Sitting of 4 March 1987

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

    Tameside
    Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet a deputation from Tameside district council to discuss the 1987–88 urban programme and Tameside's non-inclusion in the programme to date.
    The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, met the leader of Tameside and others on 9 December 1986 to discuss our proposals to direct urban programme resources to the areas of greatest need, which I confirmed at the end of January 1987. My right hon. Friend has recently written to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon) about this same issue.
    Mr. Pendry: Notwithstanding that, will the Minister say that he will meet a deputation? If so, when he meets it will he show an element of flexibility and understanding? Since Tameside was excluded from the urban programme, the situation has become worse in my constituency. Some 400 jobs were lost this week, in an area where the unemployment rate is about 30 per cent. If, after those figures, the Minister is still not convinced, will he read the first chapter of a book that was issued this week entitled "Left Behind", written by David Selbourne, who is not a supporter of the Labour party. He paints a dismal picture of my constituency. If the Minister enters those talks with a fair mind, I believe that he will grant the aid that Tameside richly deserves.
    Mr. Patten: All the 1987–88 urban programme moneys are now allocated. The hon. Gentleman's constituents saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to discuss this issue, and we saw delegations from other parts of the country. As a result, some changes were made to the list. The consultation process was extremely useful
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister will recall a brief conversation—very brief, I accept—that I had with him in December 1986, and a further conversation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, where I expressed my involvement and intention to seek such a meeting. It is a great pity that the decisions were made before the meeting between the three Members of Parliament and the local authority. Will he reconsider the decision in the light of my representations?
    Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman is a right hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    854
    State would be prepared to see him at any time to discuss these issues. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any changes to the urban programme allocations as already given.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain his decision? Will he accept that on every count of social deprivation Tameside has at least as many problems as the neighbouring authorities of Oldham, Rochdale and Manchester? Surely there is a strong case for bringing aid into Tameside? Do he and his colleagues know where Tameside is? Will he accept that the east side of Manchester has the same problems as are suffered by the surounding towns — declining cotton mills and other problems.
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are aware of the socio-economic problems that face boroughs around Tameside, and we know exactly where Tameside is. The unemployment level, discounting the additional 400 job losses that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), remains about the national average. Most areas that are receiving inner urban programme help have average unemployment of around 18 per cent. We are seeking to concentrate help where it is most needed. That process of concentration has been welcomed by the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Pendry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Inner City Areas (Housing)
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Seecretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has on the feasibility of building new houses and renovating old property for housing in inner city areas; and what plans he has to fund such housing initiatives.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no doubt about the feasibility of housebuilding in the inner cities—private housebuilders are already building about 12,000 homes a year in these areas.
    I shall continue to support housing initiatives in inner city areas by using public money to attract substantial amounts of private investment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Anthony Steen. Oh, we had better have Mr. Hughes first.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for your enthusiastic invitation, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State seen the house price survey by Campaign for Homes in central London which shows that, last year, the average house price in north Southwark was £160,000 Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need is for cheap housing to rent and affordable housing to buy, at about £40,000? As we see on today's tapes that house prices have risen by more than 25 per cent. in London during the past year, can he give an assurance to young couples and others that there will be affordable housing for them in our capital city?
    Mr. Ridley: Housing is a local authority responsibility. I keep being urged by the Opposition Front Bench not to

    855
    take responsibilities from local government, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to involve me in a local authority problem. There are large numbers of empty council houses in London and other parts of the country. If they wished to, local authorities could use those houses to house people whom they cannot house themselves.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have whetted the appetite of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), but I think that I shall have to call him later. I call Mr. McLoughlin.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the huge number of empty houses in some parts of London, legislation is required to force councils to sell houses on a homesteading basis after they have been empty for six months, thus giving people an opportunity to buy houses at prices that they can afford?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Pawley) introduced a sensible Bill under the ten minutes rule in that regard and I shall be very tempted to support such a Bill if local authorities do not carry out their statutory function to house people in the capital.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the private sector has a great many more empty properties than has the local authority sector, and that the worst offenders are Government Departments, who are the landlords of the highest proportion of vacant property? What action will he take to get his colleagues to put their own house in order?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman invites me to take action on all three fronts. He never knows, I might.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Leicester at the moment there are 947 empty houses of which 77 have been empty for more than one year? Does he agree that even if private investment comes forward, the council is obviously opposed to receiving any help, does not want to build any more council houses and wants to keep tenants in run-down housing? Is that not a disgrace?
    Mr. Ridley: It is quite clear that there is no point in building more council houses in areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency where there is already a surplus. If we are as short of land as all hon. Members think and we want to operate a thoroughly restrictive planning policy in the countryside, the consequence must be that we make all available homes available for occupation by people who want them, whether they be in the public or the private sector. That is the only conclusion of a restrictive planning policy.
    Dr. Cunningham: May I take up the Secretary of State's suggestion that he would like to act on all three fronts to solve the problems of homelessness — the local government sector, the private sector and where the Government are landlord? If he brings forward comprehensive proposals along those lines, he will have a great deal of support from this side of the House, not least because the growing homelessness in Britain is a social scandal. It is resulting in an economic cost which in 1985–86 in London alone was £26 million for bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The people in such accommodation are getting an appalling deal from the
    856
    Government and ratepayers and taxpayers are paying through the nose for it. It is a scandal and the right hon. Gentleman ought to act on it.
    Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's apparent last-minute conversion. I look forward to meeting him behind the Speaker's Chair after questions to get his signature on that.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend think that to have masses, or a large proportion, of the nation's wealth tied up in private housing in inner city areas such as London is a fabulous waste of resources? Does he agree that the amount of rented property available has been reduced from about 40 per cent. of what used to be available to under 10 per cent., and that unless and until he bites the bullet and decides to abolish rent control, that position will continue in inner city areas such as London for years to come?
    Mr. Ridley: The private rented sector has declined from about 6 million to about 1·5 million homes. We cannot afford that loss of accommodation if we are to house all those people who are looking for housing. My hon. Friend makes a point upon which I hope we shall come to have unanimity in the House so that we can tackle the problems about which this question asks.

    Council House Waiting Lists
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the total number of people on the waiting lists for rented council houses of all types at the end of 1986, together with the numbers for each of the 10 largest cities.
    Mr. Ridley: Criteria for including people on waiting lists differ from council to council, but English authorities reported that 1·35 million households were on their lists in April 1986. I am placing the figures for the 10 largest authorities in the Library.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State remember that an answer to a question from me a few weeks ago about how many council houses the Government have allowed to be built, showed that the number was 74,000 in 1979 and steadily dropped to only 19,000 last year? The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is a waiting list of, I think, 1·3 million and has said that he will give the actual figures for the 10 largest cities later. There is a massive queue of people and homelessness all over the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. It is insufficient to say that there are plenty of empty houses. Why are the Government not allowing houses to be built not only to provide employment but to provide homes for those who need them?
    Mr. Ridley: The waiting list is a notoriously bad measurement of housing need. Many people who are on a list are already housed or just want a transfer. Some are on more than one list, and some apply for council housing as an insurance in case their preferred housing plans fall through. In Sheffield there are currently 8,750 empty houses, 5,500 of them in the private sector and the rest public housing. It makes no sense for the hon. Gentleman to advocate a massive house building programme when there are 8,750 empty houses in his city.
    Sir George Young: Would not the number on the waiting lists in London be reduced if the accommodation

    857
    that many people were offered was in slightly better condition? What has been the response to my right hon. Friend's Departments' generous offer to local authorities in London for extra funds from his Department to bring back into better use some of the grotty estates in the inner London area?
    Mr. Ridley: The estate action programme has received greatly increased resources —£75 million next year—to bring much-needed funds for the repair of the worst council estates, wherever they may be. I regret bitterly to have to tell the House that Brent and Lambeth have refused assistance from that source for the homeless. I hope that all local authorities, including those in London, will avail themselves of the help that the Government have brought.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State investigate the scandalous position that is developing in my constituency in the Rothwell area of Leeds where British Coal has just released an estate where the houses were empty for five years? The houses are now defective and British Coal refused to sell them to tenants. Now they have been sold to a private operator who is asking five times the previous rent but has carried out no structural strengthening of the houses. They are defective. Something should be done to ensure that this racket does not continue. Will the Secretary of State investigate the scandalous position that has developed in my constituency.
    Mr. Ridley: I am always happy to investigate any problem which is brought to my attention. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to know about that matter before I have had a chance to study it. On the general question on British Coal houses, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and I have written to all right hon. and hon. Members who have raised the problem and have explained the present position, and I think that that has satisfied them.
    Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour councils in the north-east have some 10,000 empty council houses ready for occupation now and have had for some five years? Will my right hon. Friend be a little more radical and bring forward legislation to allow the homeless to homestead in houses that are difficult to let?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. It is possible for local authorities in housing stress areas to take on empty houses which are ready and available in other parts of the country to house the people whom those authorities cannot house. If local authorities are not going to get their housing act together and house those people and to use their massive resources, I agree with my hon. Friend that more drastic measures will have to be taken in the interests of the homeless.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the Secretary of State stop giving us what is called in the pop record industry a remix of alibis, excuses and gimmicks? Will he admit that the number of homes built to rent last year by local authorities was the lowest in 62 years, that the housing investment programme net of capital receipts was the lowest in real terms since HIPs were invented and that, even during the past three years the number of repair and improvement grants, which would bring some private homes back into use, have dropped by 100,000? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if the private owner and the
    858
    local authority are starved of resources, we are left with lengthy queues, homelessness and all the other scandals of poor housing that exist today?
    Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are about 760,000 more homes than there are households? What is the point in the hon. Gentleman getting up day after day and advocating massive council house building when there is a surplus of council housing in many parts of the country? There is a problem in London, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that there is not overall a national problem.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could bring into use a majority of the 113,000 empty council houses and flats, it would have a dramatic impact on council house waiting lists? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could bring into use private sector properties that are at present underused or unused and which are available, but which the landlord is unwilling to let because of the Rent Acts, we would be able to solve the problem completely?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Audit Commission estimates that, with streamlined letting procedures, a further 20,000 local authority dwellings could be made available in London. That would be another massive increase in the available stock. Inefficiency in the letting procedures is another reason why there is a housing shortage in London. I repeat: we must tackle the misuse of existing housing stock before we go into the expensive idea of building lots of new houses because we cannot be bothered to let the old ones properly.

    Homeless Persons
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the availability of hostel accommodation for the homeless.
    Mr. John Patten: Finding accommodation for homeless people is primarily the responsibility of local authorities under part III of the Housing Act 1985. The Government are, however, assisting the provision of temporary hostel places for the homeless in various ways, including in particular the widely welcomed new provision through the Housing Corporation.
    Mr. Alton: Given that, in reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State queried the use of waiting lists as a guide to the number of homeless people, will he dispute the figures provided by Shelter that show that up to 100,000 people will present themselves as homeless this year, and that, by summer, no temporary hostel accommodation will be available for homeless people in London? As the Minister just said that he thinks that more temporary accommodation should be made available, what will he do about it? Does he agree that the problem has been compounded by encouraging young people to become a nation of Dick Whittingtons, to leave the great northern cities, to travel to London and find that the streets are not paved with jobs? They end up living in cardboard cities in conditions that are nothing but undignified.
    Mr. Patten: We recently announced the funding of a major programme of analysis into the causes of homelessness by the Birmingham university centre for urban and regional studies. It has been widely welcomed by all lobbying bodies involved, including Shelter. That

    859
    programme will help to shed some light on the first of the four questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I shall make a couple of other observations on his other questions if I may.
    Mr. Speaker: No.
    Mr. Patten: I shall not, in that case.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should answer, but I ask for single questions, otherwise it is unfair to other hon. Members.
    Mr. Patten: That is precisely why I asked for your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer the last three questions. I did not want to see any unfairness to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that in his own area of Liverpool there is no need for anyone to be homeless because there are about 8,000 empty council properties in Liverpool alone.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the best way to solve the problem of homelessness is not to provide more hostel accommodation—to take up points raised earlier during Question Time — but to bring about amendments to the rent legislation to bring on to the market the private rented units that are currently available but which private landlords cannot afford to put on to the market, and to bring forward public accommodation in the ownership of local authorities which, with rehabilitation, could he made available? Therefore, will he make more money available for the rehabilitation of public housing and amend the rent legislation?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has given us a lot of food for thought. The private rented sector could provide considerable amounts of accommodation through refurbishment to house the homeless. It is exactly co-operation with the private sector, through the Housing Corporation to which we are looking to try to fund additional temporary hostels for the homeless which will be so important in placing people in permanent accommodation.
    Mr. Rooker: I reiterate to the Minister the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that if he comprehensively operates in all three areas, we shall do all that we can to facilitate the matter. It is a scandal. Does it worry him that there have been press reports in the past couple of weeks that 40-bedroom hotels in London which changed hands for £750,000 three years ago, are now changing hands for several millions of pounds. It means that the owners can clean up at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer by using three hotels for bed and breakfast accommodation? The Minister cannot ignore that scandal any longer.
    Mr. Patten: It is precisley for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made available to the Housing Corporation enough money to bring in between £50 million and £70 million of investment in hostel accommodation, largely in London, which will make the use of bed and breakfast accommodation unnecessary. That is precisely my right hon. Friend's policy.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the likely collection costs of the proposed community charge for England and Wales.
    The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We have received a number of representations about the operation of the community charge, including the cost of collection.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic rates are a fair way of financing genuinely local services if other items of expenditure such as education are taken out and funded by central taxation? Therefore, will my hon. Friend be cautious before he introduces a community charge, with its rebates, exemptions and collection difficulties?
    Dr. Boyson: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said, but there is an overwhelming feeling about rates being unfair to many residents. The great advantage of the community charge is that everybody who is voting is paying something towards the cost, whereas in Lambeth and Liverpool, where there are nonsensical councils, only one voter in five pays anything.
    Mr. Park: Will the Minister now answer the question? What are the likely collection costs of the community charge?
    Dr. Boyson: We referred to that question in the Green Paper. It is likely that the cost will be double the cost of the collection of rates. However, when people realise that local authorities are spending their money, I believe that local authorities will be much more careful about how they spend that money. There is no doubt that this is one of the best financial bargains for this country.
    Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend not accept that some very reputable organisations have suggested that the nature of the charge is such that many people who may be assessed will none the less avoid payment, particularly in the inner city areas where they will stay in one place for a mere two or three months? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it will be possible to recover the community charge as easily as rates?
    Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's question so that I can take further the educational course of Opposition Members on the community charge. It is not an annual charge; it is a monthly charge. Most people do not move every month. Some people do not move every year. The head of each household has to list the people who are living in the house and the local authority then has to collect the community charge. I have no doubt that this can be done.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of the community charge in England, particularly in west Cumbria, will massively increase the amount of money that is paid for what, in effect, is only a substitute for rates? Is he aware that if one compares the figures with those for Scotland, the substitute rate payments by people in Maryport, Workington and other towns of west Cumbria will double and in many cases will triple? Is that what the Government call fairness in local taxation?
    Dr. Boyson: I do not quite follow all the hon. Gentleman's comments, or where his figures come from.

    861
    If a local authority is spending £2 million a year and raises a proportion of that sum from the rates, it will raise a quarter of its expenditure from the community charge, and that will be the equivalent of the rate income. If the local authority is more careful about its expenditure, the amount that is levied will be less. By spreading this cost more widely many people, including the old-age pensioner and the one-parent family — about whom we have "bleeding hearts" stories from Opposition Members all the time—will be better off than they are under the present system. [Interruption.] They will be considerably better off. They will pay only one charge. If they are living in a house with two or three bedrooms, they will be paying two or three times more than that. Those are the mathematics of it.
    Mr. Marland: As my hon. Friend is aware, Gloucestershire county council is now under alliance control. Is he aware that for the second year running it has voted for substantial rate increases? Will he introduce the community charge as soon as possible to stop the alliance squandering other people's money?
    Dr. Boyson: I believe that the expenditure increase in Gloucestershire over two years is about 41 per cent. That council is under alliance control. Therefore I welcome my hon. Friend's question. We presume that when there is a wider spread of the community charge, fewer people in Gloucestershire will be under alliance control.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition are very grateful to him for his admission, for the first time, that the cost of collecting this bureaucratic poll tax will be double the cost of collecting rates in the long term? Will he confirm the estimate of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy that, in the interim, the cost of collection will be four times the cost of rates? Will he also confirm that his own consultative document on the poll tax says that there will be Orwellian checks on residents before they can use local services? Why did the Minister seek just now to mislead the House as to the burden on one-parent families and old-age pensioners? Is he not aware that at the moment old-age pensioners and one-parent families pay nothing towards the rates but that under this poll tax proposal they will pay a substantial amount?
    Dr. Boyson: It is very difficult to catch up with all the questions that have been asked. There has been no attempt to mislead. The Green Paper gave the figures. The position is the same as in Scotland: it will be about twice the present cost. The basis of the community charge is to ensure that those who are using the services are paying something towards the cost of those services. That will end the nonsense from the hard Left in so many councils in London.
    Mr. Rathbone: Whatever the advantages in budgetary terms or in terms of local government finance, would not my hon. Friend accept that there are strong electoral disadvantages in bringing into taxation people who are as yet not in taxation by spreading that sort of tax across the whole population in the way that the Government plan?
    Dr. Boyson: I do not go along with my hon Friend's view. I am working through my mind exactly what he is saying. My own view, and the view of the Government of which I am part, is quite clear. One of the problems around the country now is that a smaller and smaller proportion
    862
    of those who vote are voting to spend other people's money. In places such as Manchester and Liverpool only two out of every nine are paying. The other seven are voting to spend the money of those two. That is why there is nonsense expenditure and nonsense in the councils there.

    Land Use (Circular)
    Mr. Andy Stewartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet members of the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss the draft circular on planning and agricultural land.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about his new draft planning circular; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from the Countryside Commission to his draft circular on planning and agricultural land.
    The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Countryside Commission welcomed the draft planning circular in a press release of 11 February; the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council welcomed the package of measures, including the extension of environmentally sensitive areas and farm, forestry, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced at the same time. The formal consultation period on the circular continues until 10 April.
    Mr. Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Will he say that, when he meets the Nature Conservancy Council, he will reassure it that there will be no change in the Government's green belt policy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. My right hon. Friend and I have been making that crystal clear in recent days to the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and anybody else who may ask. Since the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is present in the Chamber, I should say that I have seen another report today in the Daily Telegraph saying
    "Labour will build in Green Belt."
    My hon. Friend should be addressing his question to the Opposition, who are clearly proposing encroachment on the green belt.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that overdevelopment is the overriding political concern of most of my constituents, certainly, most of those who live in south-east Dorset? Is he aware that the test of the Government's intention will not be speeches and ministerial directives, welcome as they are, from my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but the contents of the circular? Will he give an assurance that the changed policy will provide unequivocal legal guidance to inspectors in his Department to give environmental consideration the highest priority when determining appeals?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. I am delighted to reassure my hon. Friend, who has a great interest in these matters, that my right hon. Friend's draft circular says, for the first time, that the overriding privilege given to agricultural land as productive agricultural land now has to be replaced by a balance between the needs of the economy and the needs of the environment itself. Surely, in modern times, that is

    863
    the correct balance. It is difficult to deal with such casually, badly edited and misleading comments as were heard, for example, on the introduction to the Nick Ross phone-in on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, which was a completely misleading and shoddy account.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the circular will be regarded as a major step forward, particularly in rural areas? For the first time it establishes the primacy of the environment, which will do a great deal to reassure small companies and businesses that are being set up in some of our rural areas, specifically within former farm buildings that are no longer required.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. His point of view is echoed by the chairman of the Countryside Commission, who made the same point in a press release. We have to look at the economic health of the villages and small towns and at the conservation of the environment. That is the balance we need to keep.
    Mr. Hardy: Since the principal motivator of change was supposed to be the agriculture surplus, particularly the cereal surplus, will the Minister discuss with the Nature Conservancy Council the weakness in the Government's position, which is demonstrated by their apparently complete disregard of grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural areas, where the surplus is produced, and where the landscape features and hedgerows have been largely obliterated?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has completely changed the whole grant structure in those regions. Grants can now be obtained, for example, for the replacement of traditional hedgerows and so forth. My right hon. Friend is now developing schemes for the planting of farm woodlands. Those proposals must be welcomed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and other hon. Members.
    Mr. Livsey: When will the Minister be able to make a more detailed statement on agricultural land and planning? What is he doing to safeguard the position of county structure plans?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the procedure. Under the procedure, a draft circular is produced for comment. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read the draft circular he will find all the detail that he needs and perhaps he might then like to comment on it.
    Dr. David Clark: In his discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council on the proposed draft circular, will the Minister take the opportunity to raise the threat to the site of special scientific interest in the Black Mountains which is currently threatened by the spraying of herbicides? Does that not prove the point that it is more important to get our present land use system in operation correctly rather than to rush ahead recklessly with further threats to the countryside?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's point is a long way from the draft planning circular. However, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 proper procedures are in place for the protection of SSSIs, which I know that the hon. Gentleman supports. There is no question of our recklessly charging ahead. The hon. Gentleman would be
    864
    rightly critical of the Government if, against the changes in the agricultural needs in the country, we did not bring forward sensible policies for alternative land use and for the health of the rural communities. He would be right to criticise us if we did not do that.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Norwich health authority has turned down four possible sites for the new hospital on the grounds that the sites are of high agricultural value? Is that not an absurdity?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is impossible for me to comment on a particular application from the Dispatch Box. However, the point of my right hon. Friend's draft circular is that we must now balance the needs of the environment for its own sake against the needs for particular development and not give overriding and automatic privileges to agricultural production.

    Bathing Beaches
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his announcement of 3 February in respect of new bathing beach designations.
    Mr. William Waldegrave: There has been a generally favourable response from water authorities, the press and interested parties.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As the Minister knows, many of the beaches are filthy and do not conform to EEC standards. What is the estimated cost of bringing them up to EEC standards? Are the Government to make the money available and if so, when?
    Mr. Waldegrave: First, the water authorities are self-financing and this must be something for water consumers to pay in their charges. The hon. Lady has asked about the time scale. We have just less than £300 million in the programme until 1990. I suspect that if we continue to spend at about that rate the programme will be finished towards the end of the century. That is a reasonable spreading of the programme so that there is not too much burden on water consumers in the short term.
    Mr. Steen: Although the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) may not be aware of this, three of the most beautiful beaches in the west country are in South Hams. They are also the most heavily polluted, because raw sewage comes straight out of a pipe that was built before the war right under the beach. Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on that because it is seriously affecting tourism and the South-West water authority has said that it can do nothing about it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I was aware of that, as my hon. Friend constantly tells me about the beauty of the South Hams beaches. He has made a serious point about the resources involved and that must be for discussion within the context of the corporate plans of the various water authorities. It is worth my hon. Friend remembering that we have just now managed to restore the real terms cuts made by the Labour Government when the country surrendered control of its investment programmes to the IMF in 1976. We have just got back in real terms to the investment level of 1976.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I am looking forward very much to fighting the hon.

    865
    Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on those beaches, and that the House is glad to see the hon. Gentleman here more than it used to?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has already started his campaign, using some of the effluent matter, which is probably how he will continue.
    Mr. Terlezki: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales depends a great deal on tourism? Since about 20 million British people will be taking their holidays abroad, is it not imperative to spend more cash to ensure that Welsh beaches are up to European standard, so that we can attract more tourism to the Principality?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Indeed. I paid a very enjoyable visit to my hon. Friend's constituency last week and the point was made about the importance of tourism and of the beaches to tourism. The programme is steadily under way. Often, the investment is big, takes a long time and must secure planning permission; it cannot just be rushed through. A solid programme is under way.
    Mr. Hancock: Does the Minister recognise that many water authorities are totally inadequately funded and do not have the resources, and that to wait until the next century to clean up those beaches is an indictment of the Government? Will he consider giving resources to improve the south coast beaches, especially in south Hampshire? Would it not be more appropriate to give some of that money to local authorities to do it now rather than to wait? Will the Minister confirm that his Department will consider the problem seriously and will not leave the under-funded water authorities to deal with it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has got it a bit back to front. Southern Water was one of the water authorities which most strongly welcomed my recent announcement on this. Resources cannot be conjured up magically. This must be paid for by someone, and there must be a reasonable programme so that it does not cost too much in the short term. They are often big investment projects that cannot be conjured out of the air.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister really telling the people of Britain that they have to swim in raw or macerated sewage until the end of this century? The World Health Organisation. the European Community and the United States Environment Protection Agency have said that there is a potential health risk in swimming in sea water contaminated by raw sewage. Why do the Government continually ignore the standards that they have set? How can the Minister take such a negative, uncaring, irresponsible and parsimonious attitude? It is no wonder that the EC is taking the Government to court over their attitude.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have fallen victim to understatement in this matter. The truth is that well before the end of this century, all our principal beaches will be clean. More than half of our 380 bathing beaches already meet European and World Health Organisation standards. There is no health risk, and the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the House by using such scare tactics.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Patchettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of homeless persons in England.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homeless single people in London; and how many of these are estimated to be sleeping rough.
    Mr. Ridley: In the year ending 30 September 1986, local authorities in England accepted responsibility for 101,280 formerly homeless households, and found them accommodation.
    I am concerned that a number of people are sleeping rough in London. But as they do not qualify under the homelessness legislation, there are no soundly based figures on their numbers, nor on the number of homeless single people.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the lining of the pockets of landlords and hoteliers is not the answer to this problem? Does he not think that it would be better to give the money to local authorities to build homes? does he recognise that the Government's policies on the homeless merely exacerbate the problem?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got it right. Half of those who are accepted as homeless are put into permanent local authority housing immediately. For the rest, a very large amount of empty local authority housing could be used if only authorities would manage it efficiently. I agree that there is a problem while people who are accepted as homeless must be put into temporary accommodation until permanent accommodation can be found. We have produced extra resources for the Housing Corporation to try to assist in the stress areas.
    Mr. Dubs: May I put it to the Secretary of State that in London many single people can neither afford to buy nor to pay private sector rents and that as they are being completely missed out by local authorities, especially by Tory-controlled Wandsworth, they have no alternative but to sleep rough or to find somebody else's floor to sleep on? Is it right that a whole generation of single people should be left out of the housing market altogether, with no prospects for the future?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that most such people would be eligible for housing benefit, so it is not a question of not being able to afford the rent. He also knows that, as I have said, there are about 750,000 more houses in this country than there are households.
    Mr. Dubs: Not in London.
    Mr. Ridley: It may conceivably be a good idea for such people to go to somewhere where there is a home, rather than to sleep rough in London.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole problem started with the well-intentioned private Member's Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, in which it was visualised that we could provide homes for everyone who cared to move to another area? Has that not created a vast problem? Does he have in mind any way in which that Act could be reviewed because it promises too much and creates terrible problems for local authorities, especially in the south?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not think that any quarter of the House feels that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act should be repealed. It makes it clear that it is those who have a local residence qualification to whom the local authority has an obligation, if they are accepted as

    867
    homeless. However, there is a great deal of acceptance of people who do not have the proper residence qualification and that is making the problem worse in those scarcity areas.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments are absolutely right and that in Ealing the 50 homeless families on the list which the new hard-left council inherited from the previous Conservative council last May at a cost of £300,000 a year have now been swamped by 500, who have been drawn on to the list by the abolition of residence points? That means that local people have no chance at all and that people are sucked on to the list from all over the country and the world. That list is expected to number 1,000 next May, at a cost of £5 million. Is that not ridiculous?
    Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend's figures are correct, although I have no confirmation of them here. May I add that if such councils spent less money on nonsensical and irresponsible things — heavens knows they are charging high enough rates—they could afford to house their own people. They should stop wasting money on nuclear-free zones, gays and lesbians and such things.
    Dr. Cunningham: Can we have less of the crass and insensitive stupidity of the Secretary of State for the Environment? Should people who are without work take the advice of the chairman of the Conservative party and go looking for jobs, or take his advice and go elsewhere looking for homes? Are the Government so incompetent that they cannot give people decent houses and the opportunity of a job?
    Mr. Ridley: It is crass and incompetent of the hon. Gentleman not to realise that it is better to find a home where one is empty, than to sleep out on the pavement if one does not have to. Housing is the responsibility of councils. In London, where the Labour party is running so many councils inefficiently, the Audit Commission has stated that about £20 million a year is wasted on totally frivolous national issues and spending of the sort that I have mentioned. That £20 million a year would easily solve the problem of London's homeless if those councils got their priorities right.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Secretary of State accept that no Member of this House wants to keep a single house empty for a moment longer than is necessary, but that that will not necessarily do much to help the problem of homelessness? In the borough of Tower Hamlets the officers estimate that one fifth of the amount that is allowed under rate capping must be spent on the homeless, because of the mismatch of the empty properties with the needs of the homeless.
    Mr. Ridley: Why does the borough of Tower Hamlets have six mini town halls, six town clerks, six sets of administrators, and six lots of bureaucrats? If it had spent all that money on housing the homeless, it might have got somewhere.

    New Building
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of new building took place on recycled or derelict land in 1986; and what is his Department's estimate as to whether that proportion will rise or fall.
    Mr. Ridley: In 1985, the most recent year for which figures are available, 47 per cent. of land used for development had previously been developed or was vacant land in urban areas. I hope that that proportion will remain substantial.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be far less pressure for development on greenfield sites in my constituency and elsewhere if more derelict land in inner cities is brought to market? Has he thought of introducing some sort of land value taxation which would encourage this land to be brought to market as soon as possible?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree. The figure of 47 per cent. is by far the best that we have ever achieved and I hope that it will get better still. Rather than tax unused, derelict land in inner cities, the Government are subsidising it. It is being brought back into use through the derelict land grant, the urban programme and now the urban development corporations in the relevant areas. We are much more likely to get a quick and ready take-up of, and useful employment for, that land if we make it available in good condition and cheaply rather than if we simply tax it.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Secretary of State think that it is as unrealistic to claim that all inner city derelict sites should be built on as it would be to say that all new build should be on greenfield sites? When he approves derelict land grants will he bear in mind that in my constituency builders were forced by a scarcity of land to consider digging 10 acres of tipped waste which was 15-years-old —no one knew what was there—with massive potential environmental damage? They have pulled back from that, but builders and developers should not be placed in that position. That is why the matter must be considered with greater sensitivity.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In some parts of the northern industrial areas where, unfortunately, there is a massive decline in population, there will be room for increased green space above what there has been previously. I have asked the new urban development corporations to take that into account where they can do so. In some of the bustling, overcrowded cities of the south it will not be easy to accommodate all the people whom we have been talking about at Question Time today and to provide increased green space.

    Estuaries (Conservation)
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will establish a register of the current development proposals which affect conservation interests in the estuaries of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir. My Department is aware of a number of proposals, some of which would seem to have major impacts on ecologically important estuaries; others less so. Each individual proposal would have to be assessed on its merits at the time.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that our estuaries are threatened by development as never before? Does he accept that 90 per cent. of the birds that overwinter here do so in 37 estuaries and that most of those 37 estuaries are now subject to development proposals? In view of that

    869
    massive threat to wildlife in our estuaries and because of our duties under the Ramsar convention will he undertake an urgent review?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind because what he says is important and true and many proposals seem to be coming forward at present. Some do not have such dire effects as my hon. Friend suggests, but others are serious. It is open to an inspector or a planning committee to consider the cumulative effect of the developments and it is important that they do so in due course.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that one development on the Mersey estuary involves a sewage plant which will, for the first time, take raw sewage from the Liverpool area and treat it so that it is not pushed into the Mersey? That treatment is only a primary treatment, so that solids do not go on to Blackpool beach, but other pollutants will. If the water authorities are self-financing, as the Minister said earlier, will he release them from public sector borrowing requirement restrictions and allow them to borrow the money to do the job properly, so that when Mr. and Mrs. Ramsbottom do not take Albert to the zoo, where he would be eaten by a lion, but take him instead to swim on the beach, he will not get poisoned by pollution?
    Mr. Waldegrave: At Question Time today we have already considered the brass neck that is necessary for the Labour party to talk about investment in the water industry because it slashed the industry to pieces. I am sure that the scheme which the North-West water authority is introducing will have proper environmental consequences and will be properly designed.

    London Marathon (County Hall)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had about the continued use of county hall for the London marathon.
    Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport met a delegation of hon. Members and the race director, led by the hon. Member on 14 July last year.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that if the marathon organisers are prevented from using county hall, the finishing line for the race will have to be switched and, in terms of participation, the event will be downgraded from its international status? Will the Minister use his influence with the London residuary body to try to ensure that any future occupant of county hall agrees to give the marathon organisers the continued use of county hall for just one weekend in the year?
    Dr. Boyson: I know that many hon. Members feel strongly about the marathon finish remaining at the building erstwhile called county hall. We have no locus in this matter, but we have spoken to the residuary body and it will speak to any prospective buyers pointing out the advantage of the marathon continuing to end at county hall because of the nearness of Westminster bridge and Big Ben and because of the publicity that finishing spot brings and will continue to bring to anybody who buys county hall.
    Mr. Harrison rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order?
    Mr. Harrison: I want to speak on this subject.
    Mr. Speaker: Bad luck.
    Mr. Harrison rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Question Time ends at 3.30 and that it is now 3.31.

Written Answers
3.32 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known in the House that written answers are getting printed in Hansard a little late at the moment. There is a backlog and they are often up to two days behind. This has concerned quite a lot of hon. Members throughout the House, but one of the things that has puzzled me of late is the fact that certain answers are able to appear in Hansard ahead of the sequence of written answers.
I take for example the issue of Hansard dated Wednesday, 25 February. The written answers in that issue are dated 23 February, but at the end of them there is one page on which there appears one answer from the Secretary of State for Education and Science announcing the membership of a committee which appears to me to be an inspired question. It gets the full-page treatment and will be printed, no doubt, again at a later date. I understand the practice is that it will be subsequently printed at a later date.
The same thing occurs in the issue of 4 February, where again the answers are for 3 February except for one, a reply from the Minister of Transport, which again is a lengthy statement which is singled out and printed ahead of the other answers.
I took this up with the Editor of the Official Report and, after explaining at some length the problems that he believes are causing the delay of written answers in general, he says that the question and answer I referred to
"were printed out of sequence because I have instructed that 'topical' questions resulting in 'policy' statements should be given priority, that being intended to be generally convenient."
Who decides which is a policy statement which should have this topical treatment? Does it not open up the possibility that those answers which the Government wish to be seen are printed on the day in question, particularly those to which they wish to attach press releases and circulate around, whereas those which the Government would find embarrassing are buried two or three days later in the written answers?
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that it is envisaged that all hon. Members should have access to this procedure and should be able to say, "My question is extremely topical and the statement, or the reply that it will evoke is an important matter of policy". If there is to be such a procedure could we all know what it is and be quite sure that it is not accessible to the Government alone?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member raises an important matter. I was not aware of the matter, but I shall certainly look into it and communicate with him.

Taxis (Members' Entrance)
3.34 pm
Mr. Eric Heffer: I should like to ask for your guidance and assistance, Mr. Speaker. The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) has issued its report on minutes of proceedings for Tuesday, 17 February 1987. In that report item 3 relates to, "Taxis at Members' Entrance".
It states:
"That the privilege of queueing for taxis at Members' Entrance should be restricted to Members, Peers, Officers of the House and the spouses of Members and Peers if accompanied by the Member or Peer in question".
That means the end of the practice that has been accepted in this House ever since I have been here—that staff other than Officers of the House and Members, have the right to queue and that journalists and other people have the right to queue. I am asking for an opportunity to discuss this pompous asses' decision, because that is what it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that such an experienced hon. Gentleman should call other Members of the House, who are members of the Select Committee, pompous asses. I hope that he will withdraw that remark.
Mr. Heffer: If I am not allowed to call them pompous asses, I shall not. Without consulting the trade unions, hon. Members or anyone else, the Select Committee has arrived at a decision that, frankly, is absolutely ridiculous. I want to know when and how we can discuss the matter and what we can do to change this absolutely ridiculous decision.
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this. The Leader of the House has heard his question today. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye tomorrow, he may put his question to the Leader of the House, who doubtless will by then have had time to think of a response.

Taxis (Members' Entrance)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 MARCH 1987
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Iain Mills

  Mr. Michael Foot

  Mr. William Shelton

  IMMIGRATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY)
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Moore and Mr. David Waddington, presented a Bill to require carriers to make payments to the Secretary of State in respect of passengers brought by them to the United Kingdom without proper documents: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 97].

Disabled Persons' Rights
3.37 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people on the grounds of their disability.
Since I introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill over three years ago there has been more irrefutable evidence of widespread discrimination against disabled people. A number of reports have given further witness to the problem. Two years ago there was the report of the British Deaf Association, and in the summer of last year the Spastics Society report, "An equal chance for disabled people : A study of discrimination in employment", gave hard statistical evidence of the disadvantages faced by handicapped people in the labour market. Incidentally, it should be noted that in the Official Report of yesterday—column 721—the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that in 1985 the unemployment rate among those whose work would be limited by disability was 23·4 per cent. That is over double the rate of 10·6 per cent. for all other persons.
I was pleased to see today in a news release from the Spastics Society that it is giving full endorsement to my Bill. I have the overwhelming support of the public and of disabled people's organisations. In response to the report of the Government-sponsored National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, the Spastics Society stated :
"The fundamental justification for helping disabled people lies in their right to real equality of opportunity, which at a minimum means ending direct and indirect discrimination…The Society is very disappointed that the report has not chosen to look at the problem in terms of these more fundamental concepts and can only assume that this arises from opposition to anti-discrimination legislation."
That Government's opposition has been maintained despite an increasing amount of anecdotal evidence. I can name a few instances over the past few years. The football teams of my city have come to regard Wembley as their home. It is always difficult to get a cup final ticket, and usually when somebody receives one, he rejoices. However, a number of disabled constituents in Liverpool have been faced with another problem, that of being unable to gain access to Wembley. For them the problem is not just getting the ticket but having to go to Members of Parliament to press that they be able to use that ticket equally with other fans.
Recently, an American company advertised for 37 workers for various jobs in Portmadoc in Wales. The Cambrian News of 15 August 1986 carried the advertisement which, among other things, said:
"All persons applying must … have no physical disability."
I had a letter only yesterday from a young lady who is 23 years of age and lives in Runcorn and who suffers from a congenital deformity and ataxia-type cerebral palsy. According to her letter, it affects her very mildly, and it is worth listening to what she says:
"I walk unaided if a little slow and unsteady, I can manage stairs and drive my own automatic car … I am proficient at typewriting, and plan to use a micro-writer for written note-taking in court … I take no medication at all … I have never attended a 'special' school, I achieved an upper second class degree in Sociology and Psychology from Lancaster University in 1985 … I spent ten months as a Community Service Volunteer working full time and living in
874
Southwood Probation Hostel in Liverpool, where I took part in every aspect of residential work without any problems at all—indeed I loved the work. I left the Hostel to take up the full-time post of Volunteer Co-ordinator at Halton General Hospital".
That young lady was accepted for a course next September at Nottingham university to study for a certificate of qualification in social work, but so that she could go on from there into the probation service, she needed to be sponsored by the Home Office. The Home Office has turned her down on what it calls medical grounds after a perfunctory 15-minute medical. That is atrocious. It displays the sort of discrimination which I tried to eradicate in my Bill three years ago.
My Bill would apply not only to employment. serious as that is, but to all aspects of life, including education, housing, recreation, insurance, transport and membership of associations where one sees ample evidence of discrimination. The Bill would give basic human rights to all those who are disabled, whether physically, mentally or sensorily, and it would be reinforced by a commission, which would be able to tackle some of the problems on their behalf and which would include representatives of the disabled. Problems such as the pedestrianisation of many of our shopping areas in the city centres make no-go areas for many of our disabled citizens. That needs to be tackled.
When refuting the need for legislation, the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), put the Government's emphasis on
"bringing about an increased understanding of disabled people's needs and promoting a spirit of positive co-operation in dealing with them. That approach has manifestly paid off." —[Official Report, 18 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 1126.]
Tell that to the disabled football fans. Tell that to the disabled people who are looking for work in Portmadoc. Tell that to the young lady in Runcorn.
This is the fourth attempt in four years to get anti-discrimination legislation, and my second attempt. The Bill has wide support. It is time that we changed the legislation, because so far the Government have treated the disabled shabbily in terms of discrimination. They have sought to hide behind the cloak of manoeuvre and procedure. They used the closure to defeat the measure last time. In the other place they have voted on Second Reading of a Bill such as this. This is an opportunity for the Government to stand up and be counted. They cannot hide behind the closure on a ten-minute rule Bill. I call for the wholehearted support of decent people and I say to the Tories that people of conscience—
Mr. David Winnick: That excludes the Tories.
Mr. Wareing: I hope that it will not exclude them today. I hope that the Bill will be allowed to go forward and the arguments heard in the House so that there can be a vote on Second Reading, and that we do not have to wait for Conservative Members, sitting in on a Friday afternoon, to destroy it with the word "Object". The country is looking today to see who is and who is no prepared to support this important measure on human rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Derek Fatchett and Mr. George Howarth.

Disabled Persons' Rights
  DISABLED PERSONS' RIGHTS
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing accordingly presented a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people on the grounds of their disability: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

  ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of payments to local authorities of subsidies—

  (a) relating to the making by these authorities of rebates in respect of payments made under that Act by persons to whom are let or sub-let or who occupy or are resident in premises in respect of which any community charge is payable, being payments to persons liable to pay that charge; and

  (b) calculated by reference to such factors as are specified in or under the Social Security Act 1986 as modified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Ancram.]

  ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Resolved,
  That the Reports [25th February and 3rd March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) — [Mr. Ryder]—and agreed to.
  Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
  Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill (Business Committee),—The Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had to come to a Resolution in respect of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House :
  That—
  876

  (1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 and 2, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 3 to 23, Schedule No. 2, Clause No. 24, Schedule No. 3, Clause No. 25, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 26 and 27, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 28 to 33, Schedule No. 6, Clause No. 34; and new Schedules;

  (2) the allotted days which under the Order [11th February] are to be given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

  TABLE

  Allotted days

  Proceedings

  Time for Conclusion of Proceedings

  First day

  New Clauses

  7.30 p.m.

  Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 8

  9.30 p.m.

  Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 22

  Midnight

  Second day

  Remaining proceedings on consideration

  8.15 p.m.

  Third Reading

  10 p.m.

  That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 25th February be varied by substituting the following provisions for those in the Table at the end of that Resolution :—

  TABLE

  Allotted days

  Proceedings

  Time for Conclusion of Proceedings

  First day

  New Clauses

  7.30 p.m.

  Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 8

  10 p.m.

  Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 22

  Midnight

  Second day

  Remaining proceedings on consideration

  8.15 p.m.

  Third Reading

  10 p.m.

Orders of the Day

  Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill
  [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.50 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 178, which deals with the change for sports grounds, is printed on the Amendment Paper before the Opposition's amendment No. 31, so why has amendment No. 31 been selected in favour of amendment No. 178?
  Mr. Speaker: I have explained to the House that that was a printer's error. Amendment No. 178 was submitted after amendment No. 31, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a different but related matter. We have agreed the allocation of time motion and I am not in any way critising that. It is possible that the rating of sports clubs might not be reached. If there is any possibility of that happening, can the House, by agreement, move certain clauses in a later debate?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not possible. The hon. Gentleman has been here before. If we get on, we may reach the amendment to which he refers.

  Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill
    New Clause

      COMMUNITY CHARGE
      'In the financial year 1989–90 no domestic rate shall be levied in one district authority to be specified by the Secretary of State and :

      (a) the community charge shall be levied only in that authority,

      (b) an independent commission shall be appointed consisting of representatives from Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish Office, Scottish Trades Union Congress, Valuation Assessors, Law Society to survey the operation of the Community Charge.

      (c) the Commission shall report to the Secretary of State at the end of that year and he shall be bound to consider its findings before introducing the community charge in any other local authority if the Secretary of State decides to proceed with full implementation, it shall be completed by 31st March 1992.'.—[Mr. Dewar].

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments to the new clause: Amendment (a), in line 3, after 'authority', insert
      'the said authority having volunteered itself to the Secretary of State or, in the absence of such a volunteer, the authority shall be determined by the Secretary of State.'.
      Amendment (b), in line 6, after 'Law Society', insert
      'the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Institute of Local Government.'.
      Mr. Dewar: I assure Conservative Members that we, too, are interested in what the Government will announce
      878
      with regard to sports clubs. We assume that it will he something positive. I hope that we are not disappointed. The pre-publicity, the briefings and the desire of Conservative Members to be in on the act presumably means that they are in the know. We await developments with interest. I expect that they are telephoning their local newspapers.
      New clause 1 is a simple idea and extremely sensible. The two proposed amendments are unexceptionable. Indeed, they are helpful, and if they are acceptable to the Government, I would not object to their being made.
      Although the essence of the clause is simple, there will inevitably be drafting difficulties with it and the Government will have to take it away and possibly reintroduce it in another place. We have no objection to withdrawing it if the Minister says that the principle finds favour with him.
      We are simply suggesting that it would be common sense and that there would be a great deal of merit in the Government accepting that such a complicated, controversial and difficult reform should be tried in a selected area of Scotland I shall leave aside for the moment our view that the Government's proposal is essentially unjust. We have suggested a district council area, but if the Government suggested one of the smaller regions, we would not want to be difficult.
      There should be an area in which we can monitor the practicalities and workability of the scheme which has been so heavily criticised. The assessment could help the House and the Government to reach a decision on whether the scheme should be introduced across the country.
      We suggest that the monitoring should be assisted by an independent commission, the composition of which is suggested in the new clause. That may be the subject of some comment by the Minister, who is not noted for his charity when it comes to passing judgment on the efforts of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress or other organisations which represent genuine parts of Scottish opinion.
      Of course we would be prepared to be helpful about that—ours is just a simple, straightforward suggestion that monitoring should be part of the programme. At the end of it, the Secretary of State and the Government will be able to make up their mind. I hope that the views of the commission and the experiences of the test area during the experiment would be highly persuasive on the final decision. I hope that I have advanced that argument clearly and fairly.
      I should set out one or two of the reasons why we believe that the clause should find favour with the House. I should concede that I would not normally be in favour of the legislative equivalent of sale by sample. I accept that Governments normally legislate and normally produce plans, and if they find favour, and carry a majority with them, as Government plans have a habit of doing, they are implemented. If there is a debate it is in a public form and ultimately there may be repeal or modification in later years in the light of experience.
      I am making a sensible suggestion, about a measure that is unusual. Because the poll tax scheme is so radical and so fundamental—many Labour Members would say that it was fundamentally wrong. We are suggesting this approach.
      Everyone who has watched or taken part in this debate is aware that the poll tax proposals have been attacked, root and branch, by almost everybody which has

      879
      experience in the field, whether it be a local authority body per se or some other outside organisation which has an interest in community politics or representation within Scotland.
      One or two groups have supported the reorganisation. I say that with no particular malice because it is fair comment. They have a clear financial interest in reorganisation and think that their membership will specifically benefit and that they will be among the minority who will win out of the reorganisation. Apart from those groups there has been almost no support for the scheme that is being proposed.
      What is particularly important is that, apart from the reservations in principle which have been seen on every side, there is a genuine question mark of a sort that I have seldom seen before about the very practicality of the scheme. There are many people, officials and others, who will say, and are on record as saying, that the scheme will not work, that it will bring great chaos and confusion in its wake and that it has been totally misconceived by those who have drawn it up.
      In those circumstances, we are in the rather special position where we can ask the House to pause and consider whether something of the kind that we are suggesting would not be sensible. The Government may object and say "Well, after all, there is an election coming up." It may be that this whole debate will be academic because, clearly, there is every possibility that this Government will lose office and will be swept away at the coming election. [Interruption.] I shall not make a great point of that. I am merely saying that that is a possibility. None of us know what will happen. We have our own feelings. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State knows that. Given his position in Scottish politics he should perhaps take a rather lower profile in this matter.
      I must make it clear that everything that I say is said on the basis that the Government somehow manage to implement the scheme. That is the only basis on which we can sensibly debate the propositions. At this point I wish to make it clear—I would be failing in my duty if I did not—that that is not an assumption that I expect and it is certainly not an assumption that I accept. If we are to suspend reality and assume that the scheme will be pressed ahead, the first point that I would make—it would have widespread support on both sides of the House—is that the people of Scotland, the electorate, the unfortunate people who will have to pay the new poll tax have a right to know exactly how it will work. That is not the position at the moment. They have been presented with a series of slogans and a series of arguments by assertion. The credit that the Government are looking for is the bonus for having acted, but they are extremely anxious to avoid the discord that I think will come when people begin to realise exactly how the scheme will operate in practice.
      Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is something of a condemnation of the Labour Members who served on the Committee, that after about 1,200 columns of Hansard they have not asked the right questions to elicit exactly how this scheme will operate?
      Mr. Dewar: I recognise that in the portion of Fife that is represented by the hon. Gentleman no doubt all the electorate read Hansard, and particularly Committee
      880
      Hansard. They may well have been reading the hon. Gentleman's speeches, which says something about the reasons for his rather poor prospects electorally.
      Mr. John Maxton: He did not make any speeches.
      Mr. Dewar: I am assured that the hon. Gentleman made no speeches. I cannot help that. In the past we have had at times a rather bad-tempered debate on this Bill. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is being a little silly. People do not follow these debates in detail. There is no great knowledge of exactly how the various practical difficulties will be overcome. That is a simple point which I should have thought was not particularly contentious.
      4 pm
      Another general argument concerns constitutional matters. The Secretary of State would be well advised to think about, if not building a basis of agreement on the scheme, at least reassuring people that every effort is being made to remove, whenever possible, its practical difficulties and obnoxious features. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that he represents a small minority of opinion in Scotland. He is fond of quoting Radical Scotland, and he did so on the timetable motion. I read the interview which he gave to Radical Scotland the other day and was glad to find that his ambition is becoming more realistic. He says that his aim —presumably, it is optimistic—is to attract about 30 per cent. of the Scottish vote to the Conservative party, and no more than that. I do not think that there is any real prospect of achieving that, but I have made that point because it shows the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recognition of the fact that the Rifkind factor has not had quite the exciting impact on Scottish politics that the Conservative party hoped when he was catapulted into his present job.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the excellent point made by the Secretary of State when he said that the issue was between Unionists of all parties and the Scottish Nationalists?
      Mr. Dewar: I like a little excitement in my politics. If it is to be a contest between the Nationalists and the Conservative party, I am afraid that it is going to be a pushover. I should not like to accept that as a genuine contest or to ally myself with the unlikely people who have been invited to take part.
      There is a problem in Scotland for the Government. They should show a little restraint. There should be recognition of the Government's essential weaknesses. The Government should welcome any machinery which the new clause proposes that would allow time for the Government to pause, consider, test and, if necessary, modify the Bill in the light of public opinion in Scotland. The Government will not be able by that process to remove the essential error of the legislation. They will not be able to produce consent, but they might achieve slightly less grudging acceptance. If they do not do that, there is a danger that they will be seen to be imposing an unwanted system on the Scottish people, and it may become an issue in a way that no Government would welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State will carefully consider that constitutional and practical argument.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: On the hon. Gentleman's point about acquiring consent, does he believe that he would give consent to the Labour party's proposals to introduce regular revaluations based on capital values and to impose rating on agricultural land and buildings in Scotland after the row that we had about the last revaluation?
      Mr. Dewar: I must confess that I would be rather more confident about introducing my proposals knowing that I had the support of about 50 per cent. of the Scottish electorate in a four-party system than I would be about the measures of a group of Ministers who control a separate legislative system within the United Kingdom but who cannot claim to have any broad-based support in Scotland. That is a different base from which to operate and it colours the argument of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
      This is not an occasion when we should rehearse at great length the arguments about the scheme's virtues. Conservative Members will be uncomfortably aware that the scheme appeared from nowhere. Its parentage is largely unknown, despite our energetic attempts, rather unfairly, to lump them on the slim shoulders of the hon. Member for Stirling. The scheme must have more respectable antecedents than that. It is clear that the scheme is totally counter to the 1981 Green Paper, "Alternatives to Domestic Rates", which argued persuasively against a poll tax. It is incompatible with the Government's White Paper in the autumn of 1983 which, as everyone remembers, discovered that the rating system was "fundamentally sound." After that, there was a sudden retreat and expediency and opportunism overwhelmed the type of measured logic and investigation which had led to the earlier conclusion.
      The results are extremely unfortunate. Taking one district authority in Scotland and experimenting to see how the scheme works in practice would help to overcome many of the difficulties which we expect, and it would be of enormous help to public opinion in deciding on the competing claims for the fairness or otherwise of the scheme. We have alleged —I say "alleged" because it has been challenged and, therefore, I cannot say that it is fact, although it is well based on local government research—and we certainly hold, to use a more neutral term, that there will be a substantial shift between those areas within a local government unit which are already high amenity areas and advantaged and those which are not and are disadvantaged. There have been many examples of that based on calculations on what will happen in Newlands, Cathcart and various parts of Edinburgh such as the Edinburgh, Pentlands and Edinburgh, South constituencies.
      We have been met with a pained expression from the Government, who say that we have not fully taken the rebate system into account. It is difficult to take it into account because the details have not been announced, but I understand their point. People in Scotland may well be confused about who has the better argument. I do not think that they will have any doubt if they look at the evidence. But the best way of establishing what will happen is to try the scheme, and that is where we come to the proposals in the new clause which would do a great deal to underline the incompatibilities and the confusion in the Government's argument.
      882
      The Government are in an odd position. If we say that there is to be a shift against the battered inner cities and against the peripheral housing schemes, Ministers say, "It will not happen because of the rebate factor." The Government are so keen on the scheme because they hold that the rates system is "corrupt", and they have used exactly that term. Ministers say that the rates system is maintained by corrupt politicians who are interested only in giving an unfair advantage to certain groups such as the people who live in Pilton, Drumchapel or the battered inner cities. They say that it is a corrupt system giving a corrupt advantage and that the payload is votes for the Labour party. It has been said as crudely as that, even by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      If that is the position, surely it is impossible at the same time to argue that there is not going to be a shift. The whole point of bringing in this scheme is to create a shift. Ministers should not be saying that my constituents in the battered peripheral housing schemes or the constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in an older city area will not be adversely affected. The logic of their position is to say, "Those people will be adversely affected, but so they should be, because we want to help the hard-pressed inhabitants of Eastwood or of Bearsden. We are going to bring about that shift and defend it." The essential dishonesty in the Government's opinion is that they pretend that the shift will not take place. They talk essentially with a double meaning. If there were a reasonably balanced area in which the test could be carried out, we would have the proof of the pudding, people would be able to judge and I believe that they would find on our side of the argument. I hope that they would have a substantial influence on how other people see the extension of the experiment. An important point of principle is involved. Enormous practical matters would be ironed out if there were the dry run or the test to which I have referred.
      The practical points are so numerous that it is difficult to know which to pick out. For example, we would have some experience in organising the register and we would know whether it was practical or impractical, as we fear. There is no argument about the fact that, in a year, there is a turnover of about 25 per cent. of people on the electoral register. The complications of running a rolling register, keeping track of people who move from house to house—for example, 18-year-olds perhaps moving from different flats with friends or different members of their families — and apportioning their poll tax will be a nightmare.
      We know that almost everyone in local government is suspicious of the cost implications of the £17 million to £22 million in a full year of operation, of the £9 million that it will cost to compile the register, and knows how impractical it will be to have feet pounding the streets to make sure that the register is accurate and up to date.
      In the memorandum attached to the original copy of the Bill there is no firm assessment of staffing consequences. We know that enforcement procedures will be a nightmare. There are still major queries from the legal world about how one can catch up with someone who hops across a local government boundary perhaps, best of all, for the most innocent of purposes. There are queries about how, when one catches up with him to gain entry, if he has not paid his proportion of poll tax in his area, one can identify the goods that one impounds, how to organise the sale of such goods, and how to cope with what many

      883
      experts in the legal field and in the sheriff's office believe will be about a four or five times increase in the number of actions that will be taken. Those points throw a shadow on the practicality of the scheme. If we had a test, we could iron out the problems. Even if, in our view, it were an unjustified experiment — a piece of regressive social engineering — at least it might be possible to get a scheme that will work if it is introduced on a wider scale.
      I hope that my points will commend themselves to the House and even to Ministers. We shall canvass some points later in the two-day debate in the final Commons stage of the Bill. I am anxious that we should give the unfortunate people who are threatened by the scheme, in terms of having to operate it, every chance to get the right answers. We should not stampede them into confusion and chaos. The simple, academic difficulties that we are discussing, will, if the Government have their way, become practical difficulties that will snag, foul up, trip up and disorganise what, at the moment, is a local revenue-raising scheme which, in practical terms, has many advantages.
      There is concern—the Minister must recognise this—right across the spectrum of opinion, and certainly across informed opinion in Scotland. In today's mail, Opposition Members received institutional concern from COSLA. I know that the Minister considers COSLA to be a hostile and, in some way, almost sinister organisation, but it reflects the way in which the people of Scotland vote, and that is why the hon. Member for Stirling does not like it. Also, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in England, and the Association of County Councils in England wrote to Opposition Members today. As I understand it, those associations are not under Conservative control. We received—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will recognise this—a letter from a lady in Perthshire, reflecting the proper concerns of the Methodist church in Scotland. I mention her only because her letter was in today's mail, but her case could be mirrored. Other examples of social concern have been found in the mailbag almost every day since the debate started.
      The new clause is a practical contribution to the debate. We are trying to mitigate or avoid a disaster that we believe will certainly occur. There is virtue in test runs. They may be on a rather different scale. Again, by coincidence, in today's mail there was a Scottish Office news release referring to the next census—a complicated operation, it was said, but it is simplicity itself compared with the remodelling that we are looking at in local government finance.
      As the Minister will be aware, we shall run a voluntary census test, taking Ross and Cromarty, Angus and the city of Dundee, or parts of them, as the test bed, to try to work out the gremlins and get rid of the faults and difficulties, so that when the all-Scotland experience occurs and when the sweep across the country is required, we shall be in a better position. It is exactly the same sensible principle, and I hope that the Government will not dismiss it and consider it to be some sort of attempt to wreck the scheme. It is a way of saying that we do not like it. It will give public opinion a practical chance, before we are irreversibly committed, to test the various claims that are made, but, most important of all, it is an effort to make sure that,
      884
      when we move towards some form of reform, if the Government have their way, at least it will be a practical scheme that will not disgrace or embarrass us all.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I carefully listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I make it abundantly clear that I would be the last person to believe that COSLA is a sinister organisation, unless one were to wish to use the word sinister in its original Latin sense, in which case it might indeed be a fairly appropriate description.
      With regard to the general theme of the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate, at one stage he got into rather dangerous waters. He implied that the Government's attitude towards rate reform in Scotland should be influenced by the degree of political support that the Government, or indeed any political party, has in Scotland at present. I can understand that argument coming from the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). He started from a clear, simple position that is consistent with the argument of the mandate that we often hear from Opposition Members. The right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to feel comfortable using that argument.
      4.15 pm
      It is indeed the case that, since 1951, only one Conservative Government has had a majority of hon. Members from Scotland. It also happens to be the case that, since 1951, only one Labour Government has had a majority of hon. Members from England. I am not conscious of the hon. Member for Garscadden or other Opposition Members ever having suggested that the opportunity or the right — indeed, the propriety—of a United Kingdom Government to vote on English domestic issues, despite not holding a majority of seats in England, should in any way, either in the past or in the future, be restrained.
      Mr. Dewar: I did not and would not challenge the right of the United Kingdom Government, but propriety is another matter. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, Opposition Members are strongly committed to a system that would have a directly elected assembly in Edinburgh, which would be responsible for internal legislative matters that affect Scotland, and which are presently under his remit as Secretary of State. Given the overwhelming consensus in Scotland for such reform, it would be highly inappropriate for the Government to barge on and totally ignore Scottish opinion and put in a scheme that few of us want in that part of the world.
      Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, he must realise that he is exposed to the hollowness of his position. The proposals that he put forward on the wider issues would result in an even graver aggravation of the point that I have just made. In future he and I, if we were still hon. Members, would vote on English domestic issues in a way that might not represent the views of the majority of hon. Members from south of the border. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in his opening comments. It is acceptable and understandable for the right hon. Member for Western Isles and his political colleagues to use arguments about the relative political strengths of parties in Scotland, but if no Labour Government bar one has had a majority in England since 1951 — that corresponds to the position of the

      885
      Conservative party in Scotland — the hon. Gentleman must apply his new, curious constitutional principle throughout the spectrum of government or cease to use such arguments.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State is self-critical, which certainly is most refreshing. Equally, his criticism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is much to be welcomed by my party. Does he agree that he is talking about electoral reform?
      Mr. Rifkind: As 85 per cent. of the people of Scotland vote for the unionist parties and realise that the outcome of a general election is a United Kingdom Government, and as at any one moment there can be only one United Kingdom Government, clearly it is that party which commands the majority in this House that will be the body that is responsible for legislation.
      Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Both Front Benches have referred to the issue that is now before the House, but I think that we might now drop it and get on with consideration of the clause.
      Mr. Henderson: Is not the logic of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) says that a Labour Government—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made it clear to the House that we must not pursue this matter. Let us get on with the clause.
      Mr. Rifkind: Another suggestion by the hon. Member for Garscadden was that public opinion in Scotland is hostile to the Bill, and he produced evidence in support of that allegation. He will know that the majority of people in Scotland, if the polls are anything to go by, are hostile to the domestic rating system. Despite that, the Labour party has felt perfectly free to make proposals in the last few days that would involve the continuation of that system.
      Mr. Dewar: What polls?
      Mr. Rifkind: Numerous polls have suggested that the majority of people in Scotland believe that the domestic rating system is unfair and would prefer an alternative system. People have put up various alternatives, including members of the Liberal and the Scottish Nationalist parties. However, the hon. Member for Garscadden will be aware that his party is the only one that is still thirled to the domestic rating system in Scotland. He will also be aware that his party received only one third of Scottish votes at the last general election. He must take that fact into account, too, if he wishes to adopt such an approach.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: As to the evidence about the popularity or otherwise of the Government's poll tax proposals, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware of the opinion poll that was conducted by Systems Three in November that made it clear that 86 per cent. of the Scottish people believe that local taxation should be based upon ability to pay? If, therefore, a poll tax that was unrelated to ability to pay was levied on every taxpayer, regardless of income, it would be plainly and overwhelmingly unpopular in Scotland.
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is distorting the outcome of that opinion poll. He is well aware that a significant proportion of the Scottish adult population will probably be entitled to rebates under the Government's proposals. Therefore, ability to pay will be taken into account in the case of the unemployed and those on very low incomes. We are entitled to say, on precisely that basis, that these considerations have been understood and that we have responded to them.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the effects of the Government's proposals would lead to a major shift from one section of the community to another. He chose very selective examples. For example, he could have said that the Government's proposals would lead to a major shift in favour of widows.
      Mr. Dewar: No.
      Mr. Rifkind: They most certainly will. They will also lead to a shift in favour of single parents and of mothers who are left alone to bring up children by themselves.
      Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rifkind: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
      Compared with the domestic rating system, some 80 per cent. of widows or widowers will benefit considerably from the community charge proposals. The same applies — perhaps to an even greater extent—to an adult, usually a mother who is left to bring up her children alone because her husband has died but who is bearing the same rates burden as the family of working adults who live next door.
      The proposals also demonstrate a shift away from the arbitrary consideration of whether an adult is the occupier of rateable property and towards the consideration that all adults who benefit from local services should make a contribution towards the cost of those services.
      Neither today nor on any previous occasion has the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends sought to justify the basic iniquity of the present system under which 20 per cent. of the adult population of Scotland, who are neither ratepayers nor the spouses of ratepayers, make not a penny contribution towards the revenue that is raised by local authorities. It is particularly reprehensible that, even though the Labour party has now come forward with what it chooses to call a new deal for the ratepayer, it still does not meet that basic injustice.
      Mr. Dewar: Why did the Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member come to the positive conclusion in August 1983 that the rating system was fundamentally sound?
      Mr. Rifkind: We do not now take that view. We have given further consideration to the matter and we have identified an alternative that we believe to be infinitely preferable The hon. Gentleman has considered this matter for the last year and a half and now he produces alternative proposals that do not meet by a single iota the basic injustice of the existing system. Under his alternative proposals, the widow would still pay the same as the family of working adults living next door. Furthermore, 20 per cent. of adults who are not ratepayers would not make a penny contribution to the community, despite the fact that they are in work and despite the level of their income, whereas others who might be on smaller incomes would continue to pay a heavy and an increasing rates burden.

      887
      The hon. Gentleman is content with that and he is prepared to defend it because he believes that it is entirely acceptable.
      Today we have the privilege of a new clause being put before the House that the House is asked to consider. I agree with one point that the hon. Member for Garscadden made when he introduced it. He described it as a very simple clause. I happily identify with that description. It is a very simple, absurd, proposition that I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman or anybody else expects us to take seriously. When asked for his view on the subject, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said :
      "Despite some technicalities, it is a suggestion worthy of further consideration".
      That is a polite way of saying that Councillor Fagan, the president of COSLA, thinks that it is as much of a nonsense as most of us do.
      The way in which the hon. Gentleman would like this experiment to operate would have some curious consequences. We are told that an independent commission would be appointed to scrutinise the effects of the community charge in one particular local authority and to report within a year, and that the Secretary of State would be bound to consider its findings before introducing the community charge elsewhere. We are entitled to ask to what extent we could be satisfied about the independence of the commission that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are proposing.
      Mr. Dewar: The responsibility would be on COSLA.
      Mr. Rifkind: No, it is not just COSLA. A number of organisations are mentioned here. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned COSLA, he may take the view that COSLA would start off with a completely open mind on the subject. He might believe that COSLA is not parti pris and that it would be prepared to look at this question entirely objectively. I have no doubt that Councillor Fagan would say that he would be prepared to put aside all past ideas, prejudices and political affiliation and examine the matter with the total independence that one would expect from a boundaries commission. [Interruption.] No, not like I do. I fully accept that my political views are relevant to the proposals that I put forward, but in the new clause we are dealing with an independent commission, not a political commission.
      Therefore, we are entitled to ask whether the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has operated as an independent, non-political organisation in the last few years. But other organisations are included — for example, the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The Scottish TUC has a legitimate role to play in Scottish public life, and I have never suggested otherwise, but I find it difficult to understand exactly why it should be picked from all the organisations in Scottish public life because it is thought to be a body that is particularly appropriate to express an independent view on the desirability of the community charge.
      I can assume only that it would be expected, at least for the time being, to forget that it is affiliated to the Labour party. That would clearly be of no relevance. We are asked to believe that the fact that most members of the STUC are affiliated to the Labour party would have no effect on
      888
      its independent assessment of the merits of the proposals. It was wicked of me to suggest otherwise. I fully appreciate that.
      4.30 pm
      What is interesting is not just the organisations included on the body but the ones not included. One might have thought that the Federation of Scottish Ratepayers, for example, would not have been an entirely irrelevant body to assess the effects of a new system of local government finance. After all, it represents the people who pay under the present system. However, it is suggested that it should have no role on such an independent commission at a time when COSLA and the STUC are to be involved.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden put that forward—
      Mr. Bruce Millan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wasting time.
      Mr. Rifkind: Wasting time is a good description of this new clause.
      Mr. Millan: Stop wasting time with this ridiculous filibuster.
      Mr. Rifkind: What an extraordinary proposition. His hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden tabled a new clause and spoke to it. I am speaking to it now and unless the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) agrees that it is an absurd new clause and is not put forward as a serious contribution to the debate, I suggest that he rises or remains silent.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) wants to intervene, he should do so in the proper way.
      Mr. Henderson: In his brief opening remarks, following the 25-minute speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that it would be more understandable if one of the independent bodies put on the commission proposed by the Opposition was the Scottish Co-operative Society, which has obviously found great difficulty in paying its rates to Fife regional council?
      Mr. Rifkind: It may be that that would be another sort of independent advice and would be able to make a useful contribution. I am quite happy to accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Govan. He is right to say that this new clause does not require a lengthy response. One simply has to refer to considerations such as those I have raised to demonstrate that it is not put forward as a serious proposal but as an opportunity for some interesting comments by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
      Over the past few months, the Government have illustrated not only the advantages of our proposals for the community charge, but have met many of the comments that have been made with regard to some of the serious points raised by outside bodies in respect of administrative details. The hon. Member for Garscadden commented substantially on what he thought to be the administrative problems. I should say to him, for example, that we have received recently a letter from the Rating and Valuation Association. The honorary secretary of the association said that he had been
      "asked by the President of the Scottish Branch of the Association to express to you how welcome to our practitioner members involved in the rating system your recent announcement that there will be no transitional period

      889
      … Clearly, this will ease the implementation making the specification of computer systems, administration etc. that much simpler.
      The announcement came at quite an appropriate moment … the National President … was able to convey the news which was very warmly welcomed to a number of practitioners who were attending a seminar that day."
      Mr. Maxton: Read the whole thing.
      Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can read the whole thing. He will see that there is no suggestion that what remains is totally unworkable or impossible or any of the other things suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
      We have responded to many of the detailed points made by non-political organisations that have no political axe to grind and pointed out ways in which the administration of the Bill could be improved. The hon. Member for Garscadden knows that our announcement last week was warmly welcomed throughout Scotland as representing a major improvement with regard to the administration of the Bill.
      Mr. Dick Douglas rose—
      Mr. Rifkind: Therefore, the hon. Member for Garscadden should acknowledge that the Government are prepared to listen to genuine suggestions for the improved administration of our proposals, but not to those that are essentially politically motivated.
      Mr. Maclennan: This Government, above all, ought to put forward their proposals for the reform of local taxation with a degree of modesty flowing from the experience that Parliament and the country have had of the errors they have made in the past, which have resulted in taxation being levied without proper authority and retrospective legislation having to be introduced to set it right.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has moved an important clause which should have the support of the House, as it would enable the practicality of the Government's proposal for the implementation of a poll tax in Scotland to be tested. I do not understand why the Secretary of State has set his face against the idea of having a test of the scheme because, in a sense, the whole Bill is a test. Scotland is the test bed of a scheme being tried out for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared to treat Scotland as a test bed for the United Kingdom, I see no reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland should not treat a single local authority area, no doubt one chosen with its agreement, as a suitable test bed for the Scottish scheme.
      The Secretary of State has been cavalier in his treatment of the constitutional issues raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden. It is not a matter of whether he and his party enjoy majority support in Scotland. However, it is well known that it has not had that support for some time and that it will not have it for some time. The important issue is that when major changes are made to constitutional relationships and institutions within this country, if they are to last, they should enjoy broad-based support drawn from political parties across the spectrum. In the past, there have been special arrangements when an issue of constitutional importance was at stake to ensure that such broad-based support existed. There were special arrangements for a referendum in the case of our adhesion to the
      890
      European Community and there were special arrangements for consulting Scottish opinion after the implementation of the Scotland Act 1978 to set up a Scottish Assembly.
      This is a constitutional measure of major importance, altering, as it does, the relationship between local authorities in Scotland and central Government and drawing from local authority independence of spending power, reducing their control over local taxation to a mere 13 per cent. and removing local accountability. It is not simply a redistributive or regressive measure bearing hardly upon those least able to pay in the community, but a measure designed to draw control over local government decision making into central Government. As such, it ought to be seen to enjoy broad support, or not be implemented.
      In Committee, alliance amendments were tabled to ensure that it would not be implemented until after a second general election had taken place to show that there was a settled view in Scotland in favour of thechange proposed by the Government. As the Secretary of State knows, the alliance does not favour this change, although it is firmly of the view that the rating system no longer enjoys the sort of support that ought to lead to its being retained.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclennan: This is a short debate and has been guillotined by a decision of the Government. Therefore, I will not give way to interventions by the hon. Gentleman.
      The Government have never faced up to the fact that they have performed a volte-face. As recently as 1983, they were commending the system of local taxation which they are now seeking to toss aside after 200 years. That system, for all its anomalies, faults and inequities, to which attention has been drawn by the alliance parties, has enjoyed support over a long period and the Government have no right to bring forward for implementation a set of proposals which enjoy so little support and which have been subjected to the criticisms that have been made by all those who will be responsible for its implementation. There have been criticisms of its practicality, of the difficulty of drawing up registers of those who will be liable to pay the poll tax and of the enforcement procedures, made by all those connected with the legal profession, such as sheriff officers and the like.
      There have been doubts about the power contained in the schedule, which merely permits local authorities to enforce the taxation but does not require them to do so. There have been doubts about whether local authorities can therefore opt out of the taxation and, by their decision, exempt those less-favoured members of the community. Those are some of the reasons why it is right that the new clause should be adopted by the House. It would be right to make an objective appraisal of how the system can be made to work in practice before implementing it.
      The two amendments tabled by the alliance parties are designed to increase the authority of the report that would be produced by the commission on its operations by introducing into the commission further elements of expertise. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has done extremely good work in analysing local taxation and the institute of local government studies attached to the university of Birmingham has made special

      891
      studies of Scottish finance which suit that body to be considered among those bodies appropriate to view and analyse the impact of the tax scheme in practice.
      Amendment (a) is designed to ensure that the implementation of the test is not forced upon an unwilling authority—if there is an authority in Scotland willing to take on the job. I am glad that the hon. Member for Garscadden welcomes and accepts the two modest amendments proposed by the alliance parties to give greater weight to the experiment that he has suggested.
      The Secretary of State must appreciate that, because of the electoral unpopularity of his party due to the row that broke out in Scotland over revaluation, the people of Scotland will take very unkindly to having foisted upon them a system of taxation of local government that is intended to last for many years. They will not take kindly to a device that is intended to get him out of a temporary difficulty, to help him over a difficult party conference, which has the potential for causing great damage to the authority of local government in Scotland.
      The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was right. The Secretary of State's predecessor was responsible for taking a decision which we might have thought would have been a reason for the present Secretary of State distancing himself from such a patently dotty scheme as that which is being put before the electorate. However, the Secretary of State must take into account the fact that the Scottish people are not so foolish as to accept the idea that they should buy this policy now and pay later.
      The Scottish people want to know how the scheme will work out in practice and how it will affect the burdens on the poor and the capacity of local government to deliver the services which Parliament has entrusted it to provide. They want to know how it will affect the relationship between central and local government and they want to understand whether, as appears to be the case, the scheme is simply a means of further reducing the discretion of local authorities over public spending. They want to know whether it is designed to draw into the centre all decision-making power over local spending. That is what the Bill is about and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who was in charge of the Bill in Committee made it quite plain that that is what the Bill is all about. That is why the new clause should be accepted and I hope that the House will accept it.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I want to comment on one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who introduced the new clause. Before I do that, in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who said that this was a constitutional issue, I hope that he will follow through his arguments in relation to the presentation of SDP and Liberal party policy on this issue. No doubt we will receive very detailed proposals from the hon. Gentleman that local income tax will be preceded by a referendum and an experimental year in Caithness and Sutherland.
      I also noted with some interest that the list of hon. Members who tabled the SDP and Liberal amendment is headed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). The people of Scotland will be interested to know that on detailed matters of local
      892
      government finance the right hon. Gentleman takes clear precedence over the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party. I also noticed that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has not added his name in support of the amendment, presumably because he is too busy in Oxford.
      4.45 pm
      I want to consider some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden in relation to Eastwood. The hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient heed to the key argument in favour of going ahead with the community charge as quickly and as clearly as possible. He has not paid sufficient heed to the accountability argument. That argument was absolutely established in Committee and was accepted by the Opposition without any doubt. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said in column 274:
      "Yes, all tax systems are more accountable if more people pay taxes." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 274.]
      He repeated that point later. The key argument for the community charge as against domestic rates is the need to ensure that local government in Scotland is more accountable as quickly as possible. That argument has been highlighted by the recent proposed rate rises, especially in Strathclyde and Lothian.
      I believe that the Strathclyde proposals are particularly iniquitous. The proposal is for a 20 per cent. increase in rates, despite the very low rate of inflation and despite the fact that the Government's grant to Strathclyde has been increased by 9 per cent. The rise is proposed even though Fife regional council is imposing a rate increase as low as 6·5 per cent.—although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) rightly concludes that that is too high.
      The accountability argument is highlighted by the way in which Strathclyde has admitted that the unjustified rate increase will cost jobs. Indeed, I understand that at the statutory consultation meeting with non-domestic ratepayers, the leader of Strathclyde council justified the increase by saying that the council was there to implement Socialism.
      Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman say that Bill Anderson of the National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses was a member of the Labour party and a Socialist? Mr. Anderson happens to have congratulated Strathclyde region on the way in which it undertook its consultation with him and other businesses.
      Mr. Stewart: Mr. Bill Anderson is, of course, a Liberal. There is no doubt about that and it is not surprising that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by Strathclyde region.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to my constituents and the redistribution towards them. In answer to that, I want to quote from a letter that I received this morning from the Mearns community council. The chairman and the council rightly point out :
      "the inhabitants of Mearns are pretty representative of the ordinary hard working Scot in their range of both political affiliations and activities and they have the same problems as everyone else in obtaining jobs, educating children and generally making ends meet."

      893
      They object to the wholly unjustified rates increase by Strathclyde and the diversion by Strathclyde region of facilities which could go to my constituency into other parts of Strathclyde.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden paid no attention to the fact that three quarters of all households will either be better off or will lose less than £1 a week under these proposals, and that single pensioner households and one-parent families will do well.
      There is an overriding need to ensure better accountability for local government in Scotland at the earliest opportunity. There is no case for delaying the Bill, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will not accept the new clause.
      Mr. Douglas: I did not take part in the Second Reading debate because I was on other House of Commons business, and I was not a member of the Committee, but I have an unfortunate habit of taking the Secretary of State at his word. On 9 December, he said:
      "I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time."
      That was a truthful sentence, but the next sentence was riddled with what I would not call lies, but certainly great exaggerations. He said:
      "The Bill is a radical and reforming measure which will abolish a discredited and unpopular local tax."—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 200.]
      Of course, it does not abolish the rates as a whole.
      Mr. Rifkind: It abolishes domestic rates.
      Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State should contain himself. He knows that the Bill does not completely abolish a discredited and unpopular tax. It tries to abolish domestic rates.
      The Secretary of State's argument throughout the debate has centred on accountability. If he is so sure of his ground, it would be a modest concession to embark upon the experiment or sample period that is proposed in the new clause. But he is never sure of his ground. He puts up Aunt Sallys about opposition to his views and then, with his usual verbal skill, knocks them down.
      Why do we have a crisis with the rates? It is not because the rates are an unaccountable tax. It is because they are an unpopular tax, as are nearly all taxes. But they are the most politically accountable tax because people can see the imposition of the tax in total. If we want to move from a system of taxation that is directly politically accountable towards a system that provides reasonable flexibility in accountability, we should move from direct to indirect taxation. I do not argue that the poll tax will be unaccountable. Of course, because it is a regressive tax and because of how it is paid, it will be reasonably politically accountable. But that does not mean that it will be fair.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is arguing that rates should be perceptible, not that they should be accountable?
      Mr. Douglas: That is a distinction without a difference. People see rates, so they are politically accountable.
      The Secretary of State gives the impression that only Tory Members of Parliament come face to face, in surgeries or elsewhere, with local electors and local opinion. That is not true. District and regional councillors also have direct contact with local electors and must be accountable to them for the provision of services. If they transgress, are profligate in the provision of services or
      894
      misuse their resources, they will pay the penalty at the next election. According to the Secretary of State, the Conservatives object to the fact that some people benefit from services in a local authority area but do not pay for them. But many people who live in Edinburgh benefit from services in Fife. It is preposterous to say that some people notionally benefit from services but do not pay, and that we should try to alter boundaries to overcome that difficulty.
      If the Secretary of State is as sure of his ground as he suggested, there would be no harm and much good in embarking cautiously on a period of experiment, using one region or district to analyse the effects of the change—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) does not like anything relating to taxation that does not bear the imprimatur of the market. I understand his position, but I have heard him say that, although every system of taxation is wrong, he wants the benefits of public expenditure for his constituency. I have never heard him say that the roads in his constituency should be financed by tolls. That is a clear case of people who do not pay benefiting from a system.
      We all know the difficulties involved in central Government raising taxation. People do not like paying tax, but they like the benefits that flow from public expenditure. We must try to devise a system of taxation that will accommodate people's ability to pay. Throughout the argument, the Secretary of State has said that rates are an unfair tax, but he has not assessed the impact of taxation as a whole. If we had the opportunity to examine the new system in a district or region, we could reasonably analytically—we could not be 100 per cent. exact—see where the burden of taxation fell and where it was passed on. We could see whether the poll tax placed the burden of taxation on the individuals in a household or whether it was passed on.
      One difficulty of rating commercial premises is that the small business man cannot always pass on taxation. It is complete nonsense to suggest that industrial concerns pay rates. Their customers pay the rates indirectly. The problem for a small business man, which will largely remain under the proposed system, is that he cannot pass on the burden because of the competition for customers. The Bill accepts that that will be unavoidable.
      I plead with the Secretary of State to get away from the attitude of a famous football player, who was so good that he thought that if he was chocolate he would eat himself.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: He was not at Rangers.
      Mr. Douglas: Yes, he was, and still is at Rangers.
      The Secretary of State seems to think that everything that he has thought of is good and that anybody who opposes it, whether the Scottish Trades Union Council, COSLA, or anybody else, is wrong, because the Secretary of State has had a conversion from what he thought in 1983 to what he thinks in 1987. That is understandable, because we all change our minds and can be persuaded. However, it is only he, and some of his supporters, who have been persuaded. The people of Scotland have not been persuaded. If one is to persuade them that this is an acceptable reform and that it is so radical and of such magnitude that great benefits will flow from it, we should at least have a little pause and experiment to see whether

      895
      it works administratively in terms of the burden of taxation as a whole. Therefore, we should accept the new clause of the hon. Member for Garscadden.
      5 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: The burden of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is "Delay and delay because I want to keep the present iniquitous system." That is certainly not what the majority want. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is bringing the system into operation in 1989. That gives local authorities two years to prepare, and they should manage to do that quite easily.
      I wish to comment on the strange new doctrine of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that any controversial legislation should be followed by a referendum. Every Labour Government—sometimes supported by the Liberal party—since 1950 have maintained their majority because of the Scottish Labour Members, so we would have had a referendum in England on almost every Bill. His idea that a referendum should follow legislation could not possibly be sustained.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spent much of his speech telling the country how the new clause would affect Scotland. However, he was most unfair—as one would naturally expect—because he left out all the important aspects that the people of Scotland want to know about. They want to know that there will be no further revaluation of domestic properties and that they can improve and add garages, porches and other assets to their houses without having the rating valuation of their property increased.
      The business community will be very pleased to know that their rates cannot be increased by more than the rate of inflation, or by a formula that is tied to inflation. I shall comment later on the dramatic increases that they faced under Labour administrations in the current year. The Government are providing valuable assistance to students by raising their grants, and the collection of the community charge on properties with non-permanent residents will be particularly helpful. We shall also update the rolling register. There will be the right of appeal on any infringements. Three quarters of all householders will either be better off or will pay only about £1 a week extra. Single pensioners will do especially well, and 85 per cent. of them will gain. About 80 per cent. of single adult householders—especially one-parent families—will also gain.
      Mr. James Wallace rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) intervenes, if the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gives way, I remind the hon. Member for Dumfries that he should relate what he is saying to the new clause, which deals with an experiment in a particular district.
      Sir Hector Monro: Yes. I am following the hon. Member for Garscadden who pointed out how the legislation would be detrimental throughout Scotland. I say that throughout Scotland it will be advantageous. Therefore, there is certainly no need to carry out any experiments in any region.
      Mr. Wallace: I am interested to know when the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the poll tax took place. I seem
      896
      to remember that as a true and loyal supporter of his party he backed the conclusion of the 1983 White Paper that the present rating system was fine. Perhaps he would date his conversion. Does it stem from the statement by Sir James Goold who, prior to last year's Green Paper, told all Conservative Members to back it, whatever it contained?
      Sir Hector Monro: What a pathetic intervention. I am only surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not delve into local income tax or something ineffective, or planning on agricultural land, which seem to be so important to the Liberal party.
      There is the important issue of accountability which, whether applicable to a particular district or the whole of Scotland, has been brought out so well by my right hon. Friend. In the same way, the importance of this to Scotland and the reason why we do not want to have any attachment to a district experiment is that the Labour party intends to rate agricultural land and buildings, which are presently exempt—[Interruption.] One reason why we do not want experiments is that we do not want to see some of those Labour party proposals brought into effect.
      We want to get on with the legislation and introduce it in its entirety in 1989 because it would be so much more fair to the vast majority of people in Scotland, especially when one considers the position of the business ratepayers in Scotland at present, and also that of domestic ratepayers. We see swingeing increases in Socialist-dominated authorities of anything between 10 and 34 per cent. That will directly damage jobs, especially in Strathclyde and Lothian. I do not see people living in those areas wanting experiments to retain the existing situation, especially those that at present come under a Labour-controlled authority.
      One only has to look in the Sunday Post—I am sure that all Opposition Members read it religiously every Sunday—to see that a continuation, by experiment, of the ideas of the Labour party as contained in the new clause would have a damaging effect and lead to an enormous loss of jobs by an incredible increase in rates in the Labour-controlled areas of Scotland. It is especially worrying to see that that has happened when certain district councils will be able to reduce their rate levy this year, provide the same services and even improve their sport and recreational facilities.
      All in all, I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the new clause and highlight again the importance of getting on with a fair and just new system of rating valuation. That is what we all want and I hope that that will take place as soon as possible.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: Stirling is a university town. I might be tempted to give the new clause some consideration if I believed for a minute that Stirling might be the area where the experiment would be held. However, I have to say that, thanks to the amendment that has been accepted by the Labour party and that which was proposed by the so-called alliance, that would depend on the local authority deciding to be such a pilot scheme area. Knowing how it has soaked business and domestic rate payers—to their considerable cost—I hardly think it likely that Stirling district council, or any other Labour-controlled district council in Scotland, would suddenly cut itself off from the supply of money without accountability, which it has had for so long, and which lies behind the Labour party's last desperate attempts to keep the rating system in at least one part of Scotland.
      Mr. Wallace rose—
      Mr. Forsyth: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will allow me to make my point.
      Stirling is a university town. However, the last book shop in Stirling closed the other day because of the rates. The toy shop to which I used to take my children also closed the other day—again because of the rates. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who has moved the new clause is suggesting that there should be one area in Scotland where there is an experiment. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) told the Committee that rates and the success of businesses were not connected. He told the Committee that rates did not have an effect on businesses. I find it staggering to have lectures from the Labour party on what the people of Scotland think and what is happening in Scotland when it believes that rates do not have an effect on businesses.
      I can only speak for Stirling, and thank goodness for that.
      Mr. Maxton: Not for long.
      Mr. Forsyth: While the Labour party presents people who are responsible for high rates, which destroy not only businesses, but families who must sell their homes because they cannot pay their rates, the hon. Gentleman may well have to wait a long time for the new dawn that he sees.
      The fact that the Labour party has tabled this new clause tells me that it has already accepted that it will lose the general election. If it thought that it would win, the new clause would not be necessary. It can see the writing on the wall, so the hon. Gentleman must not be so confident.
      Mr. Wallace: Does the fact that the hon. Gentleman is bemoaning the inclusion of a "volunteer" local authority not imply that he has little confidence of the Conservatives winning control of Stirling district council? Obviously, if they won in 1988, they would have plenty of time to volunteer before 1989–90.
      Mr. Forsyth: I have every confidence that if we have a community charge, where everyone who casts a vote in these elections knows that he will have to pay something towards services, the present administration of Stirling district council will be thrown out of office. That is why I passionately support the introduction of this Bill and why I am opposed to there being an experiment. The experiment would certainly not include Stirling because the Labour administration in Stirling knows that if it were made accountable, it would be out on its neck.
      We should consider the new clause on its merits, but reject the idea of an experiment. I find one aspect interesting. Whichever area of Scotland is lucky enough to be the experimental area for the introduction of a community charge, what will happen there? First, business men will fall over themselves to set up in business in that area because they can plan ahead, knowing that they will not face a substantial rate increase. They will not face the 16 per cent. rate increase that Central region will impose.
      Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point, I shall gladly give way.
      The businesses will know that they can escape the Central region rate increase of 16·6 per cent. That has been reduced from a 20 per cent. increase, proposed at a time
      898
      when its rate support grant has been increased by 10 per cent. They can escape the rate increases in Strathclyde and rate increases of 30 per cent. or more in Lothian.
      Mr. Maxton: I wish the hon. Gentleman would read the new clause, which makes no reference to non-domestic rates. It relates to the abolition of domestic rates in one district and the introduction of a community charge. I do not quite understand how the hon. Gentleman can, therefore, make points about businesses in relation to the new clause.
      Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's whole problem is that he does not quite understand. If he looks at the Labour party's amendments, he will find that his party has tabled an amendment later to get rid of clause 4 which deals with non-domestic rates because it wishes to remove that protection entirely. He must not anticipate the decisions of the House.
      If we have an experimental area, businesses will rush into it, secure in the knowledge that they can plan ahead and will not be faced with severe, sudden, unexpected rate increases which have destroyed, not only businesses throughout Scotland, but jobs. Young couples seeking housing will know that they can buy a house in that area and not be subjected to sudden, unexpected costs on top of their mortgage payments, for which they have not budgeted.
      Distortions would be created which would ultimately be reflected in house and business prices. Presumably, the distortions would be reversed suddenly if the experiment were extended to cover the whole of Scotland. That would undoubtedly cause great hardship and difficulty to those who live in the area and on its boundaries. Therefore, the proposition is not practicable, but it would certainly display the advantage of a community charge.
      5.15 pm
      I am surprised at the alliance amendment to the new clause. I expected the alliance to suggest having an experimental area for local income tax. Even at this late stage—
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It would not have been in order.
      Mr. Forsyth: The alliance had an opportunity on Second Reading to do that when, during a half hour speech, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) told us that he was just going to deal with local income tax, but never got there. We had to listen to the hon. Gentleman for goodness knows how many hours in Committee and he was asked goodness knows how many times to outline the alliance's local income tax scheme, but he never got there.
      Sir Alex Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman refused.
      Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, as my hon. Friend reminds me, the hon. Gentleman refused. Today the House has been treated to another speech from the hon. Gentleman in which he criticised the Government for not explaining in detail what their policy involves and for not having a consensus of support for their policy in Scotland which is necessary to bring forward any proposition. The hon. Gentleman and his party have used the slogan "local income tax" without defining it and giving the people of Scotland the opportunity to see what sort of system they propose.
      Sir Alex Fletcher: I think the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) wants my hon. Friend to give way to him.
      Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell us how his local income tax system will work. No, I thought not.
      Sir Alex Fletcher: Wait for it.
      Mr. Forsyth: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Maclennan: The alliance will be delighted that the decision about the form of taxation for local government is to be left to the Scottish people to decide at the election. Our system will be related to the ability to pay; it will enhance local accountability and will be a local income tax.
      Mr. Forsyth: That sounds rather like the Labour party's recent policy document in which it committed itself to ending war. The hon. Gentleman defined the characteristics of the system but was unable to say how it would work or what the system would be. How the Scottish people are expected to vote on a system which remains somewhere in the air and in the planning system of the alliance, I know not.
      Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) sounded more like the alliance candidate who, when asked what time it was, said "What time would you like it to be, dear fellow?"
      Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend must not tempt me to stray. It is hard to be nasty to Liberals. A Liberal has been defined as someone who is so nice that he finds it difficult to—
      Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Alex Fletcher: Here is a nice Liberal.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is that it is time the hon. Gentleman sat down.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is also time that we returned to the new clause.
      Mr. Forsyth: I shall not go further down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The fact that the Labour party has tabled the new clause is significant, not only because it concedes the fact that the Labour party does not expect to win the general election, but because it is a change in the Labour party's position hitherto. At first, the community charge was completely unfair and unworkable. Having lost that argument in Committee, Labour Members are now asking to see how it works in practice and wondering how they can criticise it. It is odd that we have not heard much from the Labour party about how its rating system, with its proposed capital values and the rating of agricultural land and buildings, will work in practice. It is not clear from the clause whether the Labour party proposes that we should have this experiment in one area and in the rest of Scotland implement other Labour policies. If that happened, it would be interesting to see the effects. The rating of agricultural land and buildings would destroy jobs in the rural areas on a catastrophic scale.
      900
      The effect of introducing capital values for assessing rateable values would penalise the pensioners whom the Labour party has dismissed. Labour would bar them from benefiting under the community charge because pensioners are not significant in terms of total population. For the same reason Labour has dismissed the single-parent families who would benefit.
      Those who suffer from capital valuation are the elderly living in homes which they have had for years and which have suddenly acquired an increased value. First-time buyers would also suffer. They would find that not only were they saddled with high mortgage payments but with high rate payments, which would be reflected in the value of the house they were trying to buy. Ironically, the people who would benefit from capital values are those who are earning good salaries and whose children have left the household. Those people would be better off, and they are not the sort of people that the Labour party usually champions.
      The reason the Opposition favour capital values and rates is because it is a corrupt system from which they benefit. That is at the root of it all. They want capital values because they believe in a wealth tax and it suits the spite and envy that is central to their philosophy to implement such a system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is nodding. The hon. Gentleman may take pleasure in opinion polls. I remind him that during the revaluation crisis the BBC held a television phone-in. He may remember that. There was a row about the programme. The three systems were explained, but obviously the hon. Gentleman did not watch the programme. The systems were: local income tax, the rating system and the poll tax, as it was described. The people of Scotland phoned in to such an extent that they blew up the switchboard at Newton Stewart. I think it was about 60 per cent., but certainly the vast majority of people favoured the poll tax and the least popular system was the rating system which the hon. Gentleman espouses.
      We should reject this new clause, just as the people of Scotland will reject the Labour party when they are given the opportunity and when accountability is brought back to local government.
      Mr. Jim Craigen: I do not know why the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is so truculent about the proposition for an experiment in one local authority area in Scotland. His party wants to hold an experiment in 65 local authority areas. Therefore, why is he so excited about the prospect of one area which may want to volunteer for this new tax? I am sorry to hear that the last book shop in Stirling has closed, but I am puzzled about how this legislation will preserve book shops in Scotland, because it does not alter the revaluation system in the non-domestic sector. It does not guarantee that rates will not go up, whether they are in the form of a poll tax or under the present property system.
      The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) talked about accountability. Accountability to whom? Will local authorities end up being more accountable to Government rather than to the people whom they are elected to serve? Under the Government's proposals more of the local authority income will be determined not by the poll tax ratepayers but by Ministers. They will decide matters relating to the uniform business rate, and will determine

      901
      the revenue support grant. At the end of the day the poll tax or community charge—call it what we will—will raise less money proportionately for the local authorities.
      The real problem is not that local authorities will be made more accountable, for I am in favour of accountability, but that over the last six or seven years the Government have shown that they want to be less accountable for the cost of providing local authority services. That is why rates in many areas have gone up so significantly. It is a result of the continual retrenchment by the Government in paying their share of local authority services. Do not let us kid ourselves. The facts are all in Hansard in the parliamentary questions.
      The hon. Member for Stirling talked about first-time buyers. It is important that they should be encouraged, but he did not dwell long on the transformation that will take place in the housing market if this poll tax is introduced. In time it will be easier for people who already have houses to move up-market. Oh for the castles; Fordell Castle. It will be much better to live there than in a wee gate house. The poll tax will have an impact on first-time buyers, too, and will make it more difficult for some of them to get into the housing market, because property values will be distorted.
      One of the problems about the community charge or the poll tax is that we are dealing with it now only in theory. We are merely discussing it and people have not yet had a demand notice through the letter box, often telling them that they may have to pay a lot more. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that three quarters of the people would be better off even though they are £1 a week worse off. When I heard the hon. Gentleman say that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), "What primary school did he go to?"
      The figures in the Green Paper show that a majority of people will be worse off under this system. The hon. Member for Dumfries tells us that even though some people will he £1 a week worse off they will really be better off. That is part of the Government's twisted logic over this whole business. I do not know why the Secretary of State is getting so excited about the prospect of one local authority in Scotland wanting to attempt this scheme which the Secretary of State now thinks is so marvellous. Three years ago he had a different tune because he was only an Under-Secretary then.
      I purposely did not sit on the Committee, even though that meant that I missed the entertainment of seeing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) stand on his head. I was not prepared to spend hours listening to Ministers reading out speeches when three years ago when we dealt with the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill they said it could not be done. All this has changed because the civil servants in the Box have changed, and the speeches are different.
      This scheme is as nonsensical now as it was when it was rejected in the Green Paper published by the Government three years' ago. As I said, I do not know why the Secretary of State is getting all worked up about the new clause. If it is such a good thing, he should not be worried about trying it out in one area.
      Mr. Henderson: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). If he had been a member of the Committee, he would have been struck by the extent to which this measure stood up to parliamentary
      902
      scrutiny. My right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill to the House in an encouraging way. Those of us who recognise the difficulties of producing a substantial and radical measure to change the basis of local authority finance for years ahead clearly understood that it would run risks in standing up to parliamentary scrutiny. It is easier to defend even the indefensible status quo, such as the Labour party is doing with rating, than it is to put forward a radical new proposal.
      The first and most striking aspect of the Bill is the way that in Committee it stood up not only to parliamentary scrutiny but was shown to contain proposals that the Government had thought through much more clearly than the Opposition were able to do. The muddle in which the Opposition find themselves is clearly illustrated by the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has explained to the House that the new clause is not what it purports to be, but that it suggests an experiment in the Government's proposals. In answer to a question from one of my hon. Friends I thought that I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was only a partial experiment. That illustrates the muddle and confusion among the Opposition parties during the Committee proceedings.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on the way in which he has consistently shown that the proposals have been thoroughly well thought out—
      Mr. Ernie Ross: Why are there so many amendments?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Henderson: I do not believe that any experiment, total or partial, should be undertaken before the scheme is carried out.
      I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for changing the implementation programme of the Bill. That change has met one of the objections causing some anxiety to local authorities.
      Mr. Maxton: As the hon. Gentleman has made attacks on the Opposition and has claimed that we are confused, can he explain why, if I remember rightly, when we made the proposal in Committee he voted against it?
      Mr. Henderson: Which proposal is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
      Mr. Maxton: To do away with the phasing out.
      Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has once again illustrated my argument. I suggest he studies the Committee proceedings, for he will discover that he is, yet again, wrong.
      When Fife regional council discovered that COSLA was feeding information only to the Labour party in Committee it briefed me on a number of matters of concern to it. One thing that was especially emphasised by the council was the phasing in of the programme. It felt that there would be some difficulty in running the two systems side by side and getting the systems ready for the start of the operation.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a complete misrepresentation to suggest that we were opposed to introducing the system more rapidly? On the contrary, many of us spoke in favour of rapid

      903
      implementation. Certainly one of our worries was that the amendment drafted by COSLA might not be technically effective.
      Mr. Henderson: As I would expect, my hon. Friend's recollections are much more precise than those of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
      I believe that the change in the implementation programme will assist local authorities in their planning and preparation for the changes that will take place. At the same time, it will enable the benefits to reach domestic ratepayers in Scotland as quickly as practicable. I believe that the change will be welcomed by Fife regional council and Labour local authorities.
      I welcome the fact that, during the interim phase, the rate increases that can be dumped on non-domestic ratepayers will be limited to the rise in the retail price index. Recently I tabled a parliamentary question to my right hon. and learned Friend to establish the cost of rate increases on health boards. The answer gave some extraordinary figures. Over the past 10 years, the amount of payment made by Scottish health boards, in lieu of rates on hospital premises, has risen from £8,393,000 in 1976–77 to £38·5 million in 1985–86. That is the type of burden that has been placed on vital health services in 10 years as a result of excessive rate increases by local authorities. I welcome the fact that there will be some limitation on the type of excessive increases that may be imposed on vital services for the community. There will also be a limitation on local authorities.
      I am astonished that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has been so coy in putting forward proposals for a local income tax, has not suggested in his amendment to the Labour party's new clause that there should be a local income tax experiment. The alliance says that it wishes to get rid of domestic rates, unlike the Labour party, and it has suggested how that might be done. I would have thought it reasonable for the alliance to put forward a proposal on how to try out local income tax, but no such proposal has been made. Certainly no proposal has been made for testing local income tax in the areas that the alliance represents. When my hon. Friend replies perhaps he will give us some idea of the cost to different category taxpayers of a local income tax in the areas represented by the alliance.
      Mr. Maclennan: Whereas the poll tax is a tax that has not been tried in any other modern country and was probably operated only in the most primitive societies—
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: What about Japan?
      Mr. Maclennan: It is not operated in Japan. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Japan has a system of rebated taxation and that is similar to a local income tax. Local income tax is a system of local taxation that operates in many countries and there is no need for experimentation.
      Mr. Henderson: In that case I am even more surprised that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to explain that system either to the Committee or to the House this afternoon.
      I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to proceed as speedily as possible with the proposals. In time I believe that they will prove of benefit to all Scottish people.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I shall reply briefly to the debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) was accused by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) of having voted against the amendment to
      "leave out 1992–93 and insert 1989–90".
      The amendment was described by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) as a probing amendment. The final part of that debate ends with the words:
      "Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 280, 284.]
      I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East was far out in what he said about the Opposition's confusion.
      Some hon. Members have been shouting about all the amendments down on the Notice Paper. I believe that such amendments are a sign that the Bill has been well scrutinised in Committee. As a result of the Committee proceedings, we have come forward with amendments to the Bill that are designed to improve it, in line with discussions in Committee. I am rather surprised to discover that Opposition Members feel that that is the wrong way to proceed. It gives a strange view of the Opposition's interpretation of what a Committee stage is all about.
      With regard to the general points raised in the debate, I have some difficulty with the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because, effectively, he said nothing. On this occasion, he did not even say it very well. In his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) he gave us a great insight into the policies of the alliance regarding local government finance. He confirmed that the alliance was in favour of a local income tax. He then said that he did not wish to give further details because the alliance wanted the Scottish people to decide what type of local taxation they wanted. However, he went on to say that, once the Scottish people had decided, they would get a local income tax system whether they liked it or not. I rather suspect that the reason why the hon. Gentleman takes refuge in such comments is that he knows as well as I that, if he studies how local income tax works in practice, he will see that those to whom his party is aiming its propaganda would pay far more under that system than they would under a community charge system. Now is not the occasion to deal with those figures, but perhaps, during the course of the two days' debate, we will have the opportunity to consider them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) rightly referred to the present and proposed level of rate increase. One of the best justifications for introducing the community charge as soon as possible is that increases of the type that we are now witnessing would become less likely were there greater accountability.
      It is legitimate to ask, in looking at the proposed rate increases that we are seeing reported in the papers, of 30 per cent. or 19 per cent., whether local authorities would have proposed such increases if they had known that, instead of just a minority of the electorate being required to pay for these decisions, the totality of their electorate

      905
      would have to pay. My judgment is that if that were the case, we would not see such increases. That underlines the need to introduce the new system as soon as possible.
      Equally, in the situation that the Bill will create, where over a period the existing system begins to disappear whereby the non-domestics pay £2 for every £1 paid by the domestics, it is legitimate to ask whether local authorities would be prepared to put the total burden of their excess expenditure over assessed need on to the totality of their electorate. Again, I very much doubt whether they would.
      If ever there has been a justification for what is taking place in the Bill, it is the type of rate increases that we are seeing and that are being announced in certain areas of Scotland. It is all very well for Labour Members to say that this is all to do with the rate support grant. This year, there has been a generous rate support settlement. If the argument that Opposition Members have adduced time after time during rate support grant debates have been correct, we would have expected low rate increases across Scotland, if any increase at all.
      Mr. Maxton: We have had them.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should visit Lothian, Edinburgh and Stirling to see whether that is the view of the ratepayers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood is right to point to these increases as justification for not having any unnecessary delay in the implementation of the community charge. I listened with some care to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). At one stage, he said that rates were a politically accountable tax. That is a fascinating statement.
      Mr. Douglas: The Minister just said that.
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech, he will see that I referred to the accountability that will be created by a community charge, and made the point that, when only a minority have to bear the burden of local authority expenditure decisions, there is no accountability.
      In a system such as the present rate system, where only 29 per cent. of the electorate pay full rates and only another 10 per cent. of the electorate make any contribution to rates, can Opposition Members suggest that that is an accountable system?
      Mr. Home Robertson: We have a problem here. The Minister thinks that if he can get away with telling half the truth often enough, someone will believe it. I refer to a written answer that he gave me, in which he said:
      "Of the 4 million people eligible to vote in the 1986 regional and islands council elections, 49 per cent. were domestic ratepayers and 30 per cent. were spouses of domestic ratepayers."—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 180.]
      That comes to 79 per cent. Is that a minority?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman said that 49 per cent. were ratepayers. He is right. I spoke of 39 per cent., which is the percentage that pays rates. Another 10 per cent. pay but are fully rebated and pay no rates. Is a system accountable in which just over one third of the electorate have to pay for spending decisions of authorities?
      I ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West again whether a system which demands £2 from the non-domestic ratepayer with no vote for every £1 from the domestic ratepayer who at least has a vote can be described as accountable. I find that hard to believe. It
      906
      explains the Labour party's views of accountability in democracy, which we had so much difficulty in trying to understand in Committee.
      Mr. Douglas: I would not, and I should have thought that the Minister would not, rest an argument for accountability only, or even in some cases mainly, on voting patterns. An important element of accountability is what discussions about the system take place in the media and elsewhere. One of the reasons why we have had these changes is that the media and other organs of public opinion have raised this important issue in politically accountable terms. Perhaps the Minister does not like a free press.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the media for pointing out some of the excesses taking place in local government. I am sure that that is good for the democratic process. No system of democracy is accountable under which those who are deciding what should be spent and raised can ignore the effect that it will have on those who will pay because they are a minority.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister address himself to the point which he at no time answered in Committee? By his own figures, local authorities in Scotland, if the Bill goes through, will have control over only 13 per cent.—a marginal amount — of the expenditure of local authorities. How can the Minister say that that is enhancing local authority accountability?
      Mr. Ancram: I have been fascinated by this argument, which the hon. Gentleman put forward in Committee. He knows as well as I do that the only area of direct contact between an elector — a local taxpayer — and a local authority where accountability can be created is within the 13 per cent. He suggests that there is greater accountability in raising taxes from non-domestic ratepayers who have no vote. In any argument on democracy, that would be a hard line to pursue.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to say that the new clause is a delaying tactic and that the people in Scotland now want to know when the new system is coming in. They believe that it is a good system and that we need to get on with its introduction. That is what we shall be discussing when we come to the first set of amendments on the first few clauses. I welcome the support that my hon. Friend has given.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling and for Fife, North-East for referring to the effect that rates have on jobs. It is often forgotten in these debates, when we are talking about the individual local taxpayer, that rates have a severe economic effect, and we shall be seeing that economic effect in certain parts of Scotland over the next few months. It is part of the debate and a justification for introducing the new system which we shall do as soon as possible.
      Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I believe that the new clause is simply unworkable. If the hon. Member for Cathcart considered what would be created by his new clause, for which he made great claims, he might agree that it would be unworkable. First, it cannot simply be left to industry. The system proposed under the Bill would necessitate close involvement by the appropriate regional council because the regions are the

      907
      levying authorities for the community charge. The region would have the complex task of levying and collecting the community charge in one district, while having to collect rates in the others. Given the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart about the difficulty of running two systems in tandem, I should have thought that that was a serious objection to the new clause.
      It is also difficult to see how this would make it possible for anything worth while to emerge from the pilot scheme. The results would be seriously distorted, depending on the areas in which it took place in Scotland and what was happening next door. Nor is it clear on what basis the region would be able to decide the level of the community charge that it wished to set for the district in question, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) did not address himself to that point. Moreover, it would be impossible for the pilot scheme as proposed to test adequately the new grant arrangements in the Bill or the new basis for paying for water and sewerage. It may have been a hook on which to hang a debate, but as a proposal that could be put into action, it is unworkable.
      The new clause is based on the principle of experimentation. I am surprised that this has suddenly become an element of Opposition thinking. If they introduced a new tax, would they do so on an experimental basis in one area?
      Mr. Maxton: Wealth tax.
      Mr. Ancram: If a future Labour Government were to introduce a wealth tax, would they do it only in the Berwickshire district to see whether they could catch the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)? It is nonsense to suggest that a general tax can be introduced on an experimental basis in one area, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members understand that.
      The new clause is about procrastination and delay. Opposition Members have not been able, on Second Reading, in Committee or in this debate, to get to grips with anything that they can say is wrong with the Bill. That is why they seek to delay it and why I ask my hon. Friends to resist the new clause.
      Mr. Maxton: In the last two minutes of the Minister's speech, we at long last heard something about the new clause. Every other Conservative Member ranged widely over the whole Bill, and, to some extent, they were right to do so. The experiment would show how the Bill would work and would give us a chance to reinforce the many arguments that we advanced in Committee. It would demonstrate the absolute failure of the Government to justify what they are doing on any grounds. Instead, they have resorted to telling half-truths and mistruths—I am not allowed to use stronger language in the Chamber—to get their case across.
      I shall start with the issue of accountability and the 29 per cent. of people who pay rates.
      Mr. Ancram: Full rates.
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister now says full rates. I shall deal with the matter bit by bit.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to an answer from the Minister which stated that 49 per cent. of people were liable to pay rates and that another 30 per cent. were the spouses of
      908
      those who pay rates. That makes 79 per cent — [Interruption.] The Minister claims that 49 per cent. is a minority. However, clause 10 (6) states:
      "Persons married to each other shall be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charges for which they are liable."
      In other words, if my wife is not employed, I have to pay her community charge. What is the difference between that and saying that my wife bears some responsibility for paying my rates? The two arguments are the same.
      The fact is that 79 per cent. of people are liable to pay rates now. Certainly there are rebates — some people receive a total rebate—but how will the Government bring about that accountability? How will they make large numbers of widows, single parents and so on accountable? How will they increase the number of people to be made accountable, to use their phrase? Of course, they will do so by ensuring that everyone in the country over the age of 18, whatever his income and however poor he is, will pay at least 20 per cent.
      The Minister has never told us how many people would pay the poll tax in full if non-working wives, whose husbands pay it for them, and those who now receive full and partial rebates were excluded. I do not believe that that would amount to a majority of people who would be eligible to pay the poll tax. The Minister has consistently fudged that issue and told half-truths, mistruths and untruths about it. If I were in another debating chamber with different rules, that is not the language that I would use to describe what the Minister has been doing.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be complaining that husbands and wives are jointly and severally liable to pay the community charge, but he moved the amendment in Committee that provided for precisely that.
      Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is being his usual pathetic self. He cannot follow an argument and is incapable of seeing the logic in anything that anyone says. He always twists the logic to fit his distorted views.
      I made no attempt to suggest that joint and several liability was wrong. I said that the same rules apply under the present rating system as will apply under the new system. That is right now and will be right then, but that does not detract from my argument. The hon. Gentleman should listen for a change, instead of having his mind full of his normal stupid undemocratic prejudices.
      The proposals are not entirely the brainchild of the hon. Gentleman—that is a misuse of the term brain—but they are to some extend his child. The reason why the hon. Member for Stirling has consistently put forward this idea is that he does not believe in democracy. He does not believe in the democratic process working in Scotland. The local authority in his constituency is Labour controlled. He loathes Stirling district council and Central regional council and he will do anything to take them out of the control of the Labour party, including introducing this unfair tax.
      In putting forward this idea, the Conservative party is showing its arrogance. Although the Government do not have a majority in Scotland, they have brought forward the proposals as if they had the support of the Scottish people. I see that the Secretary of State is smiling. Unlike other hon. Members I have consistently supported devolution, and I am not prepared to sell my principles for high office. That is exactly what the Secretary of State did;

      909
      he resigned from a post of junior spokesman over devolution, but when real power came along he was into the Scottish Office before his feet could touch the ground. He would do anything for high office.
      Mr. Henderson rose—
      Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way because this is a short debate.
      Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Conservative Members are undemocratic, but it was a Labour Member who used undemocratic means to stop the Committee going about its business, even though he was not a member of it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Matters of this kind are not for me.
      Mr. Maxton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The fact is that the Conservative party has not had a majority in Scotland since 1964, but it has ruled without one since 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, we are not even using the mandate argument. We are simply asking the Government to take that into account when they use Scotland as a test bed for the rest of the country. That is why we are suggesting that there should be an experiment in only one part of Scotland. The Government have no support there and will have even less after the next general election. In that regard, the silliest speech that I have heard in a long time was made by the Secretary of State last weekend.
      We have heard a great deal about how this is a fairer tax. Whether or not that is so will emerge from the experiment. The only way in which the Government can possibly claim that widows, single parents on supplementary benefit—either now or in the future—or single old-age pensioners will benefit is by comparing what will happen in 1989 with what happens in 1988. A widow living on supplementary benefit or a widow's pension, or an old-age pensioner or a young single unemployed person, or a single parent will all be worse off.
      At present, none of them pays rates, because they are all fully rebated. It is the Government's miserable scheme under the Social Security Act to make them pay that 20 per cent. that allows the Government to claim that those people will be better off. That is the only way that the Government can do it. But those people will not be better off, and the people of Scotland had better be aware of that. They should ask themselves, "Will I, as a single, old-age pensioner living alone in a council house in Castlemilk, be better off in 1989 than I am in 1987?" The answer, of course, will be, "No. At present I pay nothing; in 1989 I shall be paying £1 a week in poll tax."
      Only yesterday, I received a letter from a constituent living in Clarkston road. It was very well written; the writer obviously has an income and pays rates. She lives in a room with a kitchen and an outside toilet, and at present she is a single householder—probably an elderly lady, although she does not say so. She currently pays £106 in rates, but under the community charge she will pay £276. She receives no rebate on the rates, and we must assume that she will not receive any on the community charge either. Fewer people are likely to be rebated on the community charge than at present, because that is the effect of the Social Security Act.
      One of the constant cries — we have heard it again from the Secretary of State—has been that it is unfair
      910
      that a widow living alone in a big house left to her by her husband, whose family has gone away, has to pay the same rates as a family of five working adults living down the road. Let me give an example. I asked the regional council to give me some figures for the rateable values in Quadrant road in my constituency. It is a good area, with nice houses and high rateable values. In that short road I found two people living alone in big houses and two other houses with five people in each. It was interesting to discover that last year a widow living in one of those houses paid £1,520 in rates — an enormous burden for a single person—while five people living in a house just down the road paid almost exactly the same amount. The sums were marginally different because the rateable values differed slightly.
      What would happen if a poll tax were introduced in that area? We would assume that the widow paying £1,520 a year would be considerably better off: she would pay only £276, and therefore save £24 a week. If the Government's argument is right, that saving should be paid for by the five working people in the other house. However, if we multiply £276 by five, that totals only £1,380, so that household will also be saving money. Those five working people will be better off under the poll tax.
      Who then will be paying that £24 a week? Other widows in Castlemilk will be paying it; the poor will be paying not the rich. The poll tax is not about helping single people, but about helping people who are already well off with good salaries and wages.
      An experiment would be very worth while. It would allow us to see exactly how the system would work, and would illustrate the unfairness of someone in Castlemilk paying exactly the same as someone living in Newlands. It would show the nonsense of the administrative arrangements, and we could see whether registration would work.
      I feel that there may be flaws in the system. If the Minister had felt able to say, "We agree with the notion of an experiment, in principle" — incidentally, the Secretary of State did not even mention that in his speech—we should be prepared to withdraw the new clause. We consider it essential that such an experiment should take place in one area so that we can show what nonsense the system will be.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 246.

      Division No. 107]

      [6.05 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Alton, David

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Anderson, Donald

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

      Ashdown, Paddy

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

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Ashton, Joe

      Buchan, Norman

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Barron, Kevin

      Cartwright, John

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clay, Robert

      Bell, Stuart

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

      Cohen, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Coleman, Donald

      Blair, Anthony

      Conlan, Bernard

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Boyes, Roland

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      911

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Maxton, John

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Craigen, J. M.

      Meacher, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Deakins, Eric

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Dewar, Donald

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dixon, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dormand, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Douglas, Dick

      Nellist, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Eadie, Alex

      O'Brien, William

      Eastham, Ken

      O'Neill, Martin

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fatchett, Derek

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Faulds, Andrew

      Park, George

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Parry, Robert

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Patchett, Terry

      Fisher, Mark

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Flannery, Martin

      Pike, Peter

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Prescott, John

      Forrester, John

      Radice, Giles

      Foster, Derek

      Randall, Stuart

      Foulkes, George

      Raynsford, Nick

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Redmond, Martin

      Freud, Clement

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      George, Bruce

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Robertson, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rooker, J. W.

      Gould, Bryan

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hancock, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Hardy, Peter

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Haynes, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Snape, Peter

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Soley, Clive

      Home Robertson, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Howells, Geraint

      Stott, Roger

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Strang, Gavin

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Tinn, James

      Kennedy, Charles

      Torney, Tom

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Wainwright, R.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wallace, James

      Lambie, David

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Lamond, James

      Wareing, Robert

      Leighton, Ronald

      Weetch, Ken

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Welsh, Michael

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      White, James

      Litherland, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Livsey, Richard

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wilson, Gordon

      Loyden, Edward

      Winnick, David

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Woodall, Alec

      Maclennan, Robert

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McWilliam, John

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marek, Dr John

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Martin, Michael

      Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Ashby, David

      Baldry, Tony

      912

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Best, Keith

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Holt, Richard

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Howard, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Irving, Charles

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Jackson, Robert

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Browne, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Budgen, Nick

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Key, Robert

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Knowles, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Knox, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Conway, Derek

      Lang, Ian

      Coombs, Simon

      Latham, Michael

      Cope, John

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Critchley, Julian

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Crouch, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lightbown, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lord, Michael

      Evennett, David

      McCrindle, Robert

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Farr, Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Favell, Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maclean, David John

      Forman, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Forth, Eric

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

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Madel, David

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Major, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fry, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Gale, Roger

      Maples, John

      Galley, Roy

      Marland, Paul

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marlow, Antony

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mates, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorst, John

      Merchant, Piers

      Gow, Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Greenway, Harry

      Moate, Roger

      Gregory, Conal

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Ground, Patrick

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Grylls, Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hannam, John

      Norris, Steven

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Onslow, Cranley

      Harvey, Robert

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

      Hayward, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Heddle, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Henderson, Barry

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Hickmet, Richard

      Pollock, Alexander

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Portillo, Michael

      Hill, James

      Powley, John

      913

      Price, Sir David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Trippier, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trotter, Neville

      Rost, Peter

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ryder, Richard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Walden, George

      Scott, Nicholas

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waller, Gary

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Walters, Dennis

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Ward, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Silvester, Fred

      Watts, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Whitfield, John

      Speed, Keith

      Whitney, Raymond

      Spencer, Derek

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Michael Neubert and

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      EMPLOYEES IN TIED ACCOMMODATION
      'All public authorities concerned with the employment of employees in tied accommodation, including statutory wages councils, shall increase the minimum rate of wages for employees who live in tied accommodation in 1989 and in subsequent years by an amount that is sufficient to compensate the average employee's household for their liability for the average level of community charge in Scotland for the year in question, in addition to any other increase that the Board may determine:.—[Mr. Home Robertson]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 8—Community Charge exemption or reduction for special cases—
      'No one in any of the following categories shall be obliged to pay more to any local authority under the Community Charge System than what they would have to pay under the rating system in force immediately prior to the enactment of this Act.

      (1) Recipients of supplementary benefit or supplementary pension.

      (2) Recipients of family income supplement.

      (3) Full time students, including student nurses.'.

      6.15 pm
      Mr. Home Robertson: We did not have an opportunity to debate this new clause in Committee because of the guillotine, so I welcome the fact that I can say something about this important issue.
      A substantial number of people will be made worse off by the introduction of this poll tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) pointed out at the conclusion of the last debate, a significant number, of people will be better off—many of whom are in the same circumstances as some hon. Members— but it is worth highlighting the fact that a significant number of people will be penalised by this tax. It is important to dwell on the categories of people who might fall into this trap.
      This new clause is designed to highlight the extra impact of the tax on people who live in various forms of tied housing. I shall concentrate, initially, on agricultural tied houses, which are now almost unique to Scotland. The agricultural tied housing system was effectively dismantled for England and Wales by the last Labour Government, and it will be a high priority for the next Labour Administration to undertake a similar reform of this pernicious system in Scotland.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who has responsibility for agriculture—who was muttering under his breath just now—told me on 13 January, in a written reply, that it is estimated that out of 21,000 regular hired workers in Scottish agriculture about 14,000 occupied tied cottages, of whom 11,000 have their rates paid by the farmers.
      There are therefore 11,000 households scattered through rural Scotland whose rates are paid as a business expense by the employer. The Bill would transform that property tax into a personal tax relating to the occupiers of those houses. Farm workers and their families will have to cope with a cost which they have not experienced before. It might be £500 for a couple and £1,000 or more for a couple with children over 18.
      We are talking about some of the lower-paid people in Scotland. The average earnings of farm workers in the United Kingdom during 1986, according to the current annual review of agriculture, was estimated to he only £139·70 for a 46·3 hour week. That average conceals a significant number of even more lowly paid people. The current Scottish Agricultural Wages Board Wages Order says that the minimum wage for a tractor man can be as low as £104·65 for an employee over the age of 20—and only £84·92 for an employee aged 18 — for a 40-hour week. The order also says that up to 93p per week can be deducted from those basic rates when a tied house is provided.
      People on very low incomes who live in rural areas where the cost of living tends to be high could not afford to pay this extra tax unless their wages were increased accordingly. The new clause would require the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board to increase the basic wages of people concerned to compensate workers for the effect of the tax. We believe that that is the right approach.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) who, like me, is a farmer said in Committee that he would pay his employees' poll tax for them. I read a report in a fascinating newspaper called Big Farm Weekly of 19 February which implied that farmers would be expected to pay their employees' poll tax directly, just as

      915
      they now pay their rates. That raises several questions. How many of the household would be covered? If an employee has several people aged over 18 living in a tied house, would the employer be required to pay for all of them? Would the arrangement take account of eligibility for rebates?
      The Scottish Office is quoted in the same article as having told the National Farmers Union of Scotland that the employer would become the responsible person, presumably under clause 19, but that clause makes the farmer responsible for furnishing information to the registration officer rather than for paying the tax. The same report conveys the alarm of farmers in Scotland at the prospect of having to pay £16 million for employees' poll tax instead £4·6 million which is what they are paying now for rates on farm cottages.
      I fear that some unscrupulous employers will accept the abolition of domestic rates as a windfall, reduce their costs accordingly and leave their employees to pay the new tax. It is possible with the poll tax that employees on relatively low wages and who have grown up children living with them could pay more tax to the local authority than their employers.
      The change will have a bearing on many long-standing employment contracts and no less a body than the Scottish Landowners' Federation has raised another interesting facet of the problem. It says in its submission :
      "The present Bill has important implications for occupiers of tied housing and their employers. Currently it is normal practice for employers to pay the rates for tied houses occupied by their employees. Such people will become personally liable for the proposed Community Charge, but, so that their financial position will not be prejudiced, they will expect their employers to pay the Charge."
      So far, so good. The federation continues :
      "The danger here would be that this payment, if made by the employer, might be treated as a benefit in kind by the Inland Revenue and therefore taxable. Rates now paid by employers in such situations are not so treated by virtue of Section 33(4) of the Finance Act, 1977. Ministers must be urged to give the necessary assurances that similar tax arrangements will be applied in respect of the Community Charge."
      I am a litle less concerned about the liability of landowners to tax than I am about the effect of these proposals on farm workers' incomes. The Government ought to respond to that.
      I invite the Minister to explain the Government's intentions with regard to farm workers and employees in other industries or services which still have the tied housing system. We are considering a wide range of activities, including school caretakers, ministers of religion, lighthouse keepers, coast guards and a host of others. It has, unfortunately, not been possible to deal on Report with the Bill's effect on crofters" but we know that 13,600 crofters are to lose long-standing tax relief. We deplore that.
      Another group of people will find themselves brought into the new poll tax net although they have not previously paid local taxation. I refer to personnel in the armed forces resident in barracks and other military premises in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces gave me an interesting written reply yesterday in which he said :
      "Contributions in lieu of rates are made in respect of property deemed to be in the occupation of the Crown. Such payments are the responsibility of the rating of Government
      916
      Property department. Approximately 14,550 service and 500 Ministry of Defence civilian personnel are living in such property in Scotland."—[Official Report, 3 March 1987.]
      It emerges that 15,050 service men, excluding the Americans at Holy loch—who also will have to pay—will find that they have to pay poll tax of £250 a year. This raises the interesting prospect of the community charge registration officer having to locate, register and publish a rolling register of every service man in every military base in Scotland. Such a public register is likely to contain some interesting classified material which might well be of interest to foreign powers. I wonder whether the Minister has had an opportunity to think about that aspect of this curious Bill.
      What about compensating service men for the extra cost, which will apply only to those who are serving in Scotland? In reply to a question which I tabled on Monday 23 February, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces said :
      "The implications of the proposed community charge for service personnel in Scotland are currently under consideration by my Department. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as we have reached a conclusion."—[Official Report, 23 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 150.]
      I suspect that 15,050 service men will be interested to know what will happen.
      The examples that I have given reveal the lack of thought and preparation that characterises the Bill. It is essential to recognise the special effect of the poll tax on people who live in tied accommodation.
      Sir Hector Monro: This is an important issue. I should have thought that service men would be covered by some form of block arrangement for each military establishment.
      Mr. Home Robertson; Is it?
      Sir Hector Monro: I should think so. Mr. Home Robertson: It is not.
      Sir Hector Monro: I am entitled to my view and I think that I am right.
      The more important part of new clause 2 concerns tied cottages. There are swings and roundabouts. Most modernised cottages — I hope that most are now modernised—will pay between £200 and £400 in rates. In Dumfries and Galloway, we anticipate a community charge of about £175. The present level of rates is therefore not so far removed from two community charges. I should have thought that most farmers would anticipate paying two community charges for a tied house and that a working third or more person should pay the community charge himself. We will have the rebate system for people who are not working.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will, I suspect, find that most farmhouses pay less under the present scheme than they would in two community charges, and that charges on farmhouses and farm cottages balance out. I appreciate that some people, perhaps those in Berwickshire, will be vastly better off, but others who have more humble farmhouses in my part of the country will find that the charge for the farmhouse and that for each farm cottage on two community charges will about balance out. If the tax arrangement can be clarified, by and large agricultural communities should have no great worries over the introduction of a community charge.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support new clause 2 but wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 8, standing in my name on the Notice Paper. I am absolutely opposed to this poll tax nonsense because it is an unfair tax. It is an unfair tax because it is a regressive tax.
      6.30 pm
      A poor widow living in a council house, for example, could find herself having to pay as much as a millionaire living in his castle. That is unfair by anyone's standards.
      Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman will pay less.
      Mr. Canavan: It is about time that the Government started admitting that the majority of people in Scotland will be worse off. Even the Government admit that the majority of households—52 per cent.—will be worse off. If we translate that into numbers of people, the percentage who will be worse off is considerably more than 52 per cent. Among that 52 per cent. of households will be the special categories that were mentioned specifically in my new clause such as people on low incomes, pensioners on supplementary pension and other people who receive a supplementary benefit, such as the long-term unemployed and students and student nurses, who are on very low grants, or who, in some cases, receive no grant from the Government. At present many of those people pay no local tax. They pay no rates to any local authority, either because they are not the owners or tenants of any eligible properties, such as many students and student nurses, or because, in other cases, they recieve 100 per cent. rate rebate.
      The Government will apparently eventually come out with some rebate scheme under this poll tax system, but they are being secretive about it. The details of the rebate scheme seem to be as big a secret as Zircon. I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security will be responsible for laying the appropriate statutory instrument, or whatever, to give full details of the rebate scheme.
      However, whatever scheme the Government have up their sleeves, it seems that everyone will have to pay something and that no one will receive 100 per cent. poll tax rebate. The minimum percentage payment will be 20 per cent. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. In other words, the maximum rebate that anyone can get from paying poll tax would amount to 80 per cent.
      The Scottish Office figures — which some hon. Members may believe and some may not—state what the poll tax would be in various areas. I notice that in Falkirk district, part of which I represent, the proposed poll tax would be £190 per year, according to the Government figures. That means that a full-time student, for example, at Falkirk college of technology or a student nurse at Falkirk royal infirmary or a pensioner on supplementary pension eking out a living, who perhaps at present receives 100 per cent. rate rebate, will find himself or herself having to pay at least £38 per year. I suppose that that is not much to the heir to the Marquis of Lothian, but to a poor student or to a poor pensioner £38 per year is a considerable sum.
      Is it fair to levy that additional tax on people such as pensioners, the long-term unemployed on supplementary benefit and students? We have seen a 20 per cent. reduction in real terms in student grants since the Government took power, and the abolition of the minimum grant means that many students receive no grant. Therefore, they will have
      918
      to pay at least £38 per year if they happen to he resident in Falkirk district. In many other areas they will pay considerably more.
      I ask the House to support my new clause. The poll tax is an attack on the living standards of many people on low incomes, including those in the special categories that are mentioned in my new clause. It is unfair to levy this additional tax burden on low income groups to assist the Government to give what, in effect, is a tax handout to rich people living in big houses.
      My amendment will give some protection to those low income groups. What my new clause boils down to is that, under the new system of poll tax, the people in those special categories would not have to pay any more than what they are at present paying under the rating system. In other words, if they receive 100 per cent. rate rebate, they will pay nothing. If they pay no rates because they do not own or lease property., people in these special categories will continue to pay nothing under the poll tax system. If at present they receive a 50 per cent. rate rebate, they will simply pay the equivalent amount in poll tax. Therefore, my new clause would at least be a damage limitation exercise in that it would be of considerable benefit to many people on low incomes.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend is talking about a considerable number of people. In my constituency alone about 17,000 people are receiving supplementary benefit. Therefore, he is talking about a massive number of people, is he not?
      Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is quite right. Perhaps the Government statisticians could give us a fairly accurate estimate of the number of people who would be affected, but many people in Scotland will be affected. The high unemployment caused by this Government means that there is a high number of people on supplementary benefit. There is also a large number of pensioners on supplementary pension. The Government are always boasting that there are more students in full-time education than there have ever been in Scotland's history, but that is a fat lot of good if the Government are taking more money out of their pockets, and that is precisely what they are proposing to do under the Bill. Therefore, my new clause would be of considerable benefit to old-age pensioners, to the long-term unemployed and their families and also to students. I ask the House to support me.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West, (Mr. Canavan) chooses to ignore the fact that provision will be made for all of those whom he has listed in his new clause. On first examination his new clause is tempting. It makes one think that perhaps no provision has been made in the legislation, but of course he knows that that is not so. However, there is also the aspect that perhaps people in all of those categories should become much more aware, in some way or other, of what is happening at local government level and take some real interest in it. Perhaps this measure will have some impact on the numbers who vote at local elections.
      If we can encourage an increase in the present ghastly low turnout, by whatever means, even if it is simply by a tax, it will mean that a change in the system is making those individuals begin to take note of what is happening in local government. Perhaps that will be the positive side to this.
      Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is being insulting to many people, such as old-age pensioners on supplementary benefit, who take an active interest in what is happening in local government and who do turn out at the ballot box. Thankfully, very few of them will vote for the hon. Gentleman when they do.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is jumping in with his feet in a manner that shows that he was not listening to what I was saying. I never specifically sorted out any particular group to suggest that they did not vote. I said that the derisory turnout at local government elections was such that anything that made individuals take at least more note of what was happening at local government level and take a real interest in it must benefit democracy. The hon. Gentleman will please not put into my mouth words that were not there.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that £38 was a great deal of money to many people, and he was right. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the difference between the community charge for Falkirk and that for Stirling would be rather more than £38 because of the high-spending policies of Stirling district council?
      Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If one has no money, £38 is a fortune. If one has £38, one wants to hold on to it and not give it away. Unfortunately, some local authorities are determined to take away £38, or a lot more. I hope that that will change because, for the first time in a long time, local government finance is being carefully considered.
      New clause 2 is about workers in tied accommodation. It is right that that aspect should be considered in relation to local authority finance. Of course, one would be worried if all people were to be substantially worse off, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) explained that there would be swings and roundabouts. Most of the people concerned would be living in modernised accommodation. I certainly hope that farm workers in tied cottages live in modernised premises, given the substantial public funds which have been poured into bringing those cottages up to date. I hope that everyone will take advantage of that. I have not found one cottage for farmworkers in my constituency that has not been modernised, although they may exist somewhere. There will be a benefit to some from this measure and a substantial benefit to those in high rates areas.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that about 16,000 people in the services in Scotland are affected by the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had ever attempted to study what goes on in the services, he would know that they are accustomed to local compensation being provided wherever people are posted. It used to be called the local overseas allowance and other names, depending on where the posting was. [Interruption.] One can always tell those individuals who have never been in the services because they laugh at things that make no sense to them. I assure them that it was never funny if one was living in a part of the world where costs were high. The services have always taken those costs into account.
      Dr. Godman: Speaking as a former service man, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would expect service men who were transferred to Scotland from a base in, say, the
      920
      south of England to receive from the Army, Navy or Royal Air Force a supplementary allowance to pay the community charge.
      Mr. Walker: I should not wish to pre-judge that issue. [Interruption.] I should not. It may be done on a block basis. That is the only reason why I should not like to prejudge it. This is always amusing to some hon. Members, but the service men are a large proportion of the voting electorate.
      Dr. Godman: Hence my question.
      Mr. Walker: I am coming to the answer. But I am referring also to some of the rather amusing asides by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. The services could use allowances as one means of compensating service men. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be pleased to know that there are precedents for that. The services are accustomed to dealing with these matters. They have the machinery and the methods to deal with them, and I am confident that they will find the right answers.
      If service men, whoever they are and wherever they are, are using local facilities, it is right that they should be aware that it is paid for, however that is done. That assists with accountability., For that reason, I hope that service men will all vote in local elections.
      The two new clauses are unnecessary because provision has already been made in the Bill to take care of these matters. I am confident that they will not be accepted by the Government.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Ancram: This has been a short but useful debate. I listened carefully to the arguments in support of some form of special arrangement to meet the position whereby workers living in tied houses, who at present have their accommodation provided rent and rates free, will be faced with liability for the personal community charge. I remind the House that the personal community charge is, as we have debated at some length in Committee, a personal liability rather than a liability tied to the occupation of a particular property. Each individual will therefore be expected to meet his or her personal community charge bill. Of course, there is nothing in the system to prevent anyone from paying another person's personal community charge liability on his or her behalf, but that is in no sense part of the formal system as we envisage it, and we propose that, in the interests of perceptibility of personal community charge payments, individual demand notices should be sent to all those liable.
      It will therefore be for employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out, to decide whether to take any account of the personal community charge liability of workers in tied houses in considering the minimum wage that they set for 1989–90 and subsequent years. I should, however, point out that any such arrangements would by no means be straightforward. If an argument is to be developed that employers should thus meet the personal community charge liability of their employees living in tied accommodation, I can only envisage that they may also come under pressure to make similar arrangements in relation to employees who do not live in tied accommodation but who will nevertheless equally find themselves with a new personal community charge

      921
      liability. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how far any such compensation would go. The new clause suggests that "the average employee's household" should be compensated, but does that include adult children who may have jobs entirely unconnected with their parents' work? That is a valid question.
      Service men were mentioned in this debate and in Committee. If registration would cause a security risk—this point was raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—service men could be exempted under clause 30. We debated this at some length during the latter stages of the Committee deliberations, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has happy recollections of that. Clause 30(2) says that persons who are
      "within such class or classes of person as may be prescribed"
      shall be exempt from liability. Obviously, that power would be available if a security risk were involved.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister says that there is scope under subsection (2) for certain categories of people to be left out of the tax altogether. That is a rather curious principle. If it were used for service men, 15,000 people could be lifted out of liability. On the security point, would it not make more sense simply to ensure that these people are left off the public register but are still charged the tax?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must decide what his line is. He suggested earlier that registration of service men and the fact that service men would become liable to pay the community charge could, in certain circumstances, create a security risk. If that were the case, there is provision in the legislation to exempt such service men for what I presume would be a very good reason under the terms which the hon. Gentleman has described. I know that we are not in Committee now, but the hon. Gentleman must decide, on certain occasions at least, when he gets the answer which he appears to be seeking, to appear gracious rather than to change direction immediately and to avoid the argument that he originally put.
      As for service men in general, the extension of the new burden will depend on what service men pay for accommodation now. The Ministry of Defence will have to look at this as it considers the new scheme's implications.
      Mr. Douglas: The Minister is trying to be helpful. Will he clarify the position as to representations by the Scottish Office to the Ministry of Defence on, for instance, accommodation in the Dunfermline area, where there are many married quarters? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made the point that the Ministry of Defence is well used to paying local overseas allowances and so on. The passage of the Bill is well advanced. It is important to district councils such as Dunfermline and regional councils such as Fife to ascertain what is likely to be done. At present, personnel quite rightly use the available education services and so on in their areas. How are local authorities and service men to be compensated?
      Mr. Ancram: At the risk of going into some of the more detailed parts of the Bill, I shall explain the procedures as they might be likely to operate. First, the registration officer must decide who is solely or mainly resident at an address. In the case of service men, that decision may not always be straightforward. By the nature of their jobs, service men tend to move around. That will always be a matter of fact and circumstance. The extent of liability
      922
      cannot be judged at this distance. It will be a matter of the judgment of the registration officer, subject, obviously, to appeal to the sheriff about who is solely or mainly resident and therefore should be liable to a community charge.
      I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's second point for the Ministry of Defence. It is for the Ministry of Defence to decide, in the light of all the circumstances, what it wishes to do about its payments to service men. Again, the Ministry of Defence will wish to consider that matter.
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, the Ministry of Defence will wish to consider that matter in the light of the circumstances at the time. Obviously, one matter that it will wish to take into account is its payments to local authorities in lieu of rates. The extent of that payment and how much it will be in future will depend on what parts of the services' property remain in the non-domestic area rather than the domestic area, which will fall out of the argument. It is impossible to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer until the circumstances of each case have been examined.
      Mr. Douglas: I ask the Minister to consider the example of someone engaged in the Polaris fleet, who is out on patrol for 18 months but is still resident in Rosyth. Such complications should have been analysed by the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence. How far have they gone? The Minister has said that nothing has been done.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the fairest way in which liability to pay a charge that depends on residence is to consider the circumstances in each case. I argued in Committee — I believe that it is a correct argument—that it would be totally wrong for us to set down hard and fast rules about who should be regarded as solely or mainly resident. It will be for the registration officer to examine the position of the hon. Gentleman's submariner constituent and to decide whether the length of time that he is away effectively means that he cannot be called solely or mainly resident at his postal address. The registration officer will wish to consider that matter. It is not a matter on which I wish to pre-empt his judgment.
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. Many points have been raised. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall give way to him one more time.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister referred to clause 30 and to service men's possible exemption from the charge. Do I take it that service men, but not members of their families, will be exempt from the tax?
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 30, he will note that it refers to persons solely or mainly resident on Crown land. He must accept that the provision for exemption will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances at the time. That point was raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian, not by myself. I merely said that the circumstances that he raised could find an answer in subsection (2) of clause 30. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
      Mr. Home Robertson: So far, so good. It is interesting to hear the Minister suggest that it may be the Government's intention to get around the problem by

      923
      exempting people under that subsection. If that exception were to be used, will the Government compensate local authorities for the loss of revenue?
      Mr. Ancram: As I said earlier, at the moment there is a payment in lieu of rates on Crown properties. The extent of that payment will depend, obviously, on an adjustment between the part which, in a sense, now holds the community charge payers within it and the parts which do not. Obviously, if an exemption of that kind is made, it will be taken into account in terms of payment in lieu.
      I now refer to agricultural workers. This matter is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. It was certainly the basis of the one that he tabled in Committee, but it was not reached. He knows the background to the farm workers' position—in fact, he gave some figures. About 6,000 workers in the category of farm workers do not live in tied houses. About 14,000 live in tied houses, of whom about 3,000 pay their own rates. If wages were upped right across the board, about 9,000 workers would stand to benefit for no justifiable reason—effectively, a windfall. However, a great majority of farm workers—about 90 per cent.—receive wages in excess of the minimum. The average premium for all workers is £12·62 over the minimum. If the adjustment is made only to the minimum, the figures suggest that only about 1,400 workers—7 per cent.—will be directly affected in the wages determination that the amendment seeks to provide.
      Again, the hon. Gentleman perhaps has not thought through the full effect of his amendment. I am sure that, were he to do so, he would be as concerned about windfall benefits going to those who do not need them as is Brian Wilson, whom I suspect is a friend of the hon. Gentleman. He writes for West Highland Free Press. On 27 February, with reference to the crofters amendment — it was discussed in Committee, but the principle is the same as that which I now bring forward — and, having congratulated the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) on the arguments that he put forward, Mr. Wilson stated :
      "It is simply not on to introduce in 1987 a new scheme which gives the well-paid school teacher with crofting status a 25 per cent. rebate while the pensioner next door in a non-crofting house is hit for the full whack."
      Obviously, if we are not careful in the circumstances of the amendment, the same situation could be created and the same objection could rightly be taken to it.
      Mr. Wallace rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way. I am watching the time. Other hon. Members wish to raise matters, and I do not wish to prevent them if I can help it.
      Therefore, if public bodies such as the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, whose position was raised in the debate on an earlier clause, wish to go down this route, many practical details of the arrangement will have to be established. It will not be sensible for the Bill to lay a duty on such bodies in advance of their consideration of the matter.
      Under the national taxation system, the position of payments made by employers to employees, whatever the circumstances, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I doubt, given the present reasons for benefits for tied cottages, that they would naturally carry over to the community charge. It is
      924
      therefore highly unlikely that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to consider a tax concession of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. Of course, I shall draw to his attention the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends.
      New clause 8 which was tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have the perverse effect of limiting the community charge liability of certain individuals to the amount that they paid in rates before the new system was introduced. That produces a series of glaring anomalies, For instance, some people who pay no rates now would be exempt from paying a community charge if they fell into the categories covered by the new clause, whereas others who are not in those categories would not be exempt. That would indeed extend the local tax base, which is one of the objectives of the Bill, but it would extend it in the most arbitrary and unfair way possible.
      7 pm
      Similarly, the clause makes no provision for people's circumstances changing after the Bill is enacted. What happens, for instance, in the case of a student whose liability is restricted, or who is exempted by this clause, but who subsequently graduates and obtains a well-paid job? Again, as the clause is framed, that would freeze the payments made by the groups it covers at the point when the Bill is enacted, making no provision for subsequent changes in local authority spending or other circumstances.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West did not intend to say that if a student happens to be exempt and is not paying rates today he should never be required to pay the community charge in perpetuity, even if he became the chairman of a major international or multinational company. However, that is the effect of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. That is why his original suggestion that it is a good clause may lead him, on reflection, to realise that that is not entirely so.
      It can be argued that the hon. Gentleman's intention was to explore the position of certain particularly deserving groups under the community charge system. I should explain quite clearly, as we explained again and again in Committee and as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made clear in his valuable contribution, that the system we propose will make adequate provision for people on low incomes who would find it difficult to meet their full personal community charge liability. Those who at present qualify for social security benefits will be eligible for consideration for rebates under the scheme that we propose to bring in under clause 26. Contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman tried to give, that was fully explained in Committee. We admitted that the final figures could not be included because we do not know what the levels of expenditure will be when the scheme comes into operation in 1989.
      Equally, there is the question of the minimum contribution. That will be in line with what is to be proposed under the housing benefits system, which will be made known shortly. It is right to try to keep the two schemes running along the same lines so that people will be able to understand them. We shall return to the rebate scheme tomorrow. However, the figures that we have produced are fairly detailed as to what, according to current assumptions, the actual rebate will be for various

      925
      categories of persons. Like the housing benefit scheme that will be brought into force in 1988, our proposed scheme will provide for all those who are liable for local taxation payments to make a minimum contribution towards their liability.
      The position of students is slightly different. The Government intend that in the longer term they should be removed from entitlement to social security benefits and that they should return to the position whereby they depend on the students awards system, parental contributions and their own vacation earnings. The argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West seemed to be based on the assumption that at the moment students pay nothing towards local government services. There are large numbers of students in my constituency, many of whom are living in accommodation for which they have to make a contribution to the rating system, often without support.
      Mr. Canavan: But only a minority contribute.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman says that only a minority contribute. If he were to look at the breakdown of student numbers, I think he would find that if students are living in rented accommodation they are paying an element of rates through the amount of rent that they pay to their landlords.
      Mr. Canavan: That makes nonsense of the whole argument.
      Mr. Ancram: No, it does not.
      However, we accept that students will require help to enable them to meet the charge. Therefore, we propose that students who are eligible for grant—including those who, because of parental income, receive no grant payments at present—should receive a flat rate each year towards their personal community charge liability. It will be based on the average level of personal community charge in Scotland each year and it will have regard to the level of assistance that is available under the rebate system. The detailed arrangements will he worked out well before the introduction of the charge in two years' time.
      I believe that the new clause of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is unnecessary. The protection for those whom he is seeking to protect is already there. It is included in the rebate system. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw his new clause. If he does not, I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist it.
      I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian appreciates that his new clause would be likely to make things more difficult rather than easier for those whom he is trying to help, and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not, again I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist it.
      Mr. Canavan rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. Does he have the leave of the House to speak again? Mr. Canavan.
      Mr. Canavan: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain that under the existing system most people do not pay rates and say that that is undemocratic and then say that many students who do not pay rates directly pay them nevertheless, indirectly as a proportion of the rent that they are charged by their landlord. It makes nonsense of the Minister's argument.
      The Minister has either misread or deliberately misinterpreted my new clause 8. If somebody ceases to be
      926
      a full-time student, he ceases to qualify for the rebate under the terms of my new clause. I am dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. He ought to accept the principle of the new clause and ask his father to move an appropriate amendment in the other place.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister's reply is far from satisfactory. This debate will be regarded as very bad news indeed by all occupiers of tied housing in Scotland, regardless of the service or industry for which they work. There appears to be some hope for the armed forces, but neither this Minister nor any other has given a specific undertaking. All we have had is the undertaking of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—with all the authority that he carries — that service men in Rosyth and Lossiemouth might be classified as people in overseas postings. That seems to be a curious new approach.
      As for farm workers, the Minister has confirmed that this is a deliberate transfer from a property tax on farmers to a personal tax on farm workers. In many cases that will be seen as a nice windfall for employers and as very hard luck for a number of very low-paid people. The Minister tried to fudge the issue, but he knows as well as I do that farm workers in Scotland are among the lowest paid people in Scotland. He is seeking deliberately to impose an additional tax on them. All he is offering is a pie in the sky rebate scheme, but he will give no details.
      In view of the hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory answer, I do not intend to withdraw the new clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 4

      NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
      'A New Town Development Corporation shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 19 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963'.— [Mr. Cook.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As the Minister will be aware, I have been in correspondence with him about this matter. In 1984 he and I exchanged letters on this point. The Minister will also be aware that this point was the subject of vigorous representations by Livingston development corporation in response to the 1983 White Paper and that therefore it has previously been on his desk.
      It is a modest point. I do not pretend that it is a major point of political principle. However, it refers to what I regard as an anomaly in the law. Nobody intended the anomaly; therefore, no one is to blame. As no one is to blame, I hope that no one feels under any obligation to defend it. I certainly hope that the Minister will feel under no obligation to defend the anomaly. Neither he nor I qualified for the franchise when this anomaly was created. Therefore, I invite him to apply his native intelligence, legal training and natural acumen and an open and fresh mind to the problem that is before him, which I am sure he accepts requires attention.
      The problem stems from the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 which in section 19 provided, no doubt sensibly, that any land which consists of a park vested in a local authority and from which the local authority does not derive profit
      "shall not be entered in the valuation roll"

      927
      for subsequent years. The difficulty that that gives rise to in my constituency and, no doubt, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent the other Scottish new towns is that that section is confined to local authorities and does not apply to the development corporations of the new towns. Indeed, the Act was passed in 1963 and Livingston development corporation was not designated until 1964 and, therefore, could not have hoped to come within the scope of the Act as an entity in its own right.
      Our problem is that in West Lothian we have a recreation and leisure department of the district council, which is extremely active and imaginative and which has a far-reaching and wide programme providing facilities for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but which suffers from a limited budget. Therefore, it is unable to provide as many facilities as it would wish, and as many facilities as the new town requires. The net result of that is that quite a large amount of land held as open parkland and recreation spaces in Livingston new town is vested not in the local authority but the development corporation.
      When I took this matter up with the Minister in 1984 his reply was that it is open to the development corporation and the district council to negotiate a transfer of the ownership of the land. That point has been explored with both parties. However, there is a legal difficulty, which no doubt the Minister can understand but, I am afraid, I cannot get my mind round it. It relates to the rating of car parks attached to local authority parkland and it makes the district council reluctant to accept ownership of more parkland for fear that it is lumbered with a rating charge for the car parking space. However, whatever the legal obstacles to the transfer may be, I put it to the Minister that, having recommended transfer as a way of solving that anomaly, he has recognised that the land vested in the local authority for recreation purposes and the land vested in the development corporation for recreational purposes is identical in purpose and nature and should, logically, be treated in an identical fashion for valuation purposes. As it is, the land is treated differently. The occupants of parkland vested in a development corporation cannot qualify for exemption under section 19 and, therefore, find themselves liable to a rating charge.
      The occupant of the particular parkland which first drew my attention to this problem is Livingston rugby club, an institution of which I am proud to say that I am honorary vice-president. That is a post I am happy to fulfil, not in any mistaken view that I may ingratiate myself with the leader of my party, but because it recognises the substantial community contribution made by the club, particularly its work among youngsters through its junior teams.
      Livingston rugby club finds itself faced with a charge on the use and occupation of its pitches which it believes to be almost unique. The clubs with which it plays which use parkland vested in local authorities do not find themselves liable to such a rating charge. If the club's pitch was two miles to the east it, in turn, would not be liable to a rating charge. Indeed, most odd of all, in the 1990s, when Livingston development corporation is wound up and ceases to exist and its recreation and leisure function is transferred to West Lothian district council, the rating charge will then disappear. I do not know what ground in
      928
      logic could be found to justify the present charge for the rugby club occupying the land now. There is no ground in public policy to be served by it.
      The revenue which would be forgone by the local authority and, therefore, ultimately by the Government by making the modest change to law would be negligible. That brings me to the obvious question put to me by the Minister in 1984, which is that since the money that will be saved by the rugby club will be modest, why make the change?
      7.15 pm
      I shall digress slightly but I hope stay within order. The rugby club, like other sports bodies, faces a heavy burden of rates charges. It runs into several thousands of pounds. It regards that burden as unreasonable since it is nonprofit making, it provides a leisure facility and supplies a focus for the local community. I shall not develop that point since it is the subject of a later debate on an amendment on the Notice Paper. However, the fact remains that it faces a heavy rates charge arising not from the pitches, but from the ancillary buildings and club premises. Why, then, take particular exception to the rating charge that arises from the use of the parkland?
      The reason I raise this point and why the club takes particular exception to this charge is that it is the salt in the wound. Not only does the club find itself with a heavy rates burden, which it regards as unfair and anomalous compared with similar clubs south of the border, but, on top of that, it has to shoulder an extra amount, which may be small but which is certainly distinctive and discriminatory. In the club's view—and I am bound to say that I have strong sympathy with it—it is the last straw. It is an anomaly which it has to bear but which other clubs do not have to bear. Although I have illustrated my remarks by reference to its particular position, it is an anomaly which applies to all parkland held by Livingston development corporation and, no doubt, it is an anomaly which exists in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish new towns.
      I put it to the Minister that this is not a partisan point. I would not claim Livingston rugby club as the strongest bastion of my political support. For all I know, there may be people in the club who support the Minister's party. I put the matter to him in a non-partisan way and I invite him to approach it in a non-partisan manner. I ask him not to be prejudiced against my new clause because it is moved from the Opposition Benches. I should say in advance that I am perfectly prepared to be advised by him that my new clause is technically incompetent. One of the reasons why I am anxious that, at some stage in my parliamentary career, I may occupy the Treasury Bench is that I hope that some day I shall be able to move an amendment which turns out not to be technically incompetent. I would be happy to withdraw my new clause if those are the grounds of objection offered by the Minister. However, I would be happy to do so only if in replying to the debate he recognises the principle, accepts that there is an anomaly and resolves to seek whatever way may be open to him to meet that principle and resolve it, perhaps in another place.
      Mr. Ancram: I was touched by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at the beginning of his remarks. I have to be careful not to be tempted into paths which I might not otherwise have strayed into. I have listened carefully to the arguments he has put

      929
      forward. As he says, section 19 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 provides that any lands and heritages consisting of a park vested in or under the control of a local authority, and from which the local authority does not derive any net profit, should not be entered in the valuation roll. The effect of that is, of course, that such lands and heritages are not liable to be rated. The term "park" is defined for the purposes of the section as including any recreation ground or pleasure ground. As a general rule, however, buildings situated within a park will still enter the roll, and be rated, unless they are used for purposes which are ancillary to those of the park. That, as I understand it, is what the new clause is trying to extend to parks which are vested in or under the control of new town development corporations.
      It seems to me that, as a matter of general principle—I am sure that the hon. Member for Livingston will agree with me on this—where there is any case for extending a rating exemption it has to be made out very carefully. I do, however, take the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman about the differences in treatment under the present law between local authority parks and those of new town development corporations. On the face of it, the matter certainly warrants being looked into further. I could not obviously agree to the new clause now on the basis of this short debate, but I am willing to take the matter away to consider it further, not alone but in consultation with COSLA and the new town development corporations, because they have an interest in how this is developed in the future. I cannot give any positive undertakings to the hon. Gentleman that I will meet his point, but I hope that he will accept that I make this suggestion to him in good faith and that on that basis he will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Robin Cook: On that basis, I would of course be willing to withdraw my new clause. I am grateful for the positive way in which the Minister responded and obviously I shall hope to be informed by his office of the progress of his consultations and I shall report back to my constituents. I shall ensure that the consultations are pressed for. I hope that the House can now proceed to debate the rest of the Bill in the same amiable and agreeable style.
      I beg to ask leave to withraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 3, in page 1, line 7, leave out '1992' and insert '1991'.
      No. 4, in page 1, line 7, leave out '1992' and insert '1997.'.
      No. 5, in page 1, line 7, at end add
      'and shall be phased out from 1989.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7A,
      Amendment No. 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out '1992' and insert '1991'.
      Government amendments Nos. 9 to 12, 93, 97 to 106, 108 to 120, 107, 121 to 129 and 13,
      930
      Amendment No. 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out '1991–92'.
      No. 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out '40 per cent.' and insert '30 per cent.'.
      No. 16, in clause 3, page 2, leave out line 39.
      Government amendments Nos. 19, 21, 27 and 33, Amendment No. 165, in clause 5, page 5, line 22. at end insert—
      '(2) There shall be an annual revaluation of non-domestic subjects from and after 1993'.
      No. 177, in clause 5, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3) In any revaluation of lands and heritages consisting of a caravan site, there shall be disregarded any value attributed to any caravan stationed thereon and section 3 of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 shall thereupon cease to have effect.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 34 to 40, 45 to 47, 88, 150, 152, 89 and 90.
      Mr. Ancram: This large group of amendments seeks to give effect to the Government's decision that the community charge should be brought fully into operation with effect from 1 April 1989. The broad purpose of the amendments is therefore to remove from the Bill the provisions relating to the transitional period that was due to last from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1992.
      It was originally envisaged that during the three-year period domestic rates would be steadily phased out while the community charge was being phased in. However, the advantages of a clean break introduction of the community charge have been put to us by a number of organisations which were concerned about the administrative difficulties local authorities would face in running the community charge and domestic rates side by side during the transitional period. Bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Scottish forum of the Rating and Valuation Association and COSLA came out clearly in favour of the clean break rather than a transitional period, while others, including a number of individual local authorities, expressed their concern over the cost and complexity of going ahead with the transitional arrangements. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, pressure was put on us by my hon. Friends in Committee and not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in a famous amendment that he moved on the basis that it was probing and then withdrew. In that amendment he presented arguments to which we may return later.
      Mr. Dewar: What column was that?
      Mr. Ancram: I can tell the hon. Member that the reference is column 284 of 15 January. He will find there that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) described the amendment as probing and the hon. Member for Cathcart withdrew it. The point was made during the course of that debate and we decided that there was a great deal of force in those views.
      The advantages to local authorities will not simply be in terms of removing the burden of running two systems in parallel. Authorities will also be able to plan more effectively for the introduction of the new community charge as they will no longer have to consider the interim arrangements to cope with the transitional period. The: clean break will also make life simpler for individuals who will get a single community charge bill rather than two bills, calculated on quite different principles.
      The amendments that are necessary to dispense with the transitional period are essentially technical. Many simply

      931
      consist of changes in dates. Clause 3, which made provision for domestic rates in the transitional period, is dropped, as is clause 5 which dealt with the effects of future revaluations on domesgtic subjects. Both are no longer necessary. Schedule I can be considerably shortened and simplified as it no longer has to make provision to identify the subjects on which domestic rates were to be charged during the transitional period.
      Some hon. Members were concerned that the dropping of the transitional period would put an undue burden on individual payers of the community charge. As the debate progressed, it was felt that the transitional period was not going to make that much difference. Indeed, on 15 January in Committee the hon. Member for Cathcart said :
      "The administration of a big bang would be easier and the difference that it would make to the taxpayer would not be great." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 281.]
      I felt that in a nutshell that was an endorsement of the principles that are to be adopted. Throughout the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Cathcart accused me of not listening to him and I am sure that he will now welcome the fact that I am giving positive proof that where he spoke sense — which I cannot say that he did frequently—I listened to him closely.
      I commend the amendments to the House. They will be welcomed by those involved in administering the new system and they will be widely welcomed by people in Scotland who will now be able to get the full benefits of the community charge at an earlier date than would otherwise have been the case and who may have noticed that that will happen with the full support of the Opposition.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) enjoyed himself making that speech. I am always pleased to see someone who drudges getting a little pleasure out of life. That is good for all of us. These amendments deal with the phasing that has disappeared. They deal with the transitional provisions which are no more — "Now you see them, now you don't". I must confess that I approach this concession with mixed feelings. We see the administrative advantages of a clean break. We became convinced slowly over a period during discussions with various people in local government that probably the balance of advantage was in favour of the clean break.
      An amendment to that effect was tabled by my hon. Friends in Committee. It was certainly a probing amendment and there is nothing dishonourable in that. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made clear, it was a probing amendment that was paving the way for later discussion. There was no doubt that the arguments were fairly and effectively put by a number of my hon. Friends. This clutch of amendments is clearly something which the Opposition welcome. The amendments reflect an area about which we expressed considerable alarm and disquiet.
      There was a great deal dismissive and unpleasant criticisms of the Committee stage of the Bill, especially during the debate on the timetable motion. That criticism was made the more irritating when we consider its source —but there you are, we all put up with that kind of thing.
      932
      The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) produced a rather startling test of the effectiveness of a Committee stage. It was apparently the number of concessions and amendments that the Government had to table. She rather triumphantly proved that because the Minister had been obdurate to all argument and had given not an inch—well, perhaps two inches, as there were two very small concessions — in some way the Committee stage had been a disaster and the Opposition had been totally ineffective. I am delighted that the hon. Lady will now be happy to know that it was a very much more productive Committee stage than she had anticipated. Presumably the Opposition can wear this thicket of amendments as a badge of pride. The hon. Lady's theory is somewhat unlikely. Perhaps I can preserve it for posterity by calling it "McCurley's law".
      I am reminded—perhaps irrevelantly, but only briefly —of a brilliant piece of Opposition work, by the hon. Lady's standards, during the passage in another place of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. The Minister may also remember the passage of that Act during which a noble peer—I do not even know who the hero was—objected very strongly to the use of the word "titled". You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill dealt with conveyancing matters and referred to "titled" and "non-titled" spouses. That was objected to on the grounds that a "titled" spouse was clearly the wife of a Member of another place. It was extremely unpleasant that that should then be imported into a Bill that dealt with such matters as battered wives and broken marriages. As a result of that brilliant stroke, several hundred amendments appeared on the Order Paper changing "titled" and "non-titled" to "entitled" and "non-entitled". I suppose that if we apply "McCurley's law", that was one of the great parliamentary triumphs of the decade. I am not sure that it will hold as the proper test, but I record it in passing.
      We have these concessions and amendments which we pressed for and I must not be ungracious about them. However, it is fair to remind the Minister that in Committee the amendments were strongly resisted by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who looks after Scottish industry in his spare time. He was in fine form. He described the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) as being as "pellucid as opaque glass". I suppose that is how they talk down in Galloway. I must go down some time to find out.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get the wrong dialect. My hon. Friend was giving an example of Caithness dialect as used by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on every other occasion in Committee.
      Mr. Dewar: I am always careful about Conservative Ministers who talk about glass and mental capacity. I remember the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) referring to his mind as being like a pond in winter frozen over. I suppose that it is a matter of taste.
      I thought that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithdale made a brave speech on that occasion. Indeed, he got completely out of line with his master's voice, because he started by saying that all the talk about difficulties for COSLA and the local authorities were exaggerated. He said :

      933
      "There are a number of able and experienced professionals staffing Scottish local authorities, and they should be able to make the necessary arrangements to cope with the transitional period."
      That was a startling statement, because it was praise for local government and local government officials. It shows that there is still some realism lurking at least in the junior parts of the Scottish Office.
      The Minister went on to say:
      "I repudiate the prediction of the president of COSLA"—
      that is fighting talk—
      "that there will be five years of chaos if the Bill is enacted and implemented as we propose. To me that is nothing more than a strong criticism of officials in finance departments up and down Scotland."—[official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 283.]
      He was taking up the cudgels on their behalf. He then asked that the amendment be withdrawn or he and his hon. Friends would bury it with the block vote.
      Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State still believes that there would not have been five years of chaos. But the fact that he has tabled these amendments shows that he accepts the argument that there would have been a period of considerable difficulty and that we are better off without the transitional arrangements, which is what the Opposition argued in Committee.
      It is important to clarify our position for the record. We believed that great difficulty would be caused by running the rates and the poll tax in tandem. We thought that it would cause much public confusion and much complication for officials already under pressure. Indeed, it was not just a matter of them running in tandem; the proportions of the tax take contributed by each form of revenue-raising would vary during the period. For example, if one considers the one-day period, as I did in a moment of enthusiasm, one sees the problems of running the rebate and housing benefits systems, with authorities that have different responsibilities following two forms of taxation. It became clear that great difficulty would be caused, so we came to the conclusion that there was a strong administrative case for moving in the way that the Government have chosen. That was the basis for our amendments.
      The trouble is that it is purely an administrative argument and does not touch our basic objections to the Bill as drafted and the scheme as envisaged. Those objections remain.
      The Under-Secretary of State was a little less than frank when he managed to give the impression—it may have been unintentional, but he may he under a misapprehension—that most of those who had lodged technical objections as to the practicality of the poll tax were safe abed, relieved that their fears had been swept away with the disappearance of the phasing arrangements, and he quoted the Scottish branch of the Rating and Valuation Association in that context. I have here a comprehensive series of comments on the scheme from the Rating and Valuation Association—dated 13 February 1987, so it does not have cobwebs on it yet.
      The letter contains much adverse comment on the phasing arrangements in clause 3, so no doubt the association will warmly welcome the fact that they have disappeared. It would not be fair to the House to quote at length from this sophisticated and lengthy document, but hon. Members will take my word for the fact that it still contains plenty of reservations, caveats and criticism of matters that will continue to be essential parts of the
      934
      scheme, if it is implemented. The association describes the retail prices index test in clause 4 as inappropriate, and it calls the collective community charge machinery "unnecessarily cumbersome" and says that it should he scrapped. It says that parts of clause 20 are
      "unworkable in their present form."
      In summing up, the letter states:
      "The Government should be in no doubt that the relative yield from the community charge will be considerably less than that from domestic rates. The community charge will be easily avoided and considerably more expensive to collect than domestic rates."
      The association makes a sustained case for that conclusion.
      I hope that the Minister accepts that he put a gloss on the matter when he seemed to suggest that the opposition to the Bill has been defused and that there were no doubts among the professionals. The Rating and Valuation Association represents professionals. It is not a gaggle of Labour councillors plotting the downfall of the free market economy and the prosperous future of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). It represents people who have examined, in a narrow professional sense, the nuts and bolts of the system and found it wanting.
      I make those points because it is important that our position and the position of those who have criticised the Bill should not be misinterpreted later. The amendments will provide some improvement. They will simplify the introduction of a bad scheme, but unfortunately we have failed to improve it in any way with other amendments. In a sense, the change sharpens the divide between the parties. It removes the blurring and the period of confusion. It means that suddenly in 1989 a fully armoured, 100 per cent. poll tax will be sprung upon us. Although I give the amendments a qualified welcome, I do not wish to leave anyone under the impression that our opposition to the Bill has been decreased by this concession. I would much rather—there is a strong case for this—that the Minister had decided to introduce the clean break at the end of the planned phase-in period in 1992 instead of in 1989, when there will be many administrative difficulties. The authorities will have to organise collection and compile registers before April 1989.
      I am glad that, despite the snorts and the cries of repudiation in Committee, Ministers listened to our argument. I can only express the pious, and 1 fear unfounded, hope that even at this late stage it will be a catching habit and that there will be signs of movement in other areas.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: The purpose of amendment No. 3 and the related amendments standing in my name was to shorten to 1991 the phasing-in period of the community charge, with appropriate changes in the percentages. In a sense, they were fall-back amendments. He will know that because he has expressed concern, as has the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), about the practicability of the phasing-in period. I tabled the amendments as a fall-back in case my hon. Friend found himself unable to accept the case for the direct introduction of the community charge in 1989. Obviously I am not pressing the amendments, and I warmly welcome his decision.
      My hon. Friend's decision is welcome on two quite different grounds, first, on the grounds of practicability. That was the theme in the speech of the hon. Member for

      935
      Garscadden who rightly referred to the Rating and Valuation Association, and the welcome and well-considered points that hon. Members from all parties have received from that body. I do not want to rehearse those arguments. However, I should like to add that the second major ground for the direct introduction of the community charge in one year is the acceptability and credibility of the entire system. There is no doubt that many people were concerned about the acceptability of bringing in a community charge over such a long period which, in political terms, could cover not only the beginning of the next Parliament but, arguably, into the Parliament after that.
      During the period 1989–1992 there would not only have been considerable complications but a lack of the advantages of the community charge, in terms of acceptability and the benefits for the democratic control of local authority expenditure. Considerable confusion would have resulted. Therefore, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their decision, which is sensible, not only in practical terms, but in terms of principle.
      Mr. Maclennan: The alliance is in favour of the Government's proposals, in the sense that we have been persuaded that the practicalities of administering a poll tax make it sensible to have a clean break. That was not always our view, but we have been persuaded by the arguments that have been addressed by those who are most likely to be closely involved with its implementation.
      However, it was also our view that the date on which the translation to the new system would take place seems too soon. The need for careful preparation and proper debate of many of the matters which have not yet been decided and which are covered by the subordinate legislation that will depend on this Bill mean that the date should be later than that which the Government have in mind.
      The Minister will recall that in Committee I proposed a different operative date. I suggested 1994. That was designed not only to give the proper time but to ensure that there was a settled opinion that the change should be made. It is not sensible to introduce a tax system that does not enjoy the support of the taxed public. To follow the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), that would require the interposition of more than one general election.
      There is great advantage in having a settled view as to what local taxation is appropriate before we break up the system with which we have lived for about 200 years. Cleanliness for that break is to be preferred to trying to run in tandem two systems that are both complex. I am glad that the Minister arrived at the conclusion that he did.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome my right hon. and hon. Friend's amendments. Amendment No. 1 brings forward the date. As every hon. Member who has spoken has said, the practical advantages in doing that are to be commended, partly because operating the two systems in tandem would have imposed a heavy work load on the local authorities. The amendment should be welcomed, if only for that reason.
      However, I welcome it for another reason. The earlier that we bring such matters into operation and make them
      936
      effective, the more we shall see the benefits in the way in which the population at large responds to them. I sincerely believe that the system will be welcomed once it is seen to be operating because, contrary to the views expressed from the Opposition Benches, the Scottish public like to know what is happening. The rating system has never been properly understood and has been a hostile form of taxation with no friends, other than those who seem to be running it, and councillors who see benefits to themselves in being elected under a system in which there is little real accountability.
      Amendment No. 33 deletes clause 5. My amendment, amendment No. 177, is an amendment to the clause. On the assumption that clause 5 will be deleted from the Bill I should like to say a few words about why I have tabled amendment No. 177. History and experience show that Scottish assessors often view things substantially differently in different regions.
      My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have recollections of reed beds and caravans, matters in which I had a constituency interest, because the caravan and leisure industry is an important part of the tourism that is so vital to the well-being of constituencies such as mine. Therefore, I tabled my amendment to spell out quite clearly to the assessors what the legislation would mean. Unless one spells that out clearly one runs into problems. Amendment No. 177 deals with "the revaluation of lands and heritages" consisting of caravan sites. That is important because caravanners and caravan sites have had the ghastly problem of not enjoying the discounted rebate that everyone had thought had gone through in an earlier Act. However, we discovered that the Scottish assessors did not see it quite that way, and in the end primary legislation was required to rectify something that everyone, including the Minister who put the Bill through, believed already applied to caravan sites. It was believed that they would enjoy the same benefits as in England. However, that turned out not to be the case and the discount never materialised in Scotland.
      The amendment gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the assessors in some detail. District valuers in England and Wales operate quite differently from the assessors in Scotland. I am always fascinated by the way in which the assessors arrive at their valuations, and how they arrive at quite different conclusions in adjacent regions. From the point of view of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1978, the district valuers in England applied the Act as it was intended.
      However, that did not apply to Scotland, and that situation had to be remedied by the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will remember that I was involved in several private Members' Bills, early-day motions and all the other devices that we use in this place to draw attention to a matter that we feel is wrong. I was delighted that my hon. Friends understood that and brought forward measures to put things right. However, it was about eight years before the correction was made. I did not believe that we would want to face that position again before the Bill was enacted. I had horrible feelings about what could happen if we did not spell out clearly to the assessors what the legislation meant.
      I did not serve on the Committee because I was ill when the Members who served on it were selected. It is the first major Scottish Committee on which I have not served since coming to the House, so it has been a bit of a holiday

      937
      for me. However, I understand that in Committee Ministers said that they understood clearly the worries and problems of the caravan and caravan site industry, and I thank them rather belatedly. I am pleased that this evening they have tabled amendment No. 2 with related amendments and amendment No. 33 because it will not be necessary for me to take any action on my amendment No. 177.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: First, I shall deal with the Government amendments. Given the horrendous implications of phasing in a new system and maintaining the old, the Government are right to introduce these amendments. However, if one does not agree with the nature of the poll tax, one regrets that it will be imposed so much faster. All hon. Members will probably agree that in practical terms the Government have taken the only possible course, but I am less sure whether they have chosen the correct year in which to introduce the system. Considerable difficulties will be met by those who must prepare the various registers, and they will be hard pushed to bring the new system into effect on the date that the Government have chosen.
      Without slighting the amendment selection, I am not sure why amendment No. 165 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has strayed into this sequence of amendments. Perhaps it qualified because it included a date and the Government amendments were largely altering dates. But since many of my excellent new clauses were cut down by the scythe of selection, far be it from me to complain.
      The amendment provides for a change in the arrangement for the valuation of commercial property. It may well be that I have not taken on board fully the Government's intentions in this regard, but, like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I did not serve on the Committee. A reason why there was such a huge outcry at the time of the revaluations almost two years ago was that many who had shops or hotels or who operated businesses were hit by a heavy increase in their valuations at the end of the septennial revaluation. Because of the delay factor in revaluation they were clobbered by unexpected demands in cash terms on their businesses.
      It has always been a matter of public notice that those who own premises or operate businesses have frequent disagreements with local authorities about the scale of their rates payments. That is a matter for on-going discussion. They have found difficulty in budgeting where, apart from any inflationary increase in rates which may have taken place under the commercial rate, they have been met on revaluation by a quantum leap, sometimes of 300 per cent., which in cash terms has meant a substantial increase in the sums that must be paid.
      My amendment suggests that from and after a given date annual revaluations shall be introduced. That would probably not have been feasible when assessors had to deal with domestic properties, but that problem has now been removed by the Bill, so assessors will have time to pay a little more attention to commercial rating. Indeed, it could be said that the number of properties affected is much less and there is no reason why an annual revaluation should not be feasible.
      Furthermore, the Government intend to introduce a national business rate, but that may not come into effect before the turn of the century. The Minister is shaking his head, but he knows full well that in the sister kingdom of
      938
      England there has been no revaluation for a considerable time. It would be a painful exercise if his English colleagues had to introduce a valuation which inclined both systems to work more closely together. He would take some pleasure from that because English Ministers would have to wriggle, scream and screech in the same way as he and his colleagues in the Scottish Office had to during revaluation.
      Be that as it may, I am suggesting an annual revaluation which would take into account current trends. If it appeared that the rates of any given commercial property were increasing beyond what the business could bear, early notice would be given to the owners so that they could look for alternative premises in good time.
      My amendment has a great deal to commend it and I urge the Minister to give it due consideration and to disembed it from all the other amendments taken with it.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: The people of Scotland should be dancing in the streets tonight. These amendments make a tremendous difference to the impact of the Bill. The fact that the burden of domestic rates will disappear in 1989 rather than 1992 will be widely welcomed.
      I praise my hon. Friend the Minister for his genius in introducing the amendments and getting all Opposition spokesmen jumping on the bandwagon and saying how much they support the amendments, although they have been wholly opposed to the community charge. He may have looked for a phasing-in period to introduce the community charge and to abolish domestic rates because he may have been taken in by the statements of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his various colleagues in the Labour party and, indeed, by hon. Members in other parties that they would fight the Bill to the last ditch, that they would fight it and fight it again and that it was the worst thing that had ever happened to Scotland. On the Opposition Benches I see three Labour Members, one Liberal Member, one SDI' Member and one SNP Member. If that is fighting to the last ditch—
      Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to count incorrectly? He has already made one mistake.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems to be a point more of arithmetic than of order.
      Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is referring to his normal schizophrenia or whether I have missed one of his colleagues.
      Mr. Foulkes: One cannot have normal schizophrenia.
      Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman and his party pledged to fight the Bill. We are advancing the introduction of the abolition of domestic rates which is a historic decision, and if this is the opposition that we were promised, it is feeble.
      I cannot but believe that my hon. Friend the Minister thought that there would be stronger resistance both from the Opposition and in Scotland to his proposals than there has been. The way in which he has doggedly pursued the argument and explained how the tax will operate to the benefit of the majority of the people in Scotland has brought us to the position where the abolition of domestic rates ahead of time is not a matter of controversy.

      939
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) tabled amendment No. 165. This must be the biggest piece of cheek from any party this Parliament. On television, in the newspapers and in this Chamber the hon. Gentleman complained about the last revaluation and said that Scotland was uniquely disadvantaged. He argued that that was an outrage and an example of how the Government did not care about Scotland which had to endure this revaluation while England did not. Now he is suggesting, not that Scotland should have regular revaluations, but that it should have more revaluations, that they should be annual, thus creating a markedly different situation from that which exists in England. However, just a few months ago, for his own political advantage, he was arguing that there was an injustice in Scotland. How can the hon. Gentleman square that? I will gladly give way to him if he cares to explain how he reconciles his previous position with the position that he takes now.
      8 pm
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that I have never attacked the fundamentals of revaluation. In times past the Minister has pointed that out. I said that a septennial revaluation suddenly heaping huge increases upon people is bad for business and bad for Scotland. Secondly, there are differences in valuation law relating to the valuations of properties in England and Scotland, and they operate to our disadvantage. That is one reason why I put down some new clauses on this topic. Unfortunately, they were not selected.
      Mr. Forsyth: At the time of the last revaluation I do not recall the hon. Gentleman going around Scotland saying that England was uniquely disadvantaged because it had not had a revaluation for 12 years. He did not go around saying that businesses in England were facing a tremendous threat. On the contrary, he said that the Tory Government had introduced a revaluation and after seven years there was none in England and Scotland was uniquely disadvantaged. He is now arguing for annual revaluations in Scotland and saying that every Scottish business man should be faced with considering an annual appeal against his assessment, with all the expense and burden that that would impose. That is typical of the opportunism that we see in Scotland from the hon. Gentleman's party. Once again it shows that only the Tories are prepared to take seriously the rating system and its running, rather than just going in for the political mudslinging and opportunism that this amendment represents.
      Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say where great satisfaction is to be found in the way in which the Government are currently treating commercial ratepayers? The evidence that I have had is that business men are not at all happy with the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Forsyth: The business men who advised the hon. Gentleman that they would be better off with annual revaluations must not understand the rating system or its impact on them. Does he think that the business men in Callander in my constituency or in his constituency would welcome the prospect of filling in forms or going to appeal every year if they think that they have been treated unjustly? If he thinks that, he does not have much understanding of business men.
      940
      Business men to whom I have spoken welcome the decision to maintain commercial rates and to put a ceiling on the increase. That is because they will know where they are and will not get the sort of huge increases which, in arguing for annual revaluations, the hon. Gentleman said were a burden on business. If he recognises that unpredicted and sudden increases are a burden, why does he not welcome these proposals about commercial rating? Once again the hon. Gentleman is trying to exploit people's understandable fears and worries about change but he is not doing anything constructive. His party mouths that it is in favour of a local income tax but, like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), it has yet to come up with a workable scheme or to participate in a meaningful way in discussions about one of the most important issues in Scottish politics.
      I welcome the Government amendments. I am overcome with admiration for the Scottish Office for being able to abolish so quickly a hated tax and for being able to draw so much support from Opposition Members who previously committed themselves to open hostility towards my hon. Friend's opening position.
      Mr. Ancram: I find myself in the rather unusual position of responding to a debate on a series of Government amendments which have been welcomed by all parties in the House. I wondered whether to describe that in card-playing terms as a full house, but perhaps that would be rather overdoing it. A royal flush was the other thought that came into my mind, but I am not sure whether that is appropriate either. I am grateful to hon. Members for welcoming the Government's decision to do away with the transition period.
      I shall deal first with the amendment dealt wih by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He is a persistent and hard-working defender of people with caravan interests. He said that this was discussed in Committee and he will see in the record of the Committee for 15 January at column 322 that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) quoted at some length from a letter that I wrote to the chairman of the Scottish caravan industry joint liaison committee. That letter was written on 27 November last year and set out the position. I shall summarise that position for the House.
      The Bill gives a choice on how caravans, which are not allowed to be occupied for human habitation throughout the year and are occupied by individuals and not the caravan site operator, are to be treated. Either they come out of rating, which seems to be the purpose of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, although I appreciate that, effectively, it is a probing amendment, and the individual occupiers would become liable to the standard community charge, or they remain in valuation and are subject to the modified arrangements for levy of non-domestic rates proposed in the Bill.
      The caravan industry was concerned, as were the Government, that a change in the standard community charge would increase the burden on caravanners. Therefore, it is proposed that an individually occupied static leisure caravan should continue to be valued under the present arrangements where it is assessed along with the site as a single unit and entitled to 40 per cent. derating or, where it is not situated on a caravan site subject to single unit valuation or where the occupier so elects, is

      941
      individually valued and rated. This is the course preferred by representatives of the caravan industry with whom the Government have consulted.
      The provisions in the Bill are considered to be better for caravanners than if they became subject to the standard community charge. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that most people in the caravan industry have accepted that this is so. I hope that on that basis he will be prepared not to press his useful amendment, which has given us a chance to place on record the thought that has gone into this part of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 165 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was a little unkind in his speech, because the hon. Member for Dundee, East always protected himself by saying that he was a great believer in revaluations. The strangest comment that he made, and which he reiterated in this debate, is that his main argument is about the anomalies between Scotland and England because of the different rating systems.
      I find it hard to understand how a Scottish nationalist, whose whole political purpose, as I understand it, is to ensure that Scotland is separate and that its interests are dealt with in a Scottish way and by the Scottish legal system, should say when the system that he is seeking is in place—as it is in terms of the Scottish valuation system—that, because it works in a different way from the system in England and the English seem to be paying less, he is unhappy about it. Suddenly, Scottish nationalism goes out of the window and the cry is for harmonisation. That is one of the more strange positions that the hon. Member adopted during the period of revaluation. Indeed, he still adopts that position.
      I think we all accept that regular revaluations are necessary to keep the tax base up to date. As the Green Paper envisaged, it is planned to have simultaneous revaluations of non-domestic property north and south of the border in 1990. Statements have been made to that effect. In a sense, this is part of the process of harmonisation of valuation and rating between the two countries. A simultaneous revaluation is an essential part of any process of harmonisation.
      Mr. Wilson: 1 am aware that there was a reference in the Green Paper to simultaneous revaluation. Does the Minister think that that will be carried into effect because the history of valuation and revaluation in England shows that when Ministers are confronted with the problem they retreat? Does he not agree that it is more likely that revaluation in England will not take place? How will the provisions in the Bill help those who occupy commercial subjects in relation to those premises that pay less in England than in Scotland? What changes in valuation law does the Minister propose? The Minister is aware that the basis of valuation in Scotland, which may be based on the same terminology as in England, is different in practice.
      Mr. Ancram: First, it is planned to have simultaneous revaluation of non-domestic properties north and south of the border in 1990. That must be part of any process of harmonisation and it is regarded as such. The Inland Revenue and the Scottish assessors have met to discuss how harmonisation with regard to revaluation may be achieved in practice. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are differences between the two systems. I believe that there are differences in practice and differences in law.
      942
      Therefore, we must seek to eliminate the differences in practice before a revaluation—if possible before the 1990 revaluation. Until we have simultaneous revaluation based on a similar practice we shall not be able to judge where the differences of law exist and set about correcting them.
      The process of harmonisation, by its nature, is not one that can be carried out swiftly. However, the Government have launched that process and I believe that it will be of advantage to ratepayers in Scotland. An argument in principle can be made for having a revaluation each year. That is covered in the Green Paper with reference to the reduction in turbulence that is normally associated with revaluations over a long time and keeping a tax base up to date. Those matters were canvassed. However, to move from the system of quinquennial revaluations to annual revaluations over a few years—as implied in the amendment—represents a considerable undertaking.
      To bring about such a fundamental change in a relatively short time it would be necessary to pay particular regard to the work of the local assessors. Developments that are taking place—such as advanced computer technology—may make that a possibility in the future. I would not wish to preclude or confirm that development at this stage. We wish to listen to further representations about that. If we retain the rating system as the base of non-domestic taxation, it is obviously in all our interests to ensure that we have the fairest and most acceptable system in its place.
      The purpose of these amendments is to get rid of the transitional period. They have been widely welcomed. It is interesting that at the end of the debate in Committee the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who I am glad to see in the Chamber, said:
      "If the Government believe that the poll tax will be such a tremendous improvement and so much fairer and attractive to the people of Scotland, why on earth did they not have the courage of their convictions and introduce it immediately''—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 284.]
      That was the hon. Gentleman's argument for supporting the amendment moved by his hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and those outside the House understand that we are committed to the abolition of domestic rates. We are confident that the system we propose in this Bill will work. It is in that spirit that I move these amendments and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for supporting them.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      VALUATION ROLL NOT TO INCLUDE DOMESTIC SUBJECTS
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page I, line 9, leave out '1992–93' and insert '1989–90'.
      No. 7A, in page I, line 11, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 176 in, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
      '(b)

      (i) any mobile home and the caravan site on which it is stationed including any buildings, ground pertinents, heritable facilities and services which may be used in connection therewith, but excluding any caravan not being a mobile home.

      943

      (ii) for the purposes of this subsection "mobile home" and "caravan site" shall have the meaning assigned to them respectively by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.'.

      In some respects this amendment is a follow-up to the previous group of amendments. It was designed as a probing amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that, when residential caravans are deleted from the valuation roll with the abolition of domestic rates, the assessor shall, in valuing a caravan park, exclude from his calculations the pitch on which a residential caravan is stationed and those parts of the caravan park used by the occupants of residential caravans.
      If the amendment is accepted the assessor, when arriving at his valuation of the caravan park, will not be entitled to include any buildings, roads, lighting, services and so on, which, if used in connection with the occupation of an ordinary dwelling house, would not be separately rated as they would be covered within the community charge. It is necessary for all the matters to which assessors in Scotland shall have regard to be spelt out in the legislation. As I said earlier, the assessors in Scotland, unlike the district valuers in England and Wales, are independent of Government directions. Accordingly, they do not have regard to any directions regarding the relaxation of valuation principles. That is why I have brought forward this amendment.
      Problems arose as a result of assessors in Scotland refusing to follow the declared intention of the Government regarding the valuation of caravan sites under the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976. That Act was followed by the district valuers in England and Wales but was not followed in Scotland. The matter had to be put right by the enactment of section 15 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. That Act inserted section 3A into the Rating (Caravans Site) Act, but that took place eight years after the introduction of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act.
      My amendment should make the task of the assessor, if required, much easier without any loss of revenue. I stress "if required" because I would like the Minister to clarify the exact position so that when assessors and others in Scotland are required to consider the legislation properly there is no doubt in anyone's mind about what was intended by the legislation and the current state of affairs.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for raising this issue. I am aware that he is interested in the question of caravans and mobile homes. It raises another intriguing aspect of the legislation. Arising out of the amendment, we must ask when a caravan becomes a mobile home. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman expect an assessor to apportion those parts of facilities attached to a caravan site that are used by touring caravans at the same time as being used by people resident in mobile homes? It highlights an area of anomalies that will be created by the legislation.
      The hon. Gentleman has discussed mobile homes and caravans and I can visualise some fascinating situations in his part of Scotland. During the berry-picking period and the tatty-lifting time there are a substantial number of people temporarily resident in caravans who will be
      944
      moving around farms in his area, in Angus and the neighbouring areas of Grampian. These people will supposedly be subject to the poll tax and I would be fascinated to hear how they will be taken into the system.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the hon. Gentleman is so knowledgeable about the situation that exists during berry-picking time in my constituency, he will also recognise that there are few made-up roads or other facilities where the caravans are located during berry-picking. Much of what is contained in my amendment has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I accept that. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point because it is an intriguing example of the absurd task that the Government are laying upon registration officers and the people whose duty it will be to collect the poll tax. For part of the year such people will have the duty of finding the travelling people in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world. He will have to put them on to the register and then collect poll tax from them. These are the people on whom the Government want to load this new tax to relieve other people who may be paying higher rates. It will not be possible to collect tax from such people. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Ancram: There is nowhere in the Bill a mention of the imposition of poll tax, so the question put by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not arise.
      The treatment of caravans under the Bill has been looked at carefully in consultation with a number of interested parties, including local assessors. The policy that has been developed has been explained to caravan interests and was made clear in the last set of amendments discussed in Committee and in a letter that I wrote to the chairman of the Scottish caravan industry joint liaison committee.
      The main difficulty that I have with my hon. Friend's amendment is that it seeks to define "mobile homes" in terms of the definition in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which, in turn, refers to the definition of "caravan" in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. This immediately casts doubt on the words in the amendment
      "but excluding any caravan not being a mobile home"
      which give the amendment a certain circularity.
      Leaving that aside, in the light of what I have already said both tonight and in Committee, the amendment seems to be going far too wide, in that it seems to bring all kinds of caravans, along with caravan sites and any related site development, within the scope of domestic subjects. This means, for example, that large commercial caravan sites would be excluded from rates. This goes much further than is appropriate and than has been envisaged in consultations.
      The policy that we have worked out is fair and reasonable and has been accepted by the caravan industry, which has welcomed the steps that we have taken to ensure that the Bill will not harm its interests. I hope that, on the face of that, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Bill Walker: By leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend for that clear explanation of the Government's position and what is intended within the

      945
      legislation. I am delighted to pass this information back to the caravan people and if they feel that this is not clear, although I think that it is, they can take an opportunity in the other place to try to do something about it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made, No. 9, in page 2, line 7 after 'above', insert—'(a)'
      No. 10, in page 2, line 9 after second 'and', insert—
      '(b) the part of those lands and heritages which does not constitute domestic subjects'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 10 at end insert—
      '(5A) Any proprietor, tenant or occupier of any lands and heritages may appeal to the valuation appeal committee for the area in which the lands and heritages are situated against any decision of the assessor

      (a) to alter the valuation roll with effect from 1st April 1989 by deleting those lands and heritages on the ground that they constitute domestic subjects; or

      (b) not so to alter the roll.'.

      No. 12, in page 2, line 11 leave out 'to IV' and insert 'and 11'.— [Mr. Ancram.]

    Schedule

      VALUATION AND RATING
      Amendment made: No. 93, in page 24 leave out Part I. — [Mr. Ancram.]
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 25, line 21 after '10', insert
      'Subject to paragraph 15 below.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments No. 95 and No. 96.
      Mr. Ancram: Schedule 1(15) is intended to avoid the need for the assessor to make alterations to the valuation roll reflecting each and every change in the use made of part residential subjects, however small that change might be. If it is to achieve that objective, the paragraph should apply to the making of alterations as well as to their coming into effect. As it stands, paragraph 15 does not in any way bring about restrictions in the number of alterations that have to be made under paragraphs 10 and 11 of the schedule. It only makes the date when the alterations come into effect, which is otherwise governed by paragraph 14.
      Amendment No. 96 ensures that the paragraph can meet its purpose. It also introduces a useful element of flexibility by enabling a period other than three months to be prescribed. This will allow adjustments to be made in the light of experience.
      Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are consequential upon No. 96 and I think that hon. Members will feel that this is an improvement to the way in which the legislation will operate.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Just this once, I am prepared to take the Minister's word for it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 95, in page 25, line 32, after '11', insert
      'Subject to paragraph 15 below,'.
      No. 96, in page 26, line 15, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 16 and insert
      'be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed, after the date when that apportionment note is made or takes effect, whichever is later.'.
      No. 97, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—
      946
      '17A. No rates shall be leviable in respect of such part of their rateable value as relates to the residential use of any lands and heritages which are part residential subjects.".
      No. 98, in page 26, line 35, leave out
      'a domestic subjects note or'.
      No. 99, in page 26, line 38, leave out
      'domestic subjects notes and'.
      No. 100, in page 26, leave out lines 44 and 45.
      No. 101, in page 27, line 1, leave out '(b)'.
      No. 102, in page 27, line 4, leave out Part IV.
      No. 103, in page 27, line 39, leave out
      'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
      No. 104, in page 27, line 40, leave out
      'sections 3 (domestic rates) and'
      and insert
      'section'.
      No. 105, in page 28 line 1, leave out
      'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
      No. 106, in page 28, line 2, leave out
      '3 (domestic rates) and'.
      No. 108, in page 28, line 29, leave out
      'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
      No. 109, in page 28, line 30, leave out
      'sections 3 (domestic rates) and'
      and insert
      'section'.
      No. 110, in page 28, leave out from beginning of line 36 to 'the non-domestic' in line and insert
      '"rate" means the non-domestic rate within the meaning of section 4 (non-domestic rates) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987,'.
      No. 111, in page 28, line 47, leave out
      'the domestic or, as the case may be'.
      No. 112, in page 28, line 48, leave out
      '3 (domestic rates) and'.
      No. 113, in page 29, line 9, leave out 'domestic rates and'.
      No. 114, in page 29, line 11, leave out 'domestic and'.
      No. 115, in page 29, line 12, leave out 'domestic and'
      No. 116, in page 29, line 14, at end insert
      ',for the words "district rate" substitute "non-domestic district rate".'.
      No. 117, in page 29, leave out lines 15 to 18.
      No. 118, in page 29, line 20, leave out
      "'domestic rate" or'.
      No. 119, in page 29, line 21, leave out 'respectively'
      No. 120, in page 29, line 22, leave out 'sections 3 (domestic rates) and' and insert 'section'.
      No. 107, in page 29, line 26, at end insert 'for the words "district rate" wherever they appear, substitute "non-domestic rate" '.
      No. 121, in page 29, leave out lines 27 to 36.
      No. 122, in page 29, line 43, leave out 'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
      No. 123, in page 30, line 6, leave out 'the domestic or, as the case may be,'.
      No. 124, in page 30, line 7, leave out 'sections 3 (domestic rates) and insert 'section'.
      No. 125, in page 30, line 14, leave out 'the domestic rate,'.
      No. 126, in page 30, line 19, leave out 'the domestic rate,'.
      No. 127, in page 30, leave out from beginning of line 31 to 'and' in line 32.
      No. 128, in page 31, line 5, leave out 'domestic and'.
      No. 129, in page 31, line 5, leave out 'sections 3 (domestic rates) and' and insert 'section'.— [Mr.Ancram.]

    Clause 3
      DOMESTIC RATES 1989–1992
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 13, leave out. clause 3.—[Mr. Ancram.]
    Clause 4

      NON-DOMESTIC RATES
      Amendment made: No. 19, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'in whose entry in the valuation roll there appears no domestic subjects note' and insert 'in respect of which there is an entry in the valuation roll'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 4, leave out line 4 and insert—'(B-S) × I'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and No. 28.
      Mr. Lang: Amendments numbers 20, 22, 23 and 24 are drafting amendments intended to remove a possible ambiguity in the definition of "I" in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 4. At present I is defined in terms of a percentage increase in the RPI over a 12-month period. This might be taken to require that the other factors in the formulae be multiplied by a number on a percentage scale from 1 to 100. Clearly this is not what is intended.
      The amended definition of I dispenses with percentages, and expresses I in terms of a ratio of the RPI at the two relevant points in time.
      To define I in this way requires adjustment of the formulae themselves. The process of adjustment enables the formulae to be expressed more simply.
      I hope that I have made the position clear.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I confess that algebra was never
      my strong point, so I am not sure whether I am grateful to the Minister for removing a (B—S) or an (M) from the two formulae in subsections (3) and (4). As I understand it, these amendments will mean that the Secretary of State — with the consent of the Treasury, which is not a proviso that fills us with confidence—will determine the maximum non-domestic rate poundage for each local authority, which will generally be based on the increase in the retail prices index over the previous year.
      It is important to reiterate at this stage our opposition to the principle of Whitehall dictating the details of local affairs in Scotland, and that affects the determination of non-domestic rates as well as everything else. This part of the Bill is a serious infringement of the principle of local democracy. It undermines the accountability of local authorities to local business. Ministers keep telling us that one of the main objectives underlying the Bill is increasing the accountability of local authorities.
      It is probably worth mentioning that there will still be statutory consultations with non-domestic ratepayers under the new legislation, but that will be pointless, because the person who will be determining the non-domestic rate will not be present at the statutory consultations because he will be the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      One can visualise certain circumstances in which business men and chambers of commerce might come along to their local authority at the statutory consultation and say that they would like additional local authority services. They might want a new road built or some
      948
      improvement in community facilities which might be very useful to them. However, many local authorities, under the new regime, will have no choice but to say to the non-domestic ratepayers, "We are sorry. We would love to provide additional services in your area that will be useful for your businesses, but you must recognise that you are paying a reducing and limited contribution towards our budget, so you cannot expect us to be using poll tax payers' money to assist businesses." That will rather inhibit discussion in that forum.
      The formula in clause 4 is based on a largely irrelevant multiplier, for these purposes—the retail prices index. Fundamentally, I am speaking to amendment No. 25, which would replace the reference to the retail prices index with a reference to a local government price index. Such an index exists. I understand that the Scottish Office, in its dealings with COSLA and local authorities in Scotland, works on a calculated volume measurement of local authority costs. Such a measurement can and should be made. We suggest that that is the most appropriate way of basing the calculation of the non-domestic rate under the operation of this new legislation.
      8.30 pm
      Businesses have been hard hit by rate increases, which have been engineered by this Government, in recent years. Indeed, I know that businesses have made strong representations on the subject. I must ask the question, how would a business man like it if his budget were to be subject to controls based on utterly irrelevant criteria which are dictated by the Scottish Office? That is what would happen to local authorities under this new formula. The consequences of that artificial calculation could be drastic, not only for the local authorities, their employees and those who use local authority services, but also—it is important to emphasise this—for the poll tax payer, or community charge payer, if the Minister insists on giving this rather cosy name that the Government have selected.
      The Secretary of State took great pleasure earlier in quoting from the recent representations from the Rating and Valuation Association. I shall quote another part of what the Rating and Valuation Association has been saying to hon. Members during the last week, specifically on clause 4:
      "It is considered that the Retail Prices Index is quite inappropriate to Local Government's costs. An alternative (preferably specially constructed) index should be sought.
      Since the increase in non-domestic rates will be limited to the retail prices index increase in September of the previous year, Community Charges will not only have to be determined by including estimated pay and price increases on that part of an authority's expenditure to be met from community charges but also to include the difference between September retail price index and estimated actual pay and price increases arising during the year on that part of the authority's expenditure to be met from non-domestic rates. In other words, the Community Charge payer will forever more be subsidising the non-domestic ratepayer."
      The association said that, and the Secretary of State has seen fit to give credence to the Rating and Valuation Association in earlier debates. The Minister owes it to us to take some account of what it says on this subject.
      The cost of providing local services is influenced by matters that are not covered in the retail prices index. The largest element in local authority costs is staff costs—teachers' salaries, manual workers' wages and such like. Some 60 per cent. of local authority costs are related to staff costs, wages and salaries. The next largest element in

      949
      local authority costs is loan charges, which amounts to 15 per cent. of the total. In addition, there are a range of other costs — materials, machinery associated with property maintenance, road vehicles and all the rest. None of that is adequately reflected in the retail prices index.
      I have a copy of the most recent summary of the retail prices index, and it is worth referring to the prices that are taken into account in the retail prices index. The first item is food, which comes to 18·5 per cent. of the total. Alcoholic drinks account for 8·2 per cent., tobacco for 4 per cent., housing for 15·3 per cent., fuel and light for 3·2 per cent., durable household goods for 6·3 per cent., clothing and footwear for 7·5 per cent., transport and vehicles for 15·7 per cent., miscellaneous goods for 8·1 per cent., services for 5·8 per cent., and meals bought and consumed outside the home for 4·4 per cent. Precious little in that is relevant to the calculation of local authority costs. That is a point which the Minister should explain and take into account in responding to the debate. There is nothing about wages, precious little about loan charges and nothing about building materials or other items which are relevant to the affairs of local government.
      The retail prices index has nothing whatever to do with local government costs, so a multiplier based on that consideration alone is bound to distort the situation. Indeed, it is the refusal of the Government to take account of the real increases in the cost of local government services in uprating rate support grant in recent years which has done more than anything else to force up rates during the years that they have been in power.
      The constituency that I represent is currently contemplating a rate increase of 30 per cent. That will cover only a 6 per cent. increase or growth in services. The rest of that 30 per cent. increase in rates — in other words, 24 per cent. of the total—is accounted for by the failure of the Government to take account of the increases of costs and to increase the rate support grant accordingly.
      At present, everybody — domestic and commercial entities — is contributing towards the cost of local authority services. Under this new system, the increase will be concentrated on the domestic sector, because of the way that the formula will apply. This artificial new restriction on the contribution of businesses to local authorities seems likely to drive up domestic poll tax rates at an alarming rate. As I understand it, if the business rate is frozen to this formula, which is associated to the retail prices index, but a local authority finds its costs have increased by, for example, 6 per cent. more than the retail prices index, the bulk of that extra burden will fall on the poll tax payer. A 6 per cent. increase in the cost of local authorities would be translated into an 18 per cent. increase in the poll tax.
      In that scenario, the personal poll tax would be forced up from the often quoted £250 a head to £295 a head in one year. I have asked for some information from COSLA, and it confirmed that in a normal year local authority costs will increase by 2 per cent. more than the retail prices index. Some 2 per cent. of local authority costs in Scotland amounts to approximately £20 million, which would mean an increase of £6 a head to the poll tax payer. That only takes account of the suppression of the business rates under this formula.
      Another imponderable is the sheer inefficiency of the poll tax system. It is quite inevitable that difficulties will arise in collecting this tax, because a significant number of people will not pay it. To compensate for that, those who pay it will have to pay more than they should. This poll
      950
      tax—of which everyone is cheerfully saying, "It is only going to be about £250 a head" — will be jacked up rapidly as a consequence of this formula, other aspects of the Government's legislation and the manner in which they intend to administer it. People who think that they will be better off under the poll tax system should be warned of the high-speed ratchet effect that the Government are building into the system. People on low incomes, who are being dragged into this new tax net, have every reason to be alarmed at that prospect.
      The solution to the crisis of local government finance will have to be the restoration of realistic levels of central Government support to local authorities. That is what the Labour party is pledged to work towards. This formula is a deliberately obscure mechanism to cut the contribution of businesses to local budgets and progressively transfer the burden of the cost to the poll tax payer. We think that the whole system of poll tax is wrong. The non-domestic contribution is calculated on an unrealistic basis. We are proposing a calculation of the non-domestic contribution on a genuinely realistic basis, which would at least protect the personal taxpayer from the vicious spiral that I have been seeking to describe.
      That is why I feel strongly that the House should accept amendment No. 25. However, there is a procedural problem. I intend to press the principle of amendment No. 25, but that will be rendered difficult by the effect of Government amendment No 24, which will be dealt with first, which means that amendment No. 25 cannot be voted on. Therefore, it is our intention to vote against Government amendment No. 24 to register our strong belief that variations in the non-domestic rate should be able to reflect factors which affect the costs of providing local services, which are essential to domestic householders, non-domestic ratepayers and businesses.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has made one technical and one general point. The technical argument was that the retail prices index is not relevant for these purposes. I hope that the RPI will become wholly irrelevant. The Government's counter-inflation policies may very well achieve that in the not-too-distant future, but the RPI would be extremely relevant to everybody if, by any mischance, the Opposition attained power.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist in principle the proposition that a special index should be constructed. If such an index were constructed, there would inevitably be pressure to increase the costs in it. There would be no incentive to reduce its component costs. The area of most concern would be wage costs as there would be every reason for one side of the negotiating table to push for high wage increases and no incentive for employers to resist. If local authorities, like many others, have to take account of the RPI, they are much more likely to be realistic and to resist unnecessary cost increases.
      My hon. Friend explained the amendments lucidly but I did not quite follow amendment No. 23. I am not entirely sure why it is necessary to replace the formula in line 21. If my hon. Friend does not want to add to what he said earlier, I shall read carefully tomorrow what he said.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian made a general point to justify dividing the House. I accept that non-domestic rates must be retained, but they have a series of economic disadvantages. If they are paid by the company, they are an overhead which is unrelated to profitability

      951
      and therefore a tax on investment and jobs. If rates are passed on to the customer—I suspect that they are at least in part—they are likely to be a regressive tax. Opposition Members have talked about equity, but that represents a tax even on the poor.
      I disagree fundamentally with the proposition of the hon. Member for East Lothian because the consequences of increasing non-domestic rates are often borne wholly outside the local community. That is certainly true of industrial rates, although it is probably less true of commercial rates. There is therefore not the accountability to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The same is not true of national Government as the consequences of any taxation imposed by a national Government are felt overwhelmingly in the nation.
      The non-domestic ratepayer has often been milked by local authorities. That has had a serious effect on jobs. We debated this matter in Committee when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) seemed to take the view that increases in non-domestic rates have no economic effects on jobs, although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) did not share that view. Non-domestic ratepayers require the type of protection that my right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting.
      Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say what benefits are granted to non-domestic ratepayers by payment of rates? There is much business directly as a result of local authorities. There are firms which rely entirely on local authority orders. Many other companies survive because local authority employees, who are often a large proportion of the population, buy goods and services provided locally. Without that local government financial input, many companies have gone to the wall. How many building companies, for example, have gone to the wall as a result of the Government's capital expenditure cuts?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Stewart: If I endeavoured to answer that general proposition, I am sure that I would fairly quickly be ruled out of order. Capital expenditure under Scottish Office programmes has increased substantially in real terms.
      Of course, there is a complex relationship between non-domestic ratepayers and local authorities. I am not suggesting that non-domestic ratepayers do not receive benefits from the services provided by local government. My argument, however, is that the consequences of increased expenditure and therefore of increased rates on non-domestic ratepayers can have serious and adverse economic consequences. It is in a sense taxation without representation.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the Government's policy remains unchanged and that he will resist in principle as well as in practice the concept of replacing the RPI with a special index.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that there was some opposition to non-domestic ratepayers having local taxation imposed on them. His arguments were general and apply to any tax. They could apply to corporation tax. We can argue that that tax is profit based, but companies will go out of business if they cannot pay the rates.
      952
      I declare an interest in the Fife Regional Co-operative Society. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) displayed no sympathy for that society when he spoke earlier. I hope that we shall soon have an announcement that what has appeared in the press in Fife and elsewhere about the Fife Regional Co-operative Society is quite wrong and that the backlog of rates, which is regrettable, has been redressed. There was, however, no sympathy from the hon. Member for Fife, North-East for a commonly-owned concern.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Douglas: No.
      On clause 4 the Government's amendments are of an arithmetically calculated variety. They do not strike in any way at the root incidence of this particular clause. The clause shows quite clearly that the imposition on the non-domestic ratepayer will be frozen and will be inflation related to the retail price index, as if that was the only inflation that was of interest to local authorities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggests in his amendment that if there is to be fairness at all it should be related to what might be construed as a local authority inflator. That strikes me as perfectly fair, if we are to have this tax at all. It should relate to the expenditure and the changes in costs to the local authority.
      The Government say that this is a radical and reforming measure, but they show little faith in its radical nature because they place the local authority, and especially the domestic ratepayer, in a catch-22 position.
      You would no doubt call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went too far along that particular road, but in clause 24 and in schedule 3 the Government show that they are putting such great faith in the poll tax that they say that it is an increased measure of accountability and that it is such a great measure of accountability that it will call those bad spendthrift local authorities to book. However, they have such faith in it that they have to take powers to retrench and, if necessary, impose a levy on those so-called recalcitrant local authorities. So much for local democracy.
      In this measure the Government have it both ways. They put great faith in this reforming measure. On the one hand they are saying that they want local authorities to be called to account, but if for reasons outwith their control costs increase beyond the RPI, that portion will be placed on the poll tax payer. Moreover, if those local authorities try to impose that burden on the poll tax payer, and if the Government consider that burden to be excessive, the Government will claw it back. So much for accountability.
      The Bill — especially this clause—is a fraud perpetrated by a Government of frauds who have tried to construe this measure as a reform. When in heaven's name was there a poll tax before? It was way back in the 15th and 16th centuries. So the Tories are marching forward into the 15th and 16th centuries.
      Mr. George Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on his spirited speech which has brought some life back to the debate after the deadening effect of the contribution by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has spoken in all of these debates. He speaks sometimes with great perception and wisdom and that is presumably why he is not on the Front Bench.

      953
      What puzzles us most is that he is one of the few people who served in the Government, was sacked and has not yet had his knighthood. The only explanation, given his innumerable speeches on the Bill and the lack of a knighthood, is that some sort of piecework system has been adopted by the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman must earn his knighthood by tedious but ultra-loyal speeches. Tonight he displayed that absolutely because he told the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) that he did not understand what the Minister had said. He could not understand the explanation, but he was still going to vote for it. That is ultra loyalty, and I am sure that the Patronage Secretary will be in at the time of the vote and will pay due recognition to that fact. When the day comes for turning up brief, loyal and boring speeches the knighthood will be there in the next honours list.
      Nothing less than a knighthood would be appropriate as a reward for loyally sticking by every dot and comma of the Bill. As this debate amply illustrates, we see the inconsistencies of the Bill in their full, stark glory. It comes forward as a minor technical amendment moved by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale almost in his sleep as though it was something of no great consequence. We know, however, that it underlines the truly bogus nature of the whole scheme that will now be foisted on the Scottish people. It is a test bed for what will become a grandiose experiment on the English and the Welsh in the unfortunate event of the Conservatives winning another period of office.
      It is predicated on a lie. It is predicated on a misconception. It is predicated on a prejudice that local authorities are all profligate with their expenditure, that all local authorities' expenditure should be condemned, that practically everything that local authorities do is to be caricatured by the minority of local authorities and has little or nothing to do with the real world which we all have to inhabit.
      I am glad to say that yesterday the Hamilton district council in my constituency announced that this year it was going to cut the rate bill by 5p. Here is a Labour local authority—the composition of the council is 17 Labour members, 2 Liberal and 1 Conservative, the last being an accident in the great unanimity of my constituents which has reduced the rates this year by 5p by good and efficient husbandry of the resources, and yet it is to be caricatured with all the others that enter into the great hall of horror that the Conservatives use to justify this Bill.
      One of the most bogus points of the whole argument is to pretend that, in some way, business will be relieved of some of the burdens from which it complains that it suffers. The great selling point that was just mentioned was to be the uniform business rate—that this will in some way be the great liberation of the single old ladies in tenement flats and of those widows who live in huge houses. It is also to lift the financial burden from industry. However, the majority of industries in Scotland will know that the services will still have to be paid for, and will not be conned by that.
      I do not accept the bland assurances given here this evening that this is a means of relieving them of the responsibilities that they know they will have to accept. The index linking with retail prices hears out the suspicion that I am sure most of them already have. We know, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has amply illustrated it and proved it this
      954
      evening, that, inevitably, whether they are Conservative or Labour, local authorities' costs run ahead of the retail prices index. Because of the much narrower tax base which will be used under the poll tax, there will be a much greater impact on the local population. Precious few industrialists are not individual ratepayers, so they will hardly think it a great liberation if, on the one hand, business is cushioned from the increases caused by inflation and, on the other, they have to bear in their domestic rates a disproportionate part of the cost of the formula. This poll tax Bill will be no better news for industry than for the vast majority of our constituents, who will suffer from this grossly unfair and unreasonably regressive measure which has been projected solely as an election gimmick. The scheme will be costly and a bureaucratic nightmare. The consequences will fall just as much on large and small businesses as on the poorest people.
      The inviolable iron link to the retail prices index which will protect business ratepayers for ever is only as good as the Minister's promises. I doubt that an industrialist or small business owner in Scotland would believe these promises—having seen the Government's record north of the border during the past six years—any more than earlier promises. This discredited, discreditable empty gimmick has been produced simply to get the Government off the hook. It will bear hardest on the weakest and poorest in the community and will finally marginalise any relevance that the Scottish Conservative party has to the affairs of the country which we represent.
      9 pm
      Mr. Lang: The deep opposition to the clause expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and other Opposition Members comes rather odd in this debate on a couple of drafting amendments, especially when they had the opportunity to debate their amendment, which would have left out the whole clause. We have the rather curious formula of the Opposition planning to vote against a Government drafting amendment in order to express their support for their rather different amendment. By comparison, the formula which I explained to the House earlier falls into a simpler category. I should like to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that the change being made under subsection (4) applies the same information which I gave to the House in the context of the formula under subsection (3).
      As for the amendment of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), we went over this ground thoroughly in Committee. The local authority cost index, to give the index its normal title, would not be an acceptable alternative to the general index of retail prices for the purposes of clause 4. The local authority cost index is no more than an informal joint undertaking of the Scottish Office and COSLA. It could not possibly be used as a basis for determining increases in non-domestic rates without first placing the whole operation on a much more formal basis and opening it up to sufficient public scrutiny to ensure that the index would be generally acceptable as a satisfactory basis on which to proceed. The whole process of drawing up the RPI is decided by a committee, the retail prices index advisory committee, which has members representing a wide range of interests, including the CBI, the TUC and Government Departments. This helps to ensure its reliability and general acceptability.

      955
      This brings me to another reason for opposing the amendment. The RPI is a broadly based index which is widely acknowledged as a sound measure for assessing the general rate of inflation, and that could not be said of the local authority cost index. It would be far too easy for local authorities to push their costs up in the knowledge that, through the mechanism of the index, non-domestic ratepayers would be bound to meet their share of the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood made that point extremely well in warning the House to beware that type of index. This is not to argue that local authorities would take the opportunity to do so, but the point is simply that non-domestic ratepayers would not then have the same statutory protection which we have undertaken to give them.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian used the word "irrelevant" to describe the RPI and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) took a similar line. I notice that, in their comments on the proposal, all their concern was with the local authority. When do we ever hear any concern from the Opposition with the business man who has to pay the rates? That is where our starting point is. When we hear of Lothian proposing to increase its rates by 29 per cent. and inflation is under 4 per cent. we can see the need for protection for the business community which exists as a cross between a milch cow and a sitting duck. The only thought that some local authorities give them is when deciding whether to milk or to shoot them, and they end up doing both.
      It is necessary to impose a discipline on local authorities. The clause tackles head-on the main weakness in the non-domestic rating system in Scotland. For far too long, businesses have had to put up with the sudden, sharp and often unexpected increases which take place from year to year in their rates demands. Profligate and spendthrift local authorities have been able to make unreasonable impositions on their business communities with complete impunity because business does not have a vote in local elections. [Interruption.] I am replying to the debate. If Labour Members had any concern for the well-being of Scottish industry and commerce, they would give the clause their whole-hearted support. Instead, they have greeted it with a series of ill-informed and irrelevant criticisms which show only too clearly how little genuine concern the Labour party has for Scottish business.
      The other day, we saw a report that an American electronics company was contemplating locating in Scotland, but it warned us that the one thing that would put it off would be the return of a Labour Government.
      The past system lacked accountability. We have seen wide variations in rates between different authorities that have created business inefficiency and disruption of production costs. The system has been arbitrary and erratic in its impact and has undermined efficiency and competitiveness. It has concealed true costs and undermined the link between the cost of services and the cost to domestic ratepayers. We are determined to introduce a system that will have predictability and perceptibility and will give protection to the business community. In that spirit, I urge the House to support the Government's amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 4, leave out from 'rate' to end of line 6.
      No. 22, in page 4, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—
      '(c) I is the ratio of the retail prices index for September 1988 to the retail prices index for September 1987.'.
      No. 23, in page 4, leave out line 21 and insert—
      'M × I × R'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 4, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
      '(b) I is the ratio of the retail prices index for September of the immediately preceding year to the retail prices index for September 12 months earlier; and.'.—[Mr. Lang.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made :—
      The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 164.

      Division No. 108]

      [9.05 pm

      AYES

      Ancram, Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Ashby, David

      Hayward, Robert

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Heddle, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Henderson, Barry

      Best, Keith

      Hickmet, Richard

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hill, James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hirst, Michael

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Browne, John

      Holt, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Howard, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Irving, Charles

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jessel, Toby

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Cope, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Critchley, Julian

      Key, Robert

      Crouch, David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knowles, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Knox, David

      Durant, Tony

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evennett, David

      Lang, Ian

      Farr, Sir John

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Favell, Anthony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Forth, Eric

      Lilley, Peter

      Franks, Cecil

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Galley, Roy

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maclean, David John

      Gow, Ian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

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

      Greenway, Harry

      Madel, David

      Gregory, Conal

      Major, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Ground, Patrick

      Malone, Gerald

      Grylls, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Marlow, Antony

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mates, Michael

      Hannam,John

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Harvey, Robert

      Merchant, Piers

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      957

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Spencer, Derek

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

      Needham, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Norris, Steven

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Osborn, Sir John

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pawsey, James

      Trippier, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trotter, Neville

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Pollock, Alexander

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Powley, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Price, Sir David

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walden, George

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Waller, Gary

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Ward, John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Watson, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Watts, John

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Rost, Peter

      Whitfield, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Whitney, Raymond

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Wilkinson, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shersby, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. Michael Portillo.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Coleman, Donald

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Conlan, Bernard

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

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

      Bell, Stuart

      Deakins, Eric

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dewar, Donald

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

      Dixon, Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dormand, Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Douglas, Dick

      Blair, Anthony

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      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)

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

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Flannery, Martin

      Buchan, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Foster, Derek

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foulkes, George

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Clay, Robert

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Freud, Clement

      958

      George, Bruce

      O'Neill, Martin

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Park, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Parry, Robert

      Gourlay, Harry

      Patchett, Terry

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Pike, Peter

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hancock, Michael

      Randall, Stuart

      Hardy, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Redmond, Martin

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Robertson, George

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Howells, Geraint

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Sheerman, Barry

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kennedy, Charles

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Lambie, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lamond, James

      Soley, Clive

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leighton, Ronald

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Strang, Gavin

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Straw, Jack

      Litherland, Robert

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Livsey, Richard

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Loyden, Edward

      Tinn, James

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Torney, Tom

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wallace, James

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Madden, Max

      Wareing, Robert

      Martin, Michael

      Weetch, Ken

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Welsh, Michael

      Maxton, John

      White, James

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wilson, Gordon

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Winnick, David

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Woodall, Alec

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, David

      Mr. John McWilliam and

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      O'Brien, William

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 4, line 38, after '(a)', insert
      ' "the base rate" means—

      (i) the rate determined by that local authority in respect of the year 1988–89 less, in the case of a regional or islands council, such portion of that rate as they have determined to be their public water rate for that year under section 39 of the 1980 Act (which relates to the levying of rates in respect of expenditure on water supply), or

      (ii) where, before 1st April 1989, the Secretary of State prescribes a base rate in respect of that authority for the purposes of this section, the amount so prescribed;

      (b)'.
      No. 29, in page 4, line 44, after 'of a', insert 'tenth of a'
      No. 30, in page 4 line 45, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 2 on page 5 and insert
      'increase or, as the case may be, reduce the sum to the nearest tenth of a penny.'.—[Mr. Ancram]
      Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
      '(6A) The non-domestic rate levied by each local authority in respect of lands and heritages specified in subsection (8) below:—

      (a) shall not exceed one half of the rate which would be leviable apart from the provisions of this subsection; and

      (b) may be such lesser amount as the local authority may determine.

      (6B) The lands and heritages to which subsection (7) applies shall be those occupied by a club, society or other organisation wholly or mainly for the purposes of sport or physical recreation, as the said purposes may from time to time be defined by the Secretary of State for Scotland (acting on the advice of the Scottish Sports Council and the Association of Local Sports Council) where any surplus of funds is applied exclusively to the improvement of its facilities or is otherwise applied for the furtherance of the aforesaid purpose except that any area of the club, society or other organisation that is used as a licensed bar or restaurant shall pay rates on that area, although in deciding the rate the local authority may take account of the net profit made by such bar or restaurant in any one financial year.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 178, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
      '(6A) Before determining a non-domestic rate under this section, a local authority shall, in accordance with such procedure as the Secretary of State may direct, make provision for relief from rating for any lands or heritage occupied by a club, society or other organisation, not established or conducted for profit, and which are wholly or mainly used for the purposes of sport or physical recreation.
      (6B) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument define any term necessary for the purposes of subsection (6A) above.'.
      Mr. Maxton: As this is a debate on sport, I am sure that all hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, will be delighted to know that Dundee United is beating Barcelona 1–0—[Interruption.] It is typical that even when one tries to make a reasonable cross-party comment the Secretary of State seems to find it funny.
      This is a debate that has aroused some interest and therefore I intend to be brief to allow other hon. Members to participate. What this new clause would do is essentially what Strathclyde regional council, of its own volition, has decided to do, which is to give 50 per cent. rate relief to clubs with licensed bars and premises for those parts of the ground and premises which are not licensed and do not have a restaurant. However, the local authority will take into account the turnover and profit made in the bars when deciding the rates that will be paid.
      This is a sensible and moderate attempt to solve problems faced by sports clubs. It is not necessary to reiterate the problems that sports clubs have faced. However, there are many sports clubs in Scotland, especially those with licensed bars, which are finding it incredibly difficult to pay their rates bills. As a result, some are in very serious trouble.
      We attempted to do something about that in Committee. I believe that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and his hon. Friends is far removed from the hon. Gentleman's very brave words prior to the debate in Committee. He suggested then that sports clubs should be taken out of rating altogether. However, he now suggests the status quo. The amendment represents the status quo with the exception only of the word "shall". Under the existing position :
      960
      "A rating authority can grant relief of rates to organisations whose property is occupied for the purposes of a club, society, or other organisation not conducted for profit, which are wholly or mainly used for purposes of recreation."
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maxton: No, I will not give way as this is a very short debate and I want to get on.
      After all his huffing and puffing and the publicity he received, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has tabled an amendment which reflects the existing practice in every local authority. It does not take us—
      Mr. Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
      Mr. Maxton: The amendment does not take us one step forward. However, amendment No. 31, if accepted by the House, will give genuine relief to sports clubs that require such relief.
      It is very important for sports clubs that the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment, at least makes it clear that he will move some form of amendment in another place. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden tried to withdraw his amendment in Committee on the basis of a supposed promise from the Minister who said that he would consider the matter carefully. There are no Government amendments on the Amendment Paper today covering that matter and that must come as a bit of a shock and a surprise to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Forsyth: Give way.
      Mr. Maxton: I will not give way. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendment and support it.
      Sir Hector Monro: I hope that tonight we shall get somewhere on this issue of mandatory derating of sports grounds. I have to remind myself that on 19 November 1966 I moved an amendment for 50 per cent. mandatory derating in the then Finance Bill which was unfortunately opposed by the Labour Government of the time. Tonight I hope that we shall make progress, bearing in mind that we went into this matter in great detail during proceedings on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act in March 1984 during which two amendments to do roughly what we are trying to do today were defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman in Committee.
      We need to make it clear that tonight we are dealing with derating of sports clubs as opposed to the important issue that we dealt with earlier in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 which dealt with the very unfair valuation affecting Scottish sports clubs generally, —clubs such as Rangers and Celtic, or the Hawick and Gala rugby clubs — as opposed to the problems in England and Wales.
      Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend mentioned different football clubs. Will he also mention Dundee United, which is doing so well tonight?
      Sir Hector Monro: Yes, of course. We have already cheered the good news, and we hope that it will hold its position until the end of the match.
      This issue is distinct from the high valuations in Scotland compared with those in England and Wales, which we hope will be resolved sooner or later, especially if there is a revaluation in England. But if we accept, as the Government must, the principle of mandatory derating of

      961
      sports clubs—it has happened in Northern Ireland, with the distinction that licensed premises were considered to be separate from sports facilities — for the limited amount that it would cost nationally, we should go ahead with it in Scotland. I welcome what has been done in Strathclyde and Fife. Those two large authorities have taken the important step. Let us encourage the other regions to do the same. The easiest way to do that would be for the Government to introduce an amendment in another place to provide for mandatory derating.
      We have heard the arguments of the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation. The Government must give a lead to show the many volunteers in sports organisations in Scotland that we shall take this important step forward to resolve the problem of rates on Scottish sport clubs, especially the unlicensed parts of those sports clubs. Sports officials will look to the result of this debate with great anxiety, so I hope that the Government will announce their acceptance of the principle.
      Mr. David Lambie: I have been looking forward to this debate since the debate on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order a fortnight ago, when I told the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that he had been conned by the Government into not pushing his amendment in Committee. I have been proved correct. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) say that the Government should give a lead in another place. This is the time for them to give the lead that they did not give in Committee. Conservative Members assured us that the Government would give a lead on Report, but now the hon. Member for Dumfries is saying that they will give a lead in another place, where Members of Parliament have no say. Unless they give a lead tonight, the Opposition should support amendment No. 31.
      I am one of those who believe that, at a time when the Government are cutting support to local authorities so that they cannot provide the sports facilities that they used to provide and we must now depend upon amateur sports clubs, the latter must be given concessions so that they can provide sporting facilities. I believe that no amateur sports club should be on the valuation roll, but I cannot even convince my side of that tonight, so I shall support amendment No. 31, which provides for mandatory 50 per cent. relief from rates.
      I do not understand amendment No. 178, and I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what it means. But I trust that he will not try to con the Opposition as he conned his hon. Friends into withdrawing their amendments in Committee. The hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, for Dumfries, for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has had an Adjournment debate on the subject, should stand up and be counted tonight. This is an opportunity for them to stand up and, for the first time, to vote against the Government. If they do not do that, the people and amateur sports clubs in Scotland will recognise that they have been conned, just as other hon. Members have been conned by the Government Front Bench. Therefore, I ask them to stand up and be counted and vote for the sports clubs of Scotland. If they do so, we shall get support and the 50 per cent. mandatory rate. If they do not want to do
      962
      that, they will go down in history as the people who killed the amateur sports clubs in Scotland and they will never be forgiven by the Scottish people.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Rifkind: It might assist the House if I were to intervene at this stage to state the Government's position on this important matter.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with this matter in Committee and, having heard lengthy discussions, offered, without commitment, to take the problem away for consideration. The Government have been giving serious consideration to whether, and if so in what way, it would be appropriate to help to solve the real problems that sports clubs face in Scotland because of factors to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention. We have considered various possibilities and have concluded that mandatory relief for sports clubs would not be the best solution.
      Mr. Lambie: Why not?
      Mr. Rifkind: I am about to explain.
      The amendment which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has proposed would break up the framework in the 1962 Act, a framework which clearly distinguishes between charities which are to have 50 per cent. mandatory relief and a wide range of non-profit-making bodies with worthy purposes, including recreation, in respect of which local authorities are to have complete discretion as to what percentage of relief — from zero to 100 per cent.—they should give. Charities apart, the idea of local discretion here is right and we should not seek to substitute some central view. However carefully we framed any legislation, we should be left with problems in defining centrally what category of bodies should get the relief. Those who framed the 1962 Act were right to respect the place of local discretion in making the dificult judgments that are needed. We should not depart from their basic thinking now.
      However, I am determined to help sports clubs, and I propose to do so in the following way. I propose to ensure that local authorities are not deterred from due exercise of their discretion by any thought that if they grant relief to a particular club they lose income, which they then have to recover from their other ratepayers, or, after 1989, from community charge payers. If they decide to grant relief, they should be compensated by an addition to their grant. The new grant system for which clause 25 provides will enable me to give local authorities an important new reassurance in this connection. Grant distribution under the new system will take into account differences in expenditure need and in the amounts of non-domestic rate income.
      I intend to measure non-domestic rate income net of reliefs given by local authorities under the 1962 Act. If that is done, giving more relief will directly increase the amount of grant that an authority gets.
      As a result, after 1989 all concerned with the welfare of sports clubs, and, indeed, the local authorities, can he satisfied that if a local authority uses its discretion it will not lose a penny of its income.
      But I go further. I am keen that the practical effect of the approach I have outlined should be available sooner. I have concluded that my approach will, subject to one point, make it possible to achieve improvement in the

      963
      treatment of relief by 1988—a date earlier than anything that has been canvassed by Opposition Members either in Committee or this evening. In respect of 1988–89, the benefit is rather more complicated to achieve because of the provisions governing the present rate support grant system. At present some authorities, those which in any year qualify for the resources element of the grant, have in practice no financial disincentive to grant relief. But this depends on a rather technical point. What I want to do is to ensure that we can provide for a system in 1988–89 that is as fair, predictable and universal as the system I have described for 1989–90. Therefore I will arrange for an amendment to be made in another place to this Bill so as to bring the existing grant provisions broadly into line with the post-1989 arrangements.
      It may help the House if I describe some details of how the arrangements for relief will work. Responsibility for the granting of relief will remain with the local authorities. They are best placed to ensure that it is only given to bona fide sports clubs. Each autumn, the rating authorities will be asked for details of commitments made for the following year to give relief to sports clubs. Since such relief can be terminated only from the end of a financial year after 12 months' notice there will be no risk of any authority taking the grant without giving relief. Relief given to sports clubs will be subject to scrutiny by an authority's auditors in the normal way. These proposals and the legislative amendment that we shall introduce in another place will remove the last disincentive.
      Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State will understand that we shall want to read what he has said because it is complicated to take in on first hearing. As I understand it, I welcome what he has said and I recognise that it is an important step forward. I accept this point about the voluntary principle and the judgment exercised by local government.
      The Secretary of State said that there will be an amendment in another place for what may be described as a bridging provision. Is there any need for legislation? Should there not be some statutory mark of the general scheme that he announced in the first place? Does that not require some legislation? Will he confirm that the practical effect is that if the discretion is properly exercised with all the safeguards of auditors' scrutiny and so on, the rate income forgone will be made up completely by the Scottish Office? Will he confirm that there will not be some ill-defined addition to grant and that the total shortfall will be made up specifically?
      Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I appreciate that he will wish to study the details before giving a detailed response. I genuinely welcome his response. There is a need to make a relatively minor amendment in another place to enable these new provisions to be available next year. However, after 1989, when revenue support grant replaces rate support grant, it is possible under the existing terms of clause 25 for me to operate by dealing with the matter in the way that I have explained without further legislative amendment.
      I can confirm that the effect of these proposals will be that any individual local authority which may lose revenue which it would otherwise have received from a sports club
      964
      but for the relief that it will provide will receive additional rate support grant commensurate with the revenue forgone.
      Mr. Kirkwood: On first hearing I echo the welcome that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has given the proposal. Will there be any difficulty for a club, such as the Hawick rugby club, which has a substantial licensed element to its income and premises? Will the local authority still be able to exercise discretion and take an objective judgment over the whole position of the recreational aspects vis-a-vis the licensing aspects of the club when considering granting discretionary relief?
      Mr. Rifkind: Discretion will remain with local authorities, as it does at present. The only change will be that if a good proportion of authorities were to exercise that relief, they would lose revenue from clubs, which would not result in any improvement in their grant from central Government. That is the only situation that would change. Most hon. Members would not see it as particularly desirable to give relief for the licensed premises of a sports club. However, I emphasise that that is a matter for the local authority to decide and to exercise its discretion if it thinks that relief is appropriate.
      Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State saying that if revenue is forgone by the local authority as a result of giving relief, it is his present intention that that should be made good by an adjustment in the rate support grant? If that is the case, can he tell us what assurance there is that his successor will continue such a concession? If the concession is purely discretionary and not written into statute, what assurance can sports clubs have that the concession which the Secretary of State alleges he has made will be a lasting one and not merely put forward by him at a convenient time from the point of view of an election?
      Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friends have said, the best assurance would be to continue to vote for the Government who introduced the measure. I appreciate that that might not be the answer that the hon. Gentleman wished me to give. Obviously, if any future Government wished to change the policy, they could do so by introducing legislation or by asking Parliament to change the legislation as easily as by changing it in any other way. The Government are introducing this new change and we firmly intend to implement it as long as we have the power to do so.
      Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State says that the money a local authority loses will be added to the rate support grant settlement. How will the local authority know that the money has been added to the RSG settlement if it did not know what the original RSG settlement was to be?
      Mr. Rifkind: I explained earlier the way in which the system will operate, that each autumn the rating authorities will be asked for details of commitments made for the following year to give relief to sports clubs. Since such relief can be terminated only from the end of a financial year and after 12 months' notice, there will be no risk of any authority taking grant and not giving relief. [Interruption.] Obviously the House is in a curious mood because hon. Members have just heard announcements about new proposals.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way? We are suspicious of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Rifkind: I am anxious to give way, but I know that if I remain at the Dispatch Box for much longer there will be no opportunity for other hon. Members to take part in the debate.
      Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has raised an important point which I should like to rephrase in order to get at the point by a different route. In the rate support grant settlements, there are clearly specific grants. If they go up, it is in effect a redistribution, while the total remains the same. One is merely reducing expenditure in other areas in order to make a concession. Is this new money and how can the local authorities know that it is new money and not simply money taken from another pocket?
      Mr. Rifkind: The position is simple. When each year Government decide on the aggregate of rate support grant, they will take into account all the circumstances and they will have to include—[Interruption.] This is not some new principle. It is exactly the way in which rate support grant is determined by every Government, and that is the proper way to do it. I have told the House that no local authority will lose a single penny by a decision to grant relief of the kind that we have outlined. These proposals and the legislative amendment that we will introduce in another place—
      Mr. Millan: The Secretary of State has not answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). At the moment, specific grants are deducted from the aggregate RSG and the net amount is then distributed as RSG. Will that happen in this case?
      Mr. Rifkind: It will not be done by means of a specific grant. It will be done through the needs element next year. With regard to the new system, it will be done under clause 25. [Interruption.] That is what I said in my earlier speech.
      The proposals and the legislative amendment that we will introduce in another place will remove the last disincentive any local authority may have had to withhold relief from sports clubs. I am happy to commend them to the House.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: At the end of the day I do not believe there will be more money for local authorities to support sports clubs; the global sum will be the same. However, I am happy that the discretion will be with the local authorities.
      In my constituency there are some sports clubs which do excellent work, but there are others that are, frankly, only an excuse to open licensed premises. They are an extension of a pub. In my constituency there is a club, the Ranza angling club, and I do not know anyone in that club who owns a fishing rod. It exists for people to have a drink. I have no objection to people going to licensed premises, but I object to public money going into such a club. I am glad that the local authority rather than the Secretary of State will have the discretion about funding such clubs.
      Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
      Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way.
      Mr. Home Robertson rose—
      Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way. If the Front Bench had not used so much time, perhaps I would be able to give way.
      966
      There is an excellent junior sports club in my constituency, St. Roch's Junior Football Club. That club handed over the running of its licensed premises to a committee. The licensed premises were supposed to make some money towards the upkeep of the grounds. However, the grounds and the club itself are still as poor as church mice. Thousands of pounds in takings disappeared from the face of the earth, and there was no benefit to the sports club.
      I cannot envisage a situation wherein a sports club, run in such a fashion, should receive any support from the local authority. It is all very well for the new clause to state that it excludes licensed premises. However, anyone who knows anything about local bowling clubs will be aware that, at the annual general meetings, there is one faction which wants better facilities for the sports club and wishes to raise the price of drinks on the licensed premises, and another faction interested in the licensed premises and wishes to keep the price of drinks down. I hope that when support is given to sports clubs care is taken to ensure that they are bona fide sports clubs.
      Sir Russell Johnston rose—
      Mr. Martin: No, I am sorry, I will not give way.
      I hope that those members of sports clubs who may read the reports of this debate will take steps to try to allow young unemployed people to enjoy the use of their facilities at off-peak times. There are too many bowling clubs, golf clubs or squash clubs — of which hon. Members are supportive— that are closed shops. Each year they put up their annual fees to ensure that only an elite may join. If we are to give subsidies, we should ensure that the clubs have a policy that allows those who are less fortunate than ourselves the use of such facilities.
      Mr. Michael Hirst: It is probably rather a good thing that you have chosen to call me at this stage, Mr. Speaker, after, rather than before, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made his announcement. I am happy to be able to say that I unreservedly welcome his statement. I am certain that it is fully supported by my colleagues. The disarray and silence on the Opposition Benches is significant. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) must be regretting some of his comments. It is a pity that he did not wait to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: I do not want to delay the House for more than a couple of seconds, but it is appropriate that we are talking about sports grounds when Dundee United has just successfully beaten Barcelona 1–0. There will be an early-day motion and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to sign it.
      Mr. Hirst: Probably the only voice of accord this evening will be welcoming that result. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will be able to have that recorded in his local newspaper.
      I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend made this announcement tonight. It is the result of sustained pressure from Government Back Benchers. In Committee, we had some hard words from those such as the hon. Member for Cathcart. As I do not think that he will have a chance to participate, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who, in an Adjournment debate and since, has, with his colleagues on

      967
      this side of the House, championed the cause of amateur sports clubs in Scotland. He has at last achieved the justice that we have always sought.
      The announcement underlines the importance that the Government attach to supporting the efforts of amateur sporting clubs in Scotland. Sadly, in recent years, because of high rates bills, these clubs have had to spend more time fund-raising than coaching youngsters in the essentials of their sport. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is not with us. I recognise the representations that he made on behalf of the amateur boxing clubs in his part of the world, clubs whose future was threatened by the size of their rates bill.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart will remember that throughout the comments that I made in Committee I argued for the principle of discretionary relief. He was the first to tell me that rates relief should not be handed out to the Royal and Ancient at St. Andrews, to Muirfield or to some other prosperous golf club.
      Mr. Maxton: No.
      Mr. Hirst: Yes. The hon. Gentleman was the first to say that the result of my amendments in Committee would be to hand out money to those who did not properly deserve it. Therefore, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for arranging a scheme that will ensure that the local authority will be able to grant relief, on a discretionary basis, to clubs that properly deserve it.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he has been most anxious, as have many hon. Members, to secure an effective scheme. However, we are worried about whether the relief scheme that the Secretary of State has offered, because it is not specific, and is variable within the rate support grant formula, will give local authorities the assurance and confidence that we seek.
      Mr. Hirst: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech as I did. As I understand it, the local authority would not qualify for relief if it did not make money available to amateur sports clubs. If I am wrong I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend so that he can correct me. In other words, if the relief is not granted to sports grounds local authorities will not qualify for the compensatory amount.
      We must pay tribute to the sustained campaign by the amateur sports clubs in Scotland, which were the first to identify the problem, and which continuously drew the attention of hon. Members to the need to relieve the rating burden because in many instances it threatened the future of their clubs.
      This is a thoroughly welcome statement. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who, when in Committee I moved amendments, undertook to take them away, consider them and, if possible, bring back some sort of scheme on Report. When he did not do so he was vilified. He has been the subject of abuse from Opposition Members, but tonight we have seen that Conservative Members care for amateur sports clubs in Scotland.
      Mr. Wilson: Like many Opposition Members, I welcome the relief that has been given to the hard-pressed
      968
      amateur sports clubs, many of which were verging on bankruptcy and some of which are now having to sell land to keep going, land which could have been used for sporting purposes. Like many Opposition Members—although we do not like looking a gift horse in the mouth —we begin to wonder where the cash is coming from. The sports clubs have won, but I am not sure that the local authorities have, because it may be that in making up his budget the Secretary of State will take some cash off various things before making adjustments. If the new money is coming from the Treasury, I shall be delighted to see it.
      Can I point out to the Secretary of State that this is just one battle in the war? One of the main causes of contention in the commercial sector is the huge imbalance in valuations between England and Scotland. This subject was hinted at earlier. The Secretary of State, taking the relief route, has not addressed himself to the problems which arise from valuation.
      It was my intention, had more time been available, to refer the Secretary of State to Armour on Valuation, a major tome on the subject, which suggests a route for dealing with the problems of those who run the football grounds. We have heard the excellent news from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) of Dundee United winning, but the rates bill on Tannardice park, Dens park, Ibrox or Parkhead is heavy compared with other facilities in England. Therefore, the Government cannot rest on their laurels. They must consider valuation. Having said that, I thank the Secretary of State for whatever relief has been given on this occasion.
      Mr. Maxton: Any relief for the sports clubs is welcome. My initial response to the statement of the Secretary of State — which was cleverly worded — was one of welcome. But having listened to the questions that he answered from some of my hon. Friends I now have several grave reservations as to whether the local authorities will ever see the money that he is prepared to give them.
      Did he consult the local authorities and do they approve of the scheme? The Secretary of State was careful to say that he is removing the disincentives to giving relief, but he did not say that he was giving the local authorities any incentives to grant relief.
      What the Secretary of State has done will be welcomed by the sports clubs, but I am not convinced that it will be welcomed by the local authorities.
      We wish to look carefully at the scheme. We shall not make a judgment on it now. We shall return to it in another place. We do not believe that the Secretary of State, having looked at the document, will give the local authorities the money. We want to look at it, and we shall return to it in another place.
      Mr. Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maxton: If the Secretary of State will allow me, I should like to finish what I am saying. While we retain reservations about what the Secretary of State is doing, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to push my amendment to a vote. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5
      REVALUATION: GENERAL
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 5, line 21, leave out Clause 5.—[Mr. Ancram.]
    Clause 6

      VALUATION OF PREMISES PART OF WHICH OCCUPIED AS DWELLING HOUSE
      Amendment made: No. 34, in page 6, line 8, leave out from '1989' to 'resulting' in line 9 and insert
      "enter in the valuation roll only the part not occupied as a dwelling house, at the value'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 7

      STATUTORY AND OTHER REFERENCES TO RATEABLE VALUES ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 6, line 13, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      No. 36, in page 6, line 17, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      No. 37, in page 6, line 19, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      No. 38, in page 6, line 23, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      No. 39, in page 6, line 28, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      No. 40, in page 6, line 35, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.
      No. 41, in page 6, line 38, leave out 'appeared' and insert 'appears'.
      No. 42, in page 6, line 46, leave out 'been' and insert
      'appeared in the valuation roll in force immediately before 1st April 1989 as'.
      No. 43, in page 6, line 48, leave out
      'immediately before 1st April 1992'.
      No. 44, in page 7, line 5, leave out
      ',occurring on or after 1st April 1992'.
      No. 45, in page 7, line 18, leave out '1992' and insert '1989'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 8

      INTERPRETATION OF PART I AND MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 7, line 24, leave out from '"domestic rates"' to end of line 25 and insert
      'means rates which are leviable on lands and heritages which are domestic subjects".
      No. 47, in page 7, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 10

      LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE
      10 pm
      Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 8, line 37, at end insert
      'The Secretary of State shall in each year ensure that each full time student eligible for a grant from any award granting authority shall receive from him a sum equivalent to the personal community charge levied by the local authority in which he is resident during term time.'.
      970
      Our previous subject for debate might have been more interesting and lively, but it is not the one which bears most heavily on the effect of the poll tax on the people of Scotland.
      Clause 10 implements the community charge for each individual. The Secretary of State has separated students and made them a completely different category. He does not want to give them relief under the rebate scheme or to include them among people who may move in the course of their job. There are many people in Scotland who do that, including us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that community charge should be imposed on them where they are full-time students. it is not to be imposed on them at their home address and they are not allowed to make a choice between the two.
      Many university students will pay more.
      Mr. Henderson: Many will pay less.
      Mr. Maxton: The Secretary of State has said that he is prepared to give up to 80 per cent. of the average community charge in Scotland to those in receipt of a grant. Only at Aberdeen university, however, is the personal community charge below the average. Only at St. Andrews university is it on the average. At Edinburgh, Stirling and Glasgow universities, the charge is above the average. It is not true, therefore, that university students will pay less.
      Mr. Henderson: I meant that some students who currently pay rates but get no compensation in their grant will by definition be better off under the new arrangements.
      Mr. Maxton: It is not necessarily true that people do not get anything off rates. A married couple in a flat, for example, will get a higher allowance because of their circumstances. If a student shares a flat with a group of people, the burden of rates is shared across all the people within that flat. Earlier we heard from the Minister the contention that students who are in halls of residence pay in rent something towards the rates. At least that was what it sounded like. If the Minister wishes to contradict that, I shall give way.
      Mr. Ancram: To set the record straight, I said that those who live in flats in many cases pay rates themselves or could find themselves paying a proportion of the rates to their landlords through their rental payments. I specifically excluded halls of residence, as I understand that, in most cases, there is not a great rates element involved in what they pay there.
      Mr. Maxton: I am glad that the Minister has cleared that point up, because his earlier remarks on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) were confusing.
      Students who live in flats contribute something towards the rates. Those who live in halls of residence do not. Even students who live at home and who pay their parents something towards their keep contribute, or may contribute, something towards the rates. However, the Minister has stated verbally, and in the commentaries and press releases that have been put out about students, that he will be giving, on top of the awards, a certain sum of money to make up for the fact that students must pay the community charge. However, nothing in the Bill says that. That is a promise made by a Government whom I know that many students in Scotland distrust very much.

      971
      That promise may well be maintained in the first year by an increase in the student grant, but there is no guarantee whatsoever — certainly not from this Government, judging by what they have done with student grants during the past few years — that that money would be paid in any year thereafter. That is quite clear.
      I have yet to be convinced by the Minister that the local authorities in England and Wales will be prepared to pay that sum of money to students from their authorities who go to Scottish universities.
      That money does not cover and will not cover students who in any way finance themselves through a year or two years at university. That includes especially students who are repeating a year for any reason, perhaps because of failure. It also includes some other students who may be financing their own courses. They will all pay the personal community charge.
      Mr. Henderson: On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about students financing themselves, a student has only to be eligible for a grant to be entitled to gain from this provision, as I understand it. Even if their parents pay entirely for their maintenance and they receive no grant, they will still receive assistance towards the community charge.
      Mr. Maxton: That is not the way that I understand it. The Minister may help the hon. Gentleman and myself on that point, but, as I understand it, there is nothing in statute and nothing in the Bill that says that the Minister has to pay anything at all towards it. We are relying entirely upon the words of the Minister in this matter. I am trying to make the point that a student who has failed a year's studies and who wishes to repeat that year may not be eligible for a grant, or if he is eligible for a grant that year, he may well not be eligible for a grant in his last year at university because limits are put on the eligibility of grants. Nevertheless the student will still have to pay his own community charge.
      There is no way in which—I accept that even with my amendment there is no way—the large numbers of foreign students who come to our universities and who are already put off by the increase in fees that they have to pay in Scottish universities, will be eligible for any help from the Scottish Office in terms of those grants.
      My amendment would give to students the power to place a statutory obligation upon the Secretary of State to ensure that each full-time student eligible for grant from any award-granting authority shall receive the sum equivalent to the personal community charge levied by the local authority in which the student is resident during term time. In other words, my amendment would take the average Scottish personal community charge, put it into statute, and ensure that a student's local authority will receive the money. In fact it would give 100 per cent. rebate for students in regard to the community charge.
      Students are aware of what may happen to them with the personal community charge. They think that it may be yet another disincentive to prevent poorer people from taking up full-time higher education. Hon. Members should not take that lightly. Our aim should be to encourage people to take up opportunities in full-time education. We are desperately short of skilled and educated people. Everyone who can go to university should. Any disincentive put in the path of people going
      972
      to university should be deplored, but I am afraid that that is what the Government are doing with the personal community charge.
      Mr. Ancram: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and was surprised to hear him raise the matter of foreign students and students who repeat courses. His amendment—
      Mr. Maxton: I said that foreign students were not covered by my amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: A reading of the amendment suggests that the eligibility for the payment which he suggests is precisely the same as that proposed by the Government. The amendment seeks to require my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to reimburse all full-time students eligible for grants with a sum that would exactly cover their personal community charge liability. I cannot accept that.
      Although we accept that students will require help to enable them to meet their personal community charge liabilities, it is not appropriate that that help should be provided either in the way that the hon. Gentleman described—which would be a new form of assistance—or through the social security system, because our longer-term aim is to remove students from entitlement to social security benefits and to return to the position where they depend on grants or a parental contribution and on their vacation earnings.
      In that light, we have proposed that students eligible for grant, including those — this is an important point—who, because of parental income, receive no grant payments at present and who may often for that reason be some of the least well off students at university, should receive a flat rate sum each year towards their personal community charge liability. This will have regard to the level of assistance available under the rebate system for people on low incomes. The likely figure is a minimum contribution of 20 per cent., as we discussed earlier. It is likely that the same assumption will be made in the grants system.
      Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister help me, because I am not clear about the inter-relationship between the grants system run by the Scottish education department and the system administered in England and Wales? A number of the people who will pay the personal community charge will be in receipt of grants from local authorities in England and Wales. What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with local authorities and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reimburse those students? At what level will they be reimbursed? What administration will be available for that purpose?
      Mr. Ancram: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised to learn that this matter has been discussed at great length with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We would not make a proposal of this sort if we did not believe that it could be administered. Grants in Scotland effectively come from three sources. If the hon. Gentleman wishes I can, with a little notice, give him the exact proportions in which they are paid. The sources are the Scottish education department, Scottish local authorities and English and Welsh local authorities paying for students in Scotland.

      973
      10.15 pm
      Having considered the matter, we believe that it will not be difficult to change the administrative rules in each case to ensure that a supplementary grant payment of the sort that I am describing could be made available to students in Scotland.
      It would be quite wrong to follow the course that the amendment suggests, of reimbursing students in full for their personal community charge liability. It is a basic principle of the reformed social security system, which will be brought into effect on 1 April 1988 as a result of the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986, that all those liable for local taxation payments should make some contribution towards them. That principle has been fully debated and accepted by Parliament and will apply to all those liable for the personal community charge. I cannot see a reason for students to be exempt from that rule. The assistance that we propose through the grant system will allow them to receive help along broadly the same lines as we are providing through the rebate system for others on low incomes. The system is fair and equitable. It takes the students' position fully into account. For that reason, I resist the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart went a little wide of the amendment and talked about the deeming provisions in that part of the Bill that affects students. We discussed this matter at length in Committee. I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman—it is worth reiterating it to the House—that the reason we decided that students should be deemed to be solely or mainly resident at their place of university is that, by the nature of university education, they would otherwise be capable of being registered up to six times, if not eight times in the case of Stirling university, at different residences during the course of a year. It was considered that, as in most cases students are likely to spend most of their time at their place of university education, it was simpler for their sake and administratively to have them deemed to be resident at their place of study.
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister's argument is farcical. Many people, including hon. Members, live in two places at several times during the year. We have two residences, and we change our addresses weekly. We certainly move out of London during the three-month Parliamentary recess and at Easter and Christmas. It is a simple matter. The Minister has only to say that a student shall deem one place to be his sole or main residence. That is a qualification under clause 10, anyway.
      Mr. Ancram: I have to be a little cautious, because that point is not part of the amendment. When we discussed this matter in Committee—the hon. Gentleman referred to the lives led by hon. Members—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) rather plaintively said that he knew where his home was. If he looks at the provisions for sole or main residence, he will see that the situation is effectively quite different in regard to a Member of Parliament who travels a great deal, as opposed to a student who is known to be in a particular place for a certain length of time and then to move to another place for another length of time. Under the provisions of the legislation, the sole or main residence could change several times during a year, to the disadvantage of the person concerned. To accept reality, apart from anything else, and to simplify matters, a decision was taken to deem them to be resident.
      Mr. Henderson: This matter is of considerable importance to local authorities that have a substantial student population. Six hundred and fifty hon. Members will not make much difference to heaven knows how many London boroughs, but 3,000 students at St. Andrews will make a great difference to the economics of a district council such as Fife or a comparatively small district council such as Stirling.
      Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend made a valid point. The students in his and my constituencies might partake of the services provided by local authorities. It is in line with the principles of the Bill that they should be expected to make a contribution towards such services.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart suggested that students should be exempted from the community charge. However, it would be difficult to justify one brother in a household, just because he is a student, paying no community charge while another brother, who might be unemployed and who would therefore be on the maximum rebate that is available, was paying a minimum contribution. Our scheme, in the form of proposals that will have to be fully worked up by the time that the community charge becomes payable, creates a degree of fairness and parity between those two categories, which I believe is right. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Douglas: I listened with interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). He is concerned about the students of St. Andrews university. We all share his concern. However, if the hon. Gentleman was truly concerned about those students, he ought to have asked his Government to sort out the problem. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not been very successful, because the problem has not been sorted out.
      According to figures that I have obtained from the Library, in 1984–85 there were 9,310 full time students—8,220 undergraduates and 1,090 postgraduates—at Scottish universities who were domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I do not know what proportion of those students came from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Students will need a subvention to enable them to pay the poll tax.
      It was suggested that it would be very unfair if a student in a household did not have to pay the poll tax. However, the reverse is also true. I am told that in 1984–85 there were 2,980 full-time students and 2,140 undergraduates and 840 postgraduates domiciled in Scotland who went to universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If they are domiciled in Scotland but go to a university elsewhere in the United Kingdom, they will be benefiting from local authority services in those areas, but they will not be paying the poll tax. By trying to cater for students, we are creating absurd anomalies.
      Student grants cannot be discussed in this debate, lout considerable anomalies will be created, particularly in the case of those who rely on parental contributions. Many parents make no payment, and that is very hard on students. Students must be compensated in some way or another for the poll tax. Local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to receive about £3 million for students. If these local authorities have 10,000 students in the universities, how much money will students receive to enable them to pay a personal liability that is imposed upon them?

      975
      The hon. Member for Fife, North-East said that it is cleared up. I submit that it is not cleared up and unless the Minister can tell us what the position is tonight, I would imagine that he has some responsibility to get the matter cleared up in another place or certainly—I speak personally—we will be pressing for further clarification during other debates.
      Students are in a difficult position and I take the general view that this is not something that we can cast aside. It is an additional burden on students, perhaps in the region of £200 or £300 a year, and it is not something we can take lightly. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East, that it may be a disincentive for students from England and Wales.
      Mr. Henderson: At worst, it would have been for one year during the transition. However, now that the transitional period has been telescoped, it will not arise at all as a serious problem.
      Mr. Douglas: That may mean that the hon. Gentleman has some understanding that Scotland is going to be the guinea pig for a shorter period, but one does not know.
      There is an imbalance for 7,000 students, 10,000 if we take the net total, and it must be clarified. It has to be a payment that will be imposed in one way or another by English, Welsh and perhaps Northern Irish local authorities on students who come to Scotland. I ask the Minister not to be so sanguine and cavalier about it. We need much more clarification than we have been given.
      Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that there is a need for greater clarity from the Minister as to how he envisages students being compensated to the level of 20 per cent.
      Mr. Ancram: Eighty per cent.
      Mr. Maclennan: Yes, to the level of 80 per cent.
      The mechanisms are important and the Minister has not revealed anything tonight about how it is proposed that the moneys should be made available. It is not clear whether it is to be duty imposed upon English local authorities to pay the additional grants and whether, if they do discharge that duty, they will be compensated by central Government. It is understood that in so far as the grants come directly from central Government, students can be recompensed, but it is not clear, when the grants are payable by local authorities, whether it is to be treated as mandatory or discretionary on local authorities.
      The Minister has added to the confusion felt among students as to what their position will be, not only in respect of their duty to pay the poll tax in Scotland, but as to how they will be placed vis-a-vis students in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is there going to be a period in which it is financially better for students in Scotland to attend universities in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will the extra cost operate as a disincentive to English, Welsh or Northern Irish students to attend Scottish universities?
      Those matters have not been clarified by the Minister and I hope that he will take the opportunity of this debate to explain more precisely than he yet has what mechanisms he has in mind. It is plain that he has not worked the whole thing out, and I do not entirely blame him for that. However, he should be a little forthcoming about what he would wish to see done.
      Mr. Maxton: I find it difficult to believe that students like hon. Members, do not know where their homes are. Most students are quite clear that their home is where they have come from, where they go home at the recess and where their parents live. I cannot see that the Minister's arguments have much validity.
      As the Minister has left things now—
      Mr. Ancram: I was going to explain.
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister says that he was going to explain, but it would have been usual for him to intervene before I rose to speak.
      The point is that as things stand and as the Minister has left matters, if he pays each student 80 per cent. of the average Scottish personal community charge, a student at Aberdeen university, Robert Gordon's college of technology, or the college of education in Aberdeen will make a profit and be in pocket by about £15 a year. As I understand it, the community charge average is about £220 in Scotland and I believe that in the Grampian region and in Aberdeen the community charge will be about £170. Therefore, money will be put in the students' pockets. A student at St. Andrews university will pay roughly £44 a year because that is about 20 per cent. of £220.
      Mr. Henderson: It is £39.
      10.30pm
      Mr. Maxton: Very well, £39.
      A student at Strathclyde university, Glasgow university, the Glasgow college of technology, or the Jordanhill college of education or the art college and students at the other colleges in Glasgow and Edinburgh will be paying close to £100 a year. I believe that that is a very unfair discrimination between different groups of students in different parts of the country. The Minister may want to reconsider that point.
      If students are to be treated in this way, there should be a statutory obligation upon the Secretary of State to provide relief to students. It is fine for the Minister to say that he will increase grants and do this and do that. However, there is no obligation in law for him to do so. Students have seen what the Government have done with their grants and quite rightly they do not trust the Government. They believe that something will probably go wrong. They may get the 80 per cent. of the community charge in the first year, but in the coming year the grant will only rise by 1 per cent. and not by the full amount of inflation. Therefore, the payment will be eroded until eventually there is no allowance for the community charge within the Secretary of State's proposals. There must be a statutory obligation.
      The way in which the Minister is handling this matter will mean that there will be some students to whom he cannot guarantee the grant. I have yet to hear from the Secretary of State how he will oblige Birmingham to pay this sum of money to students who go to St. Andrews university. If two students go to Birmingham council and ask for grants to go to university and the council only has enough money to provide one grant, the council will give it to the student going to an English university which does not have the extra poll tax. The council will not allow the other student to go to the Scottish university. There is a disincentive. Much of the information that I have received on this matter has come from a member of the court of St. Andrews university who is equally not a supporter of the

      977
      Labour party. He is gravely concerned that there will be a disincentive for students to go to Scottish universities unless there is an inbuilt statutory obligation upon the Secretary of State to provide help.
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must not make the English too worried about this, for two reasons. First, all English students going to Scottish universities will receive help to meet the community charge. Secondly, at the moment, a very large proportion of the English students at St. Andrews receive no grant or assistance towards their rates bills when they live in flats outside the university. In future, they will get assistance towards their community charge payments, so they will be a good deal better off twice over.
      Mr. Maxton: The Minister has given us no clear idea of how he will ensure that English local authorities will pay this money. Indeed, he has given us no clear assurance that he will allow students any relief. If he will stand up and give an undertaking that this will become a statutory obligation, I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
      Students certainly wish to see a statutory obligation placed upon the Secretary of State to provide such relief. The Opposition believe in 100 per cent. grants and 100 per cent. rebates for all those whose income is at a certain level. That is an issue of principle between us and the Government. The Government have not given students the commitments that they require. The provision should be statutory, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate. I had hoped to speak before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), but I waited to see whether anyone else wished to take part, and the hon. Gentleman was very anxious to speak.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked about the parental contribution and made the valid point that those students who receive the full parental contribution receive no subsistence grant and have problems. I made it clear that although they may receive no grant at present, under the scheme that we propose they would receive the supplementary grant towards their community charge. That will be warmly welcomed by the students affected. The hon. Gentleman asked what sum had been agreed. The sum will depend on the level of community charge in Scotland, upon the average of which the supplementary grant will be worked out, and on the number of eligible students. It is impossible, two years off the time when this measure is likely to apply, to give the hon. Gentleman an idea of what it will cost.
      The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West, for Cathcart and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked how the scheme would be made to work. I can tell them that the awards scheme in England is mandatory. Although it is operated by the local authorities, it is under the direction of the Department of Education and Science, which compensates local authorities for the awards. We believe that it would be a simple adjustment to introduce this supplementary grant on the same basis.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart is a wonderful man for spraying out figures. He suggested that, in Aberdeen, on an assumption of 80 per cent. of the average community charge for Scotland, students would be better off by £15.
      978
      I must tell him that they would be required to pay £15 rather than having that amount in pocket. He said, generally, that students in Edinburgh would pay £100. As an Edinburgh Member, I have an interest in ensuring that he gets that figure correct. It would in fact be £58—about half the figure that he suggested.
      As for the scheme itself—I tried to make this clear in Committee and, in an attempt not to detain the House tonight, I did not go into as much detail—the idea is that the sum which will be made available through the student awards system will be based on the average personal community charge in Scotland each year. That is the principle which I enunciated in Committee. The proportion of that average which will be covered is likely to be in line with that which will be proposed for the rebate system that we shall debate tomorrow. Of course, there are details to be worked out before we introduce the scheme, but those are its general principles. Generally, they have been welcomed by students in Scotland, who were worried that they might have to pay the entire community charge.
      Mr. Douglas: The Under-Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) of spraying figures, but he has been spraying round spurious exactitudes. He has given us an idea of what students in Aberdeen and Edinburgh might pay. Can he give us some feel of the global sum that the Department of Education and Science might be asked to pay if the provision is made statutory? Will it be £2 million, £3 million, £4 million or what?
      Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have that figure, I can tell him that the figures I used in Committee and that I am using tonight are based on the assumptions that community charge levels will be based on current levels of expenditure. We must accept that we must make those assumptions because we do not know what the levels of expenditure will be in two years' time. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in having a global figure, I can get it for him and if he wishes, I shall write to him. But it will be based, not on an exact prediction of what the situation will be in two years' time but on various assumptions relating to current levels of expenditure.
      Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was wrong to think that there was any serious danger of English students not coming to Scottish universities because of this, given the scale of commitment that a student is making in coming to any university and that the benefits that he will gain from coming to a Scottish university far outweigh any matters of that sort?
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point. It is a strange point to raise especially when, given the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, there will be a system of community charges in England soon after that has been started in Scotland. The question of cross-border disincentives will soon disappear.
      I have a great deal of confidence in Scottish university education, having been educated at universities in England and Scotland. The quality of education provided by Scottish universities is a sufficient attraction to ensure a good, steady number of recruits in the years to come. If the hon. Gentleman will not seek to withdraw the amendment, I ask my hon. Friends to resist it.
      Question put:—
      The House divided:Ayes 170, Noes 216.

      Division No. 109]

      [10.41 pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald

      Hardy, Peter

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Haynes, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Barron, Kevin

      Home Robertson, John

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Howells, Geraint

      Bell, Stuart

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Bermmgham, Gerald

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Blair, Anthony

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Kennedy, Charles

      Boyes, Roland

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lambie, David

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mlme E)

      Lamond, James

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Leighton, Ronald

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

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Litherland, Robert

      Buchan, Norman

      Livsey, Richard

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      Loyden, Edward

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clay, Robert

      McWilliam, John

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Madden, Max

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Marek, Dr John

      Coleman, Donald

      Martin, Michael

      Conlan, Bernard

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Maxton, John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Corbett, Robin

      Meacher, Michael

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Craigen, J. M.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Deakins, Eric

      Morns, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dewar, Donald

      Nellist, David

      Dixon, Donald

      Oakes Rt Hon Gordon

      Dobson, Frank

      O'Brien, William

      Dormand, Jack

      O'Neill, Martin

      Douglas, Dick

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dubs, Alfred

      Park, George

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Parry, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      Patchett, Terry

      Eastham, Ken

      Pike, Peter

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Randall, Stuart

      Faulds, Andrew

      Raynsford, Nick

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Redmond, Martin

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Flannery, Martin

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Forrester, John

      Robertson, George

      Foster, Derek

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Foulkes, George

      Rooker, J. W.

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Rowlands, Ted

      Freud, Clement

      Sheerman, Barry

      George, Bruce

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      980

      Skinner, Dennis

      Warded, Gareth (Gower)

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

      Wareing, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Weetch, Ken

      Soley, Clive

      Welsh, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      White, James

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Straw, Jack

      Wilson, Gordon

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Winnick, David

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Woodall, Alec

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Tinn, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Allen McKay and

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Chris Smith.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ancram, Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Ashby, David

      Hayward, Robert

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Heddle, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Henderson, Barry

      Best, Keith

      Hickmet, Richard

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hind, Kenneth

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hirst, Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Holt, Richard

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Howard, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Conway, Derek

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, John

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Crouch, David

      Key, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Knowles, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Knox, David

      Evennett, David

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Farr, Sir John

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Favell, Anthony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forman, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forth, Eric

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lightbown, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Galley, Roy

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maclean, David John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gow, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

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

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Madel, David

      Greenway, Harry

      Major, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Malins, Humfrey

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Marland, Paul

      Ground, Patrick

      Marlow, Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Mates, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hannam, John

      Merchant, Piers

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Harvey, Robert

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Moate, Roger

      981

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Murphy, Christopher

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Neale, Gerrard

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Needham, Richard

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Norris, Steven

      Rowe, Andrew

      Osborn, Sir John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Ottaway, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Portillo, Michael

      Silvester, Fred

      Powley, John

      Sims, Roger

      Price, Sir David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Speed, Keith

      Renton, Tim

      Spencer, Derek

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      982

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Waller, Gary

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Ward, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Sumberg, David

      Watts, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Whitfield, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Whitney, Raymond

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wilkinson, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Thurnham, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trippier, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Trotter, Neville

      Yeo, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mr. Michael Neubert and

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Gerald Malone.

    Clause 10

      LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsections (6), (7) and (8) and insert—
      '(6) Persons who—

      (a) are married to each other and live together, or

      (b) live together as if they were man and wife

      shall be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charges, relating to the period during which they live together, for which each of them is liable.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following : amendment No. 166, in page 9, line 1 leave out subsection (6), and Government amendments Nos. 156 to 159.
      Mr Ancram: These Government amendments stem from a commitment given in Committee following upon an amendment moved by, I think, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that we would consider further the provisions on joint and several liability for the personal community charge. The view was strongly expressed in Committee that unmarried couples whose household arrangements might in many cases be very similar to those of married couples, should also be made jointly and severally liable for the charge. On consideration, we have indeed reached the view that it should not be easier—at least potentially—for unmarried couples to be able to evade the payment of personal community charge than it will be for married couples. These amendments therefore give effect to that policy.
      Apart from dealing with the basic position on joint and several liability in clause 10, they entail consequential amendment to clauses 15 and 22, and schedule 2. I shall deal with the amendments in the order that they appear in the Amendment Paper. Amendment No. 155 deletes the present provisions for joint and several liability of married couples in subsections (6), (7) and (8) of clause 10, and replaces them with the provision that married and unmarried couples who live together should be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charge.
      The basic anticipated criteria by which it will be determined whether a couple are living together as man and wife will be similar to criteria used by the Department of the Health and Social Security at the moment. I shall deal with this is more detail shortly.
      Amendment No. 156 provides that the joint and several liability of married and unmarried couples should not be included in the community charges register. While joint and several liability exists in all cases where a couple are married or living together, we do not propose that that liability should be invoked except when some difficulty has arisen over collection of the community charges due. The appearance of a note of joint and several liability in every case on the register would therefore be unnecessary, as well as involving the registration officer in complex and arguably intrusive inquiries of all couples at the stage when the register was being made up. That was a matter of concern to some Committee members. As a consequence, amendment No. 157 deletes from clause 22 the provision that any person shown on the register as jointly or severally liable to pay any community charge shall be
      984
      entitled to inspect the entry in the register relating to each person with whom he is so liable. That no longer applies. We propose that the register will not in fact record any instances of joint and several liability, since in terms of amendment Nos. 52 and 56, which we will discuss later, there will no longer be any provision for joint and several liability between owners and tenants for the standard or collective community charges. Clause 22(2)(d) is therefore unnecessary.
      Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 make the further changes that will be necessary to the procedures for recovery of community charges as a result of the extension of joint and several liability. They exclude the use of summary warrants for the recovery of arrears dependent on the joint and several liability provisions. Instead, the local authority must first raise a sheriff court action—ordinary action or summary cause—against the married or unmarried couple for payment of the outstanding charges. This will establish the joint and several liability. In the normal case, however, we expect that authorities will seek to recover arrears of community charges by the summary warrant procedure against the individual partner. Where that is unsuccessful, or where the authority has reason to believe that it would not be effective, it will, subject to paragraph 7(5) of schedule 2, be able, in the case of married or unmarried couples living together, to invoke joint and several liability and to pursue one partner's debts against the other partner. However, that will not be possible until it has raised an action and been granted a decree from the sheriff, as I have explained. In considering whether to grant a decree, the sheriff will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the question of whether a couple who are not married are living together as man and wife. In this context a decision by a social security appeals tribunal that the couple should be jointly assessed for social security purposes may be of relevance.
      These amendments have fallen consequent upon an amendment moved in Committee that rightly raised the difficulties and pressures that may be caused if married couples were treated differently from those who were living together but were not married.
      Mr. Maxton: One of the points that COSLA raised with us was that by not including couples who were living together but not married we could create problems in terms of housing benefit.
      Mr. Ancram: The housing benefit rules already cover that situation and will carry over in terms of the rebate provision that will be made available under this legislation.
      This set of amendments, as they stand, cover the difficulties that may be caused where a couple who are living together but not married are in a position to evade payment whereas a married couple are not in such a position. Most Committee Members appreciated that that would cause problems and we all wished to avoid that.
      As a result of the amendment so ably moved in Committee by the hon. Member for East Lothian, these amendments are now brought forward. I hope that they will find favour with the House.
      Mr. Wilson: I welcome the changes made by the Government through these amendments. It would be wrong for a husband and wife to be treated in a different way from persons living together, and the Government have rightly accepted the arguments that were presumably made in Committee.

      985
      I have tabled amendment No. 166. I suspect that at this late stage of the proceedings, especially now that the other Government amendments have been made, there is little chance of persuading the Government to relax on the question of joint and several liability. However, I thought it worthwhile putting down a marker because if, as I understand it, the community charge is a personal tax, it should be payable by each person. The names should go individually on to the register. That is a matter of principle and it is what the Government should have provided for. I accept that the best way of proving the identity of persons living together is going against both parties in a sheriff court action, but I still do not agree with the principle.
      11 pm
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman's first concern that they should not appear on the register as being registered jointly and severally liable is covered by the amendments.
      Mr. Wilson: I took the point that the Government have improved on the situation through their amendments. I presume that the names of the persons who are allegedly living together will still appear on the register, as with husband and wife, although there will be no statement of whether there is liability.
      Mr. Ancram: The register will have the names of every adult over 18 living at the address. Under the provision of the Bill before the amendments, a married couple would have had a distinguishing mark beside their name, probably the letters J and S, which would have signified that was joint and several liability and identified them as such. That is no longer necessary, so they will appear as names on a register against an address, just as everyone else on the register will.
      Mr. Wilson: I was right to agree that the Government have chosen the correct mechanism to follow, although I disagree with the principle. It is always difficult coming in on Report, after matters have been exhaustively discussed in Committee. Although I do not press my amendment, I put down a marker, and express my opposition to joint and several liability, when the liability should be personal if the Government believe that accountability should be appropriate.
      Mr. Henderson: I have two brief points to make. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I met Fife regional council recently, and it has been having discussion within the Scottish forum for rating, valuation and other revenues. My hon. Friend will know that the forum is organised for the benefit of Scottish local authorities involved in rating, valuation and the collection of other revenues. Members include all regional councils, more than half the district councils, the Scottish special housing association and two of the three islands councils. I understand that in the main these authorities are represented by staff involved in revenue administration. Clearly, the Government will take some note of what such a body has to say.
      The regional council, in line with that forum, expressed two major matters of concern to me. One was that all members of the forum had unanimously recommended that domestic rates be completely abolished with effect from 1 April 1989, and that the full community charges be introduced from that date. It is with great pleasure that I find that, within days of my carrying that message to my
      986
      hon. Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced just that policy. That will also be a great pleasure to the forum.
      The other point put to me by Fife regional council was more directly related to this group of amendments. Amendment No. 155 replaces clause 10(6), (7) and (8) with a new subsection (6) which says:
      '(6) Persons who—

      (a) are married to each other and live together, or

      (b) live together as if they were man and wife

      shall be jointly and severally liable for the personal community charges, relating to the period during which they live together, for which each of them is liable.'
      For a number of different reasons, Fife regional council was concerned that if the definition of what constituted a married couple in the Bill differed from that in the housing benefit regulations, a range of different administrative problems could arise. I understand that there will be new housing benefit regulations in April 1988, if not at any other time.
      I am looking for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill will be on all-fours and compatible with the housing benefit regulations, or vice-versa.
      Mr. Hugh Brown: Will the Minister clarify why it is necessary to have the principle of joint and several liability? If the register will not distinguish between a married couple and a couple living together, I do not see the need to define a couple. Surely individuals should have a distinct liability for the personal charge? Why can the Minister not give consideration to that aspect before we conclude these stages?
      Mr. Home Robertson: We briefly covered this subject in Committee. The Minister rather eloquently described it as the bidey-in element, which had been suggested by COSLA. COSLA has come in for a certain amount of vilification from Ministers during debate on the Bill. I am glad that the Minister has, on this occasion, acknowledged that COSLA has drawn the attention of Parliament to a relevant and necessary amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for coming forward with this set of amendments, which clarify the position of unmarried couples living together as man and wife.
      Following the point that was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), we had quite a lot to say in Committee about the principle of joint and several liability. It rather undermines one of the fundamental principles that the Government have been laying much store by in putting forward their case for the community charge—every individual in Scotland over the age of 18 years should be liable to pay. The principle of couples being jointly and severally liable undermines a substantial part of that principle.
      In an earlier debate the Secretary of State quoted a lot of figures about the alleged lack of accountability of local government in Scotland because, he claimed, relatively few people were ratepayers at present. That conveniently discounts the fact that a high proportion of people were the spouses of ratepayers, and if the two groups were put together they made a total of 79 per cent., which is hardly a minority.
      I wonder what the comparable figures will be for the community charge in the future? Have the Government estimated how many couples will be jointly and severally liable? In effect, that means that only one of those partners will be paying the tax. The other member of those households will, by the Government's definition in their

      987
      criticism of the rating system, be freeloading. The Government cannot have it both ways. I would be interested to know how many people they expect to fall into this category.
      Mr. Wallace: It is always difficult to intervene on a matter which has been dealt with at length in Committee.
      My point relates to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) about why we should have joint or several liability. I surmise that the reason why this has been put forward is ease of collection, to try to exclude one possible means of avoidance. If that is the case, it could lead to harshness, because, as I read the amendment that the Government are now seeking to substitute, the partners would be jointly and severally liable relating to the period during which they lived together. It is not sexist to say that the consequences of one partner leaving could be more harsh if the husband leaves the wife and goes to an unknown address. The bill for unpaid community charge could easily fall on the wife, why may have no earned income of her own and depend on the state.
      I do not want to start a debate about taxes being seen to be fair, but I do not think that it will generally be thought fair to give a woman who has been deserted a bill for unpaid community charge for a period when she was not living alone. The Minister might say that payment would not be enforced in such circumstances. That merely reveals the inadequacies of the system and shows that it has not been fully thought through.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked why we should have joint and several liability. In certain circumstances, spouses and partners will have no assets of their own and their community charge liabilities therefore cannot be recovered. That was recognised in certain marriages and for people whom I described in Committee, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has reminded me, as bidey-ins. Our proposals represent a reasonable approach to the problem.
      I cannot envisage a sensible local authority trying to recover two charges from a partner with no assets, not least because it is for such a person's benefit that we are providing for joint and several liability. Recovery on that basis might not be possible. There is no system of taxation about which I could say, hand on heart, that there is 100 per cent. recovery, and I suspect that hon. Members could not either.
      Our proposal for joint and several liability allows a local authority to try to recover a community charge from a partnership when one might have no identifiable assets from which recovery could be made, precisely because of the nature of the relationship.
      Mr. Wallace: I understand the Minister's argument and accept that local authorities would sometimes not press home the charge in the circumstances which I suggested. That is a crucial admission that the House is being asked to accept a tax which is imposed on people who cannot pay it. That is a fundamental unfairness which we have identified.
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman compares the amendments with the Bill, he will find that the Bill
      988
      identifies a couple as jointly and severally liable from the start. Although they get separate bills, the hon. Member for Provan will remember from Committee stage that they will be in the register as jointly and severally liable.
      The amendments create joint and several liability only when recovery has proved impossible on an individual basis. We have established that the authority goes through the process of recovery via the register. When that fails, or if the authority can see that that method will not work, it can go to the sheriff to have joint and several liability declared.
      That answers what the hon. Member for Provan said. He said—it had not struck me until he said it—that the weakness in the Bill had been the application of joint and several liability before billing or recovery had arisen. That is met by the amendments, so I should have thought that they would go a long way to satisfy him.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Maxton: What effect will the amendments have on rebates? If a husband is not jointly and severally liable for his wife's commuted charge, surely the wife is entitled to ask for a rebate on the basis of her income, with no relationship to her husband's income.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall deal with rebates when I respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). The hon. Member for East Lothian raised the same issue in principle, and I would contend that his argument has been diminished by the amendments that have been placed before the House this evening. It would seem that he missed the opportunity to advance his argument when the issue was before the Committee. In any event, in the light of the amendments, his argument is a month too late.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian asked about numbers, and I cannot tell him the number of married couples in Scotland. I can tell him, however, that there are about 50,000 unmarried couples living together in Scotland.
      Dr. Godman: What is the position of a married couple who separate and continue to live under the same roof for some years before one of them leaves the domestic home?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will understand that subsections (6) and (7) are being replaced by the amendment. Subsection (8) states that the two subsections
      "do not apply to persons who, although married to each other, are separated and live apart."
      That must be a matter of fact and circumstance in each instance.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East for reminding us that the Rating and Valuation Association forum called for the ending of transition, which has been achieved in the Bill. My hon. Friend asked about the definition of "joint and several liability" in the terms of the Bill, and I suspect that his local authority is concerned about the rebate under clause 26 as against the housing benefit rebate provisions. The rebate system that is proposed under clause 26 will be a carry-forward, effectively, with the necessary adjustments under the housing benefit regulations. The housing benefit provisions for cohabiting couples will carry over into the rebate system, and there will be the relationship with the community charge. The concern to which my hon. Friend

      989
      has referred has been expressed by a number of local authorities, but it does not come within the terms of the amendment.
      The definitions of the joint and several categories within the Bill are slightly different from those within the Social Security Act 1986, but only in minor drafting terms rather than in any substantial way. The various applications of joint and several in respect of couples living together, whether married or unmarried, will have the same parentage although they might be slightly different in appearance from the provisions in the 1986 legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East is reassured.
      Mr. Henderson: The definition should be sufficiently similar in the two sets of regulations so that the computer programme that is designed to handle one is able to handle the other. There lies the main problem.
      Mr. Ancram: That is most important in terms of the support through the rebate schemes. Apart from possible slight variations, effectively they will be the same provisions. As to the definition used for collection, the sheriff will decide whether joint and several liability exists. It is likely that one of the matters to which he has regard is whether, under the social security provisions, the couple would have been so deemed to be cohabiting.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister assist me in clarifying the position of the sheriff when the local authority approaches him for a decision? In terms of the court's jurisdiction, will the sheriff he able to delay enforcement? Can he refuse to issue a declaration and, if so, in what circumstances? Does he have a choice?
      Mr. Ancram: As I said when talking about amendments Numbers 158 and 159, just as in any other case, the local authority has to go to the sheriff—it will either be an ordinary action or a summary cause—to establish the joint and several liability. Each case will turn on its own facts. The decision will be the sheriff's. We expect that the main criteria will be similiar to those applied by the DHSS when it considers whether a couple should be jointly assessed for benefit entitlement. Obviously, the sheriff will wish to satisfy himself of that. It is right that the sheriff should take into account all the relevant circumstances of the particular case before deciding whether to grant a decree.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Will that be enforced?
      Mr. Ancram: The sheriff will be asked for a decree. He will decide whether to grant it. There is nothing especially complicated in that procedure. I hope that those hon. Members who invited us to table the amendment will accept it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      LIABILITY FOR AND CALCULATION OF STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 10, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert—
      '(4) The person liable to pay the standard community charge in respect of any premises shall be—

      (a) subject to paragraph (b) and (c) below, the owner of the premises;

      990

      (b) subject to paragraph (c) below, if the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, the tenant; or

      (c) if the premises have been sub-let for such a period, the sub-tenant,

      and that liability shall, in the case of a tenant or sub-tenant be in respect of the period of his tenancy or, as the case may be, sub-tenancy.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 56.
      Mr. Lang: The amendments seek to clarify and improve the position on liability for the standard and collective community charges, which will apply respectively to second homes and other domestic property where there is no sole or main resident, and to premises designated by the registration officer whose residents are very transient.
      The Bill as drafted provided for joint and several liability between the owner of such premises and any lessee or sub-lessee whose lease or sub-lease was for a continuous period of 12 months or more. This was to meet the case where the owner might be difficult to trace or have relatively little direct connection with the property. On consideration, however, we have reached the view that a provision for joint and several liability in these circumstances could lead to some confusion in that, although the owner and lessee would be equally liable for the charges, the local authority might be in some doubt as to which person to approach for payment.
      The amendments therefore propose a slightly different way of approaching the question, by setting out the circumstances in which the owner, tenant or sub-tenant will be liable. If there is a sub-lessee with a lease for a continuous period of 12 months or more, he will he liable for the charge. If there is a lessee, but no sub-lessee, with such a lease, he will be liable. If there is no such lessee or sub-lessee, the owner will be liable. Thus it would always be clear in any particular set of circumstances who is liable to pay the standard and collective community charge. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Maxton: The amendments make the standard charge more of a property tax. It is a tax on the use of the property and is basically a return to rates. It may be a fixed rate, but it is a rate on the property. It is a clear breach of the principle behind the idea of a personal community charge. Conservative Members should be aware of the fact—although they really do not care—that, whereas the rates on a holiday house are paid according to its size and, therefore, the number of people who might be using it at any one time, now the charge for all holiday houses will be exactly the same. Whether the holiday home is
      Balmoral or a tiny flat somewhere in Newport, basically, the rate will be the same. Someone in Newport will pay a higher standard charge on his little property than the Queen will pay at Balmoral. It clearly is a property tax.
      Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is wrong, but after 125 hours in Committee I doubt whether I shall change his mind now. It is not a property tax, but a charge for the services to which properties have access.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 10, line 19, leave out from 'be' to end of line 27 and insert 'the personal community charge'.
      As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the clause concerns second home owners,

      991
      particularly holiday home owners. It has always been recognised that there is a need for special provisions to deal with them. No arrangements are made for second homes. There is clearly a loss of income to local authorities from previously rated properties, despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the owners of second homes use local services. They typically do not use all local services such as education or social work, but they rely on police and fire services. On the whole, second home owners make a little use of local authority services for limited times of the year. A few years ago, the estimated number of second homes in Scotland was about 17,300, the owners of about 65 per cent. of which were usually resident in Scotland.
      I accept that the Government have listened to the arguments about the issue. The Green Paper proposed the standard charge, which would be two units off the personal charge. Clause 12 now proposes that the standard charge should be between one and two times the personal charge, subject to the discretion of local authorities. That proposal allows authorities a multiplier of between one and two in the case of small second homes or when the encouragement of seasonal visitors is important for the local economy. The effect of amendment No. 53 is that the standard charge will be equal to the single personal charge. Therefore, it pushes one step further in the direction in which the Government have already moved.
      I accept that there is a balance of argument. There is something to be said for giving local authorities discretion. However, it inevitably leads to a complicated system. It means that from year to year local authorities could, for whatever reason, change their position on one personal community charge and two personal community charges for second homes. That would mean an extra burden. Given that the second home is typically small, that it is typically used only on a seasonal basis, and that its users do not put a burden on many local authority services, notably education, which is the biggest single expenditure item in local authority budgets, it would be simpler if my hon. Friend the Minister were able to accept that the standard charge should be the same as the single personal charge.
      This issue is important to many areas of the country, notably Dumfries, Galloway, Upper Nithsdale, Argyll, Angus, East, Tayside, Fife, Moray and other areas. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it is of importance to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie).
      This is an issue on which my hon. Friend, if he is in a generous mood tonight, could make a gesture which would be important to rural economies. It would be a little extra boost for tourism and would encourage construction in certain areas. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to accept at least the principle of amendment No. 53.
      Mr. Ancram: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) very carefully. I know that he is very concerned about this matter. It might help if I were to explain to the House again the basic purpose of the standard community charge. It is to be payable by owners or long-term tenants of domestic property in which there is no sole or main resident. In that kind of case the abolition of domestic rates would mean that local authorities would inevitably lose revenue, despite the fact
      992
      that local authority services are provided for the owners or tenants of homes in this category. The standard community charge is not, therefore, a property tax but a contribution towards the cost of local authority services that are enjoyed by the owners of second homes, particularly those services that relate to property.
      11.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) keeps telling me that he does not have a second home because he does not rent the house to which he goes in Arran for long enough for it to count.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood was quite right when he said that the Green Paper suggested as a basis of consultation that the standard charge should be set at a level equivalent to two units of the personal community charge in the area of the second home. The intention of the Green Paper was to ensure that over the country as a whole the charge would give broadly the same yield as the domestic rates paid at present by the owner. However, we recognised that local authorities may wish to set the standard charge at a level lower than two units, should they take the view that, in local circumstances, that level would be too high. That is why a range for the multiplier is provided of between one and two.
      In a sense, my hon. Friend's amendment recognises a possibility that is already in the Bill, as drafted. A local authority could have regard to the needs of a rural area and to the general economic situation within its area and it could opt for a standard charge that was the equivalent of one personal community charge, as the amendment suggests. However, the amendment would remove a local authority's discretion in an area where a variety of different circumstances could apply and would therefore make the Bill's provisions much more rigid than they are.
      I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said and I appreciate his concern, but on balance local authorities' scope for variation of the standard community charge should remain as it is set out in the legislation. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, I hope that, although my hon. Friend may be a little disappointed that I have been unable to be as generous as he had hoped, he will be prepared to seek to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Maxton: I am delighted to hear that the Minister is not accepting the amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). It would have made the position regarding second homes even worse than it is now. The disparity between people's income, the size of their properties and what they would have been asked for bears no relation to their ability to pay. Balmoral would have been classified as a holiday home. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment had been accepted by the Minister, the Queen would have paid the very princely sum of £160 a year for that property. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) keeps muttering that that is ridiculous, but it happens to be a fact that at present the local authority receives from the royal family £3,300 a year in rates. If the hon. Gentleman had had his way, it would have received only £160 a year.
      Sir Hector Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maxton: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. That figure of £160 would also have been paid by somebody who owns a very small holiday cottage in the same area. That would have been a quite ludicrous

      993
      differential, and it would have been true of the hon. Member for Dumfries and his flat in Edinburgh. I presume that he has only one second home; perhaps he has more than one. At present he pays large sums of money in rates. I presume that under this amendment he would have paid a very much smaller amount of money in rates.
      Sir Hector Monro: Has the hon. Gentleman added up the number of permanent residents at Balmoral? If he had he would realise that rates would be at least a four figure sum, perhaps more.
      Mr. Maxton: The difference is that at present the Queen and the royal household are responsible for paying the rates and the people who live as permanent residents are not. Under this system, the Queen would pay £160 and every individual who lives there would pay his own personal community charge. The fact is that there is no differential in the standard community charge. Like the personal community charge, there is no differentiation in terms of people's ability to pay, the size of their property or whatever. Along with the rest of this tawdry Bill, it is something that is — [Interruption.] The Minister says that I am admitting that I am wrong. I am not admitting that I am wrong. What I am saying is absolutely right. Balmoral is a holiday home and so is the tiniest flat in Millport.
      The amendment would reduce further people's contribution towards local authorities in terms of second homes — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) can describe anybody as a fool, or whatever else it was that he might have said, but I would rather be a fool than the unctuous creep that he is.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: With the leave of the House, I am tempted to respond to several of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I am amazed that he took four minutes for something that could have been said in 20 seconds. It was a trivial contribution to the debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he said, although, as he suggested, I am slightly disappointed that he has take the line that he has. However, in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 53.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—
      (12) The person liable to pay the standard community charge in respect of any premises in respect of a financial year shall be entitled to recover from any person to whom he lets or sub-lets the premises or whom he permits to occupy them an amount equal to the portion of that standard community charge which, calculated by apportionment on a daily basis, accords to the number of days in that year for which the premises are let, sub-let or occupied by that other person (and such an amount is referred to in this section as a "standard community charge contribution").

      (a) shall be in addition to any obligation of his to make other payments (whether by way of rent or otherwise) in respect of the premises in respect of which that contribution is made;

      (b) is not affected by any enactment relating to the control or restriction of any such other payment, and shall not, for the purposes of any such enactment, be regarded as such a payment or part thereof.'.

      This amendment will improve the provision to be proposed in the standard community charge to be payable in respect of second homes and similar property where
      994
      there is no sole or main resident by putting it beyond doubt that the person liable for the standard community charge may recover contributions towards that charge from tenants and others, such as holiday visitors, whom he permits to occupy the premises for short periods.
      Where the tenancy or any sub-tenancy runs for a continuous period of more than 12 months, the tenant or sub-tenant will become liable for the standard community charge on the assumption that the property remains a second home and has not become his own sole or main residence.
      The provision of the amendment will allow tenants with shorter tenancies or informal occupation arrangements to be required to make some contribution towards the standard community charge for which the owner, or long-term tenant of the premises is liable. It is right that there should be some provision to that effect since people who occupy premises of that sort for short holiday lets and similar arrangements will be making use of local authority services during the period of their residence.
      The amendment makes it clear that, like the collective community charge provided for under clause 13, payments should be in addition to and not part of any rent or similar payments made by tenants or occupiers and they will not come within the control of the Rent Acts. However, the amount payable will be restricted to the proportionate amount of the standard community charge relating to the period for which the premises are let.
      Mr. Maxton: I find this a rather interesting amendment and one in which I have to declare a personal interest as someone who, for six weeks of the year, rents a cottage on the island of Arran. As I understand it, the owners of that or any other cottage in similar circumstances, certainly on islands off the west coast of Scotland and elsewhere. where the owner normally lives in the cottage for eight months of the year and lets it for the other four months, will be liable to a charge for those four months. They have a personal community charge based on that being their sole and main residence. Along with everybody else, they pay that personal community charge and nothing but that charge.
      We are not considering a second home here—at least I do not think that we are, although I do not understand the exact position. It is not a second home, and a personal community charge is payable on that house. However, the owners move out for four months of the year and are entitled to charge me or any one else who uses the house for part of the community charge for the period during which we use the services of the local authority. The owners will be able to offset some of their own personal community charge. This is a very difficult position. Is it not a second home when the owners are living somewhere else?
      Many of these owners have a but-and-ben at the back of the house into which they move. Which property is the owner paying the charge on? I do not think that the Minister has clarified how the charge is paid. The more appropriate way to deal with the matter would be to consider that property for the four months of the year in question as a non-domestic property and it could be charged accordingly.
      Mr. Lang: The amendment is to clause 12 which relates to the:
      "Liability for and calculation of standard community charge."

      995
      I made clear in introducing the amendment that it adds new provisions to allow for the recovery by persons liable for the standard community charge. It does not relate to the personal community charge.
      Mr. Maxton: I still think that the Minister has not completely cleared up the whole position of—
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman does not understand.
      Mr. Maxton: Yes, I understand exactly what the Minister said. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is trying to be his usual shallow clever self.
      Ministers still have not cleared up the position with regard to holiday homes which are first homes which are then sub-let. It is not at all clear where that fits in. When I go to Arran now I am not sure whether I will get a bill separately itemised to cover the time that I used local services. Do I pay nothing towards those services? If I rented on a commercial basis from someone letting a second home, I would be paying something towards the local services. However, if I take a house from someone for whom that house is the normal first home, I will contribute nothing. This is a very confusing position. I do not believe that the Minister is clear about it.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. Does he realise that in the circumstances that he has described the probability is that the individual letting his permanent home for the period as a holiday home is probably not declaring that income for income tax purposes?
      Mr. Maxton: That is a completely separate matter. The hon. Gentleman is saying that not only will they receive their personal community charge rebated by charging that person for letting the house, but will also not pay income tax. Obviously, that is a matter for the courts to test, but I do not believe that that happens, and it is a smear on the people from whom I rent the house as they are my friends.
      Under the proposals, will someone who owns a cottage or a house as a second home and allows friends to use that house have to charge his friends? I suppose he will not have to. However, the Government have got themselves into a mess on the whole question of the standard community charge and second homes. They do not know what they are doing. They have not worked it out. If they had wanted to introduce a personal community charge they would have done better to leave second properties within the non-domestic sector and charged rates upon them. That would have been a better way of handling the position. However, because of the Government's dogma in terms of introducing a community charge, they have failed to do that.
      Mr. Henderson: Fife regional council has made a small administrative point, which may more appropriately be raised in relation to the next group of amendments, but which relates to clause 12(8) as well as to clause 13(8). That is the determination of the multiplier. Fife regional council asks that the multiplier should be restricted to two decimal points. I put this hesitantly, because I think that it is within the power of the local authority to determine the multiplier, but I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's reassurance on the matter.
      Mr. Lang: I am not sure how my hon. Friend's inquiry relates to this amendment. I should be happy to discuss with him the operation of the standard community charge multiplier, but it does not apply in the context of this amendment, and I might be ruled out of order if I developed that theme. However, I shall discuss it with him later.
      11.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is debating the wrong problem in the wrong circumstances, because what he is worried about is not what we are debating or what the amendment provides. In answer to his question about the owner of a holiday home having to charge friends to use it, I should say that there is no obligation to charge friends in this context, but if the holiday home is subject to the standard community charge, the provision would enable the owner to recover that part of the charge that was quantifiable in proportion to the number of days for which the property was let. But if he was lending the house to someone, it is unlikely that he would do that.
      It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances and the arrangements into which he enters in Arran. Suffice it to say that, if the property that he occupies is owned by a person who is liable to pay the standard community charge on it, the provisions of the amendment would apply, but not otherwise.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 13

      LIABILITY FOR AND CALCULATION OF COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY CHARGE
      Amendment made: No. 56, in page 11, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert—
      '(4) The person liable to pay the collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be—

      (a) subject to paragraph (b) and (c) below, the owner of the premises;

      (b) subject to paragraph (c) below, if the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, the tenant; or

      (c) if the premises have been sub-let for such a period, the sub-tenant,

      and that liability shall, in the case of a tenant or sub-tenant be in respect of the period of his tenancy or, as the case may be, sub-tenancy.'.—[Mr. Lang.]
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 11, line 34, leave out from 'in' to end of line 35 and insert
      'the register as having effect in relation to the premises'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 86.
      Mr. Lang: The purpose of these amendments is purely technical.
      Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 13 relate to the calculation of the total amount payable by way of collective community charge in respect of any premises in respect of any financial year. Subsection (7) provides the basic method of calculation. It says simply that the amount due is the personal community charge times the multiplier. Subsection (8) deals with what happens when the multiplier changes : it provides that in those circumstances the amount due for the year can be calculated at any point in time on the basis that there will be no further changes in the multiplier for the rest of the

      997
      year. Taken together, the two provisions will enable the local authority to calculate at any moment how much an individual liable for the collective charge is still due to pay, and to issue demand notes accordingly for the remainder of the year. Clause 21(c) deals with the fact that the multiplier specified in the register has having effect is to be conclusive.
      The amendments do nothing to change that basic approach. They simply recognise that, under clause 17, amendments to the register can be made with retrospective, immediate or prospective effect, so there is the possibility that the existing terminology used— the multiplier
      "specified in relation to the premises in the register"
      —may not be sufficiently precise. The effect of the amendments is to make it clear that the figure which is to be used in the calculation in respect of any period of time and the figure which is to be conclusive, is the multiplier which has effect in relation to that period of time.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 11, line 37 leave out from first 'in' to 'is' and insert
      'the register as having effect in relation to any premises'.
      No. 59, in page 11, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert
      'new multiplier shall remain in effect in relation to those premises from the date when it takes effect until the end of the year.'.—[Mr. Lang.]
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 12, line 15 after 'situated', insert 'which'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 61.
      Mr. Lang: These are purely drafting amendments designed to ensure that there is no confusion within subsection (11) of clause 13 about the calculation of the collective community charge contribution.
      As the subsection stands, the collective community charge is defined as a portion of the amount of the personal community charge calculated by apportionment on a daily basis according to the number of days for which the individual liable to pay is resident in premises subject to the collective charge. The parliamentary draftsman considers that it is more precise to change the wording so that lines 15 and 16 read,
      "which, calculated by apportionment on a daily basis, accords to the number of days for which he is so resident.".
      This new terminology makes no difference at all to the policy intention or intended effect of the subsection and the changes are necessary simply to make the drafting more precise. The form of words which would result from these amendments is the same as new subsection (12) of clause 12 inserted by Government amendment No. 54 a little earlier.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 61, in page 12, line 16, leave out 'according' and insert 'accords'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 12, line 45, at end insert—
      '(17) A person to whom there has been paid, by way of a collective community charge contribution, any sum which (for whatever reason) is not due shall repay that sum.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 138.
      Mr. Ancram: Concern was expressed in Committee about the possibility that an individual might find himself
      998
      in double jeopardy as a result of the operation of the collective community charge provisions. The argument, if I can summarise it, ran as follows.
      The collective community charge is payable in respect of premises that are used as the sole or main residence by the people who live there but whose residence is so transient that individual registration is not a practical proposition. The amount of the collective community charge is to be based on a multiplier, determined by the registration officer taking into account the number of people who use the premises as their sole or main residence. Views were expressed in Committee that the registration officer might set the multiplier too high, thereby placing pressure on landlords to recover collective community charge contributions from the highest possible proportion of their residents and that that might lead to undue pressure on those residents to pay the contribution even if they were, and continued to be, liable for and paying the personal community charge somewhere else. In practice, we do not think that the registration officer will act unreasonably in that way. We expect there to be a process of negotiation between landlords and registration officers and that if, for example, the landlord can demonstrate that the multiplier was too high in some part of the year there will be room for some give and take to ensure that, broadly speaking, the amount that he is due to pay for the year as a whole comes out about right.
      There may be a more real fear that a small number of landlords will routinely seek to recover collective community charge contributions from all their residents, thereby hoping to make a profit. They will be required to keep records and issue receipts, and the residents may well be applying to the local authority for rebates, so it is unlikely that the registration officer will remain in ignorance of the situation for long, and he will then be able to adjust the multiplier.
      We accept, however, that where hard cases arise it is important to ensure that individual residents have proper rights of redress and that is why this provision is being written in, following the comments made in Committee. It ensures that an individual who pays a personal community charge contribution to his landlord in circumstances where he was not liable to do so can recover it from the landlord. That point was specifically raised in Committee. Where an individual has difficulty in doing so, he would be able to take the case to the sheriff who will, under the new system, be the avenue of appeals in relation to other community charge matters and will be well placed to deal with such cases.
      Amendment No. 138 puts it beyond doubt that, in the more general case where payments have been made by way of community charge but were not, in fact, due, the levying authority should repay the sum in question. Such circumstances could arise, for instance, where a successful appeal had been brought against registration for liability for any of the community charges. Again, some concern was expressed in Committee that the provisions of the Bill as drafted would not in fact allow levying authorities to repay money in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will remember the representations that were made. These amendments put the matter beyond doubt. They are useful amendments and I hope that the House will accept them.
      Mr. Maxton: I welcome the amendments because they go some way towards solving the problems that we raised

      999
      in Committee. We made those problems clear in Committee but they were largely pooh-poohed as being irrelevant, unnecessary and every other word that the Minister could find. He made no suggestion in Committee that he was prepared to consider amendments such as this.
      Mr. Ancram: That is ungracious.
      Mr. Maxton: Yes, I am ungracious because that was the Minister's attitude throughout the Committee stage. If he expects me to start being gracious now, he can think again. These are welcome provisions. However, I am not quite sure how individuals will be traced or what obligation there is on an owner to ensure that people are traced and the money repaid. Perhaps we shall have to find that out by due practice.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 14

      COMMUNITY CHARGES REGISTRATION OFFICER
      Amendment made: No. 66, in page 13, line 5, at end insert—
      '(3) A regional or islands council may appoint such additional number of depute registration officers as they consider necessary to enable the registration officer to perform his functions under this Act, and any depute registration officer so appointed shall have all the functions of a registration officer.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 15

      COMMUNITY CHARGES REGISTER
      Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 13, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
      '(1) There shall be two community charges registers for each registration area. The public register shall specify.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following : Government amendment No. 70.
      Amendment No. 71, in page 13, line 38, at end insert
      'The private register shall specify such other matters as may be prescribed.'.
      Amendment No. 72, in page 13, line 39, leave out paragraph (e).
      Mr. Home Robertson: This proposal would provide for two separate sets of information for the poll tax register. There will inevitably be a mass of peripheral information associated with the register, some of which should be treated as confidential. The sort of points I have in mind are whether a person has a second house or another address, whether someone is a student, whether someone is in hospital, whether someone is in prison and, indeed, the date of birth of the person concerned. That is not the sort of material one would want to see on a publicly available register. It would be useful if the Minister could acknowledge that such peripheral information could be maintained as confidential information.
      Included in this group of amendments is the Government's intriguing amendment No. 70 which states :
      "Page 13, line 34 [Clause 15], at end insert—
      '(d) in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth;'."
      I would be grateful if the Minister can take this opportunity to say what is meant by a "natural person"
      1000
      and whether there are any unnatural persons in Scotland for the purposes of this legislation or anything else. Will he also say if, whether they are natural or not, he would want their birthdays to appear on the public register?
      Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was right to say that there are some details relating to the entries in the register which are confidential and which it would not be desirable to disclose. His approach to the matter is somewhat different from the Government's.
      These amendments appear to be designed to establish what registration details for community charge purposes should be made public and what should not. These matters are dealt with in clause 22 rather than in this clause. I must first explain that, while we accept that some parts of the register should be open to public inspection and others should not, we consider that it would be an unduly inflexible approach to specify that there should be two separate registers. Instead, the approach embodied in clause 22 allows for a single register which is available for inspection to different degrees depending on the need and desirability for different categories of people to have access to different parts of the register. We envisage that the names and addresses contained in the register should be available for public inspection. That is right, since it is in the general public interest that a public record should be available for all those who are liable to pay any of the community charges : for the same reasons, the valuation roll is at present open to public inspection.
      These amendments would, however, extend the scope of the public register by allowing it to reveal also which of the community charges was payable by each person, and the date of each person's liability. We do not consider that it is necessary for these details to be publicly available. It would, indeed, be positively dangerous for details of which community charge was payable by each person to be publicly available, since that would allow anyone to establish clearly where a standard community charge was payable, and, therefore, where houses could be found which were likely to be empty for considerable periods. That would come very close to being a burglars' charter, and for that reason, if for no other, we cannot support the amendments.
      The contents of the register which we envisage being prescribed under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) includes such points as whether a person is a student for the purposes of clause 10(4) and (5), and whether child benefit is payable in respect of any person listed in the register. We shall be considering in due course, in consultation with local authority interests, what other details need to be specified in the register. But we are clear that the power of prescription will not be used to add further details which will be publicly available. Clause 22(2)(a) clearly sets out the restriction on the public availability of information, and the power of prescription will not be able to change that.
      Amendment No. 70 stems from further consideration of the requirements for the detailed content of the register. In this we have been assisted by the views of local authority practitioners as expressed through the Rating and Valuation Associations rating forum.
      It has been pointed out to us that in order to assist the identification of individuals it would be desirable for the register to record in all cases the date of birth of people who are liable to pay any of the community charges. In the

      1001
      simplest instance, this would allow people at one address who shared the same name to be clearly distinguished. For instance, there might be three John McTaggarts, father, son and grandson, at a single address and for billing and collection purposes it should be made clear which is which. The information would also be useful to check the identity of a person when he moves from one local authority area to another, otherwise it would be difficult for the registration officer in the new area to be sure that the John McTaggart who was recorded as having arrived in the area—
      It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 13, line 34, at end insert—
      '(d) in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth;'.
      No. 156, in page 13, line 39, at end insert—
      '(1A) There shall not be specified in the register any information relating to a person's liability, by virtue only of section 10(6) of this Act, for a personal community charge.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 17

      AMENDMENT OF REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 14, line 17, after 'that', insert—
      '(a) the maximum period for which an amendment can be made with retrospective effect is three years; and
      (b)'.
      No. 74, in page 14, line 19, leave out from 'premises' to the end of the subsection and insert
      'shall be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed. after the date when the current entry is made or takes effect, whichever is later.'.
      No. 75, in page 14, line 27, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 18

      REGISTRATION APPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 76, in page 14, line 46, leave out from 'who' to 'to' in line 48 and insert 'is registered in the register as being liable.'.
      No. 77, in page 15, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
      '(a) against any entry or amendment of an entry in the register in respect of his liability to pay any of the community charges,'.
      No. 78, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'the sheriff' and insert—
      'any sheriff of any sheriffdom which wholly or partly falls within the registration area.'.
      No. 79, in page 15, line 21, leave out from 'sheriffdom' to the end of the subsection and insert
      'which wholly or partly falls within any of the registration areas.'.
      No. 80, in page 15, line 32, at the beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (7A) below'.
      No. 81, in page 15, line 35, at end insert—
      '(7A) Where a person is registered as being liable to pay the personal community charge in two or more registers and he has appealed against one or more registration, he shall be required to pay only the personal community charge relating to the first registration made, pending the determination of the appeal.'.
      No. 82, in page 15, line 39, leave out '18(3)' and insert '18'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 19

      DUTIES IN RELATION TO REGISTRATION
      Amendments made: No. 83, in page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (5) to (12).
      No. 162, in page 16, line 22, leave out 'responsible'.
      No. 163, in page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 164, in page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (9).—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 20

      OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS
      Amendments made: No. 84, in page 17, line 42, leave out
      'and may request the registration officer to amend the entry.'.—[Mr Ancram.]

    Clause 21

      EFFECT OF REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 18, line 27, at the beginning insert
      'Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and 29 of this Act,'.
      No. 86, in page 18, line 33, leave out from the beginning to 'in relation' in line 34 and insert
      'specified in the register as having effect'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 22

      INSPECTION OF REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 157, in page 19, line 8, leave out paragraph (d).
      No. 87, in page 19, line 38, after 'copy', insert
      '(other than a copy made available for sale under subsection (4) above)'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Housing (Bradford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
12.2 am
Mr. Max Madden: Tonight in Bradford, families have gone to bed in 32,000 homes that are in need of major renovation. There are about 8,000 men, women and children on the council's waiting list. In 5,000 so-called homes without running water, an inside toilet or a bathroom, people wonder how much longer they will have to endure such conditions. Hundreds of tenants with children have been rehoused after being moved from homes that were structurally defective.
There are thousands of council tenants whose homes are in urgent need of modernisation and repair, and there are tenants anxiously awaiting a transfer. The homeless are being shunted around poor bed and breakfast hotels, hostels and other poor accommodation. Thousands of low-income owner occupiers desperately want improvement grants to provide their homes with basic amenities. Elderly people, single people and families and private tenants in multi-occupation accommodation are living in conditions which are often dangerous, and those people often face harassment and extremely poor living conditions.
These stark and simple facts spell out the gravity of Bradford's housing crisis. About 7,000 council homes in Bradford have been sold, and building programmes come nowhere near replacing the homes that have been sold. The local newspaper, the Telegraph and Argus, in a dramatic series of articles last December, printed the figures for new house starts and completions in Bradford, and they clearly show the decline in building in the city.
In 1977–78 there were 975 starts in local authority building, and in each year since then the number has fallen. The figures are: 998, 297, 290 and in 1981–82 there were no starts whatever. In 1982–83 there were 42, in 1983–84 there were 59, in 1984–85 there were 45 and in 1985–86 there were just 50. For most of that period, certainly since the beginning of this decade, the local authority was under the control of a Conservative, SDP-Liberal alliance. The city's population is increasing dramatically and authoritative forecasts say that by 1996 we shall need to provide homes for an extra 11,000 people.
The latest estimates are that we need to build 1,400 houses a year in addition to the normal building level.
Bradford needs more money from the Government to build more new homes and to make more improvement grants available to improve and renovate older homes. We need agreement from the Government to spend more of the money received from the sale of council homes and land so that Bradford can spend more of its money on better housing provision in the city. Bradford needs permission to use private finance, for example from building societies, to finance the building of new homes and the renovation of older homes, many of which are well-built and large. They represent desirable accommodation for larger families and could help to regeneate the inner city and persuade more people to stay in the city.
I much regret that the Prime Minister recently refused my request to meet a broadly based deputation, which consisted of the city council, the chamber of commerce, the trades council, the university and the ethnic minority
1004
organisations, to discuss the full range of the city's problems, including our housing crisis. Had the Prime Minister agreed to the meeting, she would have heard that, in parts of Bradford, it now costs more to build a new home than the price at which that new property may be sold. A three-bedroomed semi-detached house in Manningham would now cost at least £10,000 more to build than the price at which it could be sold. That is the major deterrent to any developer—public or private—building new homes in inner-city Bradford.
When I wrote to the Prime Minister to request the meeting I explained the difficulties that Bradford faced in providing homes for its people. On 23 February the Prime Minister replied:
"As in 1986/87, Bradford's initial HIP allocation may be supplemented by additional allocations for schemes on rundown council estates drawn up in conjunction with the Department of the Environment's Estate Action team. In 1986/87 Bradford has received additional approvals for Estate Act schemes amounting to £2·4 million and I would expect the Council to look to this opportunity to supplement is housing allocation again in 1987/88."
That is welcome, but it is wholly insufficient to meet the problems that we face.
The total dependence in Bradford on free market forces creates monstrous obstacles to our people's ability to live in the inner cities in either council or private homes that they can afford to rent or in homes that they can afford to buy.
The verdict of the market place on property values reflects many factors—levels of employment, levels of economic activity and levels of economic prosperity. Bradford and many of its people are extremely poor. One in five of my constituents are unemployed, and in parts of the district unemployment soars to 50 or 60 per cent. A third of the population are in receipt of benefit. Workers in west Yorkshire receive the lowest pay of any region in the United Kingdom.
Hence, on a day when we hear that property prices have increased by record amounts in London and the south-east, and Conservative Members in the south are protesting about property development in their plush and prosperous areas, I must come to the House to tell the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction that in inner-city Bradford houses now cost more to build than the price at which they can be sold. So much for the north-south divide. It is in housing that that divide is most grotesque.
A sensible, caring, compassionate Government with genuine concern about our people's quality of life would recognise that they must intervene in the market if families in Bradford will be able to live and hopefully work in the inner city. If all our people are to be properly housed, the Government must be forced out of their uncaring complacency.
At Question Time today a visitor from Mars, having listened to Ministers, might be forgiven for thinking that our housing crisis could be solved if only councils let every empty house, rent controls were swept away and hundreds of hostels were provided for the homeless. We desperately need new thinking, new ideas and new approaches. Above all, we need homes for the homeless and good homes for all those living in desperate housing need. We must urgently devise new ways of funding inner-city housing. Local councils should no longer be in the straitjacket of annual housing programmes with the 60-year loans and conventional interest rates.

1005
Why cannot there be some new machinery such as a revamped Public Works Loan Board, offering finance at preferential interest rates for new building and renovation? It would require a dynamic and flexible approach, working in full partnership and co-operation with local councils. A decent home, at a rent or price that can be afforded, is surely a modern right, as central to any civilised society as the right to work, to food and warmth, to free health and to universal education. Far too many of my constituents and other citizens of Bradford are living in rotten housing conditions and have no work. Because they are forced to stay in a lot, their electricity and gas bills are extremely high. Many have their fuel supplies disconnected because of arrears that they are unable to pay. Their children go to schools that are crumbling and in some cases literally falling down. Illness, nervous stress and marriage break-ups are becoming of increasing concern.
Many of these people hear the chairman of the Conservative party tell them to get on their bikes and go to where the work is. Those who do find work away usually cannot find anywhere in which they can afford to live. Today, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his laid-back way, advised the homeless in London to move north, to where there are plenty of empty homes available. My constituents want to live and work in Bradford. They want a decent home and a decent pay packet. Far too many of them, alas, now have neither.
Everybody but the Government sees that spending much more on investing in building new homes and improving older homes makes good sense. It gives people better homes and it provides work directly for builders, plumbers and electricians, and for others indirectly—for example, all those who work in providing building supplies and materials. Already, in Bradford there is concern that when the building programme starts, there will be serious skill shortages, which will hold back progress.
Tonight, as thousands of my constituents spend another night in overcrowded, cold, damp and dingy homes, I hope that the Minister will give those people some hope. I hope that he will engage in a genuine debate and seriously address the issues that I have raised regarding the housing crisis now gripping Bradford.
I began by referring to an excellent series of articles in the Telegraph and Argus. The editorial coming at the end of that series said :
"If Bradford makes about £8 million in a year by selling council houses, land and other assets, it should be allowed to spend the lot building new houses—not restricted to just 20 per cent. of it per year.
Surely this would be one way of injecting the local economy with funds, creating much-needed work for the construction industry. Bradford urgently requires new houses, and the updating of several thousand pre-1919 properties.
Lastly, thousands of houses in the private sector need to be improved and modernised. Unless they are, they will quickly be degenerating into slums. If that happens Bradford's crisis will be even worse, requiring vastly much more money than is the case at present.
Surely, cutting improvement grants back to the bone is false economy: whatever short-term savings on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement are made now will only cause much greater long-term expense in the future."
That is the authentic voice of concern about the housing crisis in Bradford.
I ask the Minister, rather than giving a litany of the shortcomings of the last Labour Government, which is the predeliction of so many Conservative Ministers when replying to debates such as this, to address himself to the
1006
problems of the past and the challenge of the future. I hope that he will have something positive to say, and will be able to give my constituents and the other citizens of Bradford who are now worried and desperately anxious about their housing conditions, some hope of better things to come.
12.14 am
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for initiating the debate on housing in Bradford as it provides me with an opportunity to outline the housing policy of the Government as it applies in an inner-city authority such as Bradford. I am glad to have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech; I am equally glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who are showing their characteristic interest in housing matters in the area.
We are well aware of the housing problems in Bradford; they have not sprung up overnight; neither have they sprung up since 1979. We have annual housing investment programme meetings between our Yorkshire and Humberside regional office and the city council. My Department's Estate Action team has visited Bradford no fewer than six times in the last 18 months. I went to Bradford in March 1986. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), visited the city on 12 November and 14 December 1986. Alas, only ill-health has prevented him from being here tonight to answer the debate. I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery so that he can take his accustomed place at the Dispatch Box answering Adjournment debates such as this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also recently visited Bradford.
The hon. Gentleman made one very interesting suggestion that we should look, root and branch, at the way in which we fund housing in the public sector. That is a massive topic and is not suitable, in any great detail, for discussion in an Adjournment debate, but the hon Gentleman has made some interesting points. The way that we respond depends on our view of the future role of councils in the provision of housing.
That having been said, in the short term I do not think that there will be much change in the next few years. I do not think that we could reform the way in which local authority housing is funded so that, instead of being limited, for example, in the amount that they can spend each year they would be able to plan programmes over a period of years. We recognise how important it is that local authorities should run their capital programmes efficiently and cost-effectively, but nonetheless the management of the economy and the control of public expenditure—something that we hear a lot about from the Opposition Front Bench—depend on the Government being able to review the position and take the most appropriate action on capital expenditure, on matters such as housing, on a year-to-year basis.
Capital expenditure on housing is a large part of the total capital expenditure of local authorities and a significant proportion of total public expenditure. It would be difficult, under the present system, to commit the Government, more than about a year in advance, to a view about how much can be spent on housing in a given year at any one time. That is a superficial glance at the interesting topic that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is of general interest.

1007
I shall turn now to the funding of housing and housing development in the country and in Bradford. Nationally, we have increased — despite the impression that Opposition Members would give us — the gross provision for local authority housing capital expenditure by £200 million in the current year to £2,532 million—an increase of 9 per cent.
On 7 November 1986 I announced a further increase in the provision of £390 million up to a total of £2,922 million for 1987–88—an increase of 15 per cent. in provision for housing. I also announced that allocations through Estate Action—what used to be known as the urban housing renewal unit—would be increased from £50 million in the current year to £75 million next year. Some significant investment through Estate Action has and will be flowing into Bradford, thanks to the Government's action. There will be a reserve allocation of some £14 million for authorities with special difficulties implementing housing defects legislation — a matter which has not been the subject of much discussion today.
Bradford has done relatively well out of the housing investment programme allocation recently. For 1987–88, its HIP allocation is £12·903 million of the initial resources available for allocation in Yorkshire and Humberside. That is 11·6 per cent. of the region's allocation, which is an increase on its share this year. That is some recognition of its problems.
Bradford also has its share of capital receipts. I estimate that about £5 million should be available. Bradford could therefore have a programme of £18 million or a little more in the coming year.
Bradford's share of the region's allocation has been well in excess of that indicated by the generalised needs index, on which many of our calculations are based. It could, however, show more interest in applications for urban development grant, which can be used for housing. I do not think that Bradford has been as forthcoming as other northern Labour-controlled authorities which have been keen on urban development grant, sometimes to solve certain housing needs.
The hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North have many minority communities with larger than average families. In ideal circumstances, they would have a four or five bedroom house. Other Labour-controlled authorities in the north have encouraged development with private developers using urban development grant to provide housing for such people. That is an important trend.
Mr. Geoff Lawler: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) talked of low house values in Bradford, which are a problem. Urban development grant can be used to make it worth while for private developers to develop. Bradford's Labour-controlled council has occasionally not been very enthusiastic about that, but Sloane square in the hon. Gentleman's constituency shows the go-ahead nature of the scheme and the Government's determination to do something about inner-city housing.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When used well, urban development grant can bridge the gap between profitability and impracticability.
1008
The visits by Estate Action have produced substantial benefits for Bradford. The Department's priority estate project consultants are working closely with Bradford and establishing how they can help with housing management.
The picture is not as bleak as the hon. Member for Bradford, West implied. When I was in Bradford last March, I announced approval of a package of measures at the Holmewood B estate involving the establishment of a local estate office and an additional HIP allocation of £1·2 million in this year alone for new doors, windows, heating systems and an external insulation system for the walk-up blocks of flats. We also approved a community refurbishment scheme to improve the environment of the estate, involving the expenditure of about £685,000 from the urban programme and £855,000 from the Manpower Services Commission's community programme. We are employing estate-based persons to do up the estates in which they live, a concept that I think we would all consider to be thoroughly agreeable. A high proportion of those working at the Holmewood estate have been recruited from it. That shows how we can begin to target resources on problem areas and improve the employment picture in the area as well. The Government are determined to try to continue implementing that approach, the fruits of which can be seen already. We have tried to create job opportunities through the community refurbishment scheme and there has been a noticeable decrease already in the number of tenants who wish to transfer away from the estate. This form of intensive management is the way in which to turn estates around.
In December, I approved two further schemes at the Hutson street estate and the Woodhouse estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. These schemes involve an additional HIP allocation amounting to £1·2 million in the current year for environmental and security works and new windows. Of the £50 million of expenditure through estate action nationally in 1986–87, no less than 30 per cent. has been directed to the improvement of security for those living in large estates of the sort to which I have referred.
The Woodhouse scheme involves the opening of a local housing management office on the estate, which is something that should be welcomed widely.
Mr. Gary Waller: In the past, areas such as Bradford and Keighley have not been well served by the building of massive impersonal estates. With the assistance of the sort of money that is flowing for the Woodhouse estate, and through co-operation between the local authority, the police and the tenants, who have formed their own groups, there is a feeling among the tenants that they have a stake in the community and that co-operation bodes well for the future.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. I think that there is all-party agreement that none of us wants to see any more of these large estates built again. That makes me so chary of suggestions and requests for large sums to be expended to solve overnight, as it were, the problems of a particular city. That approach is mistaken. The approach that we wish to take through estate action is the best one. I say that because it is based on the community, related to the community and involves the community, and that is critical.
Mr. Madden: It is right that none of us wants to see a return to the system building of the 1960s and 1970s. Does

1009
the Minister accept, however, the population projections which I gave in my opening remarks? If he does, how are we to provide decent homes for the many who will be seeking them in future? We must take into account also the many thousands who are now living in urgent housing need. There are demands for enormous sums to be expended, but that does not mean necessarily a return to system building. It means instead a major programme of housebuilding and home improvement.
Mr. Patten: We recognise the need to help Bradford city, and I have referred to the dilapidated and rundown estates that went wrong. It would be wrong for me to attribute blame to any one political party. Governments and councils of all political parties must share the blame.
I have the great disadvantage of knowing a little about population projections. I am bound to say that I used to give rather good lectures on the subject at the university
1010
of Oxford. Few of the projections of population increases or decreases of even 10 or 15 years have been correct because of the mobility of the society in which we live. I do not believe that we can have firmly based projections of the population of Bradford or anywhere else in the year 2000. At the same time, I recognise that Bradford's population is increasing.
This has been a rather lively debate by normal Adjournment standards and I must tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to get well soon and return to enjoy debates of this sort on the Adjournment. We have had a useful discussion, but it is unfortunate that I have not had the chance to list the many schemes that we have funded, or will fund, in our attempts constructively to help Bradford with the housing problems that it faces.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
ENERGY
  Nuclear Materials
  Nuclear Materials
  Industrial Costs
  Industrial Costs
  Coal Industry (Subsidence Costs)
  Coal Industry (Subsidence Costs)
  Offshore Safety
  Offshore Safety
WALES
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
PRIME MINISTER
  Fishing Vessel (Accident)
  Fishing Vessel (Accident)
  Anglo-Soviet Arms Talks
  Anglo-Soviet Arms Talks
  KMS Limited
  KMS Limited
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Diplomats (Protection)
  Diplomats (Protection)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Public Opinion Surveys)
  Metropolitan Police (Public Opinion Surveys)
  Dartmoor Prison (Visitors)
  Dartmoor Prison (Visitors)
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Numbers)
  Liverpool (Visit)
  Liverpool (Visit)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Warheads
  Nuclear Warheads
  Park Vista Site, Greenwich
  Park Vista Site, Greenwich
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Trident
  Trident
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Sir Frank Kitson
  Sir Frank Kitson
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Emissions
  Vehicle Emissions
  Railways (Cambridge-Royston Electrification)
  Railways (Cambridge-Royston Electrification)
  Seat Belts (Coaches)
  Seat Belts (Coaches)
  Fishing Vessels (Accidents)
  Fishing Vessels (Accidents)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
SCOTLAND
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Colleges of Education (Governing Bodies)
  Colleges of Education (Governing Bodies)
  Private Sector Rents
  Private Sector Rents
  Radioactivity (Fish)
  Radioactivity (Fish)
  Crafts in Scotland
  Crafts in Scotland
  Workers Educational Association
  Workers Educational Association
  Scottish Transport Group
  Scottish Transport Group
THE ARTS
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Service Employees
  Public Service Employees
  Civil Service Pay
  Civil Service Pay
  Wales (Public Expenditure)
  Wales (Public Expenditure)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Imperial Tobacco (Takeover)
  Imperial Tobacco (Takeover)
  Diamond Report
  Diamond Report
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Regional Economic Policy
  Regional Economic Policy
  Industry (Public Funds)
  Industry (Public Funds)
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Training
  Training
  Family Expenditure
  Family Expenditure
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Restart
  Restart
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Mental Health (Community Services)
  Mental Health (Community Services)
  Handicapped Children (Medical Services)
  Handicapped Children (Medical Services)
  Social Security Act 1986
  Social Security Act 1986
  West London Hospital
  West London Hospital
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Artificial Limb Fitting
  Artificial Limb Fitting
  National Disability Income
  National Disability Income
  Injuries (Animal Attacks)
  Injuries (Animal Attacks)
  Medical Equipment
  Medical Equipment
  Energy Saving
  Energy Saving
  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Premature Births
  Premature Births
  Raptors
  Raptors
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Towers Hospital, Leicester
  Towers Hospital, Leicester
  Regional Secure Units
  Regional Secure Units
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped People
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped People
  Attempted Suicide (Male Unemployed)
  Attempted Suicide (Male Unemployed)
  Nurses
  Nurses
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Payroll Giving
  Payroll Giving
ENVIRONMENT
  Private Vacant Houses
  Private Vacant Houses
  Rent Control
  Rent Control
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Competitive Tendering
  Competitive Tendering
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Leicester (Housing Programme)
  Leicester (Housing Programme)
  Local Authorities (Advertising)
  Local Authorities (Advertising)
  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Water Bill
  Water Bill
  Homeless Households
  Homeless Households
  Rural Sewerage
  Rural Sewerage
  Local Authority Housing Development
  Local Authority Housing Development
  Bathing Beaches
  Bathing Beaches
  Private Sector Rents
  Private Sector Rents
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Local Authority Housing Waiting Lists
  Local Authority Housing Waiting Lists
  Northern Region (Dereliction)
  Northern Region (Dereliction)
  Basildon (Tenants)
  Basildon (Tenants)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Soil Erosion
  Soil Erosion
  Secure Tenants (House Purchase)
  Secure Tenants (House Purchase)
  Rivers
  Rivers
  Local Authorities (Contracts)
  Local Authorities (Contracts)
  Single People (Acccommodation)
  Single People (Acccommodation)
  Estate Action
  Estate Action
  Anti-fouling Paint
  Anti-fouling Paint
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Creative Accounting
  Creative Accounting
  Rates
  Rates
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Nitrates
  Nitrates
  UK 2000
  UK 2000
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Sizewell
  Sizewell
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Housing Prices
  Housing Prices
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Housing
  Housing
  Water Courses (South Yorkshire)
  Water Courses (South Yorkshire)
  Local Authorities (Fees and Charges)
  Local Authorities (Fees and Charges)

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

BBC Scotland: Search Warrant
Lord Paget of Northampton: 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 have any statement to make about the actions of the Home Secretary, the Lord Advocate and the BBC (Scotland) on 29th and 30th January and thereafter.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): No, my Lords, the events of 29th and 30th January and thereafter, and the actions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and myself, in relation to the search of the BBC Scotland premises in Glasgow have already been explained and discussed in considerable detail in this House or in another place.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, has nothing happened since then? What was seized from the offices? What has happened to it? Has it all been returned to the BBC?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: No, my Lords, the inquiry still continues. I have to remind your Lordships that the material which was removed was so interwoven that it was not possible immediately to disentangle one kind of material from another. Indeed, that was the information given by the BBC to the police and reported to the Procurator Fiscal. It was confirmed by the police on examination of the material. Much of the material relating to the five programmes other than that on Zircon has since been returned to the BBC as a result of a sifting out operation carried out by the police. The police investigations continue and at the conclusion of the investigations the police will make a report to the Procurator Fiscal.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Advocate whether, when he authorised the petition to the sheriff in terms of Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act, he had regard to the provisions of Section 11 of the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975? As the noble and learned Lord knows, that Act abolished the role of the sheriff as an ex-officio justice of the peace. Accordingly, on the basis of what authority in law was the petition presented to the sheriff?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am satisfied that the proper procedure for obtaining a search warrant was followed in this case, involving as it did an application by the Procurator Fiscal to a
622
sheriff, who, as noble Lords will know, is not only legally qualified but is also the holder of a judicial office senior to that of a justice of the peace. He also possesses magisterial powers under common law and statute in relation to the granting of warrants.
The power of a sheriff to grant a search warrant on the application of the Procurator Fiscal has never depended on him being an ex-officio justice of the peace. I am satisfied that the involvement of the Procurator Fiscal and the sheriff in this case was in accordance with established law in Scotland.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not clear that, quite apart from the legalities which confused many of us and certainly confused me, the Government are entirely mistaken on this whole operation, which has brought them nothing but discredit? Should not they admit that and withdraw the whole thing right away?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I made it quite clear when I made a Statement to the House that this is a matter for the law officers and not for the Government. In this they act independently of government, and that was also the case in this instance.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that most of the papers removed by the police from the BBC in Glasgow were sifted through quickly and returned to the BBC? The balance of the papers, so I am informed, was apparently in no way as large in volume as those removed. Therefore, why is it taking so long to sift through those? When will the recommendation be made to the Procurator Fiscal?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, it is true that the police, at the request of myself, sifted through material as quickly as they could in order to be certain of what could be returned properly to the BBC as not being relevant to the investigation they were making and continue to make. The police examination continues, but obviously at this stage I cannot give any indication to the House when it will be completed and when a report will be made to my Procurator Fiscal.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord hazard a guess as to what would have been the reaction of his noble friends on the Government Benches had a trawl of this kind been carried out when a Labour Government were in power? Bearing in mind that we are governed in this country largely by precedent, should we not regard new precedents with grave suspicion?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I hesitate to answer hypothetical questions of the kind which the noble Lord has just asked. However, I am bound to say that this case is only a precedent for showing what is perfectly ordinary procedure; namely, that where a report has been received of an offence of a serious nature having been committed which the prosecuting authorities are bound to take up and investigate, the use of search warrant procedure is a due process of law which it is perfectly appropriate to use, as it was used in this case.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following the last hypothetical question, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether it would be true to say that whatever government were in power and whatever their political persuasion it would still be a decision of the judiciary and the legal representatives, who are completely impartial and independent of any government of whatever party?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. He is absolutely right. I should have expected a law officer of any government to have taken the same independent outlook that I have taken. Such has been the case in the past, and the outlook is one that any holder of my office takes in this kind of matter.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, in his original Answer to my Question the noble and learned Lord said nothing had happened, but since then he has told us that lots of things have happened. Is he surprised to find that my curiosity is unsatisfied? Does he remember the last time we had something of this sort, when a predecessor of his honourable and learned friend—I think it was the Lord Halifax of the day—took out a general warrant to seize the "North Britain" from Mr. Wilkes? He got into a great deal of trouble and received a good many writs and formidable judgments. Have the Government yet received any writ from the BBC, which I know is a soft touch? Surely by now they have received writs from Mr. Campbell.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the warrant that was issued was not a general warrant and no writ has been received from the BBC by any party so far as I am aware. As regards the warrant, noble Lords will be aware that the BBC took action in the English courts in relation to the showing of the Zircon film, but that was a civil action relating to an injunction. I think that the noble Lord will be aware of that.

Road Schemes: Grant Support
2.45 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: 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 how many road schemes will be supported with transport supplementary grant in 1987–88.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in England we aim to support 340 major schemes costing 1 million or more. There are 70 new schemes for 1987–88. As regards the remaining 270, support will be maintained for schemes supported in previous settlements where local authorities continue to make satisfactory progress. In Wales, where the system is rather different, we aim to support 10 schemes costing £5 million or more, one of which is to be supported for the first time in 1987–88.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very informative reply. Is he able to tell the House whether those figures include support for Channel Tunnel-related roads?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have given the Kent County Council an assurance that transport supplementary grants for road schemes made necessary by the tunnel will be additional to the county's main accepted programme. In this settlement we have accepted around 80 per cent. of the county's bid for tunnel-related schemes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment issued a report last autumn on urban road appraisal which was critical of the cost assessment analysis for determining the grant and also of what was alleged to be a bias against urban areas? Have the Government considered that report and other recommendations and when will they be published?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm that the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which was called Urban Road Appraisal, was published in October 1986. It supported the general application of cost benefit techniques and other aspects of trunk road assessment. It recommended ways in which those might be developed to cope with complex urban networks. The Government's response, which was also published in October, accepted the bulk of the committee's recommendations. The report did not identify any consistent bias in present methods. It provides a foundation of broad principles on which to develop and refine appraisal methods for both urban and interurban trunk roads. It also provides some advice which local authorities may find helpful when appraising their own roads. Economic benefits are only one of several factors that the Secretary of State considers when deciding the distribution of transport supplementary grant.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, with reference to the Channel Tunnel-related roads, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans to improve the A.23 route, which is virtually the route from Westminster to the M.23?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer my noble friend now, but I shall write to him.

United States: Arms Sales
2.48 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of evidence that the United States Administration has been preparing to buy Blowpipe missiles from Short Brothers of Belfast in order to pass them to the Nicaraguan Contras, they will henceforth make arms sales to the United States subject to a no-transfer clause.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, no, the Tower Commission report did not suggest that Blowpipe missiles exported to the United States had been or might be diverted to the Contras.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that the Tower Commission reproduces as an annex to its report a document which shows Colonel Oliver North planning to obtain Blowpipe missiles from Shorts and divert them to the Contras? Are the Government aware that the Government of Afghanistan have put on public exhibition a Blowpipe missile which they say they captured from the rebels in their country, and that photographs of that missile have been published in the press? Are the Government further aware that there are quite circumstantial reports of Blowpipes being in the hands of Jonas Savimbi and his forces in Angola? If any of these reports are right, where do the Government think the missiles came from other than from the United States?
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that supplementary question by saying that, following publication of the Tower Commission report, the United States Government have assured us that there are no Blowpipes in Contra hands and that there is no US intention to supply Blowpipe to the Contras.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what procedures exist to ensure that arms exported from this country are used for the purposes specified? Can she further say a word about the company based in London known as KMS? Are Her Majesty's Government aware of the activities of that company and are they engaged in arms sales abroad?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that it is not our practice to discuss details of arms sales. So far as the KMS company is concerned, of course it is a commercial organisation.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, despite the secrecy about arms sales, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a good case for the Government to ensure that arms from this country are not transferred from the recipient country to another territory which, as is suggested in the Question, may well follow a policy of terrorism and intervention?
Baroness Young: My Lords, let me put the answer to the noble Lord's question in this way: the United States Government are fully aware of our views on the diversion of arms to the Contras, and a no-transfer clause would serve no useful purpose. With regard to other no-transfer clauses, it is not the Government's policy to comment on the details of contracts relating to individual arms sales to particular countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to the noble Baroness's reply to me, is she aware that I fully accept her integrity and accept without question what she says, and that I fully accept the Government's integrity in this matter and that they would not allow arms to be sold by this country for what may be regarded as illegal or improper purposes?
626
Nevertheless, is she satisfied that the procedures are adequate to ensure that those arms do not go through the back door in some way without the Government knowing?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord made in the preface to his question, but I should not have answered it if we were not satisfied with the procedures.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the Minister of State fully appreciate that my original Question was not intended to cast doubt on her word or that of the United States Government that no Blowpipes had gone to the Contras? It was to ask if, in view of the presence and free operation for some years of Colonel North in the White House basement, no doubt unknown to the State Department, it would not be a wise precaution to apply no-transfer agreements to the United States as we do to so many other countries?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I think that I answered his question in an earlier point that I made.

AIDS: 1987 Figures
2.52 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 has been the increase in the numbers of people (a) contracting and (b) dying from AIDS in 1987 compared with 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, by the end of January 1987 a cumulative total of 686 cases of persons suffering from the disease had been reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, of whom 355 were known to have died. These figures include 337 new cases reported in 1986 and 153 deaths. In January 1987, 78 new cases of AIDS and 62 deaths were reported.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and congratulate the Government on their way of so explicitly telling the public of the horrors of the disease. I ask her whether her department was expecting the sharp rise in the number of cases during January.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, let me say how appreciative I am of my noble friend's first remarks. The number of cases is doubling every 10 months. We therefore expect each month's figures to be higher than those of the previous month. Other factors related to the method of reporting may have affected the January figures.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given some new and disturbing figures. Can she now explain the serious discrepancy that has occurred in

627
the number of deaths from AIDS reported in 1986? Can she reconcile two official statements made by her department? One was that there were 285 deaths in England and Wales in 1986, and the second was that over the same period there were 220 deaths in England and Wales, where AIDS or a similar term has been mentioned. Is not this matter so important that your Lordships' House and the country should have the facts clearly before them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord may not be aware of a question answered by my honourable friend the Minister for Health on 3rd March in another place which gave the facts as he reported them then. I would merely say that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is currently investigating discrepancies between numbers of deaths from AIDS reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and those shown on death certificates.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, so the noble Baroness accepts that there are serious discrepancies. Has she any idea how long it will take before the country will be allowed to know just how many deaths from AIDS there were in 1986?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to my honourable friend's reply, which is as far as he can go for the present.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, surely the important fact is that the number is approximately doubling every 10 months. My figure for 1986 is 293. That leads us inevitably to the conclusion that if this progression continues we shall have about 20,000 cases in 1991. Although three-quarters of the cases so far have been in the London regions, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government are aware of the rise in other regions, particularly Oxford and the West Midlands, and whether they will be helping those regions to the same extent as they are helping the London regions which are suffering most of the burden at the moment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, three-quarters of all reported cases have occurred in three of the Thames health regions; 96 per cent. of reported cases have occurred in England; 9 in Wales; 16 in Scotland and 2 in Northern Ireland. Local health authorities will use whatever money they feel they should for preventive and caring measures.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, my question was whether the regions which I mentioned will be getting any new money in view of the rising incidence of AIDS in their areas?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have made various moneys available through various bodies. For instance, the MRC, which asked for 14 million, was given it. Worldwide research has been carried out. Where health authorities ask for money, their needs will be considered.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the noble Viscount the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit. But I know that the House would appreciate it if noble Lords would keep their speeches within the limits imposed by the spirit of these short debates.
In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes. As that is a rather meagre ration, to encroach on other speakers' time would be even more unfair. I think I should remind noble Lords that the time is up when the figure 7 appears on the clock and not the figure 8.

Private Bill Procedure
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As your Lordships will recall, on 28th January last this House agreed the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Private Legislation Procedure. The committee has since met and has expressed a wish to appoint specialist advisers. This power is not at present available to it in the terms of the order of the House of 28th January. I understand that this request from the committee to be able to appoint specialist advisers arises from a need to have expert advice to hand on planning inquiries and on the working of parliamentary agents. The Chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr. McNair-Wilson, approached the Lord Privy Seal and me with this request and we consider it to be entirely reasonable. The House of Commons agreed to a Motion on these lines yesterday and I hope that this House will now also agree that the committee has the power that it seeks to appoint specialist advisers.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered and that the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Married Women and Part-Time Work
3 p.m.
Viscount Hanworthrose to call attention to the brain drain of qualified married women who require opportunities for part-time working while looking after their young children; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the third time in some 12 years that I have introduced a Motion

629
on these lines. The only difference today is that I want to stress the potential seriousness of the brain drain. But I am also concerned for women without formal qualifications.
With exceptions, I believe that many women are better wives and parents if they have an interest outside the home. Taking a minimal chauvinist view, most men, when they come back from work, do not solely want to be regaled with conversations about household trivialities. Not only this, but in the more difficult situation today of bringing up a family—with the dangers of drug-taking and much else—a sense of proportion is needed. This can be obtained only if the wife has other, wider interests. I am reminded of the modern German saying to the effect that if you educate a woman you educate a whole family. The educated woman needs mental stimulus as much as anyone else. A successful marriage must surely be a partnership preferably of equals.
We like to think that we have established by legislation equality between the sexes and that this is all we need to do. Some protagonists even seem to believe that the sexes are the same. What nonsense, my Lords! The average woman—and I use the word "average" advisedly—has strengths and potentialities which are not found in most men. They have, however, a rather different temperament, and if we have any relationship with the animal kingdom this should be blindingly obvious.
What is however beyond any dispute is that women who want to found a family, and most do, are put at a grave disadvantage. It is possible of course to have the child, put it into someone else's care and immediately return to work. Some career women do this, but it presupposes that their earnings are well above that of the baby minders they have to employ, and therefore applicable only to a few; but even these few, I think, are probably wrong in doing so in the interest of their children. Some people think that the husband could just as well sacrifice his career as the woman could, but this ignores the maternal instinct and the differences on the average—again I use this term—between the sexes.
On this analysis we have to face a situation where far too many of our highly qualified women never return to their profession. I understand that 50 per cent. of women physicists never return, and that the wastage of women maths and science teachers is twice that of men. The consequences at a time of acute shortage of such teachers is obvious. Not quite so obvious is the shortage of really able people going into industry and commerce. I suspect most noble Lords would agree that this is one important reason for our industrial decline. The other reasons, and there are several, are not appropriate to this Motion. Some industrialists realise, I have been told, that under the right circumstances, married women can bring to their job not only experience but also a maturity and dedication which can be a good example to others. This has been recognised also, I believe, in the field of nursing.
With the now limited number of university and technical college places, we simply cannot afford to lose those who receive this privileged education. But to reduce the number of places available to women, because many do not later contribute to the nation's
630
needs, is unacceptable. Moreover, even if we did this, I fancy that obtaining a balanced input of representative women students would be prejudiced and the problem of the brain drain would still remain.
No, we must look further to see what can be done at least to ameliorate the situation. In the past I have always received the greatest support from noble Baronesses in this House, but not always from those in industry and commerce. For this debate I wrote to some 12 or so of those who might be able to influence the situation and I am really heartened by their responses. Although, in the main, they cannot take part in this debate, they have expressed the wish to read Hansard afterwards.
I have left until last part-time working. It is the essence of this Motion, and its importance is that women who want to look after their children can return as soon as their young children go to morning school. The inevitable time away from work means that they become out of touch with fast-changing technologies, so the shorter the gap the better if they can hope to get back to any responsible position. But even then, retraining courses can be of enormous help. To meet the need there now exist "distance learning" courses which can mainly be taken at home. Short courses too are available.
Professor Daphne Jackson of the University of Surrey, pioneering a scheme for part-time research fellowships in universities for just this purpose, has raised £400,000 from a variety of industrial and charitable sources. It is, I think, generally acknowledged that motivated part-time workers can achieve as much as most others do in a much longer period. It is often argued that part-time working is impossible for employers; this was the attitude held originally in respect of part-time teachers and hospital workers. When staff shortages made part-time recruitment necessary, it was found to work out very well. The same is often said about research, but university lecturers are most certainly ony part-time researchers.
It is at least arguable that many women who are working full time would prefer part-time working if the opportunities were available and the conditions fairer. I conclude for this reason that our massive unemployment need not be a bar to what I am proposing. Not only is it difficult to find worthwhile part-time jobs or to return to work in any position of responsibility, but the terms for part-time work are unsatisfactory and financially unrewarding. I cite three reasons. Travelling any distance to work is expensive and can take a major proportion of the salary; pension provisions are usually disavantageous and unfair; and national insurance and other benefits are reduced in an unacceptable manner.
On the secretary level, I am sure that many managers could reorganise their work so as to employ two part-time-secretaries; perhaps one of really high calibre and a junior as a copy typist. It would very seldom be that both were ill or away at the same time.
Finally, I would like to summarise what I think should be done. First, there should be, over the whole field of employment, more opportunities for part-time working which in some cases may in fact be job sharing. Secondly, the conditions for part-time working should be improved, in particular benefits in

631
respect of pensions and national insurance. Thirdly, there should be even more opportunities for up-dating courses. It is noteworthy that the Westminster Bank has a scheme whereby some married women can return to work after a five-year break on excellent terms. If they can do it, surely others could follow.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we must all be very grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this subject. It is a subject which is rarely discussed in your Lordships' House yet it is one which is of deep significance in the country today. Therefore, it is with some slight regret that I have to say that, as the second speaker, I shall approach it from a completely different angle, leaving other speakers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Seear, who know more about industry and commerce to comment on that aspect. I wish to approach the problem from the point of view of the care of children which enables married women to work.
I believe that the insinuation of the Motion is that the world of industry, commerce and the professions—indeed the whole world of work outside the home—is experiencing a brain drain because married women require opportunities for part-time work while looking after their children. I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I say that I wish that the emphasis of the Motion, while perhaps having the same practical implications, could have underlined the need to prevent the brain drain away from the home, while at the same time emphasising the need to provide part-time work which enriches the mother and enables her to look after the children perhaps in a much more sensible way.
I believe that a balance needs to be struck among the needs of the children, the needs of the mother and the needs of commerce. Unless those three points are looked at together and in balance we shall not achieve the right policy. With regard to that, I wish to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government, who have recognised the needs of married women going out to work part-time but knowing that there are adequate resources in the community to care for their children.
The Under Fives Unit is a national centre for advice, guidance and information on current practice, thinking and research into the under fives field. It was started in May 1986. It is based on the National Children's Bureau and it is funded by the Department of Health and Social Security. It is operating as a separate unit within the National Children's Bureau. Although it is funded by the Department of Health and Social Security, the Secretary of State for Education has visited the bureau within the last fortnight to see, among other things, its work.
If women are to go out to work, whatever else happens, their children's well-being must be safeguarded. Furthermore, if mothers go out to work and the children are not cared for adequately, I suggest that they will not be good workers. Therefore, one must strike the balance, particularly for a mother with very young children, between the children receiving physical care and the sensitive emotional care which requires unhurried time. That means that work and
632
time at home must not be rushed at from one side to the other.
I regret to say that in many areas in this country there are parents who for financial reasons must go out to work full-time, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, will mention that fact. Therefore, it behoves us in this country to look to our children and their needs in this area.
I must say that the training of the people who look after young children leaves much to be desired. The pay of people looking after children in family centres is very poor, and the status of those who give loving care to children, thus enabling parents to go out to work, is valued very low in this country. The relationship between the staff, the child minders, the foster parents or the pre-school workers has not been sufficiently developed. If we are to press for women to have part-time jobs, and if we do not look after their children, it will rebound both on them and on us as a society.
Therefore I take a slightly different stance from the noble Viscount in saying that if we are to have women returning to industry part time, we must ensure that there is a wide range of facilities to meet the needs of the various individuals wanting to go out to work and the needs of the workplace so that it fits in with the children and the parents, ensuring that the children do not suffer and the parents are at ease.
I should like to make two final points. First, by some strange circumstance which I have never understood, in this country we must face the fact that we do not value our children in the way in which they are valued on the Continent. I give two examples. For instance, so valuable do the French consider the relationship between mother and the young child that, where the mother of a child up to the age of two cannot stay at home for financial reasons, she is given an allowance to stay at home to look after her children.
Secondly, there was an EC directive—I served on the Select Committee which considered the directive—which other countries in the EC accepted but this country did not. I say this almost to my shame because I was on the committee. The directive was designed to help both parents at the time children were ill or at the birth of a child. If women are happy to go out to work and if society is to be enriched, we must not sacrifice our children, and the services for the children must meet the needs of both children and parents.
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness and I concur with everything that she has said.
To prove how impartial I am, I shall repeat a story from a book which was written by one of America's most dynamic business women. I am sorry if noble Lords do not like this but it says: "God made the world and he looked down and he said, 'Good'. Then God made man and he looked down and said, 'That is pretty good, but I can do a little better than that'.", so he created woman.
In a week when some people have been discussing whether or not women should be Ministers in the Church, I believe it is appropriate that we should

633
return to a debate in relation to women, for which we are very grateful to the noble Viscount.
I should like to refer to a study which has just been published—I could not get the whole study—by Professor Richard Scase of Kent University. He shows that women still believe that they must make a considered choice between a successful career outside the home and being in the home as a homemaker. For many years I have been in the forefront of the women's movement struggling to achieve equality, as indeed have many of my noble friends. Equality does not mean burning your bra or being called "Madam Chairperson". Equality is something much more definitive. It is the equality of the human being. So I ask myself why, after all these years, should we have to have a debate such as this this afternoon? I noted that the noble Viscount said that men and women are different. All noble Lords know the terrible old French joke—"Thank God for the little difference"! As a teacher, I should like to suggest that there is not the great definable difference between the two sexes that we infer. People divide on their personality and not on their sex and any teacher will tell you that. There are as many intellectual women as there are intellectual men, although you would not think so as the Labour Shadow Cabinet consists of 12 men.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness expect anything intellectual from the Labour Shadow Cabinet?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I will not answer that question. This is a non-party debate in that sense.
You will find as many intellectual men as intellectual women, and you will find as many stupid men as stupid women. This is a fact of life. The percentages are very interesting if noble Lords actually look at them. There is great play made of the physical difference. It is said that women are not as physically strong as men—what total nonsense! If there was a war tomorrow that would be forgotten because there would be a shortage of men, and women would drive the heavy lorries and lift the loads, and do all the things that men do. I would defy any man who has carried £20-worth of shopping, plus a baby on his back, to say that women are physically weaker than males. That is nonsense.
Of course, emotionally women are much stronger. It is the little boys who weep for their mothers when they go to school, it is not the little girls. It is probably the little boys who weep for their mothers when they get married, it is not the little girls who weep for their fathers. The only real difference (and there is nothing we can do about this, thank God!) is the biological difference. The female produces the children.
I have often stirred up an all-women audience. There are certain things which will stir an audience, and one is to say that the best person to bring up a child is not necessarily the natural mother. When I taught in an infants' school, I saw the real natural mothers, invariably they were single women, but they were loving, they loved children, they understood children. We do not ask mothers to have any training. This is one job where nobody asks if you have had any training. If you applied for a job as a typist and said,
634
"I have never handled a typewriter", you would be told to go away and learn. But anyone can perform the most difficult job of bringing up another human being, which is why some people do it so badly. I expect noble Lords to pick up this point.
Children will continue to be born and they need their mother for a period of their lives in a way that cannot be substituted for, and that I accept. There are many important differences from even 50 years ago. As a female it is now possible to choose if you want children, when you want children and how many children you want. I am sure as a Catholic I should not say this, I shall probably have some kind of reprimand from the Pope. I shall always remember my mother, who was a very good Catholic, when I said, "You are not very good, you have only had two children". She said, "The Almighty did not mean me to bring children into the world that I could not support and give a good life". So I felt that she at least knew as much as. the Almighty.
There are some very curious statistics about the average number of children in a family, which is why I am sorry that I am not able to stay for the second debate. In looking up various figures, I learned that at the moment there is an average of 2·14 children to each family, or 1·72—personally, I have never seen 1·72 of a child, but for the purpose of statistics I will agree that they are there. I learned at one of these smart parties, that there is a new breed coming which is called "DINKS"—Double Income, No Kids. Now this breed will probably take the place of the Sloane Rangers. They live mainly in good property and have to have a heavy mortgage and have to live well, so they do not have children.
Quite seriously, we recognise that most families want children—thank Heavens! They want children to love, and to have another human life for which they have some responsibility. I also suspect that given a choice (and this is what it is all about) most women will always prefer to be full-time homemakers, which has to be the most skilful job of all. You have to be wife, mistress, companion, cook, dressmaker—you name it, you have to be everything. It is a very skilful job. But, there is still a large pool of ability and skills among women which is at present being wasted. In our society we waste appallingly, we waste materials, but by Heaven we waste people!
When I attend pre-retirement courses I see people at 60 bright-eyed and bushy tailed who are able to make a contribution to society. What do we do? We put them out to grass, give them a free bus pass and a pat on the head and we say "That's you". It is an appalling waste of talent and skills. This occurs particularly with married women. Let us suppose for argument's sake that a woman is trained to be a biochemist, at which she will be very good and probably gain a first degree. She marries and is then supposed to be a full-time homemaker. She may not be very good at being a homemaker, not every woman is instinctly good at all the skills needed to run a home. Personally, I am not a good cook. I was able to assure my daughter-in-law, who is a good cook, that if my son said to her "You do not cook like my mother", he was paying her a compliment. It is the assumption that every woman is good at this, and every man is good at that, which is not true and is not borne out at all.

635
Let us return to the girl who is a biochemist, this is only one example; there are hundreds. It would be much more sensible and more economic if we were to make it possible for her to return to work so that she could have proper support—and I return to the point made by the noble Baroness—so that she can return to her original career, possibly after an interval, or engage in another career.
During Industry Year there were several references to the brain drain, and it was pointed out that in many professions and in commerce we can no longer afford to waste skills. That is what is happening, skills are being wasted. It is a contradiction that there is unemployment, but there is still a shortage of people trained in certain skills. These are the people that can fill the jobs. Part-time work is probably the best way of re-introducing people into the world of industry and commerce and certainly into some professions. After a few years' absence from work and remaining in the home it is very curious that even brilliant women lose their confidence. I have seen this happen many times. You have to bring them back into the world and say, "Yes, you are as good as anybody else". What is needed? First of all, there is a need for employers to take the initiative. I was delighted to hear from the noble Viscount that he has received letters saying just that. Like the noble Viscount, I was going to quote the Nat-West Bank system which is the only one I have heard of. They have a marvellous scheme whereby a woman employee who leaves to have children can be absent for five years and she would be entitled to return—and this is the important point—at the level at which she left the job or rather, as if she had continued. This is one of the reasons why there are not more young men and women in Parliament. Are they going to opt out for two or three years, at the most five years, and then have to go back at a different level than they would have been at had they remained in that industry? This is particularly true of women. The part-timer would fit in well in this particular scheme, and I think Nat-West, with a little discussion, will probably give us the lead.
What else do we want? Sadly, there are not half enough of the facilities needed for the pre-school children. I have been saying this for something like 25 years. There are still some countries which have hardly any facilities at all—I shall not name them—for pre-school children. This is absolutely appalling. It is the children here one is thinking of. The children get the benefit. Even if the mother is a home maker they still get the benefit of the social contact and education.
We have to have a really mass movement of preschool—whatever you call it; good child-minding, if you like, for the smaller ones—care. We have also to look at the employment conditions if we are to have more part-timers with no bars to promotion because you have been a part-timer; no discrimination between full and part-time when you have redundancy. Certainly it is a little unfair that the employer has to pay so much for a part-time worker in comparison to a full-time worker. That deters many employers from using them. These are points that the Government ought to look at.
Basically, I would appeal to the Government to come up with something imaginative. I would only say
636
to the Minister, just to cheer him up, that I have appealed to other governments—in fact I was a member of a government and tried to appeal to them—but we still have not taken the message that the colossal waste of talent and skills is there. I appeal to the community in general to see this, but particularly to your Lordships today.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, all noble Baronesses speaking this afternoon must feel a distinct sense of déjà vu. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said, we seem to have been saying these things for rather a long time. I shall try not to repeat myself or the remarks of those who have already spoken.
We have made progress in relation to women and the opportunities available to women, and in equality between men and women. A great deal has happened. Let us recognise that before we get too depressed. The one overwhelming problem that still remains which we have done little so far to solve is that upon which we focus today—the problem of the return to work of the woman who has had the break to have a family. It is there that we have made the least advance of all in otherwise not too discouraging progress.
I should like today, instead of indulging in exhortation, which is always a danger, to ask what the Government—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will like this even less than exhortation—are doing as an employer out of all the various suggestions made. I have not given notice of this, so the noble Lord may wish to reply in writing and to put the answers in the Library.
There is no doubt that, in so far as employers up and down the country are concerned, it makes a great difference if they see the Government in their capacity as employer, in the vulgar phrase, putting their money where their mouth is. It is not impressive if the Government are exhorting other people to do things which they themselves are not, to any great extent, doing.
I know that the noble Lord will be able to say that in certain respects the Government are doing something. I hope I shall not be pushing the noble Lord on the defensive, but it would be much more useful—and we want this debate to be useful—if the noble Lord would say quite honestly, "We have attempted this; we have done that; we have not been able to approach other matters", and tell us what they have done, what they hope to do, what has been successful, and what they will experiment with in the future.
This is a serious matter. As other speakers have said, we are wasting a great deal of talent. Good education is expensive, as we all know. There is a great shortage of people in many of the highly-trained occupations, particularly of course in the sciences, maths, physics, and so on. If we were logical—which, of course, we are not—we would either say, "We are going to stop educating our women because we don't make good use of them when we have done it; it is a rotten investment to pour hundreds or thousands of pounds into the education of women and then not to use it", or "We are going to review the whole scene and make sure that we do in fact make the best possible use, taking into

637
account all the facets of the problem"—as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said—"from the point of view of the children, from the point of view of the women themselves and their families, and from the point of view of the employer and the economy as a whole".
It is a big question. It requires a penetrating and determined investigation to make sure that we can do better. At the moment we are putting money into education and not getting the return on it that we ought to be getting. Although it is true that you cannot educate a family unless you educate the mother (and that is very important) she does not really need to be a highly-trained physicist, doctor, or whatever may be the expensive profession that she has taken up, to make her a better mother as such. A good general education, yes; but you cannot really justify that expenditure in terms of what it is going to do to her efficiency in running a home and being a mother.
If the central problem today—and I believe it to be so—is the return of women into employment after having children, how can this be made much more effective than it is at present? The first point concerns women who want to come back soon after childbearing, whether this is a good idea or not. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has spoken about this. There are some who passionately feel that this is what they want to do, and there are others who have to do it for economic reasons.
Therefore, we have the whole question of adequate child care. We do not have adequate child care. It seems to me to follow from the investment that we have made in the education of these women that we should put some additional investment into the kind of child care that makes it practical, sensible, and right for them to use their faculties, and their training, without at the same time causing damage to their families.
Would the noble Lord tell us what has happened to the number of child-care places in nursery schools? What have the Government, as an employer, done in terms of the provision of nursery places for people they employ up and down the country and in the public sector generally. This applies to local authorities as well as to government service? I do not suppose for one moment that the noble Lord can give those figures now, but it would be useful to have them.
This is part and parcel of the total approach to getting the best out of our women while at the same time not damaging home or industry. It involves the whole range of child-care facilities, what we have done about them and what we are considering doing about them.
Then there is the question of part-time employment, which figures in the title of the debate. One of the great troubles about part-time employment is that it has been largely ghetto employment. It has been the lower end of employment; the jobs with no clear prospects; the low-paid dogsbody jobs. There are a few exceptions but, by and large, that has been the picture.
This is no good at all. It has always been said, with very few exceptions, that if you are in a position of responsibility, you have to be there full time. I accept that there are some jobs where this is true. I do not
638
accept it as an overall generalisation which can be taken for granted without detailed investigation case by case.
I am sure that there are many jobs which, if you were really determined, could be done on a part-time basis or on a shared basis. Much more could be done in sharing jobs, having partnership jobs, and two women doing one job. There are instances where this has been done—and done successfully—in other countries—as well as here—over a long period. We must challenge the idea that responsible jobs can only be done on a full-time or nearly full-time basis. There are cases which could be made out, but the burden of proof should be on showing that it is essential that the job should be full-time and not the other way round. At present it is the other way round.
It would be very interesting to know how many part-time jobs are available to women, or rather are being handled by women at present in the Civil Service, shall we say, from assistant secretary level upwards; indeed, how many women there are from assistant secretary level upwards. I shall not pursue that point at the moment. How many are being done as a part-time job, and how can the Government show that it is not possible for those jobs to be done on a shared or part-time basis? That would be information we should very much like to have.
Will the Government set an example in recognising the value and importance of part-time work by giving, as other speakers have already said, the privileges, opportunities and rights to people in part-time employment that are given to those in full-time employment? The Government's record in reacting to European draft directives on part-time employment has not been encouraging. Will they look again at this and consider whether it is not time that they accepted that part-time employment properly developed should carry the same rights? There should be every encouragement for people to go into part-time employment. That means backing the European directives instead of criticising them at every level.
That also goes for the other directive which would help very much in the development of part-time work for the returning woman, and that is the question of parental leave. It would be for the family to decide whether the father or the mother would take time off. I imagine that normally it will be the person who is the bigger wage-earner who will stay at work while the person who is earning less stays at home. But an increasing number of wives are earning more than their husbands and in those cases particularly there is a great deal to be said for parental leave. Will the Government look again at their attitude towards parental leave, to which they have not given a very enthusiastic welcome?
There are a number of other ways in which assistance can be given to women who want to get back into employment. Reference has already been made to the Nat-West scheme. I was much involved in the scheme in the days when it was being introduced. It is sad that it has not been copied more widely, although there has been a certain amount of development as a result of it. I am wondering what the Government are doing on similar lines. The essence of the Nat-West scheme is that there is a five-year period during which

639
a woman can be away from employment and then get hack at the same level. But a very important point is that during those five years it is part of the obligations of those women to do two weeks each year with the Nat-West. This keeps them in the banking world, they do not lose their contact and they do not feel that they have fallen away from the whole professional area in which they were employed. That has been shown to be a very important element.
For some reason I have never had the opportunity of having this period at home, but I did a study many years ago for the OECD on this very question in 11 countries. I found that in every single country I was told—it cannot have been a conspiracy between them all—that when women stay at home they lose their nerve; they believe they can never again compete with the glossy girls coming up behind them. I do not know what men do to their wives when they keep them at home, but they have this disastrous effect on them, or perhaps it is the uninterrupted conversation of two year-olds which I can imagine is a little daunting after a while. Be that as it may, this is the effect apparently.
The two weeks back each year means that women can keep their contacts and their confidence. Are the Government doing this in the Civil Service? If not, will they please consider doing it? While we are on that point, I have for long thought that we made a mistake in this country in having the period for maternity absence with rights for reinstatement at only six months. Six months is the worst period possible not only for the woman but also for the employer. No employer can make a satisfactory arrangement to cover six months; nobody from outside wants to take on a job for six months. The French have already been referred to. They have a period of two years which enables the woman at home to establish how she will cope. It is also possible for the employer to put someone in for a period of two years and to move them in the ordinary process of moving people from one job to another. Six months is an impossible time.
I think it would be well worth while. Although at first sight it may seem as if two years is less convenient for the employer than six months, it might well be found on inquiry that a great many would prefer two years rather than six months, which is neither one thing nor the other. It is a period neither short enough to manage without anybody nor long enough to put in a proper substitute. It is well worth looking at that again.
There are other ways in which we can make use of the talent of women who have been trained and who are taking seriously their responsibilities as parents, and we all want them to do that. There is the whole area of working from home. I know there are many women who do not like the idea of working from home. Part of the charm of the job is getting away from home, but that does not apply to all of them. It so happens that only yesterday evening I had a long communication from that very remarkable organisation, F International, about which many noble Lords will probably know, run by Mrs. Steve Shirley. It has developed to a very wide extent the idea of people with computers in their homes making good incomes working from home, able to control their hours, taking on more or less work according to what
640
suits them. This needs encouragement, resources and support.
For those women for whom such a skill is appropriate, it can be an excellent solution to the problem of combining earning and working with being in their homes and looking after them. Is there no work in the government sector which could be done on this basis, as the Government use more and more statistical procedures for one thing or another? Is there not a possibility of a government version of F International?
I have probably given the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enough to answer this afternoon and I hope he will be able to do so.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has been able to initiate this important debate to highlight the wastage of qualified women through the lack of good, well remunerated arrangements for part-time work. If a qualified woman gives up work altogether for any protracted length of time after the birth of her children, she will lose touch with her expertise in whatever her specialist field of work. In 1984-85 women formed over 40 per cent. of the full-time undergraduate population in our universities, which has risen from about 28 per cent. 20 years ago, and the numbers will continue to rise in the future. Already in 1986 women formed 46 per cent. of the Institute of Personnel Management, about 25 per cent. of the membership of the British Medical Association and 15 per cent. of the Law Society.
Already women form nearly half the entrants to medical school. Even the percentage of women first year undergraduates in my profession of engineering has risen due to the Women Into Science and Engineering Campaign, we think, from 9 per cent. in 1983 to 11 per cent. in 1985.
All the pressures the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned as being a matter of concern now will become more serious and indeed lead to a crisis in terms of the shortage skills by the end of the century if nothing is done. Employers need to make well-publicised arrangements to enable women to keep in touch with their professions as soon as possible after childbirth to avoid this crisis. Time is running out. In 1981 there were 900,000 18 year-olds; in 1995 there will be 600,000 a dramatic drop of one-third. Already there are serious skill shortages in information technology, electrical and electronic engineering, maths and physics teaching and in many other fields. The WISE Campaign in 1984, initiated by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Engineering Council, is gradually changing the picture, but it is a slow process.
I was making a film with Central Television to attract 12 to 13 year-old girls into these fields of work. A young woman engineer with an ONC, working for an HNC and intending to go on for a degree—all part-time study outside working hours showing the high level of motivation that all employers seek—asked, "What happens to all my qualifications if I marry and have a baby?".
The Engineering Council, of which I am a member, set up a working party under the chairmanship of a

641
senior industrialist to gather together a wide variety of good practice to enable young women engineers and technicians to bridge the career break successfully and to continue up the career ladder. Apart from the sheer waste of talent if this is not done—it costs between £14.000 and £20,000 to educate and train a woman engineer—no one can afford to lose that investment either publicly or privately. As Sir Francis Tombs, our chairman, said:
"The aim of the engineering Council is to encourage pace-setters in our manufacturing, process and construction industries to give a lead which others will follow. Those employers who have developed successful career break schemes have found it has given them a competitive cutting edge in the attraction and retention of the most able staff in a highly competitive market place".
The report is not prescriptive but it gives a wide variety of ideas on how to bridge the career break successfully to the mutual convenience of the employer and employee. The sort of schemes that have proved successful include the availability of part-time work in a variety of ways—flexitime, jobsharing, re-entry and reservist schemes—which allow much longer breaks of up to five years when the employer arranges to supply the women with up-to-date information regularly and she works part-time for a minimum of a fortnight a year with the mutual intention that she should return to her previous status or its equivalent on a full-time basis at the end of that time.
As has been mentioned before this afternoon, these latest schemes have been pioneered by the high street banks and have now clearly proved their practicality. Other commercial firms are following that lead, notably Boots the Chemist, which is experiencing a shortage of pharmacists. Nationally women on average need a career break of under four years for each child and under seven years overall. Clearly there will be a need to consider after that school holidays and after-school arrangements, but those can often be overcome either privately or through local authority play schemes.
The Engineering Council has now prepared a video based on our report which will be available in April to our 170 industrial affiliates. We hope that many will initiate schemes as a result. Already Marconi has a scheme and great interest is being shown by Ove Arup, British Gas, Plessey and the Electricity Council with a view to formulating schemes of their own. I recommend anyone interested to obtain a copy of the report and later the video from the Engineering Council. It is packed full of valuable ideas relevant to other professions.
The Institute of Housing has also published an informative booklet on the subject and allows temporary retired membership to its members during a career break, a great boon to professional women who may not be earning and who may find it difficult to keep up their professional subscriptions against the competing demands of children's food and clothing.
With the onset of new technology, offsite working becomes more and more feasible. Mrs. Steve Shirley, managing director of F International, gave a lecture at the Royal Society of Arts only a few weeks ago which will soon be published in our journal, showing how she has built up her highly successful computer software company on the basis of a mainly part-time home-
642
based workforce of several hundred women. ICL too has a well-established career break scheme for its workforce including offsite working. Rank Xerox has set up a network scheme of offsite workers designed to dissolve the boundaries between full-time, part-time and women's work.
We are only at the beginning of this new forward looking type of development which will benefit both employers and employees alike. In setting them up it is important never to regard part-time or offsite workers as second class, but to see them as the valuable resource that they are and accord them similar benefits, conditions of service, availability of promotion and training, and holiday entitlements and pension arrangements on a proportional basis with full-time workers, so that they can foresee their smooth return to full-time work later on. That will do a great deal to boost company loyalty and good longterm employer/employee relationships for the future.
The DHSS has become extremely concerned about its staff wastage. The nursing service has, I understand. a complete turnover every 10 years. Nurses cost in the region of £ 10,000 to train. Three quarters of a million women work in the NHS, so Tony Newton, the Minister of State, has set up a working party in cooperation with the Equal Opportunities Commission to consider personnel policies and practices needed in the NHS to provide equality of opportunity in employment and in particular to make recommendations of the management of the career break. As he says:
"The DHSS needs to retain their staff and encourage those well trained women who have left the service to come back".
The Board of Inland Revenue in its annual report said:
"The cartoonist still tends to show the Inland Revenue official as a middle aged man in a pin-striped suit. In reality she is more likely to be a woman in her twenties".
Increasingly it recruits graduates. The training of higher grade tax officers costs £7,500 and inspectors between £20,000 and £40,000. As a result the Inland Revenue has become sensitive to higher rates of wastage.
The department has given a good deal of thought to means of widening the employment and career opportunities for women so they can combine a career with domestic responsibilities. It has developed schemes allowing flexible working hours and now a comprehensive one allowing staff at all levels to work part-time, including job sharing, with the minimum of restrictions. No one could describe the Inland Revenue as a soft organisation. Financial considerations are strong, but nevertheless, as it says in the conclusion to its annual report, the success of the department depends to a large measure on its staff of 70,000 individuals and fostering their diverse talents. irrespective of age, sex and educational qualifications.
That is what the Inland Revenue seeks to do for good sound commercial reasons, and many others need to copy it. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned the Civil Service. I had the privilege last night of speaking at Sunningdale to newly appointed equal opportunities policies officers. I am glad to say that other departments are following this sort of lead and developing job sharing and career break schemes of their own. The Government as an employer are

643
moving in the right direction, but like the good headmistress on the report, I am bound to say, "Could do better".
As far as job sharing is concerned, that again is a new idea and one that has taken off in a big way. I am glad to say that the Equal Opportunities Commission has 9 per cent. of its staff job sharing. The head of personnel in the Stock Exchange has said that job sharing has enabled it to attract into the job two people of high professional calibre who appear to find their roles stimulating and worthwhile. It cannot be said to be more expensive for the organisation and there are real benefits, not least in terms of the creative energy that has made available to it. That is a very good recommendation for job sharing and it certainly needs to expand.
In the Government's consultative document on the shortage of maths and physics teachers, it is clear from the tables that the wastage of women over the last few years is approximately double that of men—again, people who must cost well over £10,000 to educate and train. I have heard headmasters say, that they would prefer full-timers. If part-timers are tolerated they are probably on scale I. If women return after a break, they will probably be expected to start again at scale I. Is it any wonder that with their scarce skills and talents they go off to use them where they can attract proper remuneration?
Nearly 20 years after the Dainton report on this subject, it is time that the DES and all local education authorities set up working parties, as has the DHSS, to plan proper ways of avoiding this scandalous waste of talent. I understand that the local authorities are investigating what is being done at present with a view to future action, and some, I am pleased to say have already taken action. I heard the other day of ILEA sharing a physics teacher and a music teacher job, which I thought was a very imaginative idea. Such imaginative ideas need universal imitation. We need strong and immediate action by the DES and LEAs to stop this unaffordable loss of qualified women in such a vital field of work, crucial to the future prosperity of our country.
Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Seear, the commission hopes that the draft European directive for parental leave will soon be adopted with the support of the Government. That would again be a great step forward for the benefit of children and parents.
Let me express my gratitude again to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I hope that many employers will read of this debate and make arrangements to suit themselves and their employees to see that this wicked waste of money and talent does not continue and that women can combine a career with responsible family life to their benefit, to the benefit of their families and their employers and for the prosperity of country.
4.2 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for this Motion, which focuses attention upon the occupational situation of qualified women. They constitute a minority of
644
women workers, some two-thirds of whom are unskilled and earn very low wages. Nevertheless, some social factors have influenced all women, skilled and unskilled, and have created a framework within which the problems presented by the Motion may usefully be considered.
Since the early days of industrialism, women have been an indispensable element in the labour force. From 1851 to 1951 they contributed a steady 30 to 32 per cent. of the country's labour force. This proportion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, pointed out, has since risen to 40 per cent. However, within this total, the age and status of the female labour force have changed radically. Up to 1939, some 90 per cent. of women workers were single and working between leaving school and getting married. They withdrew from the labour market upon marriage or during their first pregnancy. Today a sex ratio near unity, more and earlier marriage, small families of consciously conceived children formed in the early years of marriage and a longer expectation of life have fundamentally altered the course and shape of women's lives.
In all ages past, most women married. Many had the maximum number of children that they were physically capable of bearing, given the age at which they married. They reared their children and straightway died. Even as late as 1900, the average English mother had only 10 years to live after her youngest child had reached school-leaving age. Now she looks forward to more than half her active adult life when her family have reached that stage. In all advanced societies, women now enjoy two lives. During the first, the shorter phase, they mainly discharge their maternal role. During the second and longer, they have no direct care for their children, and most are at work outside the home.
Thus demographic and social changes compel most women to adjust to two different periods in one lifetime. It is indeed much harder to be a woman than to he a man in society nowadays.
Highly skilled women engaged in professional occupations face problems that do not afflict their unskilled sisters. Even a relatively short absence from their occupations may result in a catastrophic loss of professional knowledge and skills, as several speakers have already pointed out. Paradoxically, this is a greater danger for the present than it was for past generations. Up to the Second World War, cheap and plentiful domestic service enabled the professional woman to combine her familial and occupational roles. The present pattern of family building reflects both the disappearance of that world and the emergence of a new.
A recent and striking analysis, Fertility Trends in Different Social Classes, by Mr. Barry Werner of the population statistics division of OPCS, shows that great differences in fertility trends between the upper and lower classes have developed in the last 12 years during which—and here I quote one of Mr. Werner's conclusions,
"The fertility rate for women aged 30 and over in social classes 1 and II (that is. among those engaged in professional and administrative occupations) rose by 12% … in contrast for women… in social classes IV and V (that is, those containing the partly skilled and unskilled workers) [the rate] fell by 30%.".

645
That was the difference in 1983, when more professional women were having their babies at the age of 30 or over, while the rate at that age among women in unskilled jobs has fallen. By contrast, in 1970 the lowest and highest rates were within 4 per cent. of the average for all classes.
I think it can be argued that we are seeing here a demographic response in the age and timing of family building among professional qualified women which is markedly different from that among other social groups. Thus qualified women are delaying having their babies until the age at which they are professionally qualified and already standing on the lower rungs of the career ladder.
The significance of this change may be illustrated from medicine. In the early 1960s, Professor Margot Jefferys conducted an inquiry into the experience of women in medicine for the Todd Commission on Medical Education. She showed that the general effect of motherhood was to lead inter alia to a substantial initial withdrawal from employment and a desire for part-time work which could not easily be made available because of the inflexible working conditions and inherited attitudes. The survey concluded that:
"much of the work undertaken by junior and middle grade hospital staff [could] be done on a part-time basis … by scheduling … the staffing requirements for out-patients, in-patients, laboratory and casualty services in such a way as to offer regular, part-time work to married women which recognises their child-rearing and domestic responsibilities. If this were done, women would be able to keep abreast of current developments in medicine and would not need the intensive retraining which total withdrawal for a prolonged period inevitably: involves.
I understand that it has been done and that the situation in medicine has been transformed in the last 30 years, and especially since the mid-1970s, because methods of working have been adapted to meet the needs of the dual role performed by women doctors. Such a transformation will be inevitable in a profession in which women now constitute around half of all entrants. But even in this instance empirical information is scanty and statistical data are often non-existent.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will feel able to urge upon his friends and colleagues the importance for public awareness and public policy of following up the admirable general study of women and employment which Jean Martin and Ceridwen Roberts undertook for OPCS and the Department of Employment. We need studies of particular occupations—of the law, architecture, commerce, accountancy and the like. Indeed, by the time the noble Lord's department has completed those we may be able to turn to look at the Anglican clergy.
Part-time working is now an indispensable element in the sexual division of labour. Most part-time workers are women and, as a committee of your Lordships' House pointed out in 1982 in its report on voluntary part-time work, many women part-time workers suffer a range of discriminations when their conditions of work and remuneration are compared with those of full-time workers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, dealt with the case of children with working mothers. I agree wholeheartedly with what she said and would add only that our social arrangements do result in a situation where some mothers—the lone mothers, the one-
646
parent families—with very young children are compelled to work when their children are very young if they wish to be independent (as they are urged to be) of the Supplementary Benefit Commission, whereas those mothers with young children who have husbands can have a genuine choice. All the statistical data I know of suggest that, where choice exists, it is responsibly exercised in the sense that the great majority of mothers do themselves take care of their children in the age group mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
The noble Baroness was right in emphasising how important it is in this transitional period of the development of the family to meet the requirements of children. If society wishes women to perform two roles, it must meet the consequences. We cannot go on behaving as though women are in the labour market only between leaving school and getting married. The formation of the necessary new attitudes is not, moreover, assisted by the denigration of mothers who choose to look after their children at home. These mothers are sometimes denounced and described as stereotypes which must be got rid of. The balance about which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. spoke, has to be reached not only in matters of policy but in matters of ideology.
I believe that the labour market is at the core of the discontent felt by many women. Their experience in trying to reconcile the claims of marriage, motherhood and work demonstrates a firmly-rooted double standard of occupational morality. Some qualified women enjoy full equality but for most women workers the formal equality of the sexes is mocked in the labour market. That is why we have passed in the last 30 years from emancipation to liberation.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, this debate gives me the opportunity to say a few words about the need to encourage the development of a form of part-time working which can not only provide job opportunities for qualified married women looking after young children but also alleviate unemployment generally. I am referring to the practice known as job sharing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, in particular touched on and on which I should like to speak at rather greater length.
Nearly five years ago your Lordships' Select Committee on Unemployment, of which I was privileged to a be a member, recommended job sharing—or job pairing, as we called it then—for a number of purposes. One was as a relatively inexpensive inducement to people aged over 60 to retire early. But the committee also saw that pairing could be extended to other age groups and could include the sharing of a single job between an experienced person and a trainee or between two half-time workers. Provided that a pairing proposal involved taking on additional labour or was an alternative to redundancy, we recommended that incentives should be given to employers—for example, through adjustments to national insurance contributions—to encourage this form of work.
The Government have since acted on that recommendation in devising a job-splitting scheme as a means of creating more employment opportunities

647
and helping businesses to become more flexible. Financial incentives are now provided for employers who create part-time jobs in a number of ways. They can take on in new part-time jobs two people from YTS, from the community programme or indeed from the job training scheme. They can also split an existing full-time job or vacancy into two part-time jobs, on or both of which goes to someone who is unemployed. In such cases employers are eligible for a grant to help meet the costs of administration and training.
I should like to see this form of work encouraged further to benefit not only the qualified married women referred to in the Motion but also men. Among other things, men who are fathers could then, under conditions of high unemployment, and in keeping with current social trends, increasingly take a share in looking after children who are sick. Although there are already opportunities for women to work part time in certain professions—for example, in teaching and in social work—they are often paid on the lowest scale and there is unsufficient scope for their career development and promotion. The potential of able women is therefore not being realised.
At present many mothers are faced with the stark choice of either having to return to full-time work as soon as the statutory period of their maternity leave expires or accepting only part-time employment if they can get it, and that in the knowledge that they are unlikely ever again to be able to resume a full career. Job sharing, not only in the basic grades of a profession but at every stage of a career, provides a way through.
I suggest that it is of potential benefit to both employers and employees in a number of ways. First, the two people who together undertake a single job work co-operatively as a team. Indeed, if as a team they prove to be effective, I see no reason why they should not be considered for promotion on equal terms with one able person working alone. Moreover, people working as a pair are likely to be a strong unit, because mutual support, encouragement and satisfaction are built into their job. Employers stand to gain from the wider and more diverse training, experience and personal skills which they obtain by employing two people rather than one. They benefit also from the additional creativity which comes from two heads being better than one.
Furthermore, because co-operation is clearly essential if job sharing is to be effective, the atmosphere in the work place as a whole is likely to improve under the unifying influence which springs from people working together rather than in competition with one another. Finally of course it goes almost without saying that at a time like the present when job opportunities are scarce, work sharing provides a way of distributing such jobs as are available among more people.
I agree entirely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said in introducing this debate. that it is deplorable that half the women who graduate in physics are lost to industry and research after starting up a family, and other noble Lords and Baronesses have said much the same. But I hope your Lordships will understand why I have sought to widen the debate by suggesting how both men and women who wish to take part-time work could benefit from the additional
648
employment openings which more job sharing would provide.
Accordingly, I should be grateful if the Minister when he comes to reply to the debate would undertake to consider with his advisers in the Manpower Services Commission whether further inducements could be given to employers not so much to offer more part-time employment as to create more jobs which could be shared between two people.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the Motion put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. It affords an opportunity to talk about a problem that is of increasing concern to women, whether married or unmarried, who need to take time out from full time employment in order to care for a family.
There is no doubt that more flexible working practices would assist women's continuity of employment, reduce the wastage of training, education and skills, and facilitate the more effective use of the talents that women have. There are now almost 5 million part-time workers in the UK. Some of them would choose full time employment if it was available; if working time was reduced, perhaps, and if there were better child care facilities. However, for many women, part-time employment is the preferred option, particularly when their children are young.
But, as an International Labour Office report on white collar workers revealed in 1985, part-time jobs are generally low level jobs—jobs with low status, low pay and not much in the way of prospects. A number of noble Lords have made that point in the debate. There is resistance by employers to providing occupational pension arrangements for part-time employees. There is also resistance sometimes to job sharing schemes even though, in some cases, it would mean getting two highly skilled, experienced people to share the work between them, to their mutual advantage and to the firm's benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, dealt with that in detail and I do not want to add to what he said.
However, when we look at part-time workers, four out of five are women. And two out of every five women who work are part-timers. More than 50 per cent. of working married women are in part-time employment. The growth in part-time employment, temporary work and fixed term contracts, although it can be cited as evidence of greater flexibility in the labour market, nevertheless expands new forms of insecure employment. Under current employment legislation, employees working less than a 16-hour week have fewer rights regarding dismissal and redendancy. Salaries of part-timers are frequently unrelated to full time salaries, and it is by no means general that they are paid pro rata to the rates of those in full-time employment.
Another area of exploitation is home working to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made some reference. Clearly, in certain areas where technological skills are involved, it can be of great assistance. But there are problems. Obviously, it is a difficult area to unionise. The women—this work is done mainly by women—are often grossly exploited.

649
Often, however, home working is the only choice available to many women who cannot leave their homes while their children are young and who must endeavour to earn some money somehow. They are among the most vulnerable members of our workforce, the least regarded and the hardest to protect. Reliable statistics as to the number of home workers arc hard to come by. But, according to a survey conducted by the TUC a couple of years ago, there were about a quarter of a million home workers in the United Kingdom at that time.
A characteristic of this type of work is its isolation. Home workers do not usually receive sick pay or holiday pay. Most home workers are paid by the piece which can mean extreme intensity of work in order to earn even a modest hourly sum. Sometimes the work is carried out in cramped conditions. The University of Bradford home working research project said that 70 per cent. of those involved in its sample worked in a room—a kitchen or living room—used by other members of the family. Many home working tasks involved dust and dirt, glue and sticky tape, bulky materials, sharp instruments and so on, all of which took labour to clear away. There were, it was reported, inadequate health and safety provisions.
There is a case here for the introduction of effective legislation and enforcement arangements to protect homeworkers. This is long overdue. There should be a general duty on those giving out home work to make regular returns to the authorities, giving details of those whom they employ together with information about the work undertaken and the materials and equipment involved. There ought to be adequate inspection and enforcement in order to check on conditions.
There is need for basic rates of pay below which people should not be expected to work. The Wages Act has not helped in this area. As a supporter of minimum wage provision, I believe that this would go some way towards protecting home workers from the grossest kind of exploitation.
When it comes to career breaks, some employers, as already mentioned, have begun to realise that it is in their interests to do something about the waste of talent and training that is involved. There has been reference to the NatWest scheme. I am glad to say that there are other schemes as well. The Midland Bank has a scheme, as does the Royal Insurance group.
These schemes are open to both sexes. In some instances, they provide for breaks of up to five years. During this time, employees keep in touch, undertake refresher courses and are able to re-enter employment at the end of the career break. The idea is that employees with skills should not be lost to the enterprise. Continuity of skills and employment is thus maintained. Women who might otherwise have lost out irreparably on the career ladder are able to resume their careers. The schemes are imaginative and should be applauded. However, they are still very much in the minority.
As several noble Lords have said, it is hardly possible to talk about this subject without referring to child care. The absence of such care in this country is one of the reasons why so many women interrupt careers which might otherwise have been rewarding
650
both to the women themselves and to society generally. The 1981 census revealed that the skills of a significant number of highly qualified women were not being used. A 10 per cent. sample showed 5,770 economically inactive females with higher university degrees under retirement age (other than students or sick persons), compared with only 360 men in that category.
Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology urged that more use should be made of women's technological skills to meet a growing shortfall. However, not only do we have inadequate arrangements for child care but also, even when such arrangements are provided by employers, we sometimes find that they are taxed as a fringe benefit. Objections have been raised before in your Lordships' House, and I do not think it would be appropriate to raise the matter again.
As has already been mentioned, the Government continue, for reasons which escape me, to block the EC directive on parental leave. The amended proposal for an EC Council directive contains very minimal provisions for all wage earners, including staff working in the public sector, to be entitled to parental leave and leave for family reasons. Of the EC member states, seven already make such provisions.
A recent study by the Equal Opportunities Commission demonstrated that the cost of putting the directive into practice in the UK would not be very great. Yet the Government continue to maintain that such matters as these are best determined voluntarily between employers and employees attending to their own priorities, needs and circumstances, rather than by legislation. However, it is clear that most employers will not take steps of this kind until there is a legislative requirement. From their point of view, they believe that they have to be competitive. If there is any cost involved, no matter how small, they prefer to wait until everyone else is bound by legislation before they themselves will put it into operation.
I speak as a union official who has spent a great deal of time arguing with employers on matters of this kind. We have, in some instances, succeeded in getting part-time employees accepted into pension schemes. Recently, in one of the last cases under the sex discrimination legislation heard by the Central Arbitration Committee, we succeeded in winning the argument that a collective agreement was discriminatory because part-time employees, mostly women, were debarred from benefiting in the same way as full-time employees under an assisted mortgage scheme. However, it is not easy to do that. In that particular instance, the employer has already announced his intention to challenge the CAC decision in the courts. It is a continuous battle to improve the lot of part-time workers in this country.
Unless there is a more satisfactory statutory framework for part-time workers, for career breaks and for parental leave arrangements, then those matters will continue to militate against women who wish to maintain their skills and plan their careers to cover both the necessary requirements of maternity and child care and who also wish to make the hest use of their capacities and training.

651
I again thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for giving us the opportunity to have this important debate.
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, started by saying that she had a feeling that this was more a matter of déjà vu than anything else because so much has changed since the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, last brought this matter to our attention.
Perhaps I may just quarrel with the noble Viscount on his use of the words "brain drain". I think that my noble friend Lady Faithfull made the same point. I do not think for one moment that he is attempting to suggest that the work of a mother in bringing up children is somehow inferior to paid employment outside the home. However, I fear that his use of the words "brain drain" could be misconstrued in that way. Certainly we on this side of your Lordships' House would deplore such misconstruction.
We consider that the woman who chooses—and I emphasise the word "chooses"—to stay at home to bring up her children is in no way part of a brain drain. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when she said (although perhaps in a different way) that there can be no more important and demanding work than that of bringing up children to be responsible caring adults. For many, that in itself is sufficient stimulus.
I do not in ally way wish to deny the force of the many points which have been put forward in support of the Motion during our debate. The House appears to be united in recognising the importance of insuring that talent and investment in training do not go to waste. As a country, we simply cannot afford to let that happen.
The figures tell their own story. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle mentioned some of the figures. It is true that women how make a crucial contribution to the nations' economic wealth. They represent 43 per cent. of the civilian labour force. Between March 1983 and June 1986, the number of women in full-time employment rose by 320,000 and the number in part-time work rose by 299,000. Sixty per cent. of married women work outside their homes. One of the most impressive statistics is that one in four of the self-employed are now women. Most importantly, more and more women are obtaining professional qualifications.
In welcoming that, and in agreeing with so much of what has been said this afternoon, I urge the House to also look at the wider picture. I again agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull when she reminded us that we have to get a balance in these matters. When we talk about qualified women today we are discussing only a small part of the employment market; women who are at the upper end, if you like. We must take care that in singling out that one group for special attention, we do not neglect the interests of the far larger numbers of women and indeed men who do not
652
have qualifications and who are perhaps also unemployed.
At the same time, the Government are concerned about the effect of skill shortages on the competitiveness of industry. I am sure that we are all aware of the difficulties faced by companies seeking qualified people in many spheres of science, engineering and the new technologies. I agree that we must make full use of the talents and skills available, whether possessed by young or old, men or women, married or single.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said about the splitting scheme, work-sharing, and so on. I shall read carefully what he said about extending the scheme. I certainly give him an assurance now that we will consider all he said in regard to that extension. We certainly recognise the importance of the re-employment of qualified married women, either full or part time. How then can we best ensure that we tap this valuable resource? The debate this afternoon has produced a number of suggestions and highlighted some of the disadvantages which many women undoubtedly suffer in trying to combine career and family responsibilities.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle spoke of the Engineering Council's training course and video. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and many others, spoke of part-time work, job sharing, flexible working hours, temporary work, working from home and other such matters. At this stage I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who said that home workers worked under poor conditions. She referred to the sparseness of information about home workers. I can tell the noble Baroness this afternoon that a major research study of home workers is to be published shortly. An article about that appeared in the most recent Department of Employment Gazette. That study shows that there are many myths about home workers. Overall, home workers are better educated, more likely to be home owners and healthier than average workers. Perhaps at another time we can come back to that issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, reminded us that on a strictly practical level only employers can really provide employment opportunities and only women themselves can take advantage of them. However, certainly the Government have a responsibility. That responsibility is to set the parameters by inducing a change in attitudes and fostering the flexible working patterns needed today. We do this directly, and of course we do it largely through the great efforts of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Our aim is to encourage women who want a career—I emphasise, who "want" a career.
We are giving this encouragement in a number of ways, beginning with education and following through into training and retraining. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will, as a teacher, agree with me that one of the problems is to overcome stereotyped attitudes which have limited girls' career horizons. Nowadays in education girls and boys are encouraged to study the same range of subjects, and they have the same opportunities to go on to further education and training. For example, the Government's policy statement Science 5-16 proposes that science should

653
have a place in the education of all pupils throughout the years of compulsory schooling. It also encourages positive action to excite the interest of girls in aspects of science which in the past they have perhaps tended to find unappealing.
We are doing a great deal in helping women in training and retraining for employment. At the school level we have supported the Women into Science and Engineering Year and have helped to fund the WISE bus. We have provided 5,000 additional places in higher education for those taking science and engineering subjects. In my department, the Department of Trade and Industry, we have done much to encourage women to acquire skills—systems design skills, and others. The IT Skills Agency, set up by industry as a result of our initiative, is working with others to look at ways in which more women can be encouraged to train and work in IT. We hope to be able to support a study to look into the feasibility of such a campaign. We really hope that many women will take advantage of the opportunities offered by government schemes in training and skills development to obtain those skills that will be useful to industry and which will encourage companies to provide part-time opportunities where needed.
The Manpower Services Commission training is of course available to women, and the MSC actually funds a number of schemes specifically to widen women's opportunities. The MSCs "Wider Opportunities for Women" courses are specially designed for "returners" and include a number of courses for qualified women in new technology and management subjects. The MSC also funds through the Open University the "Women in Technology" scheme. That helps women to update technological skills through home study. All these measures should help women to take even greater advantage of new employment opportunities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about a return on the investment in education and training of women. I should like to say that, while agreeing with her, even if we perhaps do not show what some people might call a full commercial return I hope the noble Baroness will agree with me that that is no reason for refusing such education and training for women.
We have this afternoon spoken about what employers—the National Westminster Bank, and many others including Boots, Marks and Spencer, ICL—have done in the career break schemes. I am glad to say—and I say this directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that we in government are doing exactly this for our own staff. A number of departments—and this idea is growing—have a "keeping in touch" scheme which gives people who are temporarily away from their jobs the chance to keep up to date with changes and developments in the department. The scheme runs for five years. In addition, opportunities for part-time work in government departments have also grown. They are continuing to grow, including those at quite senior levels.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an example of that? In the past there was a singular absence of such schemes.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I will certainly be happy to provide the noble Baroness with examples in detail and set out a schedule, but on a debate of this kind one is mindful of the clock and I have a number of points that have been raised which I must answer. Perhaps I will be able to come back to that point.
I particularly wanted to say this afternoon that I am delighted to be able to announce that we are able to support a specific initiative that will help the return to work of qualified women. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to the work of Professor Daphne Jackson of Surrey University. She is of course well known for her work with women returners and has sought our help in mounting a study. This will look at the feasibility of establishing a register of people with qualifications in mathematics, science and engineering who wish to work part-time or short term. The register would then be made available to employers.
We are able to agree to Professor Daphne Jackson's request for assistance and a study will now go ahead. I know that my noble friend Lady Platt will be pleased because that answers the question she posed on what happens to her qualifications when she marries, has children and departs from industry. We are able to agree to that request and I believe that industry, research establishments and the teaching profession will now have opportunities available to them. The real trick of course is to bring together the job vacancies and those seeking the part-time, short-time or shared jobs. The study will look at ways of doing that.
I want to turn quickly to some of the points that were made in the debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for the compliment that she paid to the Government in the first part of her speech. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, spoke about child care. We aim to have a range of day-care services bringing children full- or part-time day care, child minding, nursery or play groups so that parents can choose the type of day care which meets their own and indeed their children's needs.
There has been a significant increase in England in day care facilities for children under five, since the present Government took office. There are now 54,500 day nursery places compared with 50,000 in 1979, which is a 7 per cent. increase. There are 409,000 places in play groups, which represents an increase of 10 per cent. There has been a 29 per cent. increase in the number of child minding places, and an increase in child minders from 44,000 to 57,000 or nearly 58,000. The proportion of three- and four-year olds who are receiving some form of nursery education is now 22 per cent. compared with 18 per cent. in 1979, while a further 21 per cent., made up mostly of four-year olds, attend infant classes in primary schools. The development of a wide range of choice across the country as a whole has occurred at different rates in different areas, which was one important reason for the under-fives initiative to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drew attention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lady Platt spoke about parental leave. I know that parental leave has often been suggested as a means of special help to working mothers. We fully accept that parental leave, if agreed between employer and

655
employee, can be valuable. However, it can only be a temporary solution because, however long it may be, when parental leave ends the needs of the child and the requirements of the job still remain. To impose one form of leave, as the draft European Community directive would have done, would increase employers' costs and administrative burdens and we believe that it would be detrimental to the welfare of working parents and their children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about the numbers of women who are part-time employees and asked me for some figures. Currently there are nearly 5 million part-time jobs. That is the highest number in the Community. The rise has been from 15·4 per cent. to 22·9 per cent. of total employment. The shift can be attributed mainly to the increased availability of part-time employment in the expanding service industries and to the propensity of industry generally toward the engagement of more part-time staff.
I appreciate the points that have been made on a number of occasions during the debate which set out some of the disadvantages of part-time work. There is a substantial minority of women who leave employment in order to have a child and who find on their return to work that they have to take a part-time job at a lower level if they are to combine paid work with their family commitments. Some women who take up a lower level post may never reach the career level that they first sought nor therefore the salary level of their male counterparts or of women without family responsibilities. However, there is another side to this situation. The need to accept less demanding work is not seen as a disadvantage by all those who are affected. The survey Women in Employment conducted by the Department of Employment showed that many women consciously traded off pay and position against a post with convenient hours and location because in that way they could devote more time to their families.
Interestingly, that same survey showed that women working part-time were more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than women in full-time employment. That brings me to the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, when he talked about the disadvantage of women having a dual role. The survey pointed out that many married women still have the choice of whether to work full-time, part-time or stay at home looking after their families. The point I wish to make is that of course men do not have that choice.
I should like to conclude by paying a tribute to those employees and other organisations that are participating in the field of work-sharing and part-time work and in developing the combination of work and family. However, I do not think we ought to assume that only married women with children need help of the type discussed this afternoon. Part-time work and other flexible working arrangements can also be helpful to some men and for that matter to single women. It is important to recognise that in recent years the world of work has changed considerably for everyone. Many people now spend their working lives in occupations and under circumstances that were unimaginable a relatively short time ago. Technological advances, world economic pressures
656
and social change have all played their part in challenging traditional views of work and working patterns.
A flexible labour market which accommodates the present-day needs of employers and all their employees is a vital part of the changing scene. I am sure that the position of women in particular can be helped by the kind of stimulating and interesting discussion that we have had today and I thank the noble Viscount for initiating this debate.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, we have had a most useful debate. Every speaker has had something valuable to contribute and most of them spoke from a detailed knowledge which I myself do not possess. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and particularly I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, because I know that she was on a very well earned holday and came to the House specially to speak in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Rate Support Grants Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and to be printed.

The English Language
4.56 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to call attention to the importance of the English language and the case for making it easier to learn; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
I am greatly honoured that so many of your Lordships have shown an interest in this important subject and, often at some inconvenience to themselves, have put down their names to speak in this debate. I am particularly gratified and honoured that two speakers have chosen this occasion to make their maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is one of those making her maiden speech today and rather mischeviously I suggested that she might adopt the Lallan speech of Robert Burns, but I do not think she has been so beguiled. My noble friend Lord Moore is also making a maiden speech. Your Lordships will remember the title of one of the most important works on linguistics and literary use of this century, which is The king's English. I am sure that your Lordships are looking forward eagerly to both those maiden speeches.
I should like to make a personal plea. I have my hack to the Clock and I cannot pick out the figures on the indicators so I should be grateful if any noble Lord in my vicinity or on the Front Bench will indicate when the figure 10 comes up so that I can bring my observations to an end. I am sure that your Lordships would not like the comparatively meagre time that is left to subsequent speakers to be curtailed.
I took the title of the Motion from a notable article some little time ago by my noble friend Lord Annan when, in the context of education, he indicated that we have two world languages; namely, English and mathematics. This debate is devoted to the former. Some 350 million people speak English as their mother tongue. Another 400 million speak it, not as their mother tongue but generally as their second language. That, of course, is a great advantage to ourselves and to the world. To the world, it gives a means of common communication. Where it is, as in law and administration, a second language, it is a unifying force, as in India, Malaysia and many other places. English commands the richest vocabulary of all world languages. It gives access to literature of great richness, living as well as past.
The advantages to ourselves need no expatiation from me. They are sufficiently marked by the institutions of the British Council and the BBC World Service, about which others of your Lordships will be speaking. Although we are a minority of those who speak English, even as a mother tongue, we have a duty to the English language, partly because it originated here, partly because we can influence by example, though not by precept, and partly because anything we can reasonably do to make it easier to learn is performing a duty to our children.
The other day there were some alarming references to illiteracy—even in this country after 100 years of universal education. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will be able to deal with that. We obviously owe a duty to those children in respect of the English language.
We also owe a duty to those who honour and benefit us by learning English as a second language. When considering any improvement, we must do nothing, I venture to suggest, that may cause the break-up of the English language, as Latin, a world language, broke up into French and the other Romance languages.
One topic that I should like to raise before turning to the second part of the Motion is the education of ethnic minorities in this country. In many schools, they constitute the majority of the pupils. Some argue that they should be taught in the dialect or language of their ethnic origin. It is argued that this gives them justifiable pride in their ethnic culture and heritage, and that they learn more easily if taught that way. On the other hand, it seems to me to fail to give such pupils the full advantage of mastery of a world language and their own municipal language, and tends to imprison them in an ethnic and cultural ghetto. I know that your Lordships will be grateful to hear about that matter from the noble Baroness.
The second part of the Motion relates to ease of learning. In many ways, English is an easy language to learn. Heine once said that the ancient Romans, if they had had to learn Latin, would never have had time to conquer the world. We have avoided the type of difficulties that Latin presents and must have presented.
During the long submergence of English by French after the Norman conquest, practically all the inflections which are such a trouble in langages such as Latin and German have been rubbed off to our great advantage: nevertheless, the fact that there is illiteracy
658
suggests—quite apart from abundant analytical evidence—that English still presents considerable and in many respects unnecessary difficulties to learning.
I have three objects in opening this debate. The first is to try to identify some of the areas where English is unnecessarily difficult, although that obviously must be selective. Secondly, I wish to suggest how it can be made easier. I must at once confess myself a conservative in this respect. Many people who have studied the matter far more profoundly than I have would go much further. I have arrived, like most of us, at an age where we have learnt to spell. I have up to a point, I suppose; and I have learnt to write. I am too old to start again and learn something new.
Not only am I a conservative in what I urge upon your Lordships. My plea will also be based mainly on economy. Your Lordships may remember the young lady in "Gentlemen prefer Blondes" who said:
"A child that looks like his father is worth money in the bank".
I hope that what I suggest to your Lordships will be worth money in the bank. My third object is to identify, if possible, the means by which any desirable improvement can be brought about easily, painlessly and economically.
It is notorious that the main difficulty in learning English is the divergence between spelling and pronunciation. The examples are numerous. I intend to mention only one or two of the most notorious. The most quoted points the way to ease of improvement. It is, "OUGH" as in "bough" "brought", "cough", "plough", "though", "through", "thorough" and many others. The Americans spell "plough" "plow". We have no difficulty with that. That saves two-thirds, does it not? We could spell "though" as it was spelt in the 18th century—"tho". That is a saving of 50 per cent.
I turn to one respect in which grammar could be improved. The main difficulty in learning English grammar is the irregular verb. A child will say, "He teached me". The other day I received a letter from an import/export agency which said, "We have runned out of stock". I do not suggest for a moment that all irregular verbs could be made regular but there is a great overlap. Take the word "dream", for example. The past tense can either be "dreamt" or "dreamed". Given the choice we should obviously use the regular form.
How do we improve matters? The Americans have again showed the way. Theodore Roosevelt directed that all government writing should be in the new, improved and easier manner. That could be done right away by the Government. The Department of Education and Science and its predecessors have been pretty obstructive in the past in this respect. However, the new Minister seems to have come along with a stick of ginger. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell us something about Professor Kingman's new committee which. I am glad to see, has to report in 12 months.
The final method I would suggest is that we have a language commission like the Law Commission, which has been the great institutional success of my lifetime. My noble and learned friends Lord Gardiner and Lord Elwyn-Jones are entitled to full credit. A language commission could well carry out wide consultations, circulate green papers, and then put

659
forward recommendations for making our language easier to learn.
If this debate leads to a greater sense of the value that we have inherited and makes our language easier to learn, I shall be very proud to have initiated it. I beg to move for Papers.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it is a philistine aberration of this House to debate a subject of this richness and complexity with the speeches cut to seven minutes. I hope that, if the Procedure Committee cannot do anything about these matters, we may at least develop a self-denying convention that if we see there are already 12 names down in a list for a short debate we go away and forget about it.
In thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for providing us with this subject today, let me say that I was puzzled by his words. When he wrote that there was a case for making it easier to learn, I wondered whether he meant making the English language itself easier to learn or simply making it simpler to learn the English language. Did he want to change the language or the learning situation? Was he wanting to impose on us that monstrous spelling reform which was Bernard Shaw's terminal sick joke? This I have always regarded as being as dangerous as it is ugly.
English is spoken by one seventh of the world population, but it is spoken in many different ways. Some English speakers cannot be understood by others. If we were to spell phonetically, the world's most important language would cease to be universally comprehensible in written form, as it is today. Alternatively, was the noble and learned Lord an enthusiast for basic English, with its minimum vocabulary and simplified syntax, which robs the translation of any novel or essay of all delight?
I am against all such wickedness. Instead I believe that English can be made easier for foreigners—English without tears—by having more highly trained teachers, equipped with better instruction books and the learning cassettes pioneered by Linguaphone. Great work on the English language has been done in recent years by Sir Randolph Quirk and his partners to produce grammars which show foreigners not just what is right and wrong but how the language is used by native English speakers. As anyone knows who has wrestled—linguistically, I mean—with an au pair, we can say, "I am afraid that that is not English", without being able to adduce a rule, because there is none. For our guidance of what is acceptable we can fall back upon instinct. The foreign teacher of English cannot do so. However, he now has Professor Quirk's grammars to help him.
The English language is the native language of 300 million people in the United States in these islands and in some Commonwealth countries. It is the second language in India, large parts of Africa, the Philippines and Ethopia. In many other countries it has to be learned as the main foreign language, for it is the language of science and technology. It is the language of computer science, shipping, aviation and sport. Sixty per cent. of the world's broadcasts and 70 per
660
cent. of its correspondence is in English. One half of the world's scientific literature is available in English. It is taught not only by the BBC and the excellent British Council, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, but also by the US information agency and "Voice of America".
Many thousands of people all over the world want to learn the language of Shakespeare and Milton, not, I am afraid, to read those great authors but to qualify themselves for a good job. If success eludes some of these students, at least they have the consolation of knowing, to use the brutal words of Britannica,
"because of the laxity of syntax, English is a very easy language to speak poorly".
Nevertheless, English with today's linguistic insights can be well taught and successfully learned. I have met Russians on their first trip to England speaking easily and colloquially on everyday subjects and having a knowledge of our literature and an ability to converse seriously on intellectual matters. A few years ago in China at the University of Xian we had an opportunity to talk to second year students of English. They had never met an English person before. They conversed slowly but elegantly without any of the mistakes that we traditionally associate with the Chinese.
I had precisely the opposite experience at a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association a few years ago. Some of the Indians, highly intellectual men, whose English, grammar and syntax were impeccable, were almost incomprehensible to us when they addressed the conference. This problem was foreseen 30 years ago when it was realised that Indian teachers of English who had themselves been taught by Indians would be training another generation of Indian teachers of English, with the result that the language would become less and less comprehensible. A rescue operation was manned at Allahabad but the effect seems to have been limited.
I should like to see more teachers specialising not in English literature, not even in English language, but simply in diction. We now know enough scientifically about the spoken language to combat the faults which foreign speakers bring to it from their native language. If the Russians and the Chinese can overcome the problem so brilliantly, so surely can others.
I am the victim of my own self-denying ordinance. I have cut my speech to ribbons, and I have finished in six minutes.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, even in the short time available I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising a matter of such importance as to attract a large list of speakers, including two most distinguished maiden speakers.
The part of the Motion on which I should like to dwell first relates to the importance of the English language. I believe that a spread of English should encourage mutual understanding between states. It could even contribute to the maintenance of peace, and it would certainly provide for cultural and scientific exchanges.
As we have heard, some 750 million people speak English either as their mother tongue or as their second language. I believe that it is because of that fact that we

661
rather take things for granted. I know of the good work of the British Council, the BBC, the English Speaking Union and so on, but I still believe that we do not do enough to promote the understanding of the importance of English, especially when we compare ourselves with France.
I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to what has been and what is happening there. Your Lordships will know that as long ago as 1637 the Académie Francaise was established, with the accent on creating and maintaining the purity of the language. In recent years councils and organisations have been brought into being to cover all domestic and international aspects of the French language and to co-ordinate all the work already being done. The councils are composed at a very high level indeed. They are presided over by the President of France and by the Prime Minister, and again they are serviced at a very high level indeed. They are all very active.
It was only last year in Paris that 41 heads of state and heads of governments of French-speaking sovereign countries met to promote consciousness of a common good; that is to say, the French language. I understand that they are meeting again later this year in Quebec. Five continents were represented at that gathering and thus over 100 million people who speak French, two-thirds of whom have French as their mother tongue. President Mitterrand took the chair at that meeting. That indicates the importance which is attached by the French to francophonie.
The Prime Minister of France heads the Commissariat Générale of French Language to support and co-ordinate public and private bodies concerned with the spread and protection of the French language. It has association with no fewer than 85 private agencies, each very active in part of this field. I am indebted to the French Embassy for this information, and I should add that, as one would imagine, the French Embassy is anxious to assist anyone who desires help on aspects of the French language. The administrative general secretary is a gentleman called M. Zinovieff; he is obviously a very good choice because plainly he is a man of letters!
There is also a body concerned with terminology; that is to say, a body for dealing with the worst that technology, science and British jargon can throw at it. Your Lordships should know that in the French law of 1975 all words spoken or written about any goods or services must be in French.
I regard that as the proper level of importance to be given to the use, enrichment and preservation of the French language. By comparison we do less well, except in one respect. We do one thing which the French do not do. We have found an inexpensive and effective method of promoting the use of English—we simply refuse to talk to any foreigner in a language other than our own! However, that is no longer adequate in a highly competitive world.
The first question I ask the Government seriously to consider is what we can do to raise the level of conscious appreciation of the importance of English. Secondly, I ask the Government to consider what to do to protect the purity of our language, especially against the depredations of the Government themselves.
662
For example, there is the use of the verb as a noun, as in two official government Statements referring to "sourcing policies" and "sourcing intentions". That has nothing to do with tomatoes whatever. There is the noun used as a verb as in, "rubbishing Select Committees' reports before publication". There is also the plural use of the singular as in "the data is". There is the superfluous pronoun as "to meet with" and other horrid Americanisms. Then there is the otiose prefix "disassociate". I could go on for a long time if the clock would only stop.
I make it clear that I am not against slang in its proper place. Indeed, slick slang can be evidence of a language very much alive. I am saying that this is not the appropriate place for it. I hope that the Government will share my view that your Lordships could have a proper role in this matter: monitoring what is being done elsewhere; through a Select Committee considering the whole problem; or at least trying to maintain a reasonable standard of purity of our language in our own House.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time, especially as the stopwatch is on. I am told that a noble Lord was once reputed to have said, "I used to have recurring nightmares that I was addressing the House of Lords, and then one day I woke up and I found that I was". My Lords, I know how he felt.
I thought that it might be appropriate for me to make my maiden speech on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the importance of the English language because, during the course of my life, I have been able to see for myself how important English is throughout the world. I suggest that there are three reasons for that. The first is the advantage to Britain herself. There is no doubt that the widespread use of English greatly enhances our prestige and influence and helps us enormously as a trading nation. I have always believed that it was one of the sad post-war developments that, with the loss of the Empire, the British people, in a sense, turned their backs on some of their most splendid achievements, not the least of which was the devolution of an empire into a Commonwealth of independent nations. Partly because of the sensible way in which we governed and the institutions we left, and partly because of the enlightened way in which we brought the colonial territories to independence, Britain is enormously respected in the Commonwealth today, and that is perhaps best illustrated in the use of the English language. I remember Lee Kuan Yew, on coming to power in Singapore nearly 28 years ago, resolving that the best way to counter the chauvinist draw of Communist Peking on his Chinese population was to work towards the replacement of Chinese with English as the main language of the Singapore schools. I believe that that has now almost been achieved, and it is a remarkable tribute both to the English language and to Britain.
It is not only in the Commonwealth that there is a demand for English; it is universal. I was fascinated to find in Algeria, in the heart of Francophone Africa, that there was a great queue of Algerians waiting to

663
take English language courses run by the British Council. Having learned English at home, they come to Britain as overseas students and eventually return to their homelands, probably to become friends of Britain for life.
My second point is that, in an age where there have been tremendous advances in communication and the countries of the world have been brought so much closer together, it is desperately important that people should be able to converse without a language barrier. The Commonwealth, with its membership of nearly 50 nations and a quarter of the world's population, is the prime example of this.
One is often asked: "Why does the Commonwealth hold together?" I reply: "First, the Queen, and secondly, the English language". I think that anyone who has attended Commonwealth conferences will agree that they are quite unique, in that all the Heads of Government are able to express opinions, discuss and argue with each other in the freest possible way with a common tongue.
It is not only in Commonwealth meetings that English is so widely used; it is also used in many international meetings, not least in the European Community. A distinguished Commonwealth statesman once told me many years ago that President de Gaulle would never allow Britain into the Common Market because he feared that English would become the language of the Community. How prescient the General was.
My third point concerns the part played by the English language in making available throughout the world the unique contribution of British culture to the history of civilisation. Here I should like to add my own personal tribute to the work of the British Council and the Overseas Service of the BBC. Much that is best about Britain would go by default were it not for the work of these two remarkable British institutions. I have had 40 years' experience of their work and it would be impossible to exaggerate the significance of their contribution both to Britain and to the world. And so, my Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for making it possible for me to make my maiden speech on the importance of the English language, for, my Lords, it is indeed important.
5.32 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, it has never before happened to me to find myself sandwiched between two maiden speakers. Of the speech which is to follow I can say only that I look forward to it keenly, as do all noble Lords. But, of the speech to which we have just listened I can say more. It occurs to me, first, that it must be a very long time since your Lordships' House has had an opportunity to welcome a recruit of such immense distinction.
If my researches have not misled me the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, showed at an early age the sort of stuff of which he is made by exchanging the status of a prisoner of war for that of an Oxford rugger blue in a matter of months. There followed other notable athletic achievements, which led him on to a career of what I can only describe as unmitigated
664
success; a career of such distinction, both in diplomacy and in service to the Royal Household, that we less worthy Members of this House feel enormously and undeservedly honoured to have him as a colleague. After hearing the noble Lord's maiden speech, with its admirable lucidity, persuasiveness and reasonableness, I am sure all noble Lords will agree that we hope he will find it possible, or will make it possible, to take part in our debates on every suitable occasion.
Now I must turn quickly to the subject of the debate, which was so comprehensively introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have received, as I expect other noble Lords have, excellent briefs both from the British Council and from the BBC External Services, in particular the component known as "English by Radio and Television". I am most grateful to both those splendid organisations, each of which could well deserve a debate on its own. But, sadly, I have concluded that in a time-limited debate such as this it is quite impossible to do justice to those worthy causes. Therefore, I shall try to make one simple point which refers to the second half of the noble and learned Lord's Motion.
I suggest that the best way to make English easier to learn is, paradoxically, to teach Latin. We seem to cope very much more readily with that part of our language which is derived from Anglo-Saxon roots than with the rest. To the best of my recollection, Mrs. Malaprop had very little trouble with Anglo-Saxon, but she was woefully ignorant of Latin. I wonder whether possibly she personified a national characteristic. It is almost as though for one or two millennia we have been unconsciously resisting the linguistic implications and consequences of the Roman and Norman conquests.
In formal education—and how much I dislike much of the jargon of educationists—the problem seems to be this: that they call the age of conceptualisation comes at about 13 or 14 years of age. I take it that conceptualisation means what we would call roughly abstract thought. This becomes, or should become, part of a child's mental equipment shortly before the child has to make those important choices of what to study at 16-plus. At this time the Latinate content of teaching language is increasing all the way. Any child to whom that side of our language is virtually unknown is at a cruel and avoidable disadvantage and underachievement may simply worsen with every year of education which follows. What can be done? I am certainly not suggesting that we should oblige our children or grandchildren to spend hours and hours in the forcible conversion of Herrick into imitation Ovid. It was great fun if you happened to enjoy it. It taught a certain mental verbal agility, but very little else.
I have in mind the teaching of simple Latin; the principal root words, the formation and correct usage of prefixes and suffixes. I am indebted for this idea to an article in the Journal of the Joint Association of Classical Teachers —where else? It is an article written by Adrian Spooner, the head of classics in a comprehensive school.
He mentions an experiment conducted in elementary schools in Indianapolis in 1973. The experimental group was taught simple Latin. The control group was not. It is claimed that within a

665
five-month period the experimental group made the following gains over the control group—in five months—a gain of one year in reading and of four months in spelling. There was a gain of between seven and nine months in various forms of mathematics and of five months in science. I must admit to a certain scepticism when confronted with statistics of this sort, but on this occasion I am tempted to accept them because they are what I would have expected.
In conclusion, I would say to teachers: "Whatever you are meant to be teaching, you are teaching English as well all the time, and you will find it so much easier if you have been able to squeeze a little simple Latin into the timetable along the way".
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, as all your Lordships will be aware, it is with the greatest diffidence and humility that I stand here in this beautiful and historic Chamber among your noble, learned, reverend, gallant and totally illustrious Lordships. I ask you to bear with me now with the same kindness and indulgence that you have shown me since I was privileged to take my seat, on my birthday, in your Lordships' House.
I hope that you can hear me. I find it very difficult to hear anything except the knocking of my knees and the pounding of heavy butterflies inside me. I feel very honoured and proud to stand here in my noble relative's shoes—although not, of course, literally! As many of your Lordships will know, my noble relative was an eccentric and—dare I say it?—a strange dresser. On one occasion he arrived at London Airport, hailed a taxi and said, "House of Lords". The taxi driver took one look at him and said, "No, my Lord, first I shall drive you to a shoe shop. You cannot enter their Lordships' House in your bedroom slippers".
I am very mindful of the advice of my noble friend Lord Denham, so I shall try not to be like the new minister of the Church of Scotland on preaching his first sermon. Afterwards he asked the elders how it had gone. "It went just fine", said one of them. "It put me in mind of the peace and mercy of God." So the minister was rather relieved and very pleased. And he went home and read his Bible, as Ministers do, and in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, he read, "The peace of God passeth all understanding". So he went quickly back to the Old Testament, and in the Psalms he read, "The mercy of God endureth for ever". So I shall try and be clear and concise.
My Lords, I feel very privileged to be speaking in the debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is always so lucid and eloquent, and who has been so kind as to say such nice things about me, for which I thank the noble and learned Lord. I am also privileged to be speaking after such a distinguished and enjoyable maiden speech as that of the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, and thank him very much.
It is a subject which is very close to my heart. Our English language is one of the chief glories of our nation, which reached its finest flower in the beautiful prose of the Authorised Version of the Bible and the King James VI Book of Common Prayer. It is also a living, growing language, and it behoves us all to
666
preserve its beauty and excellence while also using it continuously in everyday speech.
From the earliest Anglo-Saxon our language has evolved and grown. The Normans brought in their words of Norman French, though, my Lords, it is a sad social reflection on the Norman Conquest that while my Norman ancestor, Aubrey de Vere, the noble Earl of Oxford, was feasting on roast beef, veal, peaches and wine, my Saxon forebears had to make do with oxtail stew, calves' brains, apples and ale.
Latin, being the language of the Church and also of the law, extended and increased the diversity of our vocabulary, and from time to time more French. Cul-de-sac and cafe are now as English as le pullover and le weekend are French. In the day of empire words like posh and tiffin, kedgeree and juggernaut, became part of the English language.
Words and phrases from all over the country continue to enrich our language. I have heard your Lordships described in the good old northern term as gradely lot". May I add to that our own Scottish Lallans? When I came here I knew that your Lordships were weel-kent, and kenspeckle. Now I have found that you are all couthy as well.
Let us by all means simplify our language so that it can spread further, as the noble and learned Lord suggests. But not to the point of absurdity. My Lords, may I give a brief illustration? When my noble relative took his seat he sent us a telegram, with due economy of phrase, saying, "Name now Strange". The Post Office, in their wisdom, decided to curtail this further, so that the message we actually received was, "Nim now String."
Our English language is not like the leaderless Saxons at the Battle of Maldon fighting against impossible odds in a hopeless cause.
"Hi woldon tha ealle othe twega,
lif forlaetan othe leofne gewrecan."
Our English language is not a dead language stuck in a moment of time like a fly in amber—it is a growing, changing, living language.
When I was a little girl much of the globe was coloured a most pleasing shade of pink, and I was proud to feel that I was part of the great British Empire. Now that much of our empire has become independent, there is physically little of the pleasing pink left. But yet, my Lords, what a spiritual benefit is left in the world from our empire—British law and order, our sense of honour and decency, our formality and ceremony, our justice, our parliaments, our monarchy. All, all are shining examples of which we must feel justly proud. But above all there is our English language which has spread and grown until now all over the world it lives undying on the lips of men.
5.46 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am particularly glad that it has fallen upon me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, upon her maiden speech. She and her family have been friends of mine and my family for many years. It has given me especial pleasure to hear her make such an excellent and entertaining speech, couched, as is suitable to this occasion, in impeccable English, and so beautifully delivered.

667
I am sure that her father, her noble relative, whom many of us remember so well, would have been very proud could he have heard her today. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we shall hope to hear her frequently in the future. And, of course, I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, on his excellent maiden speech.
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for putting down this Motion today. But I am afraid that I cannot join him in walking down the path towards the simplification of the English language, although I appreciate his reasons for wishing to do so.
We have a beautiful, rich, expressive language which has evolved over many centuries from a wide variety of linguistic sources, with roots thousands of years ago in such far apart places as India and Scandinavia. Invaders of this country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has said, have brought us the gift of their tongues—although the gift was perhaps not always welcome at the time—and we have absorbed them. And so our language has evolved.
For instance, the verb "to drink" is derived from the German "trinken", and the past participle "drunk" from the German "getrunken". So to change the past participle from "drunk" to "drinked" would be to cut off the word from its ancestry and to deny its descent. I do not think that you can streamline a language by legislation, nor do I think that you should try to.
I am afraid that I take the rather robust view that if foreigners want to come and live in our lovely country and enjoy freedom from persecution and all the other freedoms we enjoy, then they can take the trouble to learn our language, irregular verbs, derivative spelling, variations in pronunciation, exceptions to rules and all. After all, there are plenty of difficulties in other languages—French and German in particular.
But, having said that, we really must put or own house in order. To expect foreigners to learn English when we have ceased either to teach it or learn it properly ourselves is expecting too much. I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware that after 11 years of so-called education costing the taxpayer and ratepayer thousands of millions of pounds, some 75,000 young people are leaving school every year unable to read or write properly or speak the Queen's English. They cannot understand simply written instructions; they cannot write an intelligible letter; they cannot do justice to themselves in an interview; they are virtually unemployable. They are as truly handicapped as the mentally disabled, for English is not just a subject like any other. It is the key to learning almost everything else. Most other subjects can be learnt or even self-taught provided that one can read easily and with comprehension and speak correctly so as to be understood.
Why has this happened? Because, for a generation, grammar has been thrown out of the classroom window. Why? At the behest of a bunch of cranky educationists who decided that the study of spelling and grammar inhibited imagination and creativity while responsible people who should have known better believed them. It will be a hard job to put
668
English grammar back into the classroom. Some of the teachers are by now almost as ignorant of it as the pupils. But it must be done, and quickly too. I suggest that crash courses in English grammar and diction for teachers might be the way to start, always provided, of course, that enough grammarians still exist who are prepared to hold them. At the same time I propose that the study of English language and grammar be made compulsory for all pupils up to school-leaving age from Land's End to Shetland.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I should like to second the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and my noble friend Lady Saltoun to our two maiden speakers on such a splendid initial presentation to your Lordships' House. I am sure all your Lordships hope that we shall hear frequently from both of them in the future.
To take part in a discussion on the English language in your Lordships' House, flanked by perhaps the most distinguished and eloquent practitioners of that language in any assembly in the world, requires a fair degree of courage. But, since English is spoken by more people in North America than on any other continent, perhaps it is appropriate, as suggested to me by my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who initiated this debate with such acumen, that a transatlantic voice should be heard in this debate.
My early education in English was at the hands of, for the most part, graduates of British universities. But following World War Two, I studied journalism at Columbia University in New York and later practised that profession in Canada and the United States. Hence, I am conscious of the differences not only of pronunciation but of idiomatic expression on both sides of the Atlantic.
The English language has been referred to as England's greatest export. During the years of colonial expansion, it was implanted in widely separated parts of the world, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moore. This means that it has developed and changed in different ways in different regions. Hence one can hear the vernacular of the Highlands in Cape Breton Island of Nova Scotia and the expressions of Ireland in Newfoundland. In Texas, it is all very different and all very robust.
However, I, for one, find nothing distasteful about the wide variety of usage. In fact, I think it demonstrates the flexibility of the language and the continued ability of a great variety of peoples to express themselves in its use. What I find distasteful is the degree of carelessness in the use of language to which we are exposed in the press and on radio and television. This is true not only in this country but throughout the English-speaking world. George Orwell, in a treatise entitled Politics and the English Language, listed a number of elementary rules of style. I shall not weary your Lordships with all of these, but one is, I think, of considerable importance: "Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech you are used to seeing in print".
Today we see in print and hear over the airwaves in English-speaking countries a succession of outworn,

669
hackneyed cliches and tired old metaphors. In political articles and broadcasts, one cannot help becoming irritated by the constant use of such terms as "a U-turn" to signify some slight variation in policy by a government. Another weary old cliche is "the banana skin". How many times will an elementary error in judgment by some political party be referred to as "a banana skin"?—I hope not too much longer.
Time and again we hear about "the tip of the iceberg", "the light at the end of the tunnel" and "the end of an era". I suspect, although I cannot be sure, that some of this sloppiness, in the press at least, has been caused in part by the new technology which may have resulted in diminished control by the copy editor leading to more inaccuracies on the printed page.
The latter part of the Motion refers to the case for making English easier to learn. To a large extent, it is in the hands of the press and the electronic media to bring the language to the people—as did the monks of old. I would hope that by more careful attention to the techniques entrusted to them, they will do a better job in discharging that responsibility.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, we have had two very memorable maiden speakers and I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Baroness in particular because I remember how extremely kind her mother was to the young naval airmen, of whom I was one, at Arbroath 45 years ago. The noble Baroness would have been an extremely young girl—a baby in arms, I think. Her mother was so kind to us all and I am happy to see the noble Baroness here in this House and to have had the opportunity too to hear her witty and thoughtful words.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick has already mentioned the difficulties of trying to encompass or encapsulate the English language in six minutes and I will not try. Or do I mean "I shall not try"? I think I probably should. But would that be pedantic, which is worse than being ungrammatical? I think probably it might. Or should I say I think that it probably might? On a day like this we are beset by pitfalls, but what exactly are "pitfalls"? Have I just committed a mixed metaphor? Can we be beset by them? We are in very serious danger if we presume to speak on this occasion.
We are all grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon on the Cross-Benches for putting down this Motion today. He wants to make the English language easier. He would like to do away with irregular verbs, or at least to make them much simpler. I suggest that it cannot be done, whatever the Academie Francaise or Teddy Roosevelt may have tried to do in the past. The language is something that slowly evolves and changes, subject to so many strange (there is that word again) external influences often unseen and unknown, subject to slang, American usage, journalists and the terrible potency of TV. We cannot stop this and we should not try. I believe that no one in any country has ever succeeded in imposing improvement. The secret forces at work are too powerful for us to influence them. Irregular verbs will always be with us.
Yet we all picked up the English irregular verbs quite easily, however hard we found the French
670
irregular verbs, the Latin irregular verbs and then the Greek irregular verbs which we had to learn by rote. The English irregular verbs presented no difficulty. Perhaps there is a lesson here.
I have watched and listened with fascination and delight as my five-year-old son has learnt the language over the last two or three years. Sean practically never has to be taught. He hears words being used and in some mysterious way he infers what they mean and uses them himself. The noble and learned Lord mentioned how a child may say "teached". Sometimes Sean makes mistakes: he might say to me "Has he brung it?" That is very understandable because he knows the past participle of "sing" is "sung" and he deduces that the past participle of "bring" is "brung", which it very well might be. I only have to say to him "No, Sean, has he 'brought' it," and I never have to tell him again. Surely this is the only way for anyone to learn a langauge, by living with those who speak it, and picking it up from them.
As a former sub-editor—indeed a former chief sub-editor—I know the perennial problems that arise in writing English. Hyphenation, the use of capital initials and italicisation are always difficult problems. Is a word ending in the suffix "-ise", spelt I-S-E or I-Z-E? On all these problems there are often no hard and fast rules and an ad hoc decision must be made for each publication. The use of "which" instead of "that" and the use of "will" instead of "shall" are perhaps the two commonest errors. Yet are we sure they are errors? What is strictly grammatical may not always be what I would call right. Pedantry, I hold, is worse than bad grammar. A husband should be divorced if he comes home and shouts up the stairs "Yoohoo, darling, it is I", and yet he is being perfectly grammatical. I believe that what matters is usage. Usage rules, okay?
I turn for a few seconds to statutes. We all know how terribly difficult statutes are to understand. I have tried a little to improve one or two, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has helped. I am not against the parliamentary draftsman. My father was a draftsman. He drafted A. P. Herbert's Matrimonial Causes Bill. I know what an extremely difficult task it is. But surely Bills could be made easier for the ordinary person to understand.
At a recent Report stage, I moved an amendment to replace eight lines with one and a half lines which said exactly the same thing. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack commented that one never knows what courts will do unless things are rather spelt out for them. That meant spelling out one and a half lines into eight lines. The amendment was finally accepted when the noble and learned Lord put it down at the next stage without saying that it was my amendment. Surely there is not this necessity to spell things out with that kind of elaboration. Surely, the judges, the barristers, the magistrates and even the litigants, are a little more clever than that.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, it is characteristic of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to have chosen such a fascinating subject for our debate tonight. I should like first to congratulate our two maiden speakers not only for what they said but for the charm with which they expressed themselves.

671
I want to urge the importance of teaching English in our schools. I hope Sir John Kingman and his committee will not be diverted into talking about the needs of society. We all know what the needs of society are. They ought to concentrate on two things. First. how do we teach children to write clear English?—not imaginative English, not spontaneous English, not regional English but clear English. Second, how do we get these principles and methods across to every language teacher and every training college and make the use of English and the use of mathematics compulsory subjects for every child so long as he or she stays at school?
What do we mean by clear English? Here is an example. I have chosen a passage which is not grotesque jargon. It is grammatical, comprehensible and only 58 words long. Unfortunately, it is damnably boring. Here it is:
"When the brake mechanism was operated, it became clear that there was insufficient pressure in the hydraulic system to make the caliper assembly press the two friction pads together on the disc with the firmness we expected. On examining the oil supply, we found both the quality and the level to be below those specified by the manufacturer.".
That could be better expressed and clearer in 56 words:
"A hydraulic system works the caliper device which presses together the two friction pads on the disc. When we put on the brake, there was insufficient pressure in the system to make the brake grip as firmly as it should. So we examined the oil supply and found the quality and level below the manufacturer's specification.".
How does one train teachers to teach children to make that kind of conversion? Those of us who had Latin grammar beaten into our brains and our behinds at school are too apt to think that one must be taught English grammar to write good English. But children in primary schools are not taught Latin. If one insists on teaching formal grammar the energy of the teachers will be diverted from the skills they are supposed to improve. There is no evidence that teaching formal grammar ever improved language skills. Of course to write good English one must use, in the approved way, existential sentences, non-finite clauses and ellipses and must choose one's complex modalities with taste. But for Heaven's sake do not teach children these frightful terms. One of the best reasons for learning foreign languages is that then you have to learn some grammar and you begin to learn the grammar of your own mother tongue.
It is the teachers not the children who need to be taught grammar, and then they need to be taught how to convey the ideas in grammar to their pupils. It can sometimes be done by means of simple diagrams, and this raises the question: why then was it necessary to set up this new committee and why are we still worried about the problem?
Ten years ago Lord Bullock produced a mammoth report on the subject. He recommended that standards of literacy should be monitored. They are not. Lord Bullock urged that, when teachers are trained, they must all be taught how to teach languages, regardless of their main subject. They are not. Lord Bullock wanted local authorities to receive an earmarked minimum provision for books. They do not. Ten years ago Mrs. Shirley Williams emphasised the importance of English teaching. Only the other day the Secretary
672
of State did precisely that in his Arvon speech. Why have all these reports and speeches had so little effect?
To answer that question is to indict the whole of our educational system and convict of wilful neglect those of us like myself who are in it. The first culprits are all those teachers and local councillors who say that children should write and talk as they wish and that to correct them is to impose the snobbish diction of an elite. What a wicked doctrine that is. Such people prevent children from getting a decent job when they grow up and condemn them to be unskilled labourers. Next are the racists, who, of course posing as anti-racists, argue that immigrants from Pakistan and India should be taught at school primarily the languages that they speak at home. Was there ever a better recipe for racial isolationism and hatred?
I have no time to explain why the colleges and institutes of teacher training fall down on the job, but my next culprits are the departments of English at our universities and colleges. One of the men who did most harm to the cause of writing clear English was that influential literary critic F.R. Leavis; and also his disciples, who denigrated that admirable subject, the use of English at A level. Well, not all English dons are Leavisites. Nevertheless, which departments of English take steps to make their pupils express themselves clearly and which departments of History or Economics do that? The dons do not do so, and we are guilty of what Julien Benda called le trahison des clercs.
The last enemy of good English is our elephantine bureaucracy. It is the duty of civil servants in the DES, Her Majesty's Inspectors, and the local education authorities, to implement the Secretary of State's policy. Why do they not do so? The bureaucrats seem to lack the will and knowledge and guts to do it. I hope that the noble Baroness is not going to rebuke me for attacking public servants on the grounds that they cannot reply, because I think it is the duty of the legislators to call the Executive to account.
It is not the fault of successive Secretaries of State that nothing is done. How many more decades of speeches, how many more reports are to be written. before the bureaucrats take action? Until some Permanent Secretary is prepared to give a kick to all those concerned with this matter, nothing will be done. This is the English disease. We dons, we bureaucrats, we are all so skilful in analysing what is wrong. We are perfectly hopeless in setting programmes at all levels of education to put it right. The English disease is the inability to translate what into how. And yet, what higher priority in education at all levels is there than teaching the young how to manipulate numbers and write their mother tongue?
Let us remember this. That bloodthirsty, cruel tyrant Stalin will be remembered in history for many terrible things. However, he will also be remembered for changing Russia from an illiterate society to a literate country. But for that, Russia would have been defeated by Hitler. The Churchillian exhortation should go out from the DES to every local authority, every college, every school: teach clear English—action this day.
6.14 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, as I expected and I dare say everyone else expected, this

673
was bound to be a debate full of treasures. A couple of treasures that merit particular attention are the two maiden speeches that we have heard. I felt enormous pleasure and, if it is not an impertinance to say so, admiration at witnessing the happily somnambulistic experience of the noble Lord who made his maiden speech. He said that he was asleep; he woke up in the middle of it—it was a remarkable tour de force and a tine speech.
As to my noble friend who made the other maiden speech, when she was speaking I realised, not for the first time perhaps, that we had been without a Lord Strange for too long. I felt in some sense in the course of that enchanting speech that the old friend of so many of us, John Strange, had come among us again. I take the greatest pleasure in saying that.
We are talking about the difficulties of English and of how we can make it easier to learn. Who, I wonder, are "we"? Who do we mean by "we" when we talk like this? Are we, the English, or perhaps the British, to set up something like a cross between the Academie Francaise, which is a fairly disastrous body incidentally, and the MCC, briefed to be the governing body of the English language with power to fabricate, formulate and promulgate amendments to the existing rules? If so, who is going to pay the slightest attention to us if we do? English is a far bigger language than that. I need hardly enlarge on that point, which has been made by practically every speaker so far, including pre-eminently the noble and learned Lord who initiated the debate.
English is by far the nearest thing to a global language ever known. For that reason, it is also far from being our own private tongue, to amend, improve and generally mess about with as we like. As to its basic structure, here, if I may, I shall quote from "The Story of English", that remarkable BBC television programmes series by Messrs McCrum, Cran and MacNeil. It was said:
"its global structure is backed up by massive English language training programmes, an international business that in textbooks, language courses, video programmes and video instruction—is worth hundreds of millions of pounds or dollars to the economies of the US and the UK … Dr. Robert Burchfield, chief editor of the OED, has remarked that 'any literate, educated person on the face of the globe is deprived if he does not know English' ''.
That being so, before we set about lightheartedly tinkering with this colossus of a language, we might do worse than to sit in a darkened room for a bit and contemplate the sheer enormousness of what we propose.
I confess that I am a little inclined to shed a tear at the thought of poor foreigners struggling to learn our lingo. We do not, after all, as has been pointed out already, have much trouble with our genders, which I believe are unique in corresponding to sex, while the thing that has no sex—in the biological sense, that is—is neuter. Ships and boats are an exception, certainly so that a man-o'-war called "Rodney" or "Iron Duke" is referred to as "she", but it is permissible to call them "it".
Our adjectives do not have to agree in either gender or number with nouns, which is different from French, where "day" is masculine and "night" feminine; and from German, in which the au pair girl of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, would be regarded as neuter. As
674
for our verbs, those, I think, have been disposed of already and they present very little difficulty.
If we wish to help a foreigner to use our language, we should concentrate first, I suggest, on helping him in his greatest difficulty, which, I think, if I know anything about it, would be not in speaking, in writing or in reading our language but in understanding what we say to him. Am I being insulting in wondering whether any of your Lordships has ever asked the way to the post office in a foreign country—in the local language, of course—and then been defeated by the answer? Thanks to my Russian phrase book, I can ask with some fluency, "What are the main points of interest?" or "Is there a ball at the Palace of Culture?". But as the book does not give the answers, what the hell?
I am able, or so I like to think, to order a meal in a Japanese restaurant. As long as I get it right, all is well, and I am credited with a knowledge of Japanese. But suppose the waiter launches into a series of shrill, staccato questions about what sort of raw fish, or would I like my saki hot or cold. Then I find that all I can think of to say in Japanese is, "Thank you" and "Goodbye", which may cause surprise.
Naturally, the stranger in our midst is similarly at risk. Unless he wishes to say that his four thoughtless daughters have caught thoroughly rough-sounding coughs through eating more sour doughnuts than they should, the chance is probably against his getting into the diphthong-diagraph difficulty that the noble and learned Lord postulated in his speech. Nonetheless, in replying to him we should choose our words with care and there are various tricks of speech of which we should be wary. Quite a small example comes perhaps under the heading of jokey idioms.
Years ago, probably in the time of Sherlock Holmes, the keen-eyed detective would be said to search for clues with a fine-toothed comb. Then somebody frivolously shifted the hyphen and called it a fine tooth-comb. Finally, by natural progression, it lost the adjective altogether and became a tooth-comb. Nowadays there are semi-literate people who believe that there actually exists an instrument called a toothcomb, implying, I suppose, that there are also combs that have no teeth. If one of those people were to tell a Chinaman that such an instrument would be used on his behalf, the Chinaman might be surprised to learn that the British apparently comb their teeth.
We speak of the heritage and set up great bodies to protect and defend it, but I suggest that the greatest part of the whole of our heritage is the language itself. Powerful, flexible, resilient, it has endured for centuries, evolving all the time, sometimes for the better and sometimes not, but almost never in response to deliberate interference. I say "almost never" because I think of the damage that has been done to it by the Church. In the name of making it easier to learn and comprehend (or so I understand) it has knocked the splendour out of its own glorious Liturgy, even to the extent of addressing the Divinity with less ceremony than we in your Lordships' debating Chamber use towards our fellow Peers.
Leave it alone. Let the solecisms that we hear pass with little more than a nod and a wink, because the language will be all right in the end. I beg that it be not interfered with but, above all, interfered with by government or any other statutory body.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, when I read the Order Paper today I bethought myself of the great expansion of our English language. It expands with new words continually, many of them from across the Atlantic. Reading the Order Paper, I paused first at the word "AIDS". That is a new one from across the seas and everyone, I hope, understands it by now. Then one sees the words "brain drain". The debate had nothing to do with drains and little to do with brains. Then, again, we come to the "treatment of dyslexia". All these words are rushing into our language and we all ought to know what they mean.
How valuable it is for my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale to draw attention to the importance of language. Language is the vehicle of thought and expression. Whatever you think, whatever you say, you can only do it in words; and whatever subject you deal with—philosophy, politics, law, science and the rest—you can only do it in words.
Language is the vehicle of all thought and all expression; and I would join with others in saying how much—and I am proud of it—we English have done. Of the great gifts the English people have given to the world there are two special ones: the English law and the English language. And of these two the English language is the greater and has had the greatest influence on mankind. Perhaps the comparison with all the other competing languages has never been better expressed than by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch in his introduction to The Oxford Book of English Prose. This is how he puts it:
"Our fathers have, in the process of centuries, provided this realm, its colonies and wide dependencies, with a speech malleable and pliant as Attic, dignified as Latin, masculine, yet free of Teutonic gutteral, capable of being as precise as French, dulcet as Italian, sonorous as Spanish, and of captaining all these excellences to its service".
There it is. I would thank not only my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, but also the noble Lord, Lord Moore, who stressed—and I have been overseas and visited many places as he has—the importance of the work done by the British Council and the BBC in expanding our English language and teaching it overseas. I would also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for showing the beauty, the loveliness and the lightness if I may so describe it, of our language even on an occasion like this.
So, my Lords, I would not dilate on that too much except to point out that we have a vehicle here of clearness, accuracy and beauty, which we should use to the full. But how often it is debased! Often we have had occasion in this House, in the other place and among the judges, to deplore the language used by the draftsmen. Our English language is capable of being clear and intelligible and it should be so used. It is debased in some ways.
Perhaps I may draw attention to another important point which was mentioned by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The European Community is a multilingual society with nine different languages. They are all official, and all decrees, statutes and so on have to be officially in nine different languages. Your Lordships will know how difficult it is to get the exact equivalent when they are translated—we all learnt that at school. As my noble friend said, you cannot get the
676
exact equivalent of a word or phrase when the directives and treaties are framed in French. The working language of the European Court of Justice is French. All their discussions are in French and all their judgments and arguments are in French; as are those of other institutions of the European Commission.
That is a problem to be dealt with. It is most important that we should have native-born English translators, going over to the European communites and translating the French or other languages into intelligible English. If your Lordships listen to those simultaneous translators, you will know that they do not get it right. It is not worth listening to them: they do not have the knowledge. Equally, the translations which we have from the French into English give us many problems as to interpretation. So my plea is for the teaching of the English language. Let us spread it world wide in every way we can and let it also spread to the institutions of the European Community.
6.30 p.m.
Lord AiredaleMy Lords, the distinction has been well made between the two categories of learners—on the one hand the child of English-speaking parents learning English almost painlessly at its mother's knee, and, on the other hand, the foreign student learning English as his second language. He, I fear, poor fellow, has a very much harder slog. As to the first category, the child, I will only say that the quality of the instruction given does, of course, vary from case to case. There was the London mother with her family on a long journey by bus. One of the children became restive and said: "Mum, ain't we ever going to get off this bloody bus?" and Mum said: "Now then, how many times have I told you not to say 'ain't'?"
Then we come to the foreign student with his harder slog. Can we help both categories at the same time? I think we can, and I think we can impose some useful self-discipline upon ourselves if we heed the advice of Sir Ernest Gowers and stick to plain words whenever we can.
Some time ago, a Minister of the Crown, the son, I believe, of a university don, speaking from that Dispatch Box there said:
"The dependence of expansion on consumer uptake also puts a question mark over any estimate of job creation.".
I do not know how much that meant to the foreign visitors in the Strangers' Gallery. I doubt whether it has meant very much to your Lordships so far. Let me just read it again:
"The dependence of expansion on consumer uptake also puts a question mark over any estimate of job creation.".
I think what he was saying was that new jobs also depend on people buying more goods, and if he had been speaking off the cuff that is what he would have said. He must have been speaking from a brief.
Another Minister, speaking from another brief, I thought was rathing gilding the lily when he said:
"Restrictions should be swept away in order to lead to new and innovative ideas.".
What does one do to people who write briefs like that? I suppose one might start by introducing them to the works of A. E. Housman. When Housman wrote,
"When first my way to fair
I took Few pence in purse had I
And long I used to stand and look
At things I could not buy",

677
he was not writing in monosyllables as a trick. He was instinctively writing good English.
Just the other day, I read with moderate enthusiasm a Written Answer which said that the parliamentary press was,
"utilising the most efficient … methods of production.".
The writer recovered from that in the next sentence when he said that the Press was using the latest method of printing addresses. But he relapsed in the next paragraph when he, "envisaged no problems of waste disposal". That would not have pleased the late Lord Birkett, who, in a presidential address to the English Association, said:
"When I hear of targets and overall targets and global targets, and things being adumbrated or visualised or finalised or, indeed, envisaged, or circumstances eventuating or transpiring, I think of the other aim of this Association to uphold the standards of English writing and speech and I try to act accordingly when it lies in my power.".
In last week's Green Paper on radio, we read:
"Public service broadcasting should provide geographical universality of coverage."
I think they mean that it should be available everywhere. In Guildhall there is a memorial to William Pitt on which Canning had inscribed the words, "He died poor". One of the aldermen took exception to this and said,
"Wouldn't it have been more dignified to say, 'he expired in indigent circumstances' "?
More dignified perhaps, but not more informative to the foreign visitors to Guildhall.
One can go on giving examples of this kind. There was a report in The Times in January of a road official saying that a certain section of the A I was almost 200 per cent. worse than the average. Would it not have been more effective to have divided by 100 and said "nearly twice as bad"?
My time is probably nearly up and I do not want to go on giving examples. If I had one piece of specific advice to give to learners of English, I think I should say: Whatever you do, try always to attach your participles properly. Never find yourself writing anything like this, which appeared in Private Eye:
"Having been effectively vandalised and set on fire, the Diocese of Durham decided to declare the building redundant."
6.37 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, due to the rapid ending of the last debate and a long-standing business engagement elsewhere in the House, I was unable to hear the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I apologise to him for any discourtesy. But I have heard the noble and learned Lord speak in this House on a number of occasions and know the tremendous help he has been and the tremendous contribution he has made towards the Queen's English being spoken and written properly in both Houses of Parliament.
I intervene in this debate because, like many of your Lordships, I have family in the profession of teaching. My elder daughter went to teacher training college in the East Midlands and, for some years before she had a family of her own, taught in a comprehensive school in what I suppose one might call downtown Nottingham, where there were a number of
678
nationalities and English was a somewhat fascinating subject on occasions.
Examples have been given of the way that English has been maltreated, and of course our statutes at times are no exception to this. One reads of traumatic experiences and cosmetic situations. What relevance that has to the perfumery industry, I do not know. But we have all these expressions which come from high places, and if they come from such places as the High Court of Parliament, as some expressions do, it is no surprise that our schools at times—as a number of your Lordships have said—are not very well versed in the writing, reading or understanding of our English language.
The Motion of the noble and learned Lord dwells on the case for making English easier to learn. In the late 1930s when I was at school, I remember learning French from the wife of the headmaster, who was herself French. It is out of order to quote a foreign language in your Lordships' House. However, in that class only French could be spoken. It was made clear that, in the 40 minutes of that class, one could not leave it for even the direst needs unless one spoke properly pronounced French.
If one travels in Scandinavia, as I have done several times, and if one is stranded, for example, in Northern Lapland in Finland with a broken-down motor car, a Berlitz phrase book can be very useful. I mention that because my wife and I recently went to hear a Finnish choir in London. They sang "Drink to me only with Thine Eyes" in almost perfect English. I was a chorister at school for a few years and my wife sings with our local choral society. What would happen if I had to sing in Finnish does not bear thinking about.
The problem is that as a nation we are lax in the speaking of English. When we go overseas, we take it for granted that the people of almost every other country speak English. What is worse, the British Broadcasting Corporation now pronounces the capitals of some countries in a most deplorable manner. I sometimes go to Helsinki. I once asked a top person in the BBC: "Where is Hels-i-n-k-i?". He said: "It is the capital of Finland". I said: "The capital of Finand is H-e-lsinki. If a member of the Finnish broadcasting corporation talked about Lon-don, what would you say?". He was rather taken aback. I mention that because we ought to be able at least when we go to other countries to pronounce the basic words which we need in a proper manner even when we cannot speak the language.
There are two persons who always speak or spoke English quite outstandingly. One was the late Stuart Hibbert, whose reading of the news in the 1920s, 1 930s and early 1940s was quite exemplary both in the tone of his voice and in his marvellous English. The other person is Alistair Cooke. He comes from Manchester but his "Letter from America" is a marvellous example of concise English, of saying what one means and of saying briefly what many people would take two hours to say. I believe that there is a message here and that, if nothing else, one hopes the debate will cause English to be spoken in a clearer manner.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, let me first add a word of congratulation to what has already been said

679
so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and my noble friend Lady Saltoun about the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I thought that their speeches were quite delightful and I hope that we shall hear them many times in the future.
I do not think that I shall introduce any new ideas into this debate, which has ranged so freely over a wide area and which has been dealt with so thoroughly by my 14 predecessors. However, there are one or two things I want to say and perhaps one or two of the ideas expressed can be looked at a little differently. I shall confine myself to the last part of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon; I think it would be helpful, particularly to foreigners, if our language could be a little easier to learn.
Foreigners learn our language partly from talking to us and partly from listening to us. Consequently, it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has just said, that we speak our language correctly. Unfortunately, many of us—I might almost say most of us—do not. Even more unfortunately, some of our broadcasters, with large audiences overseas, fall into error. We too often hear "from you and I" and "different than". Too often do we anticipate when we should do no more than expect. Frequently we allege we have an alibi when we have only an excuse.
I was entirely with my noble friend Lady Saltoun when she made her plea for the teaching of grammar in schools. I was going to say the same thing myself. However, I was frightened by my noble friend Lord Annan and I must modify what I was going to say to, "the teaching of English in schools". However, in using the word "grammar" in my original draft, I meant the teaching of the correct use of English words. I do not think that even in the few remaining grammar schools is grammar taught. But I was taught grammar and I benefited from that enormously. I believe it should be a compulsory subject, as are reading, writing and arithmetic, in schools.
At the same time, I believe that more senior students should be taught the merits of conciseness and precision. Today, largely through American influence, we are becoming long-winded. We say, for example, "I am hopeful" instead of, "I hope". I even read the other day in one of my favourite periodicals of an aeroplane that has, "a very high-speed capability", when the writer meant, "it can go very fast". I do not think that we can overestimate the importance of teaching English in our schools.
Our language is always growing. New words find their way into it. I believe that we should be very critical of their acceptance. In that, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who introduced this debate so eloquently. I do not know whether he meant to make quite the same suggestion as I wish to make, which is that there should be established a high-powered council for monitoring the growth of English. I am not suggesting that such a council should have mandatory powers. However, it would from time to time pronounce opinions on verbal innovations, and those opinions should be given wide publicity. We might then reject horrors like "disinformation", which, if it means anything at all, means "lies". We might even reduce the use of the verb "to debrief". We have now reached the stage when a person who has
680
never been briefed, such as a released Russian dissident, can be debriefed! We already have perfectly appropriate words such as "question", "interrogate" and "examine". We do not need to add to the list a clumsy alternative.
I believe that such an influential council, which may be the sort of body which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was envisaging, could help to maintain the precision of our language. That objective is vital because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already said, language is the instrument of thought.
Such matters are of importance to the learners of our language with whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is particularly concerned. For the learner, our language has another characteristic which is more important to him than it is to us. That characteristic is our spelling and some of our spelling is very strange. I think that the time has come for some modest reform. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, it is absurd that the letters "o-u-g-h" should be capable of so many kinds of pronunciation. It is irrational that "aught" and "ought" should be pronounced the same. Surely "should" and "mould" should rhyme. Could this council, with the monitoring of innovation as its first priority, reform just some of the more outrageous of our spelling inconsistencies as its second term of reference? We do not want revolutionary change, but could it not, from time to time, issue new spellings to be regarded as acceptable alternatives to the time-honoured anachronisms?
For our benefit and to help the learner, we must speak our language correctly. Our broadcasters in particular should speak correctly. Some do, but not all. As I remarked so long ago in the debate we had in November 1979, the BBC once had a Director of the Spoken Word. I think that is a post, both in the BBC and the independent authority, which could well be revived.
This is the third debate that we have had in my time here on the subject of the English language. We had one in November 1979, one in January 1981 and this debate today. It will be a very good thing if from time to time we have such debates and criticise our language in the hope that we can keep its quality as it should be.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for so felicitously introducing tonight the subject of English teaching. I also congratulate the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who made two absolutely superb maiden speeches; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I suppose it is a mark of the flexibility of our language that although the noble Baroness is the mother of six children nevertheless she can properly be called a maiden speaker on the occasion of this debate.
I began to learn English at the age of five in the Lakefield Elementary School in Llanelli. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will forgive me; I know that English is a great language, but so is the Welsh language. Welsh is far older, of course. It is

681
the oldest language in Europe, a beautiful language in its poetry and in its literature as the millennia have shown. However, tonight, I gladly praise the English language which I have been trying to learn ever since the age of five.
English has been rightly called our greatest single national asset. Curiously enough, it was rather a late developer. In the 16th century King Charles of Spain is recorded as saying:
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my, horse.".
There is not a mention of English at all. Then, in 1582, Richard Mulcester wrote:
"Our English Tung is of small reach, it stretcheth no further than this island of ours, naie not there over all.".
Only about five million people spoke English then. As we all know, gradually, it encompassed the world. Already by 1602 Samuel Daniel was writing:
"And who, in time, knows whither may be sent
The treasure of our tongue, to what strange shores
This gain of our best glory shall be lent
T'enrich unknowing nations with our stores.".
How prophetic that was. By then, or shortly after, Shakespeare had already written several of his plays.
The English language is difficult but many who speak different tongues have learnt it. It was Arnold Bennett who described the Oxford English Dictionary as the longest sensational serial ever written. However, it is a language that has given an abundance of choice—for the lawyer to be obscure, if it is convenient to be obscure—of flexibility, of subtlety and, indeed, of simplicity. It can be made simple, but it is not easy. Indeed, in the report by Sir Alan Bullock to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred, it was indicated that simplicity of language is very important. The report contains a passage which reads:
"We believe that language acceptance grows incrementally"
Presumably, that means it grows.
"through an interaction of writing, talk, reading and experience, the body of the resulting work forming an organic whole.".
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that that was not written by a civil servant but by an academic, if I am not greatly mistaken. However, let me not be provocative on this peaceful linguistic occasion. At any rate, it is not easy, but it can be done.
What I suppose we all tend to forget is that the process of communication is important not only for what is said but perhaps, even more important, for what is understood. The language is admirable if it can be done simply but, as I say, it is not easy. Nor, indeed, is it easy to be brief. I remember on almost my second day as Attorney-General I received a letter from one of the parliamentary draftsmen. I do not know if it was an original observation but it said:
"I am so sorry that this letter is so long. If I had had time I could have made it shorter".
We all sympathise with that.
As the House has learned already, the proposed committee of inquiry, which I welcome, is not the first. Sir Alan Bullock issued a report in 1975, after three years of deliberation. I am sorry to say that it was never discussed in Parliament. I hope that that will not be the fate of the next report. The report concluded:
"The standards of writing, speaking and reading can and should be raised".
682
It urged, as we are, I believe, rightly urging today,
"the need for simplification of style".
The report looked, among other things, at the difficulties of spelling, which have been referred to from time to time. It concluded that English shares with French the disadvantage of being among the most complex in its spelling pattern. The majority of the committee remain unconvinced—another term of art we can perhaps do without—by the case for national reform of the system of spelling in English. They thought the issues involved too complex and made no recommendations.
One recommendation which was made—and here I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, if he will allow me to do so, and he cannot really stop me—was that every school with pupils whose original language is not English should adopt a positive attitude to their bilingualism and whenever possible help maintain and deepen their knowledge of their mother tongue. The mother tongue is not something to be ashamed of. It should be cherished. It is a product of generations, of decades and sometimes of millennia.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I was referring to immigrants to this country. Of course, the noble and learned Lord has the Welsh language in mind, but it is the English who are the immigrants, not the Welsh.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Lord admit that he is an immigrant. It is not always popularly spoken of in that manner by Welshmen. However, I am not speaking in any sense of an awareness of the greatness, the superior greatness, of the Welsh. Of course, they are as good as anyone else—no better and no worse than that. But I must not allow myself to be distracted. What was said by the Bullock report in regard to that matter is commendable.
I am told that owing to the economy of earlier speakers I have the permission of the Minister to take a little more time than I would normally be allowed, but I will not abuse it. I commend the Plain English Campaign which nominates Golden Bull awards for official gobbledegook. I regret to say, having acknowledged the generosity of the noble Baroness, that this year the award went to the Department of Education and Science for a letter to teachers' pay negotiators which read:
"Burnham Category II/III courses may or may not be advanced and poolable. A Burnham Category course which is not poolable is not poolable only because it is not advanced, i.e. it does not require course approval as an advanced course. It is therefore wrong to describe it as a 'non-poolable advanced (non-designated) course'. Non-poolable courses are non-advanced by definition. I think that the problem you have described probably results from confusion here".
That is indeed a masterpiece. However, lawyers, too, have been known to err and I hope that the House will give me a moment's grace and heed a famous observation of Lord Justice Harman when, as a chancery judge, he made a judgment on an issue which turned on the meaning of "a statutory instrument". He said:
"To reach a conclusion on this matter involved the court in wading through a monstrous legislative morass. staggering from

683
stone to stone and ignoring the marsh gas exhaling from the forest of schedules lining the way on each side. I regarded it at one time, I must confess, as a Slough of Despond through which the court would never drag its feet, but I have, by leaping from tussock to tussock as best I might, eventually, pale and exhausted, reached the other side where I find myself, I am glad to say, at the same point as that arrived at with more agility by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls".
English is a great language and it is great to see it laughed at from time to time, even by lawyers.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation after—dare I say it?—the tour de force of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he made his contribution, apart from remembering the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on the problems attendant on reading a brief.
However, I welcome the introduction of this debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The English language is indeed a great treasure and, moreover, one which does not need to be hidden away to preserve its value. We have been reminded of the extent to which English is spoken throughout the world as the mother tongue in English-speaking countries and as a second or foreign language in very many other countries. I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for providing this opportunity for a reaffirmation of the importance of the English language.
The debate has also focused attention on the learning of the language, whether it should be made easier and how that can be accomplished. It is some six years since the House last debated this theme and I believe that the debate then addressed the question of whether simplification of the English language would advance the cause of high standards or result in linguistic chaos. On that occasion there were very many views expressed about what constitutes good English, and about the desirability and feasibility of attempts to reform the English language. This afternoon, we have heard many more fresh and intriguing arguments on these themes. It has been a particular pleasure to hear the views of my noble friend, Lady Strange and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, in their maiden speeches. I too should like to congratulate them both and say how much I look forward to hearing more from them on this and many other themes in the future.
Many noble Lords have argued—and I doubt if any would disagree with them—that improvement in standards of communication in English would be a great benefit. The question is how that improvement can be attained. Some believe that what is required is reform of spelling and grammar so that English can be more easily learned, whether by children or foreigners. We have heard many suggestions as to the types of reform that might be adopted. Gaining agreement to reform and bringing it about—not just in this country but in the whole of the English-speaking world—would be a formidable task, however hard the French have tried to prove that it is possible in their case. Changes in language and in language usage of course take place all the time in a living language but they do so naturally and gradually. I am not convinced that attempts to regulate or direct that process would
684
achieve the desired results. Indeed, I am inclined to think that English would not be as universally spoken as it is if it were not that it is already so much more simple and flexible than many other languages.
Even if it were possible to wave a wand and reform or simplify English spelling and grammar across the world, would that be desirable? The richness and subtlety of the English language which has been so vividly and richly illustrated this afternoon are matters of which we are rightly proud, and many people would be sorry to see them lost even in the interests of greater simplicity.
The Government are therefore concentrating their efforts not on trying to change the English language but on trying to improve the way that it is taught. Our aim is that all young people, whatever their ability, should leave school able to use the written and spoken word accurately and effectively. We are also concerned that they should understand how their language works. Over the last 20 years or so schools have progressively ceased to teach the rules of English grammar as my generation was taught them. But if children are to be able to communicate effectively, they need to be able to examine and explain different ways of expressing meaning, thought and feeling through the language they use. The gap that has been left by the decline in formal grammar teaching must be filled. I therefore note with interest the comments on compulsory teaching of grammar that were made so forcibly by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in particular.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science also regards that as a priority and that is why he has recently established the high level independent committee of inquiry to which reference has already been made, to advise on what pupils should know about the English language. The committee is chaired by Sir John Kingman, Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, and has a distinguished membership drawn from education, industry and the arts.
The committee has already invited evidence from anyone with views on how English should be taught in schools, and in particular on the needs of society in present-day England as they relate to an individual's ability to communicate in speech and in writing; to the skills of literacy and communication generally needed in a rapidly changing world; and to the training, both initial and in-service, of the country's teachers in relation to those needs. I hope that that responds to the point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The Committee also asks for information in relation to English language teaching in the primary, middle and secondary phases of schooling.
I am sure that the Kingman Committee will wish to study the views that have been expressed by noble Lords today, which are highly relevant to its concerns. I shall make a point of ensuring that the report of today's debate is drawn to the committee's attention.
The committee of inquiry is one of a number of initiatives aimed at improving the English curriculum in schools and the approaches to teaching. We have taken another important step in establishing criteria for the new GCSE examination in English, which will promote good syllabuses. The School Curriculum Development Committee, which is jointly funded by

685
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the local authorities, is sponsoring a project to improve writing skills. The Government are also making available education support grants for innovative work aimed at developing pupils' use of the spoken word. We believe that each of these initiatives will contribute to our overall aim of helping young people to have a better command of their language.
A number of speakers have made reference to the work of the British Council in teaching overseas, and I strongly support what has been said about its valuable work. The British Council plays a very important role in promoting not only the use of the English language but an interest in English literature throughout the world. Indeed, in my own recent experience in South America last year in both Bogota and Quito I found the British Council's energetic and enthusiastic teams increasing their English teaching facilities on what was largely a self-financing basis. It was a very satisfactory and salutary experience. I hope and believe that the council's efforts will continue to bear fruit.
Through its World Service and the programmes which it sells profitably abroad, the BBC performs an ever more important role. I should like to acknowledge the work of other voluntary bodies in this field, especially to name but one, the English Speaking Union.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me about illiteracy. That is a difficult question because adult illiteracy cannot easily be quantified and consequently the available evidence is not always consistent. The National Child Development Study survey of 1981 found that 10 per cent. of the 23 year-olds asked said that they had had reading problems since leaving school. Of those, 3 per cent. said that those problems had made things difficult for them in everyday life. A recent MORI survey of a sample of the population of Rochdale found that 10 per cent. of teenagers asked said that they had some problems with reading, and 16 per cent. had some problems with spelling. Of the adults asked, 7 per cent. had some problems with reading and 13 per cent. had some problems with spelling. The findings of the Department of Education and Science's Assessment of Performance Unit suggest that only a small minority of pupils aged 15 have great difficulty with reading or writing.
Local education authorities and voluntary bodies provide a wide range of learning opportunities for adults who lack basic skills in numeracy and literacy. The Government attempt to stimulate them by further developing adult basic skills provision through funding the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit. Its grant has been increased from some £470,000 in 1980–81 to over £2 million in 1986-87—a fourfold increase in cash terms, and clearly a move in the right direction.
Another aspect of English teaching to which the Government attach importance, and one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, drew our attention, is ensuring that those members of our ethnic minority communities for whom English is not their mother tongue should be fully fluent in speaking and writing it. We believe that we should respect the pupils' ability to speak their mother tongue and should
686
recognise it as an asset. The Department of Education and Science hopes shortly to issue a consultation document on the teaching of ethnic minority languages as an option at secondary level for those who wish it.
However, the prime responsibility of the education system towards ethnic minority pupils is, and I believe must be, to ensure that they have a complete command of English so that they are not disadvantaged in finding jobs or of playing a full part in society. The Government give a great deal of direct assistance to that by means of Section 11 grants to help local education authorities provide extra teachers of English to meet the needs of ethnic minority pupils.
Another topic on which we have had some useful suggestions is that of oral English. We tend to think about people's command of the English language in terms of reading and writing, but there is an equally important dimension which many of your Lordships have demonstrated today—that of speaking. I do not just mean public speaking on occasions such as this, nor am I thinking narrowly of good pronunciation or standard dialect, to which some speakers have referred. I mean it rather in the sense referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, among others. I have in mind the ability to communicate clearly, concisely, accurately and effectively through the spoken word in a wide variety of situations, formal and informal, face-to-face and indirectly, nationally and internationally.
That demands a capacity to adjust content, style, tone and register to meet the needs of the audience and the purpose and nature of the occasion. Careful listening must go hand in hand with effective speaking, as so many have said, but perhaps none so tellingly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
There is clear evidence from the Assessment of Performance Unit and Her Majesty's inspectors that schools do not pay enough attention to developing speaking and listening skills among pupils. A much wider range of oral work; for example, conversation, collaborative discussion, factual reporting, and persuasive argument need to be practised throughout primary and secondary education not only in English lessons but, as again as been said, in mathematics, science, the humanities and other subjects.
The Government will encourage that development through new education support grants to selected local education authorities for "oracy" work, starting next month. The School Curriculum Development Committee has also just decided to launch a major project on oracy this year—I must confess that it is a slightly unfortunate sounding word—and the new GCSE examinations will increasingly assess oral as well as written competence.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and others mentioned the possibility of a national language commission to advise on language reform. That interesting suggestion was put forward during the debate in 1981. My noble friend Lady Young replying on that occasion raised a number of doubts. She pointed to the difficulty which the proposed commission would have in coming to an agreement on a reform programme and the even greater difficulty that the commission would have in persuading others that its ideas were right. She referred to the problem of

687
a commission based in this country gaining the international acceptance which would be necessary. I believe that to a large extent those points remain valid.
We all have our pet hates as regards the use and misuse of the English language. We have had some interesting examples during the debate. My preoccupation is that collective nouns shall take the singular. I therefore assure your Lordships that I shall try to ensure that the Government gives its attention, in response to the calls from all sides of your Lordships' House, to its duty and responsibility in this matter and particularly in its own use of plain English.
Ultimately, however, standards in the use of English will depend on how greatly they are valued by the nation as a whole. It is essential to stimulate and maintain public interest in the promotion of universal literacy. I believe that the debate has provided a welcome and timely opportunity for this House to play its part in that process. I again thank your Lordships for your many, varied and most entertaining contributions.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, even more than usual, it seems to me that the contributions to this debate have been authoritative, varied and entertain-ing. I should like to thank all your Lordships who have contributed to it and I should like particularly to associate myself with the tributes whch have so rightly been paid to the outstanding maiden speeches with which your Lordships have been favoured.
The only substantive part of my Motion is "for Papers". As any papers I might receive would be full of solecisms, which would offend most of your Lordships, and full of absurd spellings and grammar, which would offend my noble friend Lord Kings Norton and myself, I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Billiards (Abolition of Restrictions) Bill [H.L.]
7.19 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
I must begin by declaring an interest, in that I am a consultant to the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, one of the bodies which is in favour of the proposals contained in the Bill. This is a modest measure, the drafting of which is perhaps distinguished more by its brevity than by its elegance. As I hope to explain, it would be of great help to considerable numbers of our fellow citizens.
Sections 10 to 14 of the Gaming Act 1845, which this Bill seeks to repeal have been amended to some extent by later statutes. But their essential purpose has remained unimpaired. It is the imposition of a requirement to obtain a licence from the justices for places offering billiards, bagatelle and similar games, and those games include pool and snooker, if the places are open to the public and do not have a formal system of club membership. The requirement does not extend to private members' clubs or to premises having a justices on-licence for the sale of all intoxicants. But
688
for premises caught by the Act—and there are rather more than 400 of them it is a particular irritant. There is no provision for renewals. Therefore a fresh application has to be made every year and £8.50 paid for the licence or for its transfer.
The Act requires the premises to close on Sundays, one of the most popular days for these activities, as well as on any day appointed to be kept as a public fast or thanksgiving. The Sunday ban is a particular source of complaint at tourist resorts. It means, for example, that if coin-operated pool tables are to be used they have to be kept in a separate room which can be locked up on Sundays or the whole operation has to be closed down, while oft-times the pub down the road can happily keep going and offer those facilities.
All this has driven me to the conclusion that the licensing requirement as a whole has ceased to have any useful purpose. Perhaps in 1845 the game of billiards was associated with undesirable activities, but that is not true today. Indeed, snooker has acquired a distinction which I think would have astonished our Victorian forebears. I simply cannot see that there is any reason for singling out billiard halls which are open to the public for special treatment which does not apply to many other places of public recreation in England and Wales.
I notice that the Royal Commission on gambling which the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, chaired, like the previous royal commission which reported in 1951, thought that the 1845 Act provisions had outlived their usefulness and ought to go. The recent edition of Social Trends shows that between 1977 and 1983 participation in snooker, billiards and pool increased by two-thirds. It is true to say that this is an activity in which an increasing number of people are taking part and not just watching. To remove the restrictions in the 1845 Act would put an end to an irritant in an area where there is no suggestion, as far as I am aware, of any undesirable activities; would remove the anomaly between the public billiard hall on the one hand and the members' club and the on-licence premises on the other; and would relieve the justices of one chore which serves no obviously useful purpose.
A number of interested bodies have been consulted, including the local authority associations, the police and the National Council on Gambling. I am not aware that anyone has raised any objection to the removal of this licensing requirement. The Magistrates' Association for its part is all in favour of abolishing these archaic provisions.
This is a short Bill which does not call for lengthy exposition. I think that I can keep to the time laid down for the previous debate. A brief summary of what I have been trying to say is that I am recommending the abandonment of a control which, so it seems to me, has simply ceased to have any justification. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
7.25 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am a little mystified by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has not dispelled my mystification by what he said. Over 50

689
years ago when I was a school boy I used to play billiards rather well and enjoyed doing so. A few years later when I went into the Navy no one played billiards because snooker had already taken over, although there was usually a billiard table in the officers' mess, and I came to play snooker rather well.
I have seen the enormous growth in popularity of snooker in this country. It is now the most popular indoor game, with its stars among the best paid sportsmen in the world. But I thought that billiards had died out completely because I never see or hear of it being played, although I realise that it is one of the,
"other games of the like kind".
The noble Lord spoke about it being associated with undesirable activities. I remember in the days when I was playing that skill at billiards was always seen to be a sign of a misspent youth, although I have never been quite sure why that should be so.
When I came to investigate the matter I found that there were over 3,000 snooker clubs in this country which were all very well patronised. The number is growing all the time. But no one plays billiards except for once in a blue moon; it is too eccentric to decide to have a game of billiards. I thought that talking about the,
"public playing of billiards, bagatelle and other games of the like kind,"
was rather like referring to cricket as being, "rounders or other games of the like kind". Rounders is not a game that anyone plays anymore.
As for bagatelle, that has not been played for decades. It is not a game of "like kind" at all. It is played on a small wooden board with little pins stuck in it and set a slant. It could not be less like billiards. A small, hard ball is propelled around the board and ends up in some number or other. The playing of this game was included in the licence which one had to obtain in 1845. but it is no more played now than any of the other games mentioned in the 1845 Act in a different context, such as quoiting and half bowl. I do not know why the need for a licence for bagatelle—which has not been played for decades—has to he included. However, with snooker clubs with membership fees of only £5 or £3 a year it is rather unlikely that there would be any billiard halls open to the public. They are still called billiard halls although no one plays billiards in them. People play snooker or pool but not billiards in billiard halls.
I inquired of the managing director of Riley Leisure, Mr. Gilban, who supplies most of the tables, and of one or two other people in the trade. I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned that some 400 places would be affected, because the figure I was given was fewer than 30. I have certainly never seen one. If we are talking about saving fewer than 30 people, or even 400 people, from paying 16p a week for the right to have a billiard table—which is used for snooker or pool but only rarely for billiards—I do not know why that deserves a Bill at the present time. The gentlemen in the trade to whom I spoke thought that the Bill would make no difference at all. They were prepared to go on record as saying that the billiard licence affects practically nobody and it makes no difference to the people it does affect.
However, in his remarks the noble Lord gave a contrary opinion. I hope that he may be able to go into
690
the matter a little more. I think the Bill does no harm whatever. It will save an unknown number of publicly-owned halls having to obtain a licence. I think that the Bill is completely unobjectionable and I do not believe that it is of very extreme constitutional importance.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I do not think that I shall be able to measure up to the specialised knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, concerning the particular games that we are discussing this evening. However, I was content with the great clarity with which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, presented his Bill. As he introduced it, I understood exactly what it was intended to do. The noble Lord made it abundantly clear that the changes proposed in his Bill are necessary, even if they do not affect very many groups. Like so many other betting and gaming Bills which have been introduced by Private Members, there does not seem to be anything in the least controversial about this. It will be welcomed by those who run the public halls where the games are played.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, because from my small amount of research and homework it would also seem to me that this Bill will apply to very few organisations, and that the anomaly will be cleared up so that the public halls will he brought into line with private clubs where there is no need for a licence. My research showed me that in many cases people were ignorant and had never heard of a billiard licence. That is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. There are people running or supplying snooker halls who were genuinely amazed when they were told about the Bill. It was the first time they had heard that there was any such thing as a billiards licence.
Therefore my conclusion is rather different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I believe we can safely conclude that a Bill which repeals a law, which many people think was abolished last century, can only be welcomed as a very timely measure.
I should like to conclude by asking the Minister once again—I have done this many times before—when the Government will be making their own wide-ranging review of the whole subject of our gaming laws. Private Members' Bills making small changes and adjustments to the Gaming Act seem to occur with enormous regularity. It makes one feel that it is time that the Government grasped the nettle, carried out a review of the whole subject and brought forward their own comprehensive legislation taking in what is wrong, what must be changed and what is out of date. From my understanding of the small change—which is the abandonment of control—I feel that the Bill can only be welcomed. So many small changes have been made that perhaps the Government should look at the whole area and bring forward new legislation.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has given a clear exposition of the case for his Bill. Let me confirm that the Government accept the case for abolition of this form of licensing, and indeed support the Bill.

691
When we came to review the Gaming Act 1845 a few years ago we were struck by two points. The first was the clear impression, gained from consultation with interested parties, that the licensing arrangements made under that Act serve no clear purpose. The Association of Chief Police Officers told us that they saw no justification for retaining the restrictive and elaborate licensing arrangements in the 1845 Act. The Magistrates' Association described the provisions as archaic and favoured abolition. We know too that this proposal also enjoys the support of the businesses affected.
The second impression left by our review was that the continuance in force of these provisions was imposing burdens on the businesses involved in providing public billiards and snooker halls and those providing amusements with pool tables. In the period we surveyed, from 1st July 1984 until 30th June 1985, about 104 new applications were received. These applicants and licensees were put to the trouble of making applications and paying a fee. In return for their trouble they were obliged, among other things, to close these facilities every Sunday, potentially one of the busiest days for these leisure activities. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has pointed out, the present legislation does not provide equality in this respect. Most of the clubs which have opened in the snooker boom of recent years are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence and from the restrictions on Sunday opening. Their exemption arises because by and large they hold a liquor licence for the sale of all intoxicants or confine admission to members of the club.
At this stage I should like to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. The noble Lord mentioned snooker which is of course covered by the description:
"billiards. bagatelle and games of the like kind".
I confirm that our figures show that over 400 premises are licensed. Those include amusement places with pool tables and also some surviving billard halls. We believe that in respect of these premises the 1845 Act, which is still in force, is a burden.
Your Lordships will also be familiar with this Government's drive, led by the enterprise and deregulation unit at the Department of Employment, to cut unnecessary red tape affecting business. Two White Papers, Building Businesses … Not Barriers, and Lifting the Burden, have described the Government's policies and the achievements made so far. The abolition of the licensing of billiards under the 1845 Act appears to be a modest but appropriate step in the direction set down in the White Papers. The noble Lord's Bill will remove one source of irritation felt by business at government regulation as well as one chore for the licensing committees.
I have noted the point that has been made by the noble Baroness about a piecemeal revision of the gaming laws. However, in this instance we take the view that, as there is no immediate prospect of a major Bill on gaming, it would be a pity not to take advantage of opportunities like this to deal with particular issues which can be tackled sensibly on their own.
692
I wish the Bill a safe passage through your Lordships' House and on to another place.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I need only to say that it is gratifying to have the support of both the Government and the Opposition. I should like to make two small points on the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. Under the Act it is a term of the licence that the premises which hold the licence must display a notice saying "licensed for billiards". That is one of the absurdities in that billiards is not one of the games that are played. Snooker and pool are the two great games. Like the noble Lord, I have searched in vain in the provisions to find a reference to a bagatelle table. As the Minister has explained, the numbers are 400 or over which includes, for example, youth clubs which do not have a formal membership, and there are still a few establishments which started life in the north as temperance halls set up in rivalry to public houses.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I accept completely the figures given both by the Minister and now by the noble Lord. I feel sure that the figure which I was given was the figure for billiard halls which existed as such, and did not include amusement arcades in which there was a pool table.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I would certainly not claim that the measure was one of extreme constitutional importance, if I heard the words correctly. But I think it is a useful tidying-up measure. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Dyslexia
7.40 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the Education Act 1981 is operating successfully as regards the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question of Her Majesty's Government I am hoping for three things. I hope to hear from the noble Baroness rather more about what is being done by local education authorities to implement the 1981 Education Act than I know already (which is very little). I hope to be able to make a few points myself and I am greatly looking forward to hearing what other noble Lords say on this subject.
I should say that my knowledge of dyslexia is based on many years of teaching dyslexic children. I am not going to weary noble Lords with a long description of the condition of dyslexia, about which I am sure noble Lords already know a good deal, or you would not be interested enough to be here. I would guess that several noble Lords have children, grandchildren, nephews or nieces who have been sufferers and this is the occasion of your interest.
We all know what we are talking about. It is as follows:
"A disorder in children who, despite conventional classroom experience, fail to attain the language skills of reading, writing and spelling commensurate with their intellectual abilities".
That was a definition, made in 1968, from the World Federation of Neurology. I take no exception to that definition, other than I would cut out the words "in children" because I am sure the condition exists in adults.
Noble Lords will know that this condition is also associated with what is called crossed laterality. This does not mean just that you are left-handed, but it possibly means that you combine left-handedness with a dominant right eye, or possibly that you may be left-eyed and use your right hand. If this is happening, you are what is called crossed-lateral and this may coincide with the condition called dyslexia.
An aspect of the condition that fascinates me is this: we are told that the left hemisphere of the brain is the hemisphere which processes language skills. The right hemisphere is concerned more with visuospatial and artistic skills. If there is a slight defect in the left hemisphere, which processes language skills, it may be compensated in the right hemisphere, which is the hemisphere more concerned with spatial, 3D artistic skills, things which can be done with the hands. If this is so, this accounts for the fact that a greater than expected number of dyslexic children are gifted artisti-cally or mechanically and able to do things with their hands. I find that very interesting but it is at the moment only a theory. One can think of Leonardo who was known to have been dyslexic.
I have to say that when I was looking at some sketches a year or two ago by no less a person than David Hockney—sketches for a production of, I think, the "Rake's Progress"—there were some verbal instructions on the sketches and I noted that he was a very poor speller. We know also that the condition is much more common in boys than girls—approximately four to one. We have an idea of the sort of pattern that a child's life may take if the condition is undiagnosed. You have your unhappy, anxious little boy aged eight, and by the time he is 13 or 14 he is beginning to be disruptive in the classroom. He leaves school illiterate, or at best, semi-literate. He drifts into the dole queue, and possibly worse—perhaps into delinquency or even crime. By the time he is in his thirties he may be referred to a psychiatric hospital. All the time you may have a frustrated engineer, medical student or scientist.
I should like to shift the focus briefly to illiteracy generally. The adult literacy and basic skills unit together with the National Children's Bureau undertook a survey in 1981 of 12,500 23 year-old adults, who had all been born in the same week of March in 1958. They were asked whether since leaving school they had experienced any difficulties with English, writing, reading or spelling. Of that number 10 per cent. said that they had. If that sample is extrapolated to the population as a whole it would appear that approximately 3,250,000 adults suffer with some degree of difficulty with English. I should stress that this figure is very approximate because what is meant by literacy or illiteracy is very indeterminate —where does one stop and the other begin?
How is it that this number of children can go through 11 years of schooling and come out having failed to acquire these basic skills? In speaking of this failure and in suggesting reasons for it, I should stress that in order to avoid complication I am not thinking of children whose mother tongue is not English. Among possible causes one can name missed schooling through ill health or other reasons. Other causes could be frequent changes of school, emotional disturbance, cultural deprivation in the home, generally low intelligence or mental handicap. I am not going to include poor teaching among those because on the whole the standard of our primary teaching is extremely high and it is very unlikely that a child will have failed for that reason.
I do not believe that the factors I have named can fully account for this proportion of poor literacy among adults. I am going to suggest that a large number of them are suffering from a degree and a form of dyslexia. Here we have a situation in which a proportion of otherwise able children cannot fulfil their potential, or play their part in modern society because they have failed to acquire the basic skills on which the whole of our literacy system and the whole edifice of our society is based. These unfortunates not only cannot find work but they cannot look for work because they are not able to read advertisements. If they could read them they could not complete the forms or write simple letters of application. Think of the frustration and of the human wastage!
Since 1981 light has been dawning. The Act requires local education authorities to ensure that children with special educational needs receive special educational provision, and this includes dyslexia or, as the pundits prefer to call it, specific learning difficulty. I should say in parenthesis that I believe that there are certain social overtones here. Dyslexia was at one time thought to be a posh complaint. The saying was that if you were working class you were thick; if you were middle-class you were dyslexic. I have also heard that in my part of the world if you go to Maidstone you suffer from specific learning difficulty, but if you go to Tunbridge Wells you can have dyslexia. I leave your Lordships to draw what conclusion you can from that.
My question of the noble Baroness is to ask how this is working out in local authorities throughout the country? From my investigations, it seems to me that it is variable. I think I can boast that in my part of the country, which is East Sussex, it is working well. In the eastern area, which is mine, we have 170 children receiving special help from a team of seven teachers working full time. Children are given a screening test at top infant level in order to pick out specific learning difficulty problems. Teachers of infants are offered special advice and resources, and there has recently been a course for ordinary class teachers on how to recognise and identify these children and how to help them.
The county of Shropshire has produced an impressive consultative paper which classifies a number of special educational needs. There is reference not to dyslexia but to specific learning difficulty—SLD. Everything has to be initials nowadays. The county claims to be making special provision for this group.
There are bad stories. In telling your Lordships one briefly, I am not going to mention the county involved

695
because I think that this would be unfair. It may be a one-off instance. In any case I know the difficulties that some education authorities are going through. The parents of a little boy aged five knew that he was troubled by some complaint of this sort. They did some reading and investigating and became convinced in their own minds that some sort of dyslexic problem was bothering him.
The school refused to take any interest. It was not until he was eight that he was given a test by the school psychologist. The result of the test was that he was said to be "below average". If he is below average you do not have to do anything special about him because he can go to a class for less able children, a remedial class, and no special provision has to be made.
However, the parents did not believe this. They took their child to a dyslexia specialist. In fact they took him to two. One was at Aston University, which has been specialising in the subject for many years. This resulted in reports saying that the child was of above average intelligence. The parents went back to the school and to the education authority but got no change out of them.
This went on, and further tests were made. Following one, the child was actually described as being of superior ability in certain aspects. Still nothing was done by the authority. The parents are still struggling. They are long-term unemployed. They have spent over £1,000. At one time their child was out of school for a year after developing school phobia. He is now 10, and still nothing has happened. I believe that the parents are now planning to sell all they have, buy a caravan, and move into a different area where, in their own words, "they understand dyslexia".
That is a bad story, and, of course, there could be many others. I do not suppose that this authority is unduly intransigent. I expect that like others it is overworked, understaffed, and underfunded. But the fact is that a number of authorities are offering what they can provide; they are not offering what the children need. There is a big gap between the two.
As I see it, an urgent necesssity is adequate resourcing to enable local education authorities to put into effect what the 1981 Act demands. It is all very well for us to pass an Act and say this, that and the other are to happen. But if those responsible for putting it into effect cannot afford it, it has not done any good. This is, I believe, the situation in many areas.
The second great need is the training of more specialist teachers. In the county responsible for the sorrowful tale of the little boy, I am sure that there are insufficient skilled teachers, which is one reason for not being able to help. The training of ordinary class teachers to recognise these children when they have them in their classes, I know from personal experience, is a great necessity. Often a child in a class of 25 or 30 is written off as of poor ability and peculiar, without sufficient expert knowledge being there to discover exactly what is wrong.
What we need much more of is an ability to identify and diagnose on the part of the class teacher. The training of teachers at the initial stage is important. I think this is not happening at the moment. It may be
696
that the noble Baroness will correct me, but I think that this is not touched on in the initial training of teachers. There have been inset courses in various counties including, as I have said, East Sussex, which help teachers in this way.
Early identification is vital. It is important that parents whose children suffer in this way should know more of their rights under the 1981 Act. One has to bear in mind that the parents of dyslexic children often have a little dyslexia themselves, and they may not be frightfully good at understanding official English. They may not understand what they can do and what recourse they have under the Act to apply to an appeal committee to consider their case and eventually to apply to the Secretary of State. They may not understand what they can do. In my opinion, there is an urgent need for more research into the incidence of specific learning difficulty, or dyslexia, in all schools and also into the causes of the widespread semi-literacy from which we are suffering.
The term dyslexia was coined by an obscure German physician in 1877. I may be doing him an injustice when I say that he was obscure, but you can usually safely say anything that came out of Germany in the 19th century was obscure. He coined the word. It has taken over 100 years for it to achieve something like current parlance.
Thanks to the work of, perhaps notably, the British Dyslexia Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, and of the Dyslexia Institute and of many others who have toiled, worked and fought through many years to bring this into public prominence—and from some of whom I have learned a great deal myself—we now all know what we are talking about. It is now time to take account of it as a substantial factor, possibly even the major factor, in the national problem of functional illiteracy.
8 p.m.
Lord Schon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for raising a very important subject. I am most impressed with the comments he made, and he has dealt with most aspects of the subject about which I wanted to speak. I should like to raise a particular question: are there enough teachers to deal with children affected by learning disabilities? I ask this in the light of the fact that in many instances, I have been told, specialist schools have been closed and children affected by learning disabilities have been integrated into general classes. I had some other points to raise but. as I said before, the noble Lord has dealt with them.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am honoured to be addressing this august and noble assembly and only hope that what I shall say will be of the high standard which your Lordships have come to expect.
When the Education Act 1981 was passed it was hailed by those concerned with problems of dyslexia as a major breakthrough. For the first time, the disability of dyslexia was mentioned. But whatever the cause or nature of the condition, the degree of difficulty should be revealed by assessment and local education authorities had to make appropriate arrangements for meeting individual educational needs.

697
Dyslexia comes under the umbrella of special educational needs and approximately 20 per cent. of the school population has special needs of one sort or another. The actual percentage which is dyslexic is a matter of controversy, but a conservative estimate would place it at approximately 5 per cent. needing remediation and a possible further 1 per cent. probably sufficiently bad as to warrant specific individual teaching. Even 5 per cent. of the total school population is a very large number of children.
Under the terms of the 1981 Act a process of assessment called statementing can be applied to all those who have specific educational needs. The process of statementing falls on the stony ground of not having enough trained educational psychologists to see that it is put through. This is primarily due to financial constraints. The problem is increasingly severe when it is brought to mind that up to 10 per cent. of the school population would benefit from statementing.
There are still many teachers who have only a vague idea of what dyslexia is and have very little idea of how to deal with children in their classrooms who can hardly read or write. It is also thought that dyslexia should be exclusively the concern of the remedial or English departments. Dyslexia does not mean that a child is mentally retarded and certainly it does not only affect English lessons. In fact, dyslexic children are quite capable of taking part in ordinary lessons, provided they are not expected to do all the appropriate written work and some concession is made over the amount of reading. Ideally dyslexic children should be spotted in junior school and given appropriate teaching before disruptive behavioural patterns caused by frustration can emerge or they can become withdrawn, which often happens with dyslexic children.
Teachers often fail to realise the constitutional nature of the problem. There are many courses designed to instruct teachers in the areas of special needs. Dyslexia, which is a historically controversial topic, is often neglected and teachers who are supposed to be helping dyslexics may not be sure of what steps to take. The British Dyslexia Association has done sterling work in promoting the cause of dyslexics over the years; its Dyslexia Educational Trust runs courses designed to train teachers from both the public and private sectors on how best to help dyslexics. It is vital that those in the state system should have access to the same sort of specialist knowledge which has all too often been available only in the private sector.
In the past, this lack of specialist knowledge in the public sector has led those parents who could afford it to transfer their children to the private sector. This has led to the saying that middle-class families have a daughter who has spectacles on the end of her nose, braces on her teeth and a son who is dyslexic.
There have been great strides forward in the recognition of this problem since the implementation of the 1981 Act. There is, however, a very long way to go. I speak as one who is acutely dyslexic. I went through the state system. I was so bad that my problems were picked up in kindergarten and I was lucky in never being labelled stupid in junior school. I was also lucky in receiving a great deal of attention
698
from educational psychologists and teachers, most of whom tried to help by giving me more of the work I had failed at, failing to appreciate that what I needed was a more structured method of learning.
In secondary school there simply was not the framework to deal with someone of my acute level of difficulty and I presented a great many problems to staff. The answer was found in the end to be to allow me to take part in the appropriate classes where I could make an oral contribution. Examination concessions also had to be sought to allow me to take public examinations; in my case this was an amanuensis. The whole process added several years to my schooling.
There is, however, a lighter side to being dyslexic. I can remember my family being very worried and not a little surprised when they were told by a school doctor that I was as blind as a bat. He conducted a sight test using letters of diminishing size; he had not thought to ask if I could read. On another occasion, an essay which I had laboured long and hard over in junior school was preserved, along with a looking glass, as a perfect example of mirror writing. It was actually indecipherable, with or without a mirror.
It is unfortunate that our society still largely equates literacy with intelligence. The undiagnosed dyslexic child may well find himself labelled stupid, lazy or slow throughout school. He will carry these labels throughout his school career and he will carry a very low self-esteem throughout life. It is hardly surprising to find that there are a great many illiteracy problems among those groups in our society who rebelled against it, such as prison inmates and young offenders.
Dyslexics form a substantial minority in our society, a minority which cuts across all social classes, a minority which cuts across all racial groups. To leave this minority largely undiscovered and untaught is not only a waste of human potential but it may also be expensive to society in terms of the anti-social behaviour their frustration may cause.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, following a maiden speech which, as I think your Lordships will agree, expressed very well what the rest of us were going to try and say, I would suggest rather less eloquently. I believe that he found that the medium in which he was happiest was in making an oral contribution. I suggest he remembers that, because many of us, I believe, hope to hear a lot more from him in the future. I also took note of his mention, and I am not quite sure that I heard him aright, of some low esteem. I say here and now that he should forget, from his own point of view, any feeling of low esteem. He has a great deal to be proud of and delivered his maiden speech very well indeed.
I speak as somebody who perhaps is not as dyslexic as he is, but I find myself not being able to use the written symbol as a reference as readily as others of your Lordships in that if I read a note I find I cannot talk. Therefore, the sequencing of my thoughts has to come from my mind rather than from any notes.
I am also very pleased and should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for introducing this subject on which I made my maiden speech some x-years ago,

699
though not nearly as well as the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am grateful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, he is a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association and so am I. There are five of us and he and I are two non-executive vice-presidents. I spent five years as the executive chairman of the British Dyslexia Association; so I am delighted to hear the tributes made by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ritchie.
I want to add one or two things to what noble Lords have already said and perhaps to put my own questions to my noble friend Lady Hooper who will reply for the Government. With dyslexia, as I have seen it, there are differences in ability. It becomes a disability or a handicap because of people's attitudes towards it. There is a lack of awareness. One of the British Dyslexia Association's main priorities is to bring awareness of the condition of dyslexia to people and to provide information and counselling to those with the condition and the parents of such people.
The British Dyslexia Association is the national body. Our main corporate member is the Dyslexia Institute which runs many of the teaching courses in this country. The Dyslexia Education Trust, the DET, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is a trust of which I am chairman which funds bursaries for teachers to take an in-service training course or courses to enable them to understand more, to recognise a dyslexic in the classroom and to give them the specialist treatment they need. There are various degrees of course, and we are in the process of attempting to obtain validation for the British Dyslexia Association's diploma course. There are RSA courses and so on.
What is most important is to make these courses available to as many people and qualified teachers as want them and to satisfy the demand from teachers. It is true, from the experience we have in the British Dyslexia Association, that teachers wish more and more to be able to recognise in their classrooms one or two people perhaps who are sitting at the back who do not absorb the lessons as presented by the teacher. I believe that teachers used to think that there was something wrong with little Jimmy in the back row, but now they are thinking "What is wrong with my presentation of the lesson? Why is that child not absorbing it?" This is marvellous and we are seeing it throughout the education system. I was going to say that teachers are queuing up. I wish they were and I wish we had the resources to fund all this. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of these courses and of what is going on in this respect.
We have now finished our first year and a half of funding these courses which was a private sector investment. The British Dyslexia Association is firmly agreed that this is a national problem and that it should be within the remit of those people whose statutory duty is to provide education to know what we know. Here, I make an offer to my noble friend which I made to the Department of Education and Science when I was chairman. It worked very well. If the department has any question it needs to ask in the realms of specific learning difficulties or dyslexia—both terminologies are rather self-defeating, but we have to call them something—will it please ask us?
700
This has been very successful. We have worked very closely with the Department of Education and Science for the past 10 years at least. I hope, now that the British Dyslexia Association, through its local associations, of which it has between 70 and 75 around the country, will work closely with the local education authorities in the same way and with the same helpful attitude. However, this demands enormous resources.
When I talk about resources, I am conscious that the most important resources are information and knowledge, awareness and understanding. Money can be wasted, but information and awareness are never wasted because they can be presented to the people who need them in a form in which they can accept them. I am making this offer, although I am no longer the executive chairman, because the British Dyslexia Association is in a position to make available an enormous amount of information to education authorities not only of the condition but also an understanding of the teaching methodology which is needed to help these children.
A marvellous thing about dyslexia is that the methodology that has been evolved over the last 15 or 20 years in the Scottish Rights Hospital in Texas—the development work done there is multinational—is a methodology by which all children can benefit. It works beautifully with dyslexic children and it also works with other children. Other means of teaching reading with remedial teachers is of very little value to dyslexic children although it might work with many non-dyslexic non-readers.
All of this leads to another point that I should like to make to my noble friend Lady Hooper. I am being rather unspecific about numbers, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, asked how the local education authorities operate. It would be valuable and of enormous help to the British Dyslexia Association to know how to apply its resources, but it would also be of great value to the Government and to the Department of Education and Science. I know that the department has a difficulty in that it is the local education authorities who provide education. But now, after three or four years of operation of the Education Act, there should be a check into how it is operating.
My noble friend may tell us about the House of Commons Select Committee set up to look into the 1981 Education Act: that is, overall. The dyslexic side of it, the subject of this evening's Question, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, about 5 per cent. of the school population. The British Dyslexia Association operates on the basis of 4 per cent. for planning purposes. Again we need more research. I believe that, on 4 per cent., those coming into the schooling system every year who will be in need of special educational provision would be of the order of 30,000, to be added to the 300,000 in the school situation at any one time.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, rightly said that we need teachers. When I became chairman of the British Dyslexia Association, I said, fine, it is simple. There were 278,000 teachers in the public sector eight to 10 years ago. I do not know what the figure is now. How does one impress upon them the problem of providing the teachers of the teachers? Why do we not just

701
impress that upon the dozen or so teacher trainers—those who train the teachers—so that at least all teachers who come in subsequent years will have an idea what dyslexia is about? As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, rightly said, teachers go through their teacher training with specific learning difficulties and dyslexia omitted entirely or taking up only half an hour or so in their whole three years of training as a teacher, or whatever the period is.
After Warnock, we tried in 1980 to be instrumental in setting up a unit in the department of education in Southampton University, with privately funded money again. It went on for three years. It could, I believe, have been a model, as Warnock suggested, for putting a positive dyslexia input into teacher training for post-graduate education. (I apologise to your Lordships for my scant knowledge of education, not having been to university.) That was positive. I am only sorry that in 1983–84, for lack of funds, we had to stop that.
I believe that research is and would be interesting but, more than that, it is vital and it would pay great dividends. We are talking of a group of people often with enormous potential. We are talking of a group of people who have a difference of ability about which it is possible to do something positive. One illuminates the minus side and enables the person to contribute enormously to society. I therefore believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that this is an enormous waste and money spent economically would make sense.
I have one other suggestion, and there I shall leave it. The deputy chairman of the Warnock Committee was Mr. George Cook, who, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would agree, is another of the vice-presidents of the British Dyslexia Association. He has for a long time suggested to the Government that there is a need for an independent professional advisory body to oversee the implementation of the 1981 Education Act. This was a suggestion of the Warnock Committee. I ask my noble friend to consider that for discussion.
8.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Addington stood up to make his maiden speech, I crossed my fingers. I remembered back to when I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House as a dyslexic on dyslexia. I offered up a silent prayer, which went something like this: dear Lord, please let him make a good speech. My Lords, my prayer was answered. My noble friend made, to my mind, a very eloquent—I meant to say eloquent, not elegant, but in fact I felt it was both—speech. When he sat down, I thought, what a wonderful thing, we now have another dyslexic in your Lordships' House who will stand on his feet and preach what we believe.
I believe it is true that whatever your Lordships were discussing from sewers to amphibians, if I made a speech it would include some reference to dyslexia. It is an unfortunate fact that we live with, yet there are still people who do not believe that such a thing as dyslexia exists.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee for introducing the debate and for informing me that I am apparently a "cross lateral". I am not
702
sure that I fully appreciate what that is. It might be something like a Cross-Bencher. But I know that my brain is different from a non-dyslexic brain, and I have accepted that for a long time.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie mentioned application forms. It is a funny thing, but I have never yet managed to fill in an application form for anything and get it all right. What I would do without Tippex I honestly do not know.
I should like to mention two things. I was on the professional and executive register, that is, I did not have a job. I took all the tests. When I had finished, I was told there was one more—"We would like you to see our educational psychologist". Like a lamb to the slaughter, I went in and sat down. He started producing Lexicon cards. "Oh, this is an easy test—A, C, X, Y, B—Oh, I mean He said, "Ah, you're dyslexic". I said, "Doc, if you had asked me, I could have told you that". He said, "I went through all your test reports. We can always tell if you are telling the truth. It is obvious that you told the truth, but you made a lot of silly mistakes which a man of your IQ shouldn't make". I thought, "Yes, you're a bright man".
We held a meeting in your Lordships' House of people interested in dyslexia, and I talked to one of the educational psychologists afterwards. He was the first non-dyslexic who seemed to understand. I said to him, "I think that you actually have a glimmer of how my mind works". Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ritchie mentioned this in part. I said, "I am a dyslexic, the first one in the family. I am left-handed, as far as I know the first one in the family. I also suffer from migraine, as far as I know the first one in the family. Is there any correlation?". The expert looked at me and said, "We do not actually know, except that an awful lot of people who are dyslexic are also left-handed and suffer from migraine".
I now live in Hampshire. Across the road from me are very good friends who have a little boy who is dyslexic. On occasions he flies into the most awful tempers; he screams; he picks things up and throws them. His mother is very understanding. I was with her last night and we talked about her son because I said that I should be speaking about dyslexia in your Lordships' House tonight. She is very good and very sympathetic. I was explaining the awful frustration that builds up inside you so that the only thing to do is to hit something or someone or throw something.
Very early on this boy came to me and said, "I understand you suffer from the same thing as I do". I looked at him and said very coldly, "Do you mind? I am older than you and I have had dyslexia longer than you have". He gave a great big grin; and we are friends because with me he knows he is safe. He knows that I understand him: I understand his thought processes.
I said to his mother last night, "It is a very peculiar thing: when you are that age you find there is a great deal in physical contact". I find myself that when I meet him I just ruffle his hair and say "Hi". He will come into my house and come and sit down next to me; he will come and curl up in my armchair. He does that because he knows I am no danger to him and I am the only person he knows, apart from his teachers, who understands what he suffers. And, my Lords, if you are dyslexic you do suffer.

703
I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister one question. I have read the Education Act 1981 several times, and each time I pick up something different. It is very interesting because they talk about the assessment of children with learning difficulties; but it seems to me the one thing they do not say is that a child with learning difficulties should be assessed by someone who is trained—and I stress the word "trained"—to look for and identify specific learning difficulties. If you get someone who does not understand dyslexia—and there are still many today who do not—they will say "Dyslexia; oh yes, we prefer to us the old-fashioned word and call them `lazy'." There are still teachers and head teachers who say that and believe it. There are doctors who will tell you that dyslexia has to do only with word blindness and not with numerical blindness. Therefore what chance have some of our children got when those who assess them have not been taught how to do it?
The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, mentioned the people who are training others to understand and find out what needs to be done. I am afraid that the Act as it stands is very well-meaning but if a child is dyslexic—and we have talked about figures and from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. has been mentioned, although I believe the figure is probably far nearer 15 per cent.—what chance has he got unless the assessment is carried out by a trained and qualified person? If the noble Baroness can answer that, I shall be very grateful.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, because he is so interested in education and has chosen this subject because he is an expert. The debate has been very helpful indeed. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his maiden speech. It was excellent, well thought out and displayed a sense of humour. I am quite sure that he is going to do very well in this House and I hope that we shall hear him many times in the future. It must have taken a lot of courage to get up, even at this time of night, to talk about himself and about what he knows so well. I am sure we are all very grateful to him for the information he has given us.
The LEAs seem to be having difficulties at the moment. One voluntary organisation offered to sponsor teachers for the BDA diploma course in 1987-88. The local education authority replied that it would not be willing to release teachers for the course for so long a time—that is, one year. It is a lengthy course, but if it is necessary to have such a lengthy course, why cannot the association of teachers allow one of its teachers to go on one of these courses? It is essential, I think.
Dyslexia is not a disease. If you are a dyslexic you have a mind of your own and you can teach it to work. That is why we need teachers to help people in that way. Two noble Lords who spoke tonight have shown that they taught their minds to work and are getting down to things that they will enjoy doing in the future. All dyslexics are individuals. If you go into a room where there is a blind person or a spastic you can usually see that they are different, but a dyslexic looks
704
perfectly normal—and indeed they are normal. I understand that every one who has dyslexia is different: it is an individualised trouble.
The learner moves step by step with simple material and the material becomes more and more complex as the teacher goes on. There are primary, essential and scientific ingredients in methods designed to set the dyslexic free to enable him or her to make full use of his or her gifts. But to be able to help them in this way it is essential to have experienced and well trained teachers. Dyslexia is a new disease. It was first written about in the medical journals in 1895 and since then research has been done into many apsects of the problem. It is interesting to note that Napoleon III, Hans Christian Andersen and Albert Einstein were all sufferers from dyslexia.
Today the needs of under-achieving children are not being met. For example, on an adult literacy scheme 60 per cent. came for help and most were adult dyslexics. Most were worried about whether they were going to pass on the trouble to their children: in other words, that history would repeat itself. The only way I can see of helping these people is to ensure that the Education Act 1981 is implemented so that it can help those with difficulties.
Dyslexia affects about 10 per cent. of the population but it is under-diagnosed and under-treated. The problem affects children from all backgrounds. Many people think that it involves only one type of child, but it is bound to involve those from all backgrounds. In Wiltshire the local education authority is setting up a working party and is screening children at the ages of seven and 11 years. Only reading ability is being assessed and the children whose reading age is two years behind their actual age are picked out and looked at in more detail. The rest of the children are left for the ordinary classroom teachers to look after and so they do not get the help that they need and should have.
How can we all help? I think it should be remembered that the dyslexic tires more quickly than a normal person and far greater concentration is needed. A dyslexic can read a passage correctly and yet not get the sense of it. A dyslexic may have difficulty with figures (for example, learning tables), reading music or anything which entails interpreting symbols. Learning foreign languages is usually a problem. A dyslexic is inconsistent in performance. A dyslexic may omit a word or words, or write one twice. A dyslexic suffers from constant nagging uncertainty. A dyslexic cannot take good notes because he cannot listen and write at the same time. When a dyslexic looks away from a book he is reading or a blackboard he is copying from, he may have great difficulty in finding his place again. A dyslexic works slowly because of his difficulties and so is always under pressure of time.
As these children are not getting adequate education in most schools, a number of parents are now saving up and sending them to boarding schools where they are getting good results, but of course parents do not want to be parted from their children. I hope that my noble friend may be able to give some assurance tonight after this short debate that there will be further help in the future.
8.41 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to take part in this debate, and even more a privilege to listen to the speeches which we have heard this evening. This has been the best kind of debate in your Lordships' House. It was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in a spirit of inquiry rather than in a spirit of controversy. He has been asking for information from the Government about the implementation of the provisions of the 1981 Act. He has not been doing it in any other sense than of concern for those who suffer from dyslexia.
He has been followed by an enormously impressive series of speakers and I must draw attention particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, that he referred to an oral contribution and he certainly has made an oral contribution of some distinction in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, also said that he was one of those who did not use the written symbol as a reference. It is another of the admirable aspects of the debate this evening that we have had so many speeches from Members of your Lordships' House who do not speak from notes, and maybe do not do so because they are not able to do so, but who set an example to those who can do so and who far too often do. It has been valuable to have that contribution.
I have also learned a great deal myself. The concept of cross-laterality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, referred, struck very close home to me. I am left-handed, I have a much stronger right eye than my left eye and I certainly changed schools many times-10 schools before the age of 10 as an evacuee during the war. I do not qualify for one of his criteria. I am certainly the least mechanically gifted of individ-uals, and so that may explain why I have escaped the dyslexia problem.
But it has been of enormous value to me to learn the different circumstances in which dyslexia can be caused and, in particular, the effect it has on those in the schools, because the issue raises matters of public policy. I can do no more than echo the questions which have already been put to the Government. I have no special knowledge on these matters. On the question of the training of teachers, it is surely the case—is it not?—that teacher training is at the moment under continuing scrutiny and review under the CATE system. The question to the Government would be: does the CATE review provide for training in the teaching of dyslexic children?
I think we would also want to know more about the issues of research to which the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, referred. What resources are being put by the Department of Education and Science towards research into dyslexia and, above all, research into the teaching of dyslexics? Quite apart from medical knowledge, there is a lot of pedagogical knowledge which I should have thought was entirely relevant.
It will not be a surprise that I add from this Dispatch Box that the issue of resources is of concern. Local education authorities have found themselves with responsibilities since 1981, or may have recognised responsibilities which they did not recognise before, which have not found any place in educational budgets in the past and, possibly, do not often find a place now
706
in educational budgets, or in the calculation of grant related expenditure or of educational block grants, but which deserve attention. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could indicate in her reply more than just sympathy with that point of view but some positive contribution that her department is willing to make to solving the problem.
If I may also go beyond the educational sphere—in this respect I do not expect the noble Baroness to reply to me now—it so happens that I have spent most of today at the Manpower Services Commission in Sheffield, talking about the problems of disabled people in employment, about the operation of the quota scheme under the 1944 and 1966 Acts and about the operation of the disablement advisory service of the Manpower Services Commission.
Again this will not be in the noble Baroness's brief, but I wonder if in due course she could write to me about whether the disablement provisions under the quota scheme and under the disablement advisory service codes of practice, and the videos which I know have been produced, take account of the needs of the dyslexic in employment.
Whatever progress we make in the education of dyslexic children, we must also make progress in helping employers to understand how important it is to recognise the intellectual and other abilities of those who have reading, numerical and learning difficulties. I am afraid it appears that these will persist throughout life. But they ought not to be a barrier to employment any more than they are a barrier to education, and it ought to be a remit from government as a whole to the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission to see to it that such disabilities are recognised with other more obvious physical disabilities in the way in which government approach the general issue of the disabled.
We have heard about the need to recognise special educational difficulties and to go from that to special educational provision. I think that the Government will have learned a great deal from this evening's contributions—contributions from those who are personally affected, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I believe that they have the basis on which to give us a comprehensive and accurate review of the current position under the law. I hope the Government will feel that they have a basis on which to show us the way forward.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I too welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us to consider the operation of the 1981 Education Act as it affects children with dyslexia. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for asking the Question and indeed to all noble Lords for their interesting and well-informed contributions. Indeed, it fits remarkably well with the debate we had a little earlier this afternoon on the importance of the English language and the case for making it easier to learn. We have had a very educational afternoon.
I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his remarks, which are all the more valuable to us in the light of his own difficult experience. I feel sure that we may learn in the future from his performance in your Lordships' House

707
that he has many of the compensating abilities to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, referred. My noble friend Lady Vickers referred to the many eminent people who have the same compensating abilities. I join those who look forward to hearing him on many more occasions in the future.
The Government do recognise the existence of dyslexia and they consider it vital to the educational welfare of dyslexic children, as it is to all children with disabilities, that their needs should be identified as early as possible. It is also crucial that they receive appropriate provision to meet those needs. To that end, the education of children with dyslexia has been considered by a number of committees established by the Government. Although that may be common knowledge to the people who have contributed to the debate, I think that it is worth a further reference. These committees include the Tizard Committee, which reported as long ago as 1972, and the Bullock and the Warnock Committees.
All these committees advised successive Secretaries of State that there are children with severe and long term difficulties in one or more areas of reading, writing, spelling and arithmetic whose general ability is at least average and for whom distinctive arrange-ments are necessary. These normally take the form of appropriate help in ordinary schools. The term "specific learning difficulties" seems to provide the best description of these children's problems, since it denotes the existence of an established problem for which help is required but does not imply any definite causation or exclusive categorisation. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renwick underlined the importance of this matter since the underlying causes vary from child to child so that an approach that works well in one case does not necessarily do so in another.
I was amused by the illustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, of the use of the word "dyslexia" and of its perhaps snobbish connotation. The Government recognise, however, that "dyslexia" is the term in the more common use, not least since it is included in the name of the principal voluntary bodies in the field. This is purely a question of semantics; the Government and local education authorities are well aware of the existence of this group of children and their needs.
Perhaps I may say at this stage that I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renwick for his emphasis upon the co-operation which exists between the Department of Education and Science and the voluntary sector. We regard regular contact with the British Dyslexia Association, which is the umbrella organisation for all local associations, as very valuable to progress.
That said, I must stress at this stage the importance of not labelling children. The Warnock Committee advised strongly that the use of labels should be abolished, since it concentrated far too much on the child's main deficit, thus obscuring both his strength and other possible needs which should be met. It is on this philosophy that the 1981 Education Act is built. As the House knows, this Act abolished the concept of categorising children into one of ten main statutory handicaps. In its place it established the Warnock conception of "special educational need". This
708
stresses the importance of looking at all aspects of the child's performance, his strengths as well as his weaknesses, and the help he receives both at home and at school. A child's special educational needs are thus related to his abilities as well as to his disabilities and to the nature of his interaction with his environment.
The aim of the 1981 Act is to require local education authorities to identify all children in their areas who have, or may have, special educational needs. This includes children with dyslexia as well as children with any other form of special educational need. Local education authorities cannot ignore these children any more than they can ignore a blind or physically disabled child.
I recognise the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that some authorities may perhaps be more assiduous than others or more efficient in their use of resources. However, the Act does not totally rely on the actions of local authorities. It goes further and provides parents with a statutory right to request an assessment of their child's heeds if they are unhappy about his educational progress. The local education authority has to comply with this request unless, in its view, it is unreasonable. Thus any parent of a dyslexic child who believes that his child's needs are not being adequately met in his school may take the initiative by drawing the child to the attention of the authority and asking for an assessment. The same rights of appeal, either against a decision not to make a statement in respect of the child or against the educational provision specified in the statement, apply irrespective of whether the parent or the local education authority initiated the procedure.
It may be helpful if I digress for a moment to explain the Government's view of the operation of the Act in respect of which children should be the subject of statements and which should not. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain what the statement procedure means. If the local authority identifies a child whose needs require the authority to determine that special educational provision be made for him, that child should be given the benefit of a statement. The preparation of the statement involves a multi-professional assessment. It incorporates advice from medical, educational and psychological sources and from other sources, where appropriate. The statement should detail the identified special need provisions required and the steps which the authority proposes to meet those needs. The child who is the subject of a statement must be reviewed annually to ensure that the provision remains appropriate.
In addition, the Act requires that children with statements should have their needs reassessed fully before they reach the age of 144 years. The aim is to advise on the curriculum choice in the final years of schooling and to provide advanced data for other agencies likely to be closely involved with the young person when he or she leaves school.
Section 1 of the Act defines the child who falls within its scope. A child has special educational needs if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him. The section further defines "learning difficulty" by reference to a child who has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age or has a disability which either prevents or hinders him from

709
making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools, within the area of the LEA concerned, for children of his age. In this context, special educational provision is defined as educational provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children of his age in schools maintained by the local authority concerned.
Warnock envisaged that up to 20 per cent. of the school population might have special educational needs at some time during their school careers. The Act encompasses all the 20 per cent. but does not require that every child who has, or may have, special educational needs will be the subject of a statement made and maintained under the procedures laid down in Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. This is necessary only in respect of children whose specific educational needs are such as to call for the LEA to determine the provision to be made for them.
Perhaps at this point I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the question of who carries out assessments. Under the regulations in the Act, it is required that the people making assessments of children are qualified educational psychologists. This means that such persons must be teachers in the first place. Also included must be a qualified medical practitioner and the head teacher. Therefore, the people involved in making the assessment are or certainly should be very well qualified to reach the right decision.
The deciding factors in determining what constitutes additional or otherwise different provision may vary from area to area depending on the range of provision normally available in an authority's schools. The department's Circular 1783 makes it clear that a statement is appropriate for all children who have complex learning difficulties as in all cases where a child is based in a special unit attached to an ordinary school, a special school, a non-maintained special school or an independent school approved for the purpose. On the other hand, formal procedures are not appropriate where ordinary schools provide special educational provisions from their own resources in the form of additional tuition or remedial provision; or, in normal circumstances, where the child attends a reading centre or unit for disruptive pupils. Perhaps that in some way will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Schon, on the point he raised.
Local education authorities are under a duty to make available appropriate provision to meet the needs of all children identified as having special educational needs, irrespective of whether they are the subject of a statement.
Section 1, therefore, in the Government's view provides for two groups of children with special educational needs: the majority, for whom a statement is unnecessary but for whom the LEA and the governors of the school concerned are under a duty to ensure that adequate provision is made and the smaller, more complex group for whom the LEA is under a duty to make and maintain a statement of special educational needs under Section 7 of the Act. This view was recently upheld by the High Court, but that ruling is currently the subject of appeal.
In the light of what I have just said, noble Lords will appreciate that the provisions of the Act provide
710
opportunity for both schools and parents to identify any child with dyslexia. Once identified—as many speakers have said, that is the difficult part—the Act also ensures that the LEAs make the necessary provision to meet those needs.
During the course of the debate I have been questioned on what the Government have done to encourage better identification and provision for these children. First, following the Warnock Committee's recommendation, the Government commissioned five major research projects into aspects of dyslexia. One of these was a review of existing research in the field. The remaining four considered the prevalence, identification and teaching needs of groups of children with specific learning difficulties. The findings of these four projects were the subject of a seminar held in the Department of Education and Science in May 1984. All those involved in the field were invited to attend.
Secondly, the Government are concerned to promote better training of teachers for children with special educational needs. Training for teachers of children with special educational needs was one of the priority areas of in-service training supported under the department's grant scheme from 1983-84 to 1985-86 inclusive. Training of teachers of pupils with special educational needs in schools and in further education are both priority areas under the proposed arrangements for funding in-service training due to come into force in April this year.
Again, I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Schon, who specifically asked about the number of people who have been trained. Apart from the general initial training and in-service training, the number of people trained on government programmes to teach pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools has increased over the years since the implementation of the 1981 Act in 1983. Although the figures are not, understandably, complete after 1986 the total has reached some 1,183 such teachers.
In addition to the priority areas I have just mentioned, under these new arrangements local education authorities will be able to support courses of their own choosing to meet local needs. These courses will attract 50 per cent. central Government funding. The teaching diploma of the British Dyslexia Association, to which my noble friend Lord Renwick referred, is a good example of what will be eligible to be considered by LEAs for this purpose. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the Government's positive attitude.
These courses are of great assistance to existing teachers. The Government also recognise the importance of including children with special educational needs in courses for initial teacher training. Advice offered to the then Secretary of State in 1984 in the report of the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers (ACSET) recommended that all initial teacher training courses should include elements concerned with special educational needs to be determined by the Secretary of State. That recommendation was accepted and is included in the Government's policy on the future supply and training of teachers set out in the White Paper Better Schools. Therefore, it is now being implemented. While these elements do not

711
concentrate exclusively on children with dyslexia, their needs are considered within the broader framework of children with special educational needs.
I was asked some specific questions to which I shall endeavour to respond, at any rate in part. My noble friend Lord Renwick suggested that there should be an advisory body on special education. The recommendation of the Warnock Committee that there should be an advisory body to advise the Secretary of State was, in fact, rejected by the previous Secretary of State. The question has been raised again as a result of the evidence of Professor Klaus Wedell given to the Select Committee of Inquiry on Special Education. Any further consideration by the Government will need to await the findings of the Select Committee.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested that there were perhaps better opportunities in the private sector. In the past dyslexia institutes have tended to suggest to parents that the needs of their children can best be met in the private sector. While it is true that a number of independent schools offer specific provision for dyslexic children, local education authorities are increasingly improving their own provision. In many areas, like East Sussex, this is being done by means of a peripatetic support team and by in-service training for teachers in the mainstream schools.
All local education authorities are aware of the new arrangements for inset training and under these arrangements the LEAs can, as I said, support courses of their own choosing and they will attract the 50 per cent. government funding.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, specifically asked whether the CATE review covered the training of teachers for dyslexics. I can assure him that the approval of initial courses of teacher training by CATE includes a scrutiny of courses concerning pupils with special educational needs.
I hope that I have been able to respond to the debate in the spirit of all the contributions, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and have said enough to inform the House that the Government believe that the 1981 Act provides the framework for identifying and meeting the needs of dyslexic children. Our policy on initial and in-service teacher training has not ignored those needs. Of course it is always possible to do more but considerable progress has been made since the Act was implemented in April 1983.
Noble Lords may be aware that the Government have been monitoring implementation of the Act by means of a major research project carried out by the University of London Institute of Education, whose report was presented to the Department of Education and Science on the 31st December last year. A copy of that report will be made available in the Library in your Lordships' House.
As my noble friend Lord Renwick told us, the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in another place has just commenced an inquiry into the needs of special education. I cannot give him very much information on the progress made by the committee since its inquiry has only just started, but the Government intend to review the provisions of the
712
Act in the light of both those reports and in the light of the comments made in today's debate.
Once again let me say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for having raised this issue today. I may not have been able to respond to all the points made but if I discover when reading Hansard that I can do so, I shall try to follow them up—in particular a couple of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The debate has given us a rare opportunity to reflect on the needs of some of our more disadvantaged children, and I thank all the participants for their very helpful contributions.
House adjourned at ten minutes past nine o'clock.

  NI: PRISONERS DETAINED DURING SECRETARY OF STATE'S PLEASURE
  NI: PRISONERS DETAINED DURING SECRETARY OF STATE'S PLEASURE
  NI: OVER-16s IN FULL-TIME EDUCATION
  NI: OVER-16s IN FULL-TIME EDUCATION
  CHARITIES SUPERVISION: SCRUTINY
  CHARITIES SUPERVISION: SCRUTINY
  COMPUTER ERROR AND FAILURE
  COMPUTER ERROR AND FAILURE
  ENHANCED RADIATION WEAPONS
  ENHANCED RADIATION WEAPONS
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL MEETING, 2nd-3rd MARCH
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL MEETING, 2nd-3rd MARCH