted by associations and organisations representing the majority of local education authorities and of school teachers".
Looking at this amendment, I realise that I am guilty of a certain amount of elegant variation in the description of the local authority associations and of the teachers' organisations and I apologise to the Committee. There is no fell intent in this. There is no particular significance in the words "the majority of" or the phrase "associations and organisations representing". It seems to me on reflection that the simpler wording used in previous amendments is preferable, and I am sorry that I have trapped myself into departing from it.
The point of this amendment is nonetheless serious, although the wording may be defective in that minor respect. The point here is that the provisions of Clause 3 allow the Secretary of State to make any modification that he wants or to make,
"such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit".
This is complete carte blanche for the Secretary of State to take any action when the advisory committee has reported, regardless of whether the advisory committee has considered the matter, regardless of whether the committee has rejected it and regardless, indeed, of whether the matter has been referred to the advisory committee in the first place. If ever there were justification for the claim that the advisory committee is the Secretary of State's poodle, that justification lies in the phrases that we seek to delete from the Bill.
There could not be a wider form of words or a wider power for the Secretary of State to do as he thinks fit, regardless of the opinions and conclusions of the advisory committee which he has set up, than is contained in the words:
"making such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit".
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred in particular to the necessity for the advisory committee to give advice to the Secretary of State, rather than being debarred from giving advice if negotiations are taking place. I understand his point, although I do not agree with it. How does he feel about the powers of the advisory committee when he finds that the Secretary of State has every power he likes to ignore, go beyond or reject the views of the advisory committee?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does the noble Lord wish me to answer that question? I can do so at some length, if necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should be delighted for the noble Lord to answer—I did not say at some length!
The alternative which is proposed in the amendment does allow for the possibility that there could be modifications which have achieved consensus. That is what the amendment is designed to say. Consensus can be achieved between the teachers and the employing organisations. Is it not a reasonable proposition to say to the committee and to the Government, "If we can achieve consensus here, such consensus should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in the final decision which he makes and which he recommends to Parliament"? I do not think that that is a great deal to ask. The Government ought to give that matter serious consideration. Even if they cannot accept it in its present form, I believe they ought to indicate that they have the desire for consensus, which is the root of this amendment, and that they would like to consider some way of giving effect to it, perhaps in an amendment at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord intend to give the associations and organisations mentioned in his amendment a veto on the Secretary of State? That is what he appears to be doing. The wording,
"with any modification accepted by associations and organizations",
means that the Secretary of State cannot publish a direction with any modification not accepted. That seems to me to indicate that he would then be locked into the recommendation of the committee, even if it was not consistent with overriding government economic parameters. I should like to know if that is what the noble Lord intends.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think it would be helpful if I replied to that straight away. The amendment does not take away responsibility from the Secretary of State. It makes it his responsibility, by altering "may" to "shall", to make provision by statutory instrument giving effect to the recommendations of the committee. If there is no modification proposed by agreement between the teachers and the employers, the Secretary of State has the same responsibility to give effect to the recommendations of the committee.
Lord Elton: Indeed, and therefore this amendment is actually fundamentally putting the Secretary of State entirely at the behest of the committee, the majority of the local authorities and the teachers. This seems to put us back into the financial impasse in which we have already found ourselves.
Lord Belstead: While the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is thinking about that, perhaps I may say that I believe my noble friend Lord Elton is right. I am not absolutely certain whether he is totally right. However, there is no question that the effect of this amendment means that the recommendations of the advisory committee would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State.
I am not absolutely certain whether the effect of the wording which the noble Lord opposite has chosen means also that any modification accepted by the local authorities and the teachers would have to be put into effect in the order laid by the Secretary of State. However, that is what my noble friend Lord Elton believes, and I join with him in asking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether that is the case. If it is the case, this is a complete veto, as my noble friend said. For reasons which I do not think I need deploy, that would be totally unacceptable. We should be into blank cheque country once again. I am sorry to sound intransigent, but if that is the case this would be wholly unacceptable.
Let me add one more point. What Members of the Committee are not taking on board—and I realise that it is in the context of a Bill which they oppose; nonetheless I ask them to take it on board—is the assurance I have given on behalf of my right honourable friend that, once the advisory committee report has been received by the Secretary of State, there will be consultation of a kind that has not been possible in the past under the Burnham machinery.
To that extent my right honourable friend has given an assurance that he will be available for direct discussions with those whom he is statutorily required to consult; and this can be done either collectively or individually. It will be a form of direct dialogue which has simply not been possible under the previous Burnham machinery. Whether or not one likes the Bill that is a step forward.
In putting the amendment to us, the noble Lord asked us to recognise what he was trying to get at. I ask Members opposite also to recognise that by giving an assurance of that kind we on this side of the Committee are trying to take steps forward towards the day that new permanent arrangements will once again be in place when this interim Bill finally comes to an end.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We on this side of the Committee have never been in blank cheque country, wherever that may be and we do not intend to be now. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has raised a valid point, about which the Government are unsure, as to whether the provision means what he thinks.
It was not our intention that the Secretary of State should be forced to implement any modification that

1217
might be agreed between the teachers and the employers. Our intention was to restrict modification to the modifications which were agreed by the teachers and the employers rather than to give the Secretary of State the blank cheque to make any modification he wants or indeed go outside the recommendations or considerations of his own advisory committee.
However, since there appears to be a doubt about the import of the amendment, I think it would be better if I took it away and looked at it again in the light of the comments that have been made. I do that having listened very carefully to the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given. It is an important assurance and deserves serious consideration by all concerned with the matter on this side of the Committee.
If we find that there is something valid here which we believe should be included on the face of the Bill, we shall probably come back to your Lordships at Report stage and seek to have that assurance made as secure in statute; not that we doubt in any way the words of the noble Lord or his right honourable friend. But we are concerned with the continuity of policy and with the continuity of good intent. In the light of the comments that have been made about the possible implications of this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("such") and insert ("the")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 44 to 47, 49 and 50. This series of amendments seeks to codify to some extent the choice of bodies which the advisory committee may consult. The possibility of consultation arises on a number of occasions in the course of this clause. I apologise for the fact that they all have to be spelled out in this laborious way. It seems to us that we have been too willing—and perhaps even too willing in the amendment to Clause 2 which has just been carried by the Government—to accept the Secretary of State's judgment as to which organisations should be consulted. There is after all a reasonably well-established history of acceptable organisations.
We have had a certain amount of debate about fringe organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked whether, if he formed an organisation of teachers, he would have the right to be consulted. My answer, which I made from a sedentary position and so I am sure he did not hear it was, "Why not?". If he formed an organisation of teachers which could establish some credentials for itself, even if only in its own eyes, why should he not say what he thinks to the advisory committee and why should not that committee pay attention to what he says?
Lord Elton: If I did not hear the noble Lord it is possible he did not hear me. I was thinking of forming an association for parents. However, my point is that if all noble Lords formed separate organisations the task of consultation would become impossible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Consultation can have a number of different meanings, which is why we prefer "negotiation" to "consultation". However, even a wide variety of parent organisations does not seem to us to be all that unacceptable. Consultation does not have any great statutory significance. It means that you acknowledge what people write to you and you say that you will take it into account. I have known that happen from the Government Front Bench on more than one occasion during the passage of legislation in this place.
Therefore, the amendments, although they are voluminous, make a very simple point. They say that the Secretary of State should not be the sole determinant of what bodies are concerned. In particular, the amendments say that parents and organisations of churches involved in the provision of education ought to be consulted.
At this late hour I shall not detail the significance of each individual amendment, one by one. The point is clear. I am afraid it has overlapped discussions which have taken place on earlier amendments. I think it will be much simpler if I invite the Government to give the amendments sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for moving this amendment and speaking to the large group of amendments which go with it.
The first change proposed is that,
"the associations of local education authorities",
should be consulted rather than "such" associations. The wording in the Bill is in a standard form taken from local government legislation. It does not mean that the Secretary of State has a free hand on whom he consults. His decisions must be reasonable. If, for example, he were to decide that the Association of County Councils was not concerned with teachers' pay and conditions that would be an unreasonable decision which could be successfully challenged through judicial review.
The second change proposed is that organisations of parents and churches must be consulted. As regards the churches, I am happy to say that we accept the point. This is covered by government amendments. As regards parents, that is a matter which we have debated exhaustively this evening and we do not need to go round that course again.
The third change proposed is that individual LEAs must be consulted when it appears to the Secretary of State that the matter is relevant to them rather than when it appears to him to be desirable. I should say that the wording in the Bill here is again in a standard form taken from local government legislation. The wording in these amendments would in effect mean that all 105 LEAs in England and Wales would have to be consulted separately since the matter in question always will be relevant to them as employers of teachers. However, ordinarily LEAs are represented through their associations and that provides an adequate and sensible means of consultation.
The purpose of the wording in the Bill is to require my right honourable friend to consult individual LEAs in particular cases when that might be desirable. For example, that may arise on a proposition concerned

1219
particularly with the pay or conditions of employment of teachers in inner city schools.
The fourth change proposed is that,
"the organisations representing school teachers"
should be consulted rather than "such" organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned. This is very much the same point as with the Association of Local Education Authorities.
However, there is an important addition which I should mention. I know that the teachers' unions have been looking at this matter. The wording in the Bill is in standard form. My right honourable friend must exercise his discretion reasonably. It would not be reasonable for him to decide that any of the six teacher unions now represented on the Burnham primary and secondary committees was not concerned with a matter of teachers' pay and conditions. Such a decision would be most unlikely to stand up if challenged through the courts.
I am aware that the Professional Association of Teachers has expressed concern that it does not have a right to be consulted under the Bill. In the Government's view that concern is mistaken. It would not be a reasonable exercise of discretion for my right honourable friend to exclude the PAT from this consultation.
In essence, I am saying that the consultation procedures laid down in the Bill are in standard form. I believe that they are fully adequate. I am glad that these amendments have been moved because it gives me the opportunity to give what I am afraid has been a rather detailed reply. I hope that the Committee will feel that the reply was reasonable.
Lord Monkswell: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. It gives me an opportunity to raise one of the concerns which I had hoped to raise later tonight but which his reply forces me to mention now; that is, the merit payments that have been suggested by the Secretary of State in the press. I am concerned at the implication that a scheme for merit payments may apply within a particular school rather than on the basis of a national scheme independently assessed. The Minister's reply implied that it would not be reasonable for the Secretary of State to consult individual local authorities about changes that he may put forward. That raises the problem of assessment schemes which may relate to individual schools as opposed to nationally. That will have important implications down to the local education authority level.
If the Secretary of State is not required to consult those local authorities, then the full implications of a scheme that he may propose will not be apparent to him. I beg the Government to take cognisance of that fact and consider the implications of the actions that they appear to be planning.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I should have thought that the point he has raised should come under Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 when we talk about an order making different provisions for different cases. I should like to look at what the noble Lord has said to
1220
see whether I can pick it up when we reach those amendments. I must confess that I had not expected the noble Lord to raise the subject of merit payments on this amendment. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for not replying to his point now. As I said, I should have thought it should have come in on Amendment No. 40.
Lord Monkswell: If I may clarify the point for the Minister, the response he gave to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was that it was not reasonable for the Government to consider consulting individual local education authorities and that it would be acceptable for him to consult local authority associations. If the Government are considering schemes that will apply to individual schools, the local education authority, as opposed to the local authority associations, will be directly concerned. That is why I raise the point now. I recognise that it may require study and consideration. I should welcome that response.
Lord Belstead: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I did not make myself clear to him. When I replied to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the reference to individual local education authorities I said that ordinarily local education authorities are represented through their associations. We believe that that provides an adequate and sensible means of consultation.
The purpose of the wording in the Bill is to require my right honourable friend to consult individual local education authorities in particular cases when that might be desirable. I then gave the example of a case where one has pay or conditions of employment for teachers in inner city schools. There is therefore an option here either for consultations through associations or individually where that is necessary.
I have been reminded by the advice that I have that on the question of appraisal of performance of teachers—as I am sure the noble Lord will know—six pilot surveys are being established and funding has been announced by my right honourable friend. We hope that they will be the touchstone to decide on what further action ought to be taken on teacher appraisal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in expounding my amendments which I passed over in defence of my voice and in recognition of the hour of the evening. However, he explained them cogently and clearly. I thought that he put a rather good case for them. I am sorry that the conclusion to which he came was not in accordance with the arguments that he put forward.
In particular, as I have already said, we shall have to return to this question of the consultation with parents for which no provision is made. I shall read with care the remarks which the noble Lord made about the standard form of local government legislation. I must say, in view of the Government's experience in, and their problems with the legality of, their local government legislation, that I do not give too much weight to assurances by parliamentary draftsmen about the adequacy of local government legislation. But that is perhaps a wider issue than that with which we are concerned tonight.

1221
With the provisos that I have already stated—that we shall certainly want to come back to parents' rights—I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 19, after ("desirable") insert—
("( ) such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to him to be concerned,").
The noble Baroness said: We have already discussed, in relation to Amendment No. 14, the principle that the governors of voluntary schools should be put on equal terms with local authorities and teacher unions in the Bill in relation to the advisory committee. This amendment extends that principle to the consultation by the Secretary of State after receiving a report of the advisory committee. I therefore beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Dare I tempt a thunderbolt from above—in the absence of any bishop—by saying that of course the governors of voluntary schools are the employers of teachers in voluntary schools? They do not actually pay them; it is the local authorities who pay them. But we do not oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert ("provided that any modifications have first been referred back to the Advisory Committee for further consultation prior to the placing of any order.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment, as I think is fairly self-evident, is to remove from Clause 3(1) the last two lines, which enable the Secretary of State to make provision by order made by statutory instrument,
"giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, with or without modification".
The amendment removes the subsequent two lines:
"or making such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit".
We consider it rather inappropriate, if not improper, that if the Secretary of State has provided himself with this advisory committee there should not be some dialogue between him and it. It would seem to be a basic courtesy to his committee that, in the event of his disagreeing with it or making some provision which he thinks fit but which the committee did not put forward, he should at least refer such provision to the committee. The Bill as written seems to give an excessive—an immediate—override without any second stage consultation between the Secretary of State and the committee. If the Secretary of State is to furnish himself with a committee and he is satisfied as to its composition—and the rest of us are satisfied as to its composition—then it seems that he ought to make better use of it as a sounding-board. If there is to be no dialogue between him and the committee, and it simply puts forward its recommendations which he simply accepts or rejects, I submit that the committee would not be fulfilling the function for which he set it up.
This is a modest amendment upon which the Government might well look favourably as regards perhaps improving the efficacy of the body which they themselves propose to set up, and also as regards giving it a little more access to the thoughts of the Secretary of State and his ultimate decisions. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The amendment would require any modifications to the advisory committee recommendations to be referred back again to them for further consultation before an order is made. Although I understand the thrust of Lord Kilmarnock's case, I should say in reply that the arrangements in the Bill have two important stages. The first stage involves the advisory committee with its independent chairman addressing issues referred to it by the Secretary of State and then, in the light of evidence and representations submitted to the committee, making a report. The second stage, which is equally important, involves consultations between the Secretary of State and those directly affected; namely, the local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing voluntary school interests. It is on that second stage that I gave an assurance about consultation which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said he thought was valuable.
I judge that if, on top of that, a statutory requirement to bring the advisory committee in again at the second stage were to be made, it would be detracting from the direct dialogue which we all believe to be important in the second stage of the consultations. It is for that reason that I feel that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am not terrifically impressed by that argument. It seems that if the Secretary of State is to set up a committee and then immediately emasculate it, we could almost do without it altogether. However, I shall certainly not press the amendment at this stage of the evening. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord has said and reconsider my position at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Any order made to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee under section 3(1) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I consider this amendment to be rather more important than the one that I have just moved. Clause 3(2), as drafted, is a two-pronged approach to the parliamentary procedure on the orders which will be made under this section. The first part of subsection (2) provides for the negative procedure where the Secretary of State has not made any material modification to the reommendations of the committee. The second part of subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State has overridden his committee, or disagreed with his committee in some way, he has to come forward to Parliament through the affirmative procedure. My amendment would substitute for that two-pronged approach the single approach that the Secretary of State must in all

1223
cases come forward through the affirmative procedure to Parliament when he introduces an order, whether or not it is based on agreement or disagreement with his committee.
If Members of the Committee are wondering why I and my noble friends should think this is necessary, the position is—and it is quite clear to the Government, and we may as well draw our lines clearly here—that we are not satisfied. Nothing that the Government have said so far has satisfied us about the objective nature of the committee. No amendments that have been moved so far to make the committee more objective have yet had any success. Therefore, so far as we are concerned we are still left with a committee which—to use one of the derogatory terms which is used on a number of occasions—is still in the "poodle" category.
We are not satisfied, simply because the Secretary of State does not disagree with his committee that he should not bring it for consultation, or bring it forward for both Houses of Parliament to approve what he suggests. We do not think that the committee as constituted is necessarily going to give him the objective advice which we in Parliament would like it to give him.
On those grounds, we want the Secretary of State to bring all orders under this section through the affirmative procedure of both Houses of Parliament. That is the scope and the intent of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is when the noble Lord says that he looks with suspicion on the objectiveness of the advisory committee. I am sure the advisory committee will be objective in its attitude, The point where I disagree with the noble Lord is that the advisory committee will be independent. I emphasise the importance of this, and I stick by it. Yes, the advisory committee will be appointed by my right honourable friend, but there are such bodies as the University Grants Committee, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and the Council for National Academic Awards, all of which I think I am right in saying are appointed by the Secretary of State. Such bodies are entirely independent in what they say and do.
My understanding is that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils can often give advice which may not be entirely welcome to government and government find it difficutlt to go along with such advice. But it is independent advice.
The University Grants Committee are doing an enormously important and difficult job. Becasue this Committee has been appointed by my right honourable friend, it does not mean to say that it is not doing that job objectively and independently, because it is.
I emphasise that point because when the recommendations of the committee come to my right honourable friend, it may be that the committee has not always been in the position to take into account every aspect of changing circumstances in our society. The Government in discharging their responsibilities
1224
may feel the need in some cases—and we hope that the Bill will be with us for only a reasonably short time because it is an interim Bill—to make some changes to the advisory committee report. It is at that moment that the affirmative resolution procedure is mandatory under the Bill and if there is no change made to the report of the advisory committee then it is negative.
I really do think that that is a sensible balance. It promises that your Lordships' House as well as another place will not be obliged to spend time on matters where there may be little controversy, while ensuring specific parliamentary approval is secured on every occasion when the Government want to alter any aspect of the committee's advice. It is for those reasons, I would ask your Lordships not to agree to this amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord's mind is completely closed to the points that we are trying to make, it seems. He has told us repeatedly that this committee is independent. We accept that in one sense it is independent. But what he has refused to allow is that people appointed to it should be drawn from different points of view. If the Secretary of State appoints people all of whom think along the same lines that he and the Conservative Front Bench think, their independent opinion will be precisely the opinion that he wishes to get. It is this that we have been trying to say repeatedly to the noble Lord all the evening. But if he finds our comments fatuous, perhaps it is fatuous to go on repeating them.
It is because of this that we ask that there should be this guarantee that Parliament can at least look at what he is going to do when his independent-minded friends have told him what he wishes to hear.
Lord Belstead: I do not think I can help the noble Baroness much further with this.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has not helped me at all.
Lord Belstead: I have gone out of my way to give three examples—none of which the noble Baroness has been interested in—of important committees which are appointed by my right honourable friend but which do difficult and sometimes controversial tasks without evidence of political bias. That is a matter to which the noble Baroness has not addressed herself. There is an alternative which neither the noble Baroness nor I have mentioned and that is that there can be mandation. That is a subject we discussed earlier today.
The Government have made their view clear that it would not be right to appoint nominees or representatives of groups with a direct interest in the committee's recommendations, and one is therefore left with a committee that is appointed by the Secretary of State. I think there is good reason—and I have given evidence why I think there is good reason—that with such a committee there will not be the results that the noble Baroness fears but there will genuinely be an independent-minded committee.
Baroness Seear: I fear that the noble Lord does not give us evidence; he gives us assertions.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: If I may add a further word to that, the Minister referred to other committees that are directly appointed by the Secretary of State. Indeed they may work reasonably satisfactorily. The difference here is that we have a very inflammatory' situation. The teachers of the country have been under great stress—I am not suggesting that others have not also been under great stress—for a long time past and they are extremely dismayed and anxious about this Bill. When they hear of a committee that is to be directly appointed by the Secretary of State they are highly suspicious of it. The circumstances of those other committees to which the noble Lord referred, which are now settled and accepted, do not arouse the same reaction and emotion that this is likely to.
Lord Kilmarnock: I think my noble friend has put his finger on the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the UGC and to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils which he says work perfectly well. But we must remember that here we are dealing with a much more politically sensitive and, in his words, inflammatory situation than is likely to arise from the recommendations of either of those bodies. We are dealing with 400,000 teachers and literally millions of school children. Although the noble Lord said that there may not be controversy within the committee, there may certainly be controversy in the country.
If what the noble Lord has said is true about the objectivity of the committee that the Secretary of State will appoint, why should the Government fear the affirmative procedure? That is what I fail to understand. No time would be wasted if both Houses of Parliament were satisfied that the orders were sensible and in the interests of the country. It is only if there is worry on those points that debate would clearly arise.
What is being produced in the Bill is a departure. It is an entirely untried procedure for dealing with these matters. It would be an abrogation of the responsibility of Parliament not to have the affirmative procedure for all orders which come in under this interim Bill. The noble Lord said that it is an interim Bill. It may not last more than three years, but it may go on for longer. It certainly is a new departure. When we have new departures of this sort in our statute it is reasonable that Parliament should require fully to satisfy itself by the affirmative procedure on all orders initially introduced under this new system.
I am extremely unconvinced by what the noble Lord has said. Clearly at this time of night I am not going to press the amendment, but this is something for which I shall hope to gain a little consensus around the House at a later stage in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is purely a probing amendment, but it is one which nevertheless I believe
1226
the Government could accept without any loss to themselves. Clause 3(3) provides:
"An order may, instead of containing the provision to be made, refer to provisions set out in a document published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and direct that those provisions shall have effect or, as the case may be, be amended in accordance with the order".
I raised this matter on Second Reading and my purpose in doing so was to adumbrate an amendment in Committee. It is mainly to uphold the principle that the material contained in subordinate legislation should, if at all possible and as a matter of course, be found in one place, preferably in the orders themselves.
I also asked for a precedent and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, kindly replied giving me a precedent in the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 which is being replaced by this Bill. He also said that it had proved convenient for the bulky regulations relating to teachers' pay to be found in one document printed by the Stationery Office, and that that standard document could also be updated from time to time when further regulations were made and reprinted. I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which I totally accept. I should still like him to affirm the principle that all the provisions made by orders should normally be found in one place, although that place may not always be in the order itself.
Since Second Reading I have discovered an example of regulations doing just the same sort of thing as Clause 3(3) does but without benefit of a clause in the parent Act equivalent to Clause 3(3) in this Bill. I consider this to be quite an amusing discovery. The regulations have an acutely horrible name: the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions (No. 2) Regulations 1985 (No. 1835).
This provides that the maximum amount of benefit for boarders in ordinary board and lodging accommodation should be the amount shown, according to the relevent area, in a publication published by the Stationery Office in 1985, and entitled, equally repulsively, Supplementary Benefit, Maximum Amounts, Initial Periods and Board and Lodging Areas. The regulations were challenged in the High Court on vires but were upheld.
It seems to me that if the High Court validated those regulations which had been made without benefit of a clause such as Clause 3(3) in this Bill, then it follows that Clause 3(3) of this Bill is unnecessary and can be safely removed. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise not only to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but also because I have a sneaking wish to see the burgundy book on teachers' pay and conditions available in the Printed Paper Office of this Chamber. I do not know whether anybody has seen it and knows how lengthy it is; but it would be a valuable addition to noble Lords' reading matter.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in this matter and his desire to avoid any superfluous references in legislation. Nevertheless, if he were to press this amendment—I acknowledge he has said that it is only a probing amendment—I very much doubt

1227
that it would be welcomed by the teaching profession or perhaps even by noble Lords in the future.
As my noble friend Lord Belstead said at Second Reading, the power to set out provisions in a published document, which is then referred to in an order, is not new; it is in fact taken from the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which has provided the basis for the present arrangements. Over the years reference to a separate document has proved to be convenient. Provisions relating to teachers' pay are bulky and include a number of provisions which are not normally subject to annual alteration in the same way as pay scales. For example, the present Burnham document contains lengthy and complex provisions on incremental credit for qualifications and experience. It would not necessarily be a service to Parliament or to teachers for any order on teachers' pay and conditions to have to list those provisions if they were unchanged.
It will therefore continue to be convenient to have a standard document—a successor to the current Burnham document—which can be updated from time to time through an order. When amendments have accumulated, a new edition of the document can be produced, as is the current practice. The purpose of Clause 3(3) is to allow this to be continued. I appreciate that the noble Lord pointed out that this could happen without reference to it in the Bill; but because we are following a settled procedure and taking this from the 1965 Act, we feel it is important to leave Clause 3(3) as it stands.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for two reasons. The first is that while researching the background to the present Bill, I had difficulty in finding what the current arrangements for teachers' pay and conditions were. I am sure that if they were contained in an order before noble Lords, it would be much easier.
Secondly, I noted from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that he referred to the High Court as being the body that had deliberated and passed judgment on the efficacy or otherwise of the arrangements he mentioned. Perhaps we might bear in mind that the High Court is a subordinate court to this court of the House of Lords. It would be interesting to think with hindsight what the reaction of the highest court in the land might have been if the matter had been brought before it. So for those reasons I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to detain the Committee at this late hour, but it seems to be a very unattractive procedure that is followed in this case, and one apt to give rise to difficulty. I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be possible for details of the teachers' salary scales and arrangements, if they are complex and massive, to be attached as a schedule to the order. We are playing a little superficially with the serious process of legislation if subordinate legislation does not contain the substance of what it is trying to do and this is embodied in some other document distinct altogether from a legislative document, simply published by the Stationery Office.
1228
There is also a practial problem which arises from what my noble friend on the Front Bench said. As I understood her, my noble friend said that the document would be published by the Stationery Office and orders made from time to time introducing variants in teachers' pay. From time to time the document would be brought up to date. If I have understood her aright, that means there will be a period, after a particular change has been made, when there is no complete document containing the provisions in respect of teachers' pay approved by Parliament. This seems to be a very unfortunate procedure and the fact that it was adopted in 1965, while it may appeal to Lord McIntosh of Haringey, does not seem to me to make it at all a respectable precedent.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I am in some difficulty now because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, to be saying that it would be possible to have a separate document referred to in an order giving details without actually providing for it on the face of the Bill. So whether or not we provide for it in the Bill, I believe that we could end up having a separate document.
It seems to me that it would be more sensible for everybody to know exactly where the detail was to be found instead of having, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell said, to look everywhere for it. So I would have thought it would be preferable to keep it on the face of the Bill. However, in view of some of the comments that have been raised, although we looked at it again after Second Reading, I am prepared to take it back at this stage and see if there is any point in continuing with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am most grateful to my noble friend for saying that. I think it is a bad way to legislate and perhaps in particular she and her right honourable friend will consider the alternative of simply scheduling the detailed document to the order.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am most grateful to all those who have spoken on this small amendment which I moved in a slightly light-hearted fashion. However, it does contain a grain of seriousness. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his contribution. One is very unhappy that the law contained in a statute for subordinate legislation should be embodied elsewhere. This is a most unsatisfactory position and although it has been done before and has been upheld by the High Court, nevertheless it makes it an unsatisfactory situation both for Parliament and the public. That is the first point.
The second point is that I think, and the noble Baroness agreed with me, that the words in this clause are strictly otiose. I think the noble Baroness said they are merely convenient. I would ask whether it is right that an Act of Parliament should be used as a public convenience. I say "No". I am very grateful therefore that the noble Baroness has undertaken to reconsider the matter. With that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) An order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. This amendment enables provision to be made for different cases, including different areas, as regards conditions of employment other than remuneration, as well as for remuneration. I promised it at Second Reading, when I said that an amendment would make it clear that an order covering conditions of employment would be able to make different provision for different cases. This would allow orders to accommodate such variations as may be needed to meet, for example, the particular position of the voluntary sector, which we have already discussed in reference to other amendments.
Different provision for voluntary schools is in fact only one case in which different provision may be needed. A difference in conditions of employment could be needed as between ordinary schools and special schools. It is even more likely that a difference will be needed as between teachers in schools and those teachers who do not work in schools, such as peripatetic teachers or those who teach children at home. For example, they are unlikely to attend staff meetings or to take administrative responsibilities in a school. This amendment will allow such distinctions to be made.
The amendment subsumes the power at Clause 3(4)(a) to make different provisions as regards remuneration. That power will be needed in order to pay higher salaries to teachers in special schools than in ordinary schools; for the social priority allowance for schools in difficult areas; and for the London allowance, which has been paid for many years. As my noble friend said in winding-up at Second Reading, the Government have no radical proposals for regional or other pay differentiation, though that is an issue which might in due course be considered by the advisory committee.
If for no other reason, let me say that if this amendment is accepted by the Committee it means that I shall be in the happy position of accepting Amendment No. 41 which has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My amendment is No. 42.
Baroness Hooper: I am referring to the amendment to Clause 3, page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (a), which I have down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In fact there are two amendments. There is one in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead and one in the name of the noble Lord.
However, so far as Amendment No. 42 is concerned, I am afraid that I must return to disagreeing with the noble Lord when he seeks to insert a provision for a system of remuneration to be applied consistently throughout England and Wales. Teachers in London have received additional payments for many years. The unions consistently ask for those
1230
payments to be increased, and this amendment would require remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales. That would rule out differential remuneration in the London area. I find that an extraordinary suggestion and I cannot imagine that it would be welcomed. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment in due course. I trust also that the Committee will feel able to support Amendment No. 40.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am a little confused by what the noble Baroness has said in relation to Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. In my reading of it, Amendment No. 42 is quite different from Amendment No. 40 and it is Amendment No. 40 about which we have considerable reservations. We have been opposed to any provision that would have the effect of making different arrangements for pay between different areas for people doing exactly the same sort of work. This is one of the reasons why Amendment No. 42 has been put down. It states that we would not provide for other than a system of remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales.
What I understand the noble Baroness to be saying is something quite different. Indeed in the Second Reading debate a number of us made the point that what the Bill appeared to be doing was to turn the clock back to a situation in which there were very many different and separate pay scales in operation—a situation which led to a great many local disputes and a good deal of disruption throughout the education service. Indeed it was as a result of the disruption that then took place over a long period of time that we eventually had a system which was brought into operation and which came to be known as the Burnham Committee. I do not want to go into that, but we have very great reservations about a situation in which people can have different rates of pay in different areas of the country for doing exactly the same sort of work.
There is provision not only in this public service but in other public services for things like London weighting allowances, which is a different situation from that proposed here. For that reason we are not happy about Amendment No. 40, and we commend to your Lordships Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Irving of Dartford.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I must apologise to the Committee because I did not put the Question that Amendment No. 40 be agreed to. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already spoken to the amendment. The noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No. 42, which has not been reached.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that there is an error in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 41 was originally down in my name, and I had intended to have it struck off on Friday. If the Committee takes the amendment as not moved in my name, perhaps it will facilitate matters.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Government Amendment No. 41.
Lord Monkswell: I feel that we have inadvertently skipped over something which I feel is very important. If it was a mistake on my part in not joining the debate at the right time, I apologise unreservedly to the Committee. When the noble Baroness rose to address the Committee on this subject, she mentioned Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. She said that she was speaking to them all. I make a very inmportant distinction between Amendment No. 40 and Amendment No. 42. Amendment No. 40 would seek to allow the Secretary of State—I agree that this has been overtaken by events but if I can make this point—
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If the noble Lord will allow me, would it not be better to allow the question on Amendment No. 41 to be put and when Amendment No. 42 is then called he will have the right to speak on that?
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I can clarify the position with regard to Amendment No. 41. This amendment is necessary in view of Amendment No. 40, since the particular subsection was subsumed by that amendment. Therefore, the government amendment replaced the original amendment which was put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That has led to the confusion, but perhaps we may proceed in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which will solve the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not disputing that this is the right way to proceed, but I think it is now necessary to put down a marker. My Amendment No. 42 falls if Amendment No. 41 is carried, because the wording is imperfect. I say in Amendment No. 42,
"leave out paragraph (a)",
and it will already have been defeated. The marker I want to put down is for a later stage. I wish to say that the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Turner are valid. They are too lengthy to be taken at this time of night. The arguments put by my noble friend Lord Monkswell deserve more consideration than they could possibly receive at this time of night, and I wish to put down a marker that I shall return to this matter at Report stage.
Lord Monkswell: We have had a bit of procedural difficulty but I hope I can now make the contributions which I intended to make before.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think that we are still on Amendment No. 41. Has it been disposed of? I think not.
11 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: While I address my remarks to Amendment No. 41 I hope the Committee will understand if I make some remarks about Amendment No. 40, which overtook events, and Amendment No. 42.
1232
Two questions pertain to these three amendments. The first relates to the wish of the Government to seek apparently to vary on a local basis the conditions of employment other than remuneration. That area has never before been the subject of debate. Unfortunately this is a late hour at which to introduce this point and I take note of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh that we shall return to this aspect of the Bill.
We must start from the point of view that we are seeking to resolve an industrial dispute. To seek to do that by varying some terms and conditions of employment that have never before been called into question by either the employers or the employees seems very dangerous. That is the reason I raise the matter. It has already been touched upon by a previous speaker.
I now turn to the real substance of the argument, which is the variation of remuneration between different areas and in different cases. I had some difficulty, as I expressed earlier, in finding out what were the criteria for different pay. I had a look at the Houghton Report which dates from 1974 and found a range of different criteria for determining teachers' pay. Perhaps I may quickly give a resume of them.
The first is initial qualification: whether the teacher has a certificate in teacher training, or is a graduate or an honours graduate. The second is special qualifications which may be recognised by the local education authority. The third is pupil count which varies and is weighted by age. Another factor is the geographical area. Another is the type of school; and here the category of special schools comes into account. Another is responsibility in terms of scales up to the position of deputy headmaster; and the other responsibility category is for deputy headmasters and headmasters. The last is the number of years in service. I hope the Committee will understand if that list is not complete as I had limited time to do the research and difficulty in finding the sources.
I think the Committee will agree that all those categories are subject or could be subject to independent assessment. In regard to geographical area, London weighting and so on, it is conceivable that it could be adjudged capable of independent assessment. The number of pupils in a school is capable of independent assessment. The fact that none of these categories is referred to the inspectors of schools for an independent adjudication is an accident of history more than anything else; but on the basis of these criteria there is no argument about whether or not they are independent.
I return to my earlier remarks about the assessment of teachers' ability. That is a subject which particularly concerns me. It is an area in which the Government's proposals as laid out in the Bill and the attitude—if I may put it that way—or the aspirations of the Secretary of State as they have appeared in the media would suggest that the Government are looking at some mechanism for assessment of teachers to reward the good teachers and (dare I say it?) penalise the bad teachers.
My fear is that such a system of assessment and merit reward will not be based on independent assessment. I speak as someone who has some

1233
experience of industrial relations in industry. I must advise the Committee that I have sat on both sides of the camp, and my experience is that that system of reward—if one can broadly state it as merit awards—is divisive. I am genuinely concerned about the effect that such a system will have on our education system.
In school, teachers have to operate individually in classrooms. teaching 25, 35 or 40 children. They are in the front line and they need to be supported and encouraged in that job. When they go into the staff room they need to be able to relax and feel that they are in the company of colleagues who are equally in the front line; colleagues with whom they can identify and respond to as colleagues whose salaries are paid on a basis of merit, of independent assessment and of objective criteria.
If a colleague has higher qualifications or has increased responsibilities they can accept that that colleague will be paid differently. If their colleague has served more years in education they can accept that he or she will be paid more. However, if they feel that a classroom colleague is paid an extra amount of money not because of any objective criterion of assessment but because the colleague has, for some reason which may be unknown to them, found favour in the eyes of the headmaster or the board of governors, that factor will create divisions, resentment and antagonism within the staff room.
The staff room is where teachers gather together after a hard period at the front line. They feel safe and relaxed with their colleagues. But if they feel that their colleagues in the staff room are subject to preferential advancement or some factor to which they cannot aspire, that will create divisions and dissensions. I feel that that will not be conducive to the improvement of education in this country.
I have listed a number of criteria which I took from the Houghton Report. I shall mention some other criteria which the Government may usefully take on board and which would also be capable of independent assessment. We can look at some of the criteria proposed by Houghton and some of the problems that Houghton had to face. One of the problems was that the size of schools was increasing. In some respects there had to be incentives for teachers to adjust to that change. One of the criteria for determining salary scales was school size. A number of what are generally termed scale posts were available at larger schools. There was the possibility of career progression, if one can put it like that, and for the enhancement of salaries for teachers in larger schools.
Ten years ago we considered that a long-term requirement. If we look at the education system now we can see that adjusting to change is no longer a major criterion. There are other criteria at which I hope the Government will look seriously, one of which is special needs.
We are changing from a system whereby children with special needs are educated in special schools to one whereby they are being incorporated within mainstream schools. That involves changing the attitudes and abilities of mainstream teachers. That may be one of the criteria that the Government could use to vary salaries to encourage teachers in normal schools to go on SENIOS (special educational needs in ordinary schools) courses.
1234
At a time when this country is deeply involved in the EC and needs to trade with the rest of the world, and when we have seen the decline of empire, it may be (I am sure of this and hope the Government will take it on board) that we need to place special long-term emphasis on the teaching of foreign languages in schools. There may be occasion to introduce extra pay for those teachers who have an ability in foreign languages.
I do not believe that it would be conducive to improving the country's education system to determine pay by short-term shortages. Here I mention mathematics teachers, physics teachers and so forth. CDT teachers were mentioned earlier. I do not think that the use of pay differentials to improve the short-term availability of specialist teachers is necessarily advantageous.
The hour is late. I apologise unreservedly to the Committee for carrying on for so long, but I believe that this area of the Bill is important. I notice that my noble friend Lord McIntosh said that we should probably return to this subject at some later stage of the Bill. I hope that my contribution at that stage will not be so long. I commend my remarks to the Government.
Lord Parry: Perhaps I may quickly say that I too would wish to return to the subject that is implicit: the general provision for the country rather than for specific areas.
Baroness Hooper: In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; has said that we shall return to this at a later stage at his instigation, and indeed under threats of duress from the noble Lord the Chief Whip, I think it is preferable that at this stage I do not respond in detail to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think it has been generally agreed that we have now reached the stage that we can usefully adjourn until tomorrow. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  SDI CONTRACTS: MANPOWER AND COSTS
  SDI CONTRACTS: MANPOWER AND COSTS
  SDI CONTRACTS: UKAEA-US
  SDI CONTRACTS: UKAEA-US
  VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR BRITISH TRAVELLERS
  VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR BRITISH TRAVELLERS
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
  INTERNATIONAL DEBT: MANAGEMENT POLICY
  INTERNATIONAL DEBT: MANAGEMENT POLICY
  COACHES: CONTROL IN CENTRAL LONDON
  COACHES: CONTROL IN CENTRAL LONDON
  ILEA TEACHING PACK: REVISED GUIDE
  ILEA TEACHING PACK: REVISED GUIDE
  BED AND BREAKFAST ACCOMMODATION RULES: EXEMPTIONS
  BED AND BREAKFAST ACCOMMODATION RULES: EXEMPTIONS
  HEDGEROW DESTRUCTION
  HEDGEROW DESTRUCTION