Sitting of 20 April 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (OBAN SOUTH PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Rating Reform
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has now received concerning his plans to introduce a flat-rate community charge in England and Wales.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): A summary of the 1,271 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information.
    Mr. McAllion: In considering the representations, will the Secretary of State take time to reflect on his party's manifesto pledge that it would replace rates with a fairer system of local taxation? Will he also consider the constitutional reality that as he has been unable to convince even his own Back Benchers that the poll tax is a fairer replacement, the other place will be perfectly justified in amending his legislation so that it reflects, not the will of an embattled minority inside the Downing Street bunker, but the will of the real majority in England, Wales and Scotland, who are united in opposition to the unfairness of the tax?
    Mr. Ridley: I remember the manifesto on which we fought the 1987 election as setting out clearly every aspect of our proposals for the community charge. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that is true if he takes the trouble to examine it.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, in the second Division during the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill the Government had a majority of 133. That must be a signal that more hon. Members are in favour of
    816
    the community charge proposals than it would seem from the Government's paper majority—if the hon. Gentleman takes the majority of 25 as meaning the opposite.
    Mr. Squire: As the majority of the population will not be eligible for rebates, is it fair that the poorest should pay the same as the richest?
    Mr. Ridley: We debated that matter on Monday. My hon. Friend knows full well that the poorest will not pay the same as the richest because of the very extensive and expanded system of rebates, which takes nine million people out of paying the full community charge.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the Secretary of State's comments on the radio yesterday about the role of the other place in this matter, and the subsequent revised advice that the other place can indeed consider both the flat rate community charge and other schemes, what representations does he expect to receive from the other place in the next three months?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has studied my comments on the other place, which were given not yesterday but the day before. I advised the other place that since the electorate elected a Government with a majority of 101 over all other parties on the basis of the proposals set out extremely clearly in the manifesto, I hoped that their Lordships would not feel inclined to change the principle of a matter which had been approved by the British electorate.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reply to the Labour party's request for exemplification of its system of capital value rating and of local income tax as a means of financing local government?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes. I have written to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) giving preliminary exemplification for the Labour party's proposal of a mixture of capital value rates and local income tax, on the basis of assumptions.
    Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman's assumptions.
    Mr. Ridley: I made those assumptions clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him to tell me whether any of them were wrong and, if so, in which way the Opposition would seek to change them. I have yet to have even the courtesy of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Cunningham: I have replied.
    Mr. Ridley: I am talking about the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. As soon as I have a reply from the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I shall send a complete analysis, putting right any errors in the ones that I have already sent.
    Dr. Cunningham: How does the Secretary of State square his determination to plough ahead with the flat-rate poll tax with the responses given by his colleagues, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in Westminster Abbey today to the questions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, launching the Church urban fund, when he asked:
    "What is he sending us to do?"
    The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Cabinet replied:
    "To share our wealth with those in our cities who are poor, powerless or disadvantaged, and to help them to build a new future for themselves and for us all."

    817
    How does the Secretary of State square that promise made by his colleagues today in the abbey with his determination to press ahead with the poll tax?
    Mr. Ridley: By not imposing capital value rates and a local income tax on the people in whom the hon. Gentleman is interested.

    Rates
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have notified him of their intention not to increase their rates for 1988–89.
    Mr. Ridley: Fifty-one.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Sedgemoor district council is not increasing its rate this year, whereas Liberal-controlled Somerset county council is increasing its rate by an unnecessary 12 per cent.? Does he agree that this contrast is partly disguised by having a single rate demand that adds together the two figures? Will he change the rules and insist on separate rate demands from separate local authorities? It might cost more in postage, but it would bring a big benefit in terms of accountability and public awareness.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is odd that freedom of information is Liberal policy except when it comes to telling the electorate by how much the rates have been increased. The answer to the problem will be the community charge. The new charge demand bill will set out extremely clearly the overspending or the underspending of the county and the overspending or the underspending of the district. Every charge payer will be in full possession of the information and will know why he has to pay too much, if he does.
    Mr. Wilson: Would the Secretary of State care to calculate by how much the authorities in question would have had to increase their domestic poll tax if that system had been in effect when there was an interrelationship between the uniform business rate and the domestic sector of their income?
    Mr. Ridley: I should not like to make that calculation on my feet, but if the community charge had been in place I bet that they would not have increased their spending by so much.
    Mr. Devlin: How many of the authorities that my right hon. Friend has mentioned are controlled by one party, and what proportion of them are Conservative controlled?
    Mr. Ridley: Of the 51 authorities to which I referred, 17 are Conservative and 28 are rate or precept-limited in one respect of another. The others are controlled by the odds and sods brigade.
    Dr. Cunningham: As the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are interested in rate increases this year, has he heard from the top 10 Tory district authorities in England with the highest rates? They are Gillingham, West Wiltshire, Melton, Suffolk Coastal, Wokingham, Dover, North Wiltshire, East Northampton, Havant and Stafford. All are Tory controlled, with rate rises of 42·3 per cent. in Gillingham, 41 per cent. in West Wiltshire, 41 per cent. in Melton, 39 per cent. in Suffolk Coastal, 29 per cent. in Wokingham, 29 per cent. in Shepway, the constituency of the Minister for Local Government, who is not here today, 26 per cent. in Dover, 25 per cent. in North Wiltshire, 24 per cent. in East Northampton, 21 per
    818
    cent. in Havant and 21 per cent. in Stafford. For good measure, Tory Lincolnshire is up by 14 per cent., Tory Kent by 12·5 per cent. and Tory Surrey by 10·5 per cent. What has happened to the Secretary of State's promise to the House that this year rates would not go above the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not give the base from which those figures spring. He may know that Gillingham has, over many years, had zero rate rises.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scurrilous leaflet that was sent out with the rate demand by Derbyshire county council, which claimed that the council's spending since Labour took control in 1981 had hardly risen at all? In fact, its spending had risen by 69 per cent. Does not this false and misleading propaganda, which is sent out with a rate demand, add insult to injury?
    Mr. Ridley: Derbyshire's rate for 1988–89, at 297·5p, is the highest of all county councils. I should tell my hon. Friend that since the Conservatives lost control in 1981, the council has sacrificed £50 million in central Government grant as a result of its overspending. That is a burden of £70 per head for each domestic ratepayer.

    Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
    Mrs. Wise: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The latest figure for England is 10,370.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the Minister accept that the figure is still unacceptably high? Does he understand that the system means that mothers and babies must frequently spend their days walking the streets, while large amounts of public money are diverted into the private pockets of the owners of bed-and-breakfast establishments? When will he allow councils to solve homelessness by providing proper homes for rent?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the hon. Lady that bed and breakfast is the most unsatisfactory form of short-term accommodation. That is agreed between us and councils. There is a very wide gap between the use that councils of all parties make of it. For example, Labour-controlled Greenwich makes virtually no use of it, although it has acute problems. The hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the slight drop in the last quarter's figures, which is in response to the £25 million that we released to help with this problem just before Christmas.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be a very good start if, particularly, Labour councils stopped keeping council accommodation empty at the expense of homeless families in their areas? Would it not be a good idea for councils to put homeless families in such properties and not pretend that they do not have the money or the resources to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. A couple of weeks ago we released another £28 million, which will be targeted on getting empty and void local authority properties back into use. We have had a very good response from local authorities bidding for such money.
    Mr. Soley: If the Minister is so ashamed of the Conservative party's record, why did the Government allow the matter to get into such an appalling state in the

    819
    first place? Previous Conservative and Labour Governments did not allow it to get so bad. Conservative councils are complaining because they have to make use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Only 2·4 per cent. of council properties are empty, compared with 6·9 per cent. of Government-owned properties. When will the hon. Gentleman take this problem seriously, so that we do not have families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for several years, families breaking up, families in poor health and children under-achieving in education?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the gap between the performance of the best and the worst councils—and the worst, I am afraid, are run by the Labour party—is so dramatic that there is no need to keep families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for months at a time. That is a fact which many Labour councils know well and show very clearly.

    Under-utilised Land
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of underutilised land, handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal, has not been sold after 12 months.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land has been handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal and has not been sold after 12 months.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): As at 31 December 1987 a total of 2,558 acres of surplus landed property sites which had been passed to the PSA for disposal remained unsold after 12 months.
    Mr. Bowls: Am I right in thinking that most of the land is owned by the Ministry of Defence? Will my hon. Friend confirm that I would be right in having confidence in his being able, with his usual courtesy and irresistibility, to persuade the PSA to put its delicate feet on the accelerator and sell off its land so that it can be put to good use?
    Mr. Chope: Almost all that land is surplus defence land. It represents less than 0·5 per cent. of the total defence estate of almost 700,000 acres. About 1,000 acres are agricultural and are subject to offer back to the former owners. That process takes longer than a straightforward sale.
    I assure my hon. Friend that the Property Services Agency is selling the land rapidly—at the rate of over 2,200 acres per year for the past four years.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Should not that programme have an even higher priority? Does my hon. Friend recognise the paradox and the frustration that I and several hon. Members feel when we see controversy over housing development in the green field sites in our constituencies, but whenever we travel, as I did recently, to the west midlands or the Greater Manchester conurbation, we see vast tracts of derelict and under-used land, which is owned by a variety of authorities?
    Mr. Chope: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the amount of under-used land that could be brought into development, especially when it could be brought into
    820
    housing use. That is why the Government are giving a high priority to ensuring that they dispose of their own land quickly.
    Mr. Steen: If my hon. Friend is, understandably, frustrated by the amount of land that is still on the register, will he explain why all Crown land is excluded from the register? Will he tell the House how many acres of vacant, derelict and dormant land in his own Department is not being used or put to good use?
    Mr. Chope: Much of the land that we have been describing is on the register, although it belongs to the Crown. There is no legal obligation on the Crown to put land on the register, but, as a matter of practice, the Property Services Agency does include the land in the register.
    Mr. McCartney: The Minister has stated the Government's commitment to dispose of derelict land and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) commented on the vast tracts of land in Greater Manchester. Is it not a fact that in Greater Manchester Labour local authorities have one of the largest and the best programmes of derelict land reclamation in Europe? One difficulty that frustrates us is that the Government have not provided the additional resources to maintain the type of activity that promotes the regeneration of urban land in both the public and private sectors. If the Government make that commitment, will the Minister increase greatly the resources available to local authorities which have such programmes so that they can develop them, in conjunction with public and private enterprise?
    Mr. Chope: The Government are aware of the problems in Manchester, which is why we have given extra priority and set up an urban development corporation there.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to set out a timetable for implementation of the provisions on competitive tendering of the Local Government Act.
    Mr. Chope: Following extensive consultations, my hon. and learned Friend announced a detailed timetable on 30 March. The amendments to our original proposals should help authorities achieve the maximum benefits from the competitive process.
    Mr. Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary for local authorities to wait for the timetable, and that as competitive tendering is a desirable development they should get on with it now on their own initative?
    Mr. Chope: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Indeed, those authorities that have already submitted their services to competitive tender have substantial savings to show for it. As about £3 billion of expenditure is at stake in those services, the sooner local authorities put them out to competitive tender, the sooner the savings will materialise.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that local authorities are concerned about the possible extension of the Act to cover recreation and leisure facilities and that that would be harmful to the provision of sports facilities and many other amenities for local communities? Will he

    821
    now say that the Government are no longer prepared to defer that decision and that they will not include those facilities in the Act?
    Mr. Chope: No, I will not say that. It is a complicated matter, which is why we have been in consultation. We are considering the representations that have been made. The principle that massive savings will be made by submitting services to competition applies generally.
    Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on making the progress that has been achieved? Will he now give serious thought to the remainder of local government services and bring forward another list that features administrative and financial services, which have had the least exposure so far to competition?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right in emphasising that there are similar savings to be made by submitting administrative services to competition. I hope that local authorities will go down that road voluntarily, rather than our having to compel them to do so.

    Crown Suppliers
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.
    Mr. Chope: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 25 March.
    Mr. Dalyell: How is the public interest to be taken into account and how are severance pay and pensions to be guaranteed?
    Mr. Chope: The public interest will always be taken into account in any privatisation project. Accrued pension rights will be fully protected, or transferred to the new pension scheme if the staff so wishes.
    Mr. Hind: I hope that my hon. Friend will take into consideration the concerns of the Crown Suppliers' employees. Will he ensure that he listens carefully to the views of the unions that represent the work force? Will he ensure also that their pensions and terms and conditions of employment following privatisation are properly looked after?
    Mr. Chope: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take into account the views of staff. On a recent visit to Hastings, where the Crown Suppliers employ more than 100 people, I had a face-to-face meeting with members of the staff.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that many of us do not believe that savings will be available from this privatisation? For example, the Minister decided to have Richmond Terrace valued by private valuers at a charge of £40,000, when there were officials within the Department of the Environment who were capable of making the valuation for £1,200? Is it not true that the Minister lost the taxpayer over £38,000 due to the stupidity of his decision, which was taken as a result of his obsessive attitudes to privatisation?
    Mr. Chope: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has his mathematics right. The decision that the private sector should value Richmond Terrace was taken in the best interests of government. It was the first time that there had been any new office development in the Whitehall area for
    822
    many years and it was important to obtain an expert assessment of the rental value and the opportunity-costs of the offices.
    Mr. Boyes: It is clear that the Minister is not taking into account the views of the staff. Since his statement on the future of Crown Suppliers on 3 February, and the parliamentary questions that followed it, he has given neither trade unions nor the House any assurances about the future of the work force. Is the Minister aware that of the 171 staff who have requested a transfer, 138 have given privatisation as a reason for doing so? Given the low morale of the work force, is not the Minister's callous treatment of it utterly reprehensible?
    Mr. Chope: No, it is not. Following the discussions which I had with members of the work force in Hastings, to which I referred, I understand that the work force has accepted that I am taking close account of its interests in this matter.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Inner Urban Land Sales
    Mr. Heddle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the number of acres of derelict and disused inner urban land sold by local authorities since the enactment of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1982.
    Mr. Ridley: By 31 March 1988, 4,400 acres of land owned by urban programme authorities had been removed from the registers of unused and under-used land because the land had been sold. The first registers were compiled in 1981 under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his efforts and those of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), in compelling local authorities, statutory undertakers and the Inner London education authority and others to dispose of the land they have sat upon for far too long has been impressive? Will he acknowledge that since much of the land is in inner city and inner urban areas, the cut-off point of one acre for eligibility on the public land register is rather ridiculous and should be eliminated? Will he also acknowledge that the procedure that has to be adopted to obtain a derelict land grant is cumbersome and bureaucratic?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I confirm the importance of the programme, which is vital to inner city regeneration. There is still far too much land in the inner cities lying idle in local authority control. I shall look again at the one acre cut-off point that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is now possible to obtain a derelict land grant through the city grant, which goes straight from the Government to the developer. It may be helpful now that we have introduced the city grant.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that, with the growing demand for single person and pensioner accommodation, particularly in the rented sector, it would make sense to give local councils an increase in their

    823
    housing investment programmes so that they can utilise and buy derelict land in order to provide much needed housing in urban and inner city areas?
    Mr. Ridley: Many councils own a large amount of land that they could sell to obtain further spending power to build houses. Instead, they prefer to hang on to assets.
    Mr. Gow: As my right hon. Friend has made it clear that local authorities are still holding on to land that is unused or under-used, and as that is a massive waste of resources, will he take further powers to speed up the procedures so that when he gives a direction there will be a much speedier level of sales by local authorities?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I must point out that in the Local Government Act 1988 we took such additional powers, and they will soon be available for use. They will be used in exactly the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister say why, over the past two years, the Department of the Environment has instructed only local authorities or ILEA, and no other public bodies, to dispose of land? Will he confirm that the land register does not include derelict and disused land in private ownership, including large tracts previously owned by the now privatised nationalised industries which have been taken off the register? Is he aware that a Town and Country Planning Association survey on waste land to be published this month shows that 62 per cent. of unused or derelict land is privately owned? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Ridley: If it is true that only local authorities have received directives, it is probably the case that the other bodies concerned have been found to have a reason for not selling the land. I am not prepared to take a step to direct private citizens and private companies to sell assets against their will.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole procedure would move much more quickly if local authorities were compelled to grant appropriate planning permission and then sell at auction, without reserve, on condition that the work be put in hand within two years?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by granting appropriate planning permission. We would be getting into difficulties if we were to specify the use of the land for the maximum advantage of the receipt of profits to the local authority. The two issues of selling unused or under-used land and what planning consent is appropriate for the land are separate questions that should not be mixed up.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review safety relating to the disposal of radioactive waste at inland sites in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The radiological safety of all disposals of radioactive waste in England and Wales is kept under review by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and authorisations are revised if appropriate. Other safety matters are for the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that many hundreds of my constituents are alarmed and concerned about the proposals to dump radioactive waste at a quarry in Billinge in my constituency? What information can the Minister provide about the type of materials to be dumped, how radioactive it is and what steps will be demanded of the owners of the quarry to ensure that no radioactivity will leach from the quarry into the surrounding water courses?
    Mr. Moynihan: The type of radioactivity mainly derives from medical applications in the University of Liverpool and the Royal Liverpool hospital. The radioactivity of the material is approximately the equivalent of a microSievert, which is one thousandth of a milliSievert. In practice, one would have to consume about 2 per cent. of the thousands of tonnes of waste to exceed the annual dose of one milliSievert. It is a very low-level waste disposal facility. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution conducted a full radiological assessment of the site before issuing the authorisations. I understand the public concern, but public consultation did take place and there will be constant monitoring, which will include a close working relationship with the waste authority.
    Mr. Holt: Notwithstanding the safety regulations, there is considerable concern in my constituency that the only potash mine in the United Kingdom may be turned into a dump for nuclear waste. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to say that all the fears and apprehensions in the area are groundless and that that mine will be kept for potash and not used for the disposal of nuclear waste?
    Mr. Moynihan: I have no knowledge of that site. Suffice it to say that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and the need to stay closely under the authorisations provided under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, both ensure the strictest possible control. I shall look into the question of using the potash mine and let my hon. Friend know the precise position.
    Mr. Frank Cook: May I refer the Minister to the consultative document issued by Nirex, which, as he knows, gives a range of options for public consideration and asks for reactions? The Minister will be aware that one option is missing, namely, the containment of radioactive materials which are produced on the sites of power stations at the surface, constantly monitored, and redeemable at source. Why has that been excluded? Will he ensure that it is included for future consultation?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Member will know well that that is for Nirex to answer. No site has been ruled out. As for the Billingham site, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on other occasions, the Secretary of State has said that he will take into account the commitments made by his predecessors. It is a matter for Nirex to consult on the method and to make appropriate recommendations.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend comment on the emotive word "dump"? For decades we have been storing low level and intermediate waste in the said power stations. All the proposals of Nirex are to make what is already a safe storage system even safer.
    Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend.

    Council Accommodation (Purchase)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has made any estimate of private landlords' interest in purchasing council accommodation.
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, although we know that a number of housing associations are interested in responding to any tenant interest that may be shown.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister agree that that answer is somewhat strange, considering how much effort the Department has put into encouraging private landlords? Can he explain how their involvement will benefit tenants? Will rents go down? Will the repair service improve? Will tenants get better value for money? In short, will the Government bring in legislation to force private landlords to give the same deal to tenants as council landlords would give?
    Mr. Waldgrave: I think the hon. Lady is in some confusion. Perhaps she does not know, but any landlord will have to be approved by the Housing Corporation. Indeed, if tenants wish to transfer it will probably be because they will get a better deal on some of the matters that the hon. Lady has mentioned.
    Mr. Forth: In considering the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), can my hon. Friend say how many council properties are vacant in, for example, Glasgow? Does he not believe that it is unlikely that private landlords would allow property to remain empty for any period and that, therefore, homelessness would be addressed much more effectively under private landlords than it ever has been under council ownership?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of my misfortunes is that I have no responsibility for Glasgow. It is noticeable that Glasgow city council—a council dominated not by the Conservative party but by the Labour party—has followed some very imaginative policies of devolving property to community-based housing associations. I believe that some tenants have found advantages in that system. The purpose of our Bill is to extend that very principle.
    Ms. Ruddock: Further to the Minister's first answer, we in the London borough of Lewisham, particularly in my constituency of Deptford, are concerned about the interest of private landlords in our housing estates. Have there been approaches from private landlords about our council estates? Are the Government about to announce any programme for imposing housing action trusts on the borough?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is too early, and unwise, for private landlords to canvass on these estates, because there will be a thoroughgoing system of approval, run by the Housing Corporation, and of tenant involvement in any cases where transfers are of interest to tenants. It is unwise of private landlords to carry out this sort of canvassing before that system is functioning. Housing action trusts are a separate matter and, as we have said, we shall bring forward a shortlist while the Housing Bill is before the House.

    Land Development (Planning Presumption)
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to repeal those
    826
    parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 which give a planning presumption in favour of the developer; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating and helpful answer. Does he agree that planning needs and environmental attitudes have changed fundamentally since the days of war-ravaged Britain in 1947, when that legislation was introduced? Does he agree also that today's planning law should meet today's requirements and, in particular, should take account of the fact that parts of the country suffer from over-development, not under-development?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and its successor, the 1971 Act, have stood this country in good stead. They can deliver the kind of planning that we need. It is true that requirements change from time to time. In 1980 the Department issued a circular emphasising the importance of getting planning applications agreed and reminding authorities that they must always grant permission unless there are important reasons for not doing so. Since then we have drawn the inspectors' attention to the importance of taking account of up-to-date plans so that there is no over-development.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister will be aware of the grave concern in my constituency about the Government's insistence that the Greater Manchester Residuary Body sell off parts of Reddish Vale. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that if that sale is pushed through planning permission will not be granted for any development that would deny the people of Greater Manchester an important area of rural land that could be used for recreational purposes? Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that that land will be protected for the walkers, fishermen and others who enjoy it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It would be wrong for me to pre-empt a planning application, which should be considered on its merits. I am sure that the important issues which the hon. Gentleman has raised will be taken into account at the proper time.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas that have suffered from excessive development, such as Berkshire, the democratically elected representatives on the local authorities particularly resent the large number of appeals granted to developers, which give the clear impression that there is a presumption in favour of developers.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is a presumption in favour of development—that is the basis of the system. The British system is that people can do what they like with their property as long as an important interest is not damaged thereby. It is a good system. I remind my hon. Friend that more than 50 per cent. of appeals are for residential development and that there is a much lower success rate in such appeals. It is worth drawing that point to the attention of developers because, to some extent, they are overloading the system with appeals, the great majority of which will be turned down.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many consultation meetings Nirex has held in Britain concerning its plans for radioactive waste disposal.
    Mr. Moynihan: I have no ministerial responsiblity for the day-to-day management of Nirex, but I understand from Nirex that between the launch of its discussion document on 12 November and the end of March the company held 34 meetings about its plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility. A further nine meetings are planned to take place before the end of May.
    Mr. Wallace: I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that one of the proposed meetings is with the Shetland Islands council. Does he appreciate that Nirex will be told in no uncertain terms that burial of nuclear waste on a small island is not an acceptable proposition? Does he agree that one of the ways of getting away from the problem of the "not in my back yard" attitude is to adopt the suggestion made earlier by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to have on-site storage? The Minister said that Nirex was consulting, but it is not consulting about that. Why is it not consulting about that when it is acceptable for high-level waste, but not acceptable for intermediate-level waste?
    Mr. Moynihan: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that Nirex will be most grateful for advance notice of the content of the consultation meeting that is due to take place.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it was made clear after detailed consideration that Nirex should consider three options for a deep dual-purpose disposal facility—deep burial on land, tunnelling under the sea from the shore and disposal into the seabed from an offshore structure. That decision took place after detailed consideration of the potential scientific implications.
    Mr. Jack: When my hon. Friend receives information from Nirex on those consultations, will he urge Nirex to make it clear to everybody that there are certain parts of the country with, for example, a strong tourist industry, such as the Fylde coast, which would not be suitable for the disposal of nuclear waste?
    Mr. Moynihan: It has been made clear on many occasions in this House, and quite rightly so, that no area of the country should be excluded from Nirex's detailed consideration and investigation.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware, from the number of questions put to him today by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that there is considerable concern about Nirex's proposals. Will he tell the House when he expects the consultation procedure to be concluded and when he expects to receive Nirex's report on its proposals and to be able to tell us that either he or the Secretary of State can come to the House with a decision?
    Mr. Moynihan: There are three questions and three answers. The consultative period will last until the end of May. Nirex's target for coming forward with a proposal is towards the end of the year and, obviously, a full parliamentary debate will take place as soon as possible thereafter.

    Rates
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of increase in rates in 1988–89.
    Mr. Chope: Domestic rates in England have gone up by an average of nearly 9 per cent., which is far too high. It should have been possible, on average, for rate rises to be held to inflation, and against this background the outturn is very disappointing.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the level of rates in Conservative-controlled councils compares with the level of rates in Labour-controlled councils? Does he agree that the great difference between those two levels explains the opposition of Opposition Members to the community charge?
    Mr. Chope: I am delighted to have the opportunity to explain to my hon. Friend the difference between Conservative and Labour councils. Conservative councils have much lower rate poundages than Labour councils. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier quoted percentage increases. After those percentage increases, in Melton, for example, there is only a 5·8p local rate and in Gillingham only a 7p local rate, whereas in Harlow, a district council controlled by the Labour party, there is 92·9p local rate. There are almost invariably higher levels of rates in those areas controlled by the Labour party.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister come clean about the Tory record on rates? In Labour-run counties in England, Labour has had an average of 12·4 per cent. rate income, Conservative-run counties have had an average of 10·3 per cent. and councils run by my party have had an average of 9·7 per cent.—in each case in councils controlled by a majority, single-party administration. Why is his party not at the bottom of any league table of rate rises in the counties of England this year?
    Mr. Chope: The Owenites do not feature on this list—
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Because they do not control any councils.
    Mr. Chope: Exactly. The average rate poundage in the counties is 223p in the pound. The three highest county poundages are in Derbyshire, Cleveland and Humberside, all of which are in excess of 250p in the pound. The lowest rate poundages in the counties are under the Conservative-controlled councils of Hereford and Worcestershire, Norfolk, Kent and West Sussex. In all those counties the rate poundages are less than 200p.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour group on Lancashire county council increased rates by no less than 36·5, an increase of 18·5 per cent., which is one of the highest rises in the country? It started from a high base, having already increased rates by over 85 per cent. since it took control. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that places a tremendous burden on the National Health Service, industry and every citizen?
    Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. Lancashire council is one of the worst examples of Labour profligacy in practice and I am delighted that she has been able to draw the attention of the House to it. Opposition Members are hard put to explain away the high levels of rates in Labour-controlled areas.
    Mr. Rooker: If 9 per cent. is too high, why is it that in Tory-controlled Wandsworth the rate is 31 per cent.? Why is it 15·6 per cent. in the London borough of Barnet, where the Hendon, South constituency is situated? That is the Prime Minister's local authority and it is on record as being against the poll tax. What is more, it has accused the Secretary of State of cheating over storm damage. Why have we not heard about the London borough of Barnet, which has twice the average level of rate increases among councils under Tory control?
    Mr. Chope: To take individual percentage rate increases—[Interruption.] It is much easier for someone who weighs 20 stone to lose 25 per cent. of that weight than for somebody who weighs only 10 stone. The same is—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is difficult enough to understand as it is.
    Mr. Chope: To take the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in inner London it is still true to say that the two lowest levels of rate poundage are in Kensington and Chelsea and in Wandsworth. In Wandsworth the local rate is now 36·1 p in the pound, in Hammersmith it is 133p, in Hackney it is 134p and in Greenwich it is 136p. The same is true in outer London, where Barnet council, despite a high percentage increase, still has a much lower rate poundage than most Labour-controlled outer London boroughs.

    Housing Development (East London)
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will examine the potential for more housing development on derelict sites in east London.
    Mr. Waldgrave: Yes, Sir. The Department is commissioning and announcing today studies by a consultant into the scope for housing development on five large areas in east London—the Greenwich peninsula, Barking Reach, the Lower Lea valley, the Stratford rail yards and the Beckton gasworks site.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging information. In the light of that, will he consider increasing penalties on developers who repeatedly appeal on green belt sites, such as in my constituency, so as to encourage them to turn their attention to developing inner-city areas to meet the housing needs of the south-east?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. On several occasions we have warned that we shall use our powers to award costs against developers who fly in the face of clear planning guidance, and I have no doubt that there will be some examples of that. The sites that we are talking about could conceivably, at a broad guess, contain about 20,000 or 30,000 houses.

    Inner Cities (Sport)
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss sport in the inner cities.
    Mr. Moynihan: I hold regular meetings with the chairman of the Sports Council on a range of sporting issues. The specific issue of sport in the inner cities is the subject of a review which I have recently begun. The
    830
    membership of the review team is made up of business men, athletes and sports administrators, including two members of the Sports Council.
    Mr. Pendry: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he discuss the poor provision for athletics in the inner cities, which must be a contributory factor in the importation of a South African runner, Zola Budd, and her acquiring British nationality in order to qualify for the Olympic games? Will the Minister stand by all those British athletes, many of whom come from the inner cities, who have toiled hard to qualify for the Seoul Olympics? Will he also back the IAAF's decision in the Budd affair and stand as firmly behind that decision as he did behind the Thatcher Government boycott of the Olympic Games in 1980?
    Mr. Moynihan: The BAAB has upheld the Gleneagles agreement. The specific issue for its consideration with regard to Zola Budd relates to the IAAF's interpretation of "taking part". It is not a matter for the Government.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sports Council and the British Amateur Athletic Board have done admirable work in the inner cities, but that the reputation of both organisations, including the board, will be greatly enhanced if they stand firm in objecting to the proposal by the IAAF to ban Zola Budd? Many British athletes would support the British board if it took that step.
    Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the BAAB will have heard clearly what my hon. Friend has had to say.
    Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend not agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are listening to the hon. Lady.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister agree that Zola Budd, far from being a poor little girl, as one Government Member said of her, is in fact a walking, talking and running public relations stunt for apartheid in South Africa? It would be a slap in the face for the hundreds of black athletes who run for Britain and the Commonwealth if the Government were not seen to support both the letter and the spirit of the Gleneagles agreement.
    Mr. Moynihan: I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady's personal view of Zola Budd. As for the Gleneagles agreement, the Government are committed, along with Commonwealth countries, to uphold that agreement, which has nothing to do with the specific decision that the BAAB has to face on Sunday.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that no good will be done for sport in the inner cities or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, or throughout the world, if an innocent but very talented young athlete is treated in a disgraceful way by any international board when she has committed no offence? Is it not wrong, as we have seen with terrorism, to give in to blackmail?
    Mr. Moynihan: The House has clearly heard the comments of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I am always here when needed. May I ask the Minister to ensure that, in any discussions concerning Zola Budd, he will not repeat the Government's tragic mistakes of 1980 in respect of the Moscow Olympics, which has alienated international sporting opinion from this country ever since? Does he accept that the International Amateur Athletics Federation has an absolute duty to protect sport from any

    831
    taint of apartheid? Does he further accept that the Government have a duty to protect the rights of every other British sports man and sports woman taking part in this year's Olympic Games?
    Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Member knows full well that the decisions to be taken on this issue are a matter for the governing bodies. That must be right, and that view should be shared on both sides of the House. We need to await the outcome of the meeting held by the BAAB on Sunday and we shall carefully consider the situation then, to decide whether, so far as the Gleneagles agreement is concerned, it becomes a matter for the Government.

    London Marathon
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had about the future organisation of the London marathon.
    Mr. Moynihan: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had recent discussions on the future organisation of the London marathon.
    Mr. Canavan: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the organisers, spectators and over 23,000 runners who made last Sunday's marathon the biggest and best in the world? So that it continues to be so, will the Minister use his influence with the London Residuary
    832
    Body to try to ensure that the organisers are given the use of county hall for just one weekend every year, in accordance with the parliamentary petition presented last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), with more than a quarter of a million signatures?
    Mr. Moynihan: I join the hon. Gentleman in offering my congratulations to all who participated and assisted in the organisation of the London marathon. It was a showpiece festival of national and international sport, and it was excellent to see the involvement at élite and participatory level of so many disabled athletes.
    I recognise the present uncertainty about the future of county hall. While the London Residuary Body is unable to give guarantees about the availability for the race next year, because county hall is being sold, I can confirm that the LRB, with any support that I can give, will do everything possible to impress on new owners the importance attached to county hall by the organisers of the marathon.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    Ordered,
    That the Local Government (Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 358) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Small Firms (Liberation)
3.31 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove all administrative and legislative obstacles to the growth of small businesses.
I believe that this is the first time in the history of the House that a Bill has been addressed to Parliament with the word "liberation" in its title. There is room for many more such Bills. We have far too much regulation in this country, and it shackles the enterprise of our people.
You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why, given the amount of legislation that has passed through the House in recent times designed to help small businesses, I have tabled the Bill. No Government since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 has better understood the significance of property rights and markets in creating prosperity in our society. It is puzzling, however, that given the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young, the Secretary of State for enterprise, in wishing to remove obstacles to enterprise, the day-to-day reality of running a small firm is that for every obstacle that appears to be removed two more seem to be created, and small businesses still feel that they are often engulfed by the weight of legislation that they have to administer.
The Minister with responsibility for small business, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope), tells me that 500 small firms are created each week. That comes to the surprising total of 250,000 each year. Yet, if we examine the statistics of the VAT returns, we find that of small firms—those with a turnover of £100,000 or less—the number remains stagnant at round 2 million. So where do all these new businesses go? The sad thing is that many of them fail before they reach their third birthday.
High failure rate among small firms is of course inevitable. Setting up a business on one's own is a high-risk game. One's fate is no longer in one's own hands, but is in those of the customers. If they do not like what is on offer, that is the end of it. That is a natural part of business. What is not inevitable, and is unnecessary, is the amount of work that we pile on to small firms.
Perhaps I should say what I mean by a small firm. I mean a firm whose proprietor does most of the paper work. Fifty per cent. of the firms in this country employ fewer than five people, and those are the ones that I am talking about.
Such firms find that their most precious commodity is not money but time, and we rob them of that time when we demand priority for Government paper work. The hours that we make them spend on calculating tax for the Government, for example, mean that many of them do not have the time to get on with the work of making the business grow. It cannot be said too many times that small firms do not so much need more handouts and tax schemes as exemption from rules and regulations which constrict them and deflect them from their essential job.
In the 10 minutes at my disposal I want to confine myself to three areas which are critical and upon which the Government could act without major legislation. The first concerns the time when a business begins. Soon after it is set up it will find itself in need of an extra pair of hands. Naturally, it will want to engage that extra help in as easy a way as possible. It would rather use people in a flexible,
834
self-employed capacity—but here enters the Inland Revenue, which says that it cannot. Instead, it asks the business to set up a PAYE scheme and presents it with a 2½ lb starter pack consisting of two sets of tax tables, a set of national insurance tables, a blue card, a deduction working sheet, an employment record card, five assorted booklets and forms P15, P24, P34, P45, P46 and P47—in all, about 100,000 words to read and digest.
Faced with this penalty, it is not surprising that many proprietors of small firms will decide that they would rather struggle on and not take on the extra pair of hands. That is a tragedy, not only for them but for the country. It is well known that small firms will often engage people who are not well qualified for more formal jobs in larger businesses, and by deterring them we are adding to unemployment and possibly driving these people into the underground economy, not so much to dodge tax but merely because they cannot cope with the paper work that the Government demand.
My first proposal is that the Government allow small firms to engage up to five people as self-employed people, rather than having to set up all the paper work that is necessary for a PAYE scheme. It is then up to the Inland Revenue to make its arrangements with the individuals concerned. The second stage at which the business wants help would be when it begins to expand. At that point it needs more capital. I run a small business and I know that a good year's profits—[Interruption.]—leading on to another busy year, means that the money one has made in the first year is needed in the firm. But along comes the Inland Revenue with its tax demands and takes that money away.
If a stranger invests in a firm, he can, under the Government's enterprise scheme, offset up to £40,000 a year against his tax liability. I propose that small firms be allowed to retain up to £40,000 of their own profits to finance the next stage of growth. That is no different from the concession given to complete strangers and would have a dramatic effect on the expansion of small businesses.
My third proposal concerns the amount of legislation that this House churns out in the vain hope that we can reform human nature through regulations. I adduce two examples: the Financial Services Act 1986, which is currently causing many problems, and the Data Protection Act 1984, under which, according to The Daily Telegraph, prosecutions against many of the 100,000 small firms that have yet to register are about to be initiated. That would mean a fine of £2,000 for each firm, the slaughter of the innocents, because they failed to register—[Interruption.]—on time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a quiet hearing.
Mrs. Gorman: If 100,000 firms have not found the time to catch up with the legislation, that represents the biggest revolt against Government regulations in history.
Therefore, my third proposal is that all such legislation should have a lead-in time of two years, which will give businesses more chance to get their act together. Of course, many of them will still not be able to cope, which is a tragedy.
The Soviet Union has realised the value of small businesses. It is adopting a policy of perestroika, which I believe means enlightenment. Under that enlightenment, members of the KGB are now allowed to be self-employed.

835
There are more KGB personnel in Russia than there are self-employed people in this country. I do not quite know what lessons we can learn from this, but I do know that all Communist countries now realise the importance of self-employment and small businesses, and they are moving heaven and earth to get rid of the obstacles that prevent them from growing.
The Government should look into the problems that still remain for small businesses and get on with the business of liberating them from the tyranny of these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. David Shaw, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. David Davis, and Mr. Alistair Burt.

SMALL FIRMS (LIBERATION)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to remove all administrative and legislative obstacles to the growth of small businesses: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at this day's sitting the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to the Conduct of the honourable Member for Edinburgh, Leith may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put any Questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Points of Order
3.42 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to a communication that I received in an envelope in my slot In the Members' Lobby yesterday. I opened the envelope and found a communication that had been sent to me by a Kent Conservative Member announcing the closure of the profitable Matthew Brown brewery in Workington. I have not been able to locate that Conservative Member today, and therefore I am unable to name him in the Chamber, but he is a paid hack for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is a paid hack. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment. [Interruption] Order. Withdraw it, please.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been advised that I should say "salaried hack", but I know that that term would equally not be permissible. Therefore, I withdraw it and refer to him as a paid consultant.
My point of order is simple. Is it proper for a person who is paid by private industry to represent its interests in the House of Commons to use internal House facilities to send messages of that nature to other hon. Members? Indeed, is it right in principle that a Conservative Member of Parliament should announce to Parliament the closure of a profitable business in my constituency? May we have an inquiry into the incident?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Provided that that hon. Member has declared his interest in the Register of Members' Interests, it would be in order for him to put a letter on the board.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have said that, so far as I can see, it is in order. I cannot see that anything else arises.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps you will consider the matter afresh, Mr. Speaker. It might well be in order for the hon. Gentleman to have an interest and to declare it in the register, but I put it to you that it is not correct for him to use our internal systems to pursue that interest
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should have declared that in the correspondence as well as on the register. If there is any dispute about it, the right thing for the hon. Member to do is to take the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Mr. James Wallace: Given the terms of the motion relating to the business of the House, will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that if the motion relating to the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) continues past 11.30 pm there will be no opportunity to debate the statutory instrument relating to community charges in Scotland? We want to discuss the statutory instruments and we should not give any further publicity than is necessary to the third motion on the Order Paper but should dispatch it quickly.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct because the subsequent business is a prayer, which must end at 11.30 pm.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Are we to understand that hon. Members who are salaried by companies—of which there are many on the Conservative Benches—can now use the House's facilities to lobby and badger other people? It is appalling that Parliament's facilities should be used to promote the private interests of Conservative Members. If anyone is bringing the House into disrepute, it is Conservative Members who represent private companies—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members regularly use the letter board. I have made the position clear.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that a few days ago Scottish and Newcastle Breweries gave notice of its intention to move from Workington to elsewhere to keep the company in being and to be competitive. Its name was besmirched by the hon. Member for Workington. He used phrases such as "the rape of Workington", "criminal bandits" and "industrial pirates". We must be fair and place on record the fact that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries is a Rolls-Royce company. It wants to remain in being, and to do so it must be competitive in a very competitive world. It is not right that hon. Members should use such language in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for me, but I often say that we must be careful about besmirching individuals—and we should not besmirch good beer either.
Later—
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter, but I am confused about what you said to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Perhaps you will confirm, in simple language, that motions Nos. 3 and 4 must be completed by 11.30 pm. Is that the implication of your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot get on to motion No. 4—Community Charges (Scotland)—until we have disposed of motion No. 3. We have just passed the business of the House motion, which limits debate on motion No. 3 to one and a half hours. To make it perfectly clear, if motion No. 3 continues until 11.30 pm, there will be no time for the prayer.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a way of avoiding this problem. Labour Members want to debate the prayer and vote in accordance with the views of our party. Surely it would be easy for the usual channels to undo the damage that has been done by removing from the Order Paper the motion relating to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). Why should we debate that motion when you, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear that Tory Members can line their pockets every day of the week by picking up directorships—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations about me.
Mr. Skinner: I have done.
Mr. Speaker: Then he must withdraw them. He must withdraw the allegation that I alleged that Tory Members were lining their pockets. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was not alleging that? Then we had best get on with the business.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  Local Government Finance Bill
    Clause 21

      ADMINISTRATION AND PENALTIES
      3.51 pm
      The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 31, leave out 'and recovery'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      Government amendments Nos. 44 and 47 to 49.
      Amendment No. 137, in schedule 2, page 80, line 43, at end insert
      'and for this purpose earnings shall not include income support or other social security entitlements'.
      Government amendments Nos. 50 to 55.
      Amendment (a) to amendment No. 55, in line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
      Government amendment No. 56.
      Amendment (a) to amendment No. 56, in line 11, leave out paragraph (e).
      Government amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 73.
      Amendment (b) to amendment No. 73, in paragraph 5, at end insert—
      '(5) No attachment orders may be placed on income derived from any social security entitlement'.
      Amendment (a) to amendment No. 73, leave out paragraph 7.
      Mr. Howard: The main purpose of the Government's amendments is to set out in detail the arrangements for recovering unpaid community charges, civil penalties and rates. These arrangements were foreshadowed in the Bill as introduced, and the new schedule does no more than to spell out the provisions originally set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 of schedule 2.
      Broadly speaking, the enforcement of arrangements which currently exist for rates will be carried over to the new system, but with one important difference. In future, charging authorities will be able to attach a person's earnings to recover unpaid community charges.
      I have no doubt whatsoever that the great majority of people will pay their community charge just as they pay their rates at present; indeed, by making payment by instalment the norm and by encouraging direct payment methods the incidence of arrears will be reduced. It is essential that local authorities have an adequate framework within which to enforce, where necessary, payment of the community charge.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister clarify whether, when he refers to attachment of earnings, he is also referring to attachment of benefit?
      Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in a moment, if the hon. Lady will wait.
      840
      The provisions in the schedule are reasonably clear, and I do not propose to say anything further about them at this stage.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Minister agree from his experience of these matters that the practice by the courts varies from area to area as to whether they take the line of distress, attachment or imprisonment? Is he saying that it is proposed that in future the path to be followed will be the same in every petty sessional division and that a strict order of sequence will be applied?
      Mr. Howard: There will be provisions that will lead to greater uniformity in future.
      Opposition amendments Nos. 73(a), 55(a) and 56(a) seek to remove the power to commit a person for refusing to pay a community charge or a penalty, non-domestic rates or residual domestic rates respectively. Committal is not widely used: fewer than 400 people were committed for non-payment of rates in 1986. I am confident that considerably fewer will be committed after 1990 because instalments, direct payment methods and obligatory reminders will reduce the need to pursue arrears through the courts. Attachment of earnings will make it much more difficult to refuse to pay.
      Mr. Pat Wall: If people are to have their earnings attached, many employees, particularly those in clerical and managerial work, might have difficulty in meeting payments. Their employers might use that fact as a judgment against them as employees and they could face dismissal. Is there any protection for such people who have their earnings attached?
      Mr. Howard: I very much doubt that an attachment of earnings order would justify dismissal in accordance with the procedures of employment protection legislation. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need have any fears on that score.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister make reference to a couple in my constituency who have two adult teenage sons? Their current rates bill is £321·70. After the poll tax is introduced they will have to pay £1,460 a year—that is an increase in one year of £1,138·30. The lady works as a lollipop lady, so an attachment of earnings would take all her earnings. Would she be committed to prison?
      Mr. Howard: The answer is that the notoriously profligate Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest should bring its spending under control so that the community charge for that area is at a reasonable level which all the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be able to afford.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister gave his reasons for believing that there will be fewer committals as a result of this legislation, but has he not underestimated one main reason why there are likely to be more committals, which is the unwillingness of people to pay the poll tax because of its blatant unfairness?
      Mr. Howard: I do not believe that that will be a factor because, as I said a moment ago, the availability of attachment of earnings orders will make it much more difficult for people to refuse to pay when they have the means so to do.

      841
      We recognise the importance of ensuring that charging authorities have an effective sanction to back up the enforcement provisions. Committal has proved an effective final sanction over the years under the present system, and the small number of people who are imprisoned is a testament to the effectiveness of this power as a deterrent. Without it, local authorities would face a far harder task in collecting their community charge and rate income from those few people who persistently refuse to meet their financial obligations. Indeed, I wonder how local authorities would view the Opposition's attempts, through their amendments, to undermine the recovery system. I am sure that those who have to operate the system recognise the value of committal as a last resort.
      It is also important that in those areas where residual domestic rates will be retained for a transitional period local authorities should be able to enforce payment in the same way as for community charges. It would be anomalous if a charging authority taking enforcement action against a person for failing to pay his residual rates and community charge had different enforcement powers available for each bill. It is also desirable that as far as possible there should be consistency in the enforcement procedures for non-domestic rates and community charges.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Department done any work on the number of additional people who will have to be employed by local authorities to bring about recovery? I have been told by Dick Knowles, the Labour leader in Birmingham, that it will have to take on 400 to 600 additional people—which, incidentally, is the figure for Lothian, too—to operate the poll tax. Obviously, not all those people would be involved with recovery, but has any assessment been made of the number of additional people who will be needed?
      Mr. Howard: We have made a preliminary assessment, and we are looking at the various estimates that have been made by some of the local authorities concerned to find out whether we can arrive at a more accurate idea of what will be involved.
      Amendment No. 137 and amendment (b) to the new schedule seek to prevent the attachment of earnings provision from applying to income from income support or other social security entitlements. We believe that it is important that there should be equality of treatment, wherever possible, between those who are in employment and those who are receiving benefit. Attachment of earnings will be available for defaulters in employment, and it is right that there should be parallel arrangements for income support recipients.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Given that the concept of income support is that it is a minimum amount of money on which people are expected to live, if there is to be attachment of income support, is it not inconsistent that those people will be expected to live at a level below that which the Government have defined as reasonable?
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that income support will be increased to reflect the liability of those on income support to a residual 20 per cent. of their community charge liability.
      842
      It would be quite wrong if people whose benefit had been increased to help them to pay the community charge were able to avoid payment without being subject to the same sanctions as those in employment. The local authority will be able, as in all cases, to take distress proceedings, but, without some provision for attachment of benefit, the only sanction would be commitment to prison if distress proved ineffective.
      Mr. Terry Fields: How will the Minister and the Government tackle the problem where an attempt is made by the Government to attach an individual's earnings, when he is employed by a local authority? He might, for example, be employed in Liverpool where we personally will be campaigning to undermine what the Government are trying to do with the poll tax. We are advocating non-payment of the poll tax. What would the Government do in such circumstances? That problem relates not only to people in Liverpool but to people in other major working-class areas where there is a Labour-controlled council.
      4 pm
      Mr. Howard: I have made plain what steps will be available to local authorities. I am sure that electors in the city of Liverpool, who will be voting in the local elections in a few days' time, will take careful note of the way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) has pledged the Labour council in Liverpool to defiance of the law and illegal tactics. It is important that we place on record that the hon. Gentleman is nodding vigorously in support of the assertion that Liverpool council will engage in unlawful tactics.
      Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that Liverpool would. I said that we, the activists in Liverpool, will be advocating that we have a policy that the Liverpool city council refuses to implement. We are campaigning on the estates, and we are campaigning at places of work, to offset what the Government are trying to do to working people.
      Mr. Howard: The policy that the hon. Gentleman has been advocating is the policy that he advocates that Liverpool city council should follow. We know what great influence the hon. Gentleman, and those who think like him, have over the affairs of Liverpool city council. That is an important matter which the electors of the city of Liverpool will no doubt take into account when they vote shortly.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: May I pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)? For those who live in areas where the poll tax will be higher than average, but where income support meets only the national average of the 20 per cent. bracket of differential, will not such people be liable to imprisonment for non-payment? In the words of the Bill, they will be liable to imprisonment for "culpable neglect", on the basis that they have, in theory, the money to pay. In fact, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, they will not have the money to pay, because income support will still not meet the total bill which in their area they will be liable to pay.
      Mr. Howard: Given the hon. Member's professional background, he must know that that is wrong; culpable neglect is not based on theory. Imprisonment apples only

      843
      where there is deliberate non-payment, and where the person has the means with which to pay. The hon. Gentleman must know that that is not based on theoretical considerations. When the matter comes before the court, imprisonment will be available only where there is a wilful refusal to pay by someone, who has the means with which to pay.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Howard: I will give way again. It is an important point.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful. Does the Minister, therefore, mean that in areas where the poll tax is higher than average, where someone is on income support and has less money than they need to pay on the Government's assessment, they will in no case be liable to imprisonment?
      Mr. Howard: Of course, that is not the case either. That will by no means follow, either from the question posed by the hon. Gentleman or from my answer to it. That is a different matter. It is something which will be considered by the court in each case and on the facts of each particular case.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: Could the Minister clarify one matter, as I do not wish to misunderstand him on this important issue of the relationship between someone who is in employment and someone who is on income support? As I understand it, when three payments are missed, the whole poll tax for the year will become due. Is he advising local authorities to demand from someone the whole of the year's income support contribution, or is he willing to have the payments phased? Will he give advice in terms of a lesser payment than a full year's payment being due? If people get a bill for a full year's income support contribution, they will not know where to turn.
      Mr. Howard: I am not giving local authorities any advice whatever on that question.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister put at rest one small problem with regard to the attachment of DHSS benefits, income support benefits, and other such benefits? Will the Minister be advising a level to the amount of attachment? As we have seen with attachment of earnings in the British courts, there is a great variation. What may cause people concern is that when benefits are attached, one may find that in one court they are attached to a rate of £2 or £3 a week, whereas in another court they may be attached at the rate of only 50p per week. Does not the Minister agree that guidelines need to be given to the court in that respect?
      Mr. Howard: That is a perfectly reasonable point. There will be a maximum beyond which attachment will not operate as a proportion of benefit or income support.
      Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister be able to tell us what that maximum will be? I am very worried about families on income support, who will get 20 per cent. of the national poll tax average but whose local poll tax might be higher than the average and who may have loans rather than single payments to pay back. They may have a £50 fine for failing to register. Without some knowledge of that maximum, how is that family going to pay?
      Mr. Howard: I cannot go into further details on that matter at this stage. Those details will be made public in due course.
      In order for charging authorities to be able to arrange for direct payment from benefit, it will be necessary for them to know about a defaulter's source of income. We intend to introduce a duty on people who are subject to a liability order to provide information about their source of income, including income support. That will be on the same lines as the duty in the schedule on those in employment to provide information about their earnings.
      We also intend that people claiming income support at their local DHSS office should be invited to complete an application for the 80 per cent. reduction in their community charge to which they will be entitled. That will be passed to the local authority to arrange for the reduction to be credited to their community charge bill. Therefore, local authorities will have the names of the people on income support who will be entitled to the reduction.
      We also intend that the names and addresses of income support claimants, who do not apply for reduction, should also be passed to the community charge registration officer. That will be a sensible additional source of information for the registration officer in ensuring that the registers are complete.
      The provisions, as they stand, relate only to income from employment. For the reasons that I have given, we think that they should be paralleled by provisions relating to the payment of income support. We shall be bringing forward amendments to the enforcement procedures to give effect to that. Similiar provisions will be made in this respect for Scotland.
      I shall be inviting the House to accept the Government amendments in this group, which set out enforcement arrangements for the community charge, non-domestic rates and residual domestic rates. I invite the House to reject the Opposition amendments and those in the name of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, which seek only to undermine those enforcement procedures.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: We now come to an important part of the Bill. All parts that have been chosen for debate under the guillotine are, by definition, important. The Minister, in introducing the amendment, seemed to give the impression that the Government were tidying up matters that had been discussed in Committee. The fact is that Government amendment No. 73 is a new schedule of at least 4,000 words on enforcement, which was not in the Bill on Second Reading or, indeed, in Committee. We should not deal with this matter in the insensitive way in which the Minister introduced these draconian amendments, because the matter is much more serious than that.
      The general issues of this debate are fairly wide, taking in enforcement, imprisonment and attachment of earnings and benefit, plus aspects of the administration of the poll tax. The last people with whom I want to have rows or difficulties are my hon. Friends. However, I say to the majority of my hon. Friends, who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, because on our side membership of the Committee was voluntary and not everyone who wished to serve on it had the opportunity to do so, that it is a fundamental misconception that an elected council can decide how it goes about collecting the poll tax.

      845
      It is fine for individual members of a political party, whether they are councillors or not, to advocate any policy that they like in a democracy. However, the idea that an elected council could advocate a policy of non-collection, non-administration or of slowing down the collection of the poll tax is a non-starter because under the Bill the elected council is not the body with the powers to carry out the collection of the poll tax. The person responsible is the local authority treasurer. A whole swathe of new powers go not to the authority, but to an individually named officer—not to the chief executive, but to the treasurer. In carrying out his or her duties under the law, that treasurer will be responsible not to the employing authority, but to Ministers.
      Mr. Terry Fields: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I have completed this point.
      It must be made absolutely clear that it is not a question of elected local government collecting its own local revenue and dealing with its administration in the caring and sensitive ways that are sometimes required and which are followed under the existing system. That will not happen any more because the authority will not have control over that officer—
      Mr. Terry Fields rose—
      Mr. David Wilshire rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend before I give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), but I want to complete my point.
      The idea of a council or of party members advocating a campaign of non-payment or slowing down the collection in some way, which under the Bill will lead directly to attachment, distress or prison, and then going back to the electors who have suffered that distress, attachment or prison and asking them to vote Labour again to support a Labour council will be an absolute non-starter. The elected local authority will not be in any position to carry out the mandate that is advocated by non-collection or slowing down collection. It is a fundamental misconception that the local authority is in control of that process. It will not be in control when, as presently drafted, the Bill becomes an Act, or in the form that it will be when the amendments are carried.
      Mr. Terry Fields: What will the Government do to a local authority that tries to attach the earnings of an employee if that local authority does not comply with the provisions in the Bill? Can my hon. Friend conceive of local authority workers taking a conscious decision that they will not comply with the poll tax? If one is talking about Liverpool and electoral liability, despite the campaign that we waged in Liverpool, the local authority still has mass support. The council and its work force will stand up to defend the rights of ordinary working people, and we will still get their support—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not intervene from a sedentary position. They should try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
      Mr. Rooker: The point is that the local authority will not be in any position to save its employees who take that action because control will be taken completely out of the hands of the local authority.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. Rooker: No. I am explaining the position so that there is no misconception.
      There are many ways in which the administration and implementation of the Bill will cause a complete and utter mess in local authority administration. The administration of the poll tax will not work in the way that Ministers intend.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to make this point absolutely clear. We are discussing some crucial and draconian additions to the Bill, for example, imprisonment, which was not originally an option.
      4.15 pm
      We must get out of our minds the idea that either as a political party or as individuals we can lead such a campaign. It will not be any good asking the local authority to be the long-stop because the local authority does not have the powers. We will not be able to sack the treasurer, tell him to slow down or to go easy, or deprive him or her of resources, manpower or materials, because, under the Bill, he or she can get those resources from the Government and not from the local authority. Treasurers will not be responsible to the local authority at council, sub-committee or committee level. That is why it will be so easy for the Government to blame local authorities for things that go wrong with the poll tax. However, the local authorities are being deprived of many of the powers that are needed to carry out sensitively the administration of this iniquitous tax.
      Mr. Wilshire: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the powers about which he is complaining should rest with councillors so that they can openly encourage defiance of the law and can openly encourage an officer to ignore a democratically elected Parliament? Is he saying that he supports the policy of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)? Is the policy of the Labour party to defy democracy and stoke up rebellion?
      Mr. Rooker: I know that there is national discussion at the moment about brain transplants, but I shall not give way again to stupid interventions such as that. There are no grounds whatsoever for making that assertion—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman will be sanctioned in any event by my hon. Friends because we will not give way to him again. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman sat through 150 hours in Committee, and he knows as well as we do that powers have been removed from local authorities and that it will be an individual employee of an authority who will have the powers. Therefore, the idea that there is any long-stop by the local authority is a non-starter.
      Mr. Cohen: Is not the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that local authorities, and especially Labour local authorities, could say to their treasurers who, under the Bill, will be responsible for collecting the poll tax, "We are not going to give you any resources because the Government can give those resources"? Should not local authorities say to treasurers, "Go to the Government for those resources", because that would make the Government accountable in those areas?
      Mr. Rooker: The Government will not give the treasurers any money. The Government will divert local authority money to give it to the treasurer. It is not a question of trying to gain extra resources because I do not think that it has ever crossed the Minister's mind that extra resources would be available. It will be the local authority's own resources that will be dealt with by Ministers.
      The idea of prison was hardly referred to at the outset. Ministers originally wanted imprisonment as a long-stop. When the Government published the Bill, imprisonment was not even a remote possibility. Imprisonment would not have been available to any local authority treasurer or local authority. Although imprisonment is now included in the Bill, we have not had a satisfactory explanation of that.
      Attachment of earnings should deal with most cases. Although there will be thousands of such cases, that method will be more practical for the administration because the idea is that the Government can get the money to the local authority through attachment of earnings.
      There is also the question of distress. However, it will be difficult to enter a household in which only one person is not paying the poll tax and attempt to seize the television set because there will be an argument in the family about who it belongs to. This is a minefield. Nevertheless, there are sufficient powers to enforce payment.
      If my memory serves me correctly, I understand that imprisonment is still not available in Scotland because, we are told, there are sufficient civil remedies that can be used in Scotland. We have never had a satisfactory explanation about why imprisonment has been brought forward on Report. There is also the argument that prisoners are not subject to the poll tax, providing they have been convicted and have not been found "not guilty", having spent time on remand, during which time they will be responsible for the poll tax. It is a farce.
      The Minister has said that the only people who will go to prison are those who have wilfully refused to pay, having had the means to do so. Those are important words. I have paraphrased the Minister's remarks, but by and large that is what he said.
      It will be argued by Ministers that those who have definitely had the means to pay are those on income support. It will be alleged that the money to pay the 20 per cent. was included in their benefit. We all know that provision will be made only for the average 20 per cent. poll tax. We all know as well that an average will mean that the poll tax will be higher in some areas than in others. Some of the really poor—those on income support and subject to the means test—will gain if they are in a low poll tax area. They will receive payment for the average 20 per cent. poll tax. Others, however, will lose. Those who are on the lowest incomes on which the House has said that it is possible to exist will end up being even worse off if their local authorities are in above average poll tax areas. That will he the position in many Tory-controlled local authorities.
      This is not a matter of the political complexion of the authority. In effect, the Government are saying, "You will have even less than the current means-tested benefit because we shall give you only the average sum for the 20 per cent. poll tax."
      This is an issue that will have to be determined by the courts. If a person does not have the means to pay the full 20 per cent. because he has received only the average sum and he happens to live in a high poll tax area, how can it
      848
      be held by the courts that he had the means to pay the poll tax? Surely no reasonable person could send anyone to prison in those circumstances. That is inconceivable.
      This issue was never raised in Committee because it arose at the very time—virtually on the same day—that the guillotine was imposed on the Bill. We discussed attachment of earnings in Committee, and the guillotine fell when we started to discuss penalties. I am as guilty as any other member of the Committee because I did not ask about the attachment of benefit. The issue was not raised in Committee but it was taken up by someone in the Public Gallery, who talked to a Minister who was not especially pleased with the poll tax. A hint was given that there was a possibility of attachment of benefit. I estimate that there are about 4,000 words in the new schedule, and we can study it until we are blue in the face in an effort to find provisions on the attachment of benefit. Provisions on the attachment of earnings occupy one page of the schedule, and we all know that if an individual has earnings he must have an employer. That does not apply to anyone who is on income support or benefit. There is no employer and no earnings in the terms of a legal definition.
      Paragraph 18, which is one of the shortest paragraphs in the schedule, reads:
      "Regulations under this Schedule may make, as regards the recovery of such a sum, provision equivalent to that included under Part II of this Schedule subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit."
      Part II deals with attachment of earnings, and if someone does not have an employer the equivalent of earnings is benefit. We find in two lines towards the end of the schedule the link that provides for attachment of benefit. If I am wrong, I shall be corrected. I am stating my interpretation of the schedule on the attachment of benefit. I cannot find a link anywhere else.
      This is outrageous and deceitful. Ministers are not prepared to write on the face of the Bill that attachment of social security benefit is a possibility under the Bill.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my earlier observations. I said that the current provisions relate only to income from employment. For the reasons that I advanced, I said that they should be paralleled by provisions on the payment of income support. I added that we would be introducing amendments to the enforcement procedures at a later stage to give effect to that. There is no question of deceit or an attempt to conceal.
      Mr. Rooker: Ministers were aware of this issue when we discussed penalties in Committee, and they said nothing about it. It was leaked that they had already decided to introduce the attachment of benefit. The massive schedule that is before us, which covers more than seven pages and covers almost everything, does not make that clear. Today is the first time that any Minister has spoken about attachment of benefit. If such a provision is to be placed on the face of the Bill in another place, why has it not been placed in the Bill in the House of Commons? Why has it not been included? Am I wrong in my assessment of paragraph 18?
      The last thing of which I would accuse the Minister is deceit, but it is deceitful of the Government to proceed in this way. They do not have the guts to make their position clear and to introduce provisions to give effect to attachment of benefit so that we can seek to amend them.

      849
      The amendments of the Labour and Liberal parties reflect only what we think the Bill means when it comes to attachment of benefit. We cannot be certain.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an article in The Independent on 26 February suggested that the Cabinet Committee had already come to a decision and that that information had been kept from the Standing Committee that was considering the Bill because Ministers feared a hostile reaction to the proposal in this place. We must deduce—we have no facts—that Ministers know that, if they produced the explicit proposal that those on income support, especially in above average poll tax areas, should be liable to attachment of benefit and potentially to imprisonment, they would face a massive and additional hostile reaction. That is probably why we are hearing and seeing nothing specific in this place.
      Mr. Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend taken into account the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), and I are rather inquisitive about the effect that the Government's proposal will have on Scottish legislation? This is the first that we have heard of the proposition. I hope that the Scottish position will be clarified. My hon. Friend will be aware that Scotland is one year ahead of England and Wales in this respect.
      Mr. Rooker: The first I knew about the Government's proposal was when I read the article in The Independent to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred. It was never discussed in Committee. We spent 150 hours discussing the Bill in Committee and we shall have a massive five-day debate on Report. If the Government introduce a specific amendment in another place, I believe that they will probably have difficulty in getting it accepted.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away on a point of absurdity. Surely he will agree that the important point is that the House should have the opportunity of debating the principle of the provision. Indeed, it has that opportunity. There are amendments that deal fairly and squarely with the principle. I have outlined to the House fairly and clearly the Government's intention in respect of attachment of benefit in respect of England and Wales. I said earlier that similar provisions will be made in respect of Scotland.
      The Government have declared their intention clearly. It is absured for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to suggest that we have held back the detailed provisions for fear of a reaction. I have stated clearly the Government's intention. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) must know that it has not proved possible to introduce amendments in this place on all matters in respect of which we have clearly declared our intentions. There are some matters in respect of which it will be necessary to bring forward amendments in another place. The important thing is that the Government should declare their intention on this matter, which I have done, and that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the principle, which it will have.
      Mr. Rooker: The length of that intervention proves my point. It is as simple as that. As the Minister knows, the House will probably not have an opportunity to vote on anything other than Government amendment No. 43 because the Bill has been guillotined. The chance of having anything other than a symbolic vote on this group of amendments, to which we object, is remote.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job for the Opposition. I wish to make it clear that the Scottish Act has no provision for going directly to income support payments. The Secretary of State for Scotland has 29 amendments that will go through on the basis of this Bill. It may be excusable for the dodos in the Department of the Environment who have not gone through the process, but it is inexcusable for the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the eve of elections in Scotland where the flagship is already on the statute book, not to have the guts to come forward with the provisions that the Minister for Local Government is asserting will operate in Scotland. Let us discuss those provisions on the Floor of the House before the May elections so that people in Scotland may know of the additional imposition in this noxious Act.
      Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend deserves an answer to that point at some time. I shall move on because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on this aspect of the Bill.
      Most of my other points can be put in the form of questions because they relate to the part of the Bill covered by the large group of Government amendments. Before the close of the debate, may we have clarification about the right of poll tax payers to pay by instalments? It is not clear from schedule 2, paragraph 2(2) (b), whether those with small bills—probably those on maximum rebate—will have the right to pay by instalments. We know that the regulations—much of the Bill will be administered by regulation—under schedule 2, paragraph 2(2) (b), will make payment by instalments the norm. There is no doubt that that will apply to the general population. That will lead undoubtedly to a massive increase in transactions. Many people now pay their rates in two halves, which they are entitled to do. I suspect that a few pay in one go. I know for a start that that will lead to a tenfold increase in transactions in Birmingham. Has the Minister or his colleagues had discussions with those who run the banking system in this country? The increased number of transactions will be gigantic and we should like to know whether the banking system will be able to cope.
      The refusal of our constituents—that may be too strong a word—the non-co-operation of our constituents even to supply information, let alone pay the poll tax, can lead to a penalty—not a fine—of £50 imposed by the local treasurer. It will not involve going to the magistrates court to obtain a court order to impose the penalty. After a lack of co-operation the first time, a £200 penalty will be charged the second time.
      We debated that aspect briefly in Committee because there was always the threat of the guillotine. I return, without apology, to the part of the Bill that used to be known as clause 5(7). It is now clause 6(8), which, deals with the setting up of the register. Clause 6(8) gives the registration officer a
      "duty to compile and maintain a register in accordance with this Part".

      851
      It also includes the duty
      "to take reasonable steps to obtain information for that purpose under the powers conferred on him."
      That gobbledegook needs to be translated into plain man's English or Brummie English. Under regulations a local authority treasurer in England will be entitled to decide for himself—the authority of his council will not matter—that he will introduce a personal identity number made up from the date of birth and the initials of a person's name. If people then say, "Hang on a minute. The Minister has repeatedly said in Committee that it is not necessary to have numbers and dates of birth in Scotland or England in order to run the system and we will give our name and address and a promise to pay the poll tax but nothing else", he can fine them £50. If they refuse a second time, he can fine them £200. That can be imposed without people having an opportunity to go to court and argue the case. It will simply be added to their bill. Has the Minister given any more thought to that?
      Is it proposed that applicants for income support or a means-tested benefit will be given, at the time they apply for income support, a poll tax rebate application form? I want to know whether that is proposed anywhere in the Bill or in regulations. If people refuse to fill in the poll tax rebate form, that will be taken as an indication of the fact that they are probably not registered for poll tax and the Department of Health and Social Security will then be obliged to report them to the poll tax registration officer. It has been put to me that that is proposed in the swathe of Government amendments. I cannot find it, and I should like to know whether that will be the case.
      Will it be proposed that court procedures should be used for the arrestment of benefit—that is the case with wages—with the result that the benefit claimant will also be hit with legal costs? That point has to be taken on board. It has been suggested to me that that threat from the Department of the Environment is designed to encourage the DHSS to co-operate in deduction at source. It would be much cheaper and administratively convenient to put the 20 per cent. poll tax in income support and then deduct the poll tax at source. That would be much cheaper than chasing up the poor people who have to survive, under this Prime Minister, by sleeping with foil under their bedclothes. Is it intended to use the courts for the arrestment of benefit, and is that being used as a threat by the Department of the Environment to force the DHSS to co-operate?
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem if a man whose wife is working leaves his job and is deemed not to be entitled to unemployment benefit? If the wife continues with her job, he would not receive any benefits. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me what will be attached in his case.
      Mr. Rooker: I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that they would attach her earnings. Joint and several liability comes into operation and she is responsible. He has no income because, under the means test, her earnings put them above the level. Therefore, she is responsible for both poll taxes, and if she does not pay his full poll tax they will attach her earnings. We have had that drummed into us by Ministers who have made it clear that the poll tax is not an individual tax with universal accountability. Joint and several liability destroys the concept of universal accountability.
      Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps my hon. Friend could assist me further. What happens if the parties have separated because of a domestic row but there is no court order and no legal separation? Is the separated or perhaps the deserted wife also expected to pay her husband's poll tax liabilities?
      Mr. Rooker: Not if he is not living in the same household. We discussed in Committee that a couple might live under the same roof but not in the same household. Many of us in our surgeries hear about such situations where by all criteria a couple may be under the same roof but not in the same household. We were told in Committee that, if that could be proved, joint and several liability would not operate. We are creating a minefield. Who is to decide whether, for the purpose of attachment of benefit or earnings, a couple are in the same household? It is ludicrous and frightening. The problems that are likely to arise frighten me.
      We cannot under the guillotine do justice to all the matters referred to in the amendments. I apologise to the House for having taken so long. I wanted to speak about warrants of commitment. I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who will reply for the Opposition, to deal with that if time permits. We think that the Government's proposals are outrageous. We shall divide the House on principle because we are opposed to the concept of what the Government plan in this group of amendments.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is a shrewd parliamentarian. If I remain a Member of Parliament for as long as he has been a Member, I hope that I shall become as adept as he is at operating in the wilderness of mirrors that represents Labour party policy. I sat in Committee for 147 hours with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He told us that he had not been prepared to come to the Second Reading debate without a policy, or to the House of Commons unclothed, but he is still unclothed and without a policy. On Monday he found my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) bathing in the pool of self-indulgence. The hon. Gentleman promptly stole his clothes and is now sliding into the waters of political opportunism.
      Once again the hon. Gentleman has regaled the House with an incredible speech. He spent the larger part of it lecturing my hon. and learned Friend about his duty, although my hon. and learned Friend has made his intentions absolutely clear. There is no intention to disguise anything from Parliament, and the hon. Member for Perry Barr spent the greater part of his speech erecting a great fabrication. His voice rose with false anger. The real thing that he was trying to hide from the House was the comment made by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has left his seat, but he, backed by the hon. Member for Broadgreen, advocated a policy of civil disobedience. I am glad that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is listening. Will he dissociate himself and the Labour party from that policy? I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Rooker: There is no doubt about it. We have made it clear that we are in favour of obeying the law, even though we oppose it and will repeal it at the first opportunity. We will not co-operate in its implementation,

      853
      but the money has to be collected to pay the salaries of local government employees. The point I was making was that it is not within the competence of a political party to advocate non-compliance in the hope that the authority can obey that policy, because the authority is not in charge. I pointed to the contradiction in doing that, leading to people having their earnings attached, being arrested and ending up in prison, and then going round at the next local elections asking people to vote Labour. That is not on.
      Mr. Leigh: We are back to the wilderness of mirrors. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in plain, simple language, which the electorate can understand, that Parliament is supreme, that he may not like what Parliament is doing, but that Parliament has a right to legislate and that Liverpool and the London boroughs have a duty to carry out what Parliament wants. The hon. Gentleman is hiding behind the false screen which he has erected that local authorities have no discretion in the matter. Local authorities always have a certain amount of discretion to carry out not just the letter but the spirit of the law. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he is prepared to condone action by the Labour local authorities to thwart the spirit of the law.
      4.45 pm
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman cares so much about respect for the law and the authority of Parliament, his hon. Friends should have refrained from carrying out the Scottish legislation. They paid no heed to what they were doing in Scotland. In some respects they realised what they had done only when the matters came up in the English legislation. It would help people to have more respect for Parliament if, when replying to questions from Opposition Members, the Government gave honest replies and did not attempt to deceive the House and the people.
      Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) may make his point now; I see that he is on his feet.
      Mr. Barnes: Is there not an unholy alliance between the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), in that the proposal that there should be imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax was introduced in Committee by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and withdrawn when there was agreement from the Minister that an amendment would be tabled? The hon. Gentleman introduced a proposal that would have produced a martyrs' charter. People would have used it against entirely unjustified legislation. The hon. Gentleman should examine his position as well as discussing that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen.
      Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened. Only this week I read in the Market Rasen Mail that he had told the local Labour party that I wanted to put people in prison and that in Committee I had
      854
      proposed an amendment for that purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am delighted to have the opportunity to put matters into their proper context.
      On behalf of the Rating and Valuation Association, in which I have no financial or other interest, I suggested to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the present rating legislation contains a last ditch device by which local authorities can commit to prison people who wilfully refuse to pay their rates, despite the fact that they have the resources to do so. I did not propose any amendment. The Minister simply said that that was right. He proposed to bring forward his own amendment on Report. Those are the facts.
      I want to return the point to the hon. Member for Broadgreen. Is it not profoundly anti-social and anti-socialist that people who have the means to do so but wilfully refuse, for any reason, political or otherwise, to pay their dues to society should get away with it? Is that what the Labour party wants?
      Mr. Chris Mullin: Under the legislation, who will decide whether someone has the means to pay?
      Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman, like myself or the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), had spent any time in magistrates courts he would know that magistrates do not send to prison for non-payment of rates people who do not have the means to pay. They imprison only those who wilfully refuse to pay. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is in his seat. He is an experienced lawyer. If I am misleading the House, he should rise and say so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that interventions only take up the time of other hon. Members. In deciding who should catch the eye of the Chair, the Chair will take into account those who intervene.
      Mr. Leigh: I draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that when the glossy packaging is taken away there is revealed the true nature and the militant heart of the Labour party—resist Parliament, resist democracy, and resort to civil disobedience.
      Mr. Bermingham: I did not rise to the bait of the trite intervention of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). The hon. Gentleman should know, if he casts his mind back to his days in the magistrates courts, that the magistrates did not always examine in depth the ability to pay and wilful refusal to pay. Regrettably, a person who could not keep up the rate of repayment ordered was incarcerated.
      I was amazed that the Minister for Local Government, who is an honourable and learned man, had forgotten so much about the court system. He is in a world of unreality.
      Mr. Howard: I never knew as much about the courts as the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Bermingham: That means that the Minister knew nothing at all, because I know precious little.
      For years we have been trying to take imprisonment out of the system of enforcement of payment of civil debt. The prisons, rotten as they are, do not have room for the people who will fail to pay their poll tax. One can imagine the conversation between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary. The Secretary of

      855
      State for the Environment would say, "We have a measure into which we shall put a penal clause. Is there any room in your prisons?" The Home Secretary would reply, "No, I do not have any room." It will cost more than a whole year's poll tax to keep a person in prison for only a week.
      Why must there be this penal clause? The Minister has said that only 400 people went to prison last year for non-payment of rates. He should not mislead the House. Many more people will be liable to pay the poll tax than were ever ratepayers. Many more poll tax provisions than domestic rates provisions are the subject of penal sanctions, Many more people will be involved under this legislation.
      The new schedule is iniquitous. We have already seen the beginning of the problems. There is stage one: if a person does not pay, the authorities will try distress warrants. Local authorities throughout the land are levelling distress warrants against ratepayers who do not pay their rates. In stage two, there will be attachment. One can understand that system being applied if a person is in work, but there is a problem, which the Minister has either forgotton or about which he or his advisers do not know enough. There is great variation in the petty sessional divisions. The way in which people are treated by magistrates varies enormously depending on whether they live in a shire county or in an inner city area. I have known magistrates in the shire counties who think it rather a joke that a person has not paid his rates, so they levy payment at about £1 a week. I have seen persons sitting in judgment in inner city areas order payment of £5 a week out of the £25 a week, or whatever, received by the unemployed. That is vicious. Will there be guidelines on the way in which the poll tax is to be levied? There may be a high poll tax in one area and low tax in another. How will the deductions be made?
      There is the other side to the coin: social security benefits will be the subject of deduction. I raised the same matter recently in respect of fines imposed by the courts under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill. The Home Office people told me that social security payments cannot be attached to recoup fines. As the House will be aware, our prisons are full and we have been trying to get fine defaulters out of prison. Apparently that cannot be done by those means. Why can benefits be attached for non-payment of the poll tax but not for penal fines?
      Will the Minister confirm his undertaking in respect of people in prison on remand? Apparently, if they are convicted, they pay no poll tax but if they are acquitted they are liable to pay it. These days people are in prison on remand for so long that it may be cheaper for them to plead guilty, and not have to pay the poll tax, than to plead not guilty, be acquitted and pay the poll tax. That is absolute lunacy.
      I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the position of a wife whose husband lost his job. This legislation is becoming a lawyer's paradise, and I declare my interest as a barrister. Can hon. Members imagine a court of law and a matrimonial dispute when one of the wife's complaints, which led to the husband being thrown out, was that she had to pay his poll tax because he had lost his job, and he had clocked her one? Where on earth are we going? We have created a legal minefield.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: The minefield becomes even greater because, after the wife has
      856
      left the man—because he clocked her one for what he did or did not do with the poll tax—she will still be liable for his poll tax because of joint and several liability.
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a useful point, which I shall not pursue, lest I make a remark that will get me into even more trouble. We all know the problem.
      It was fascinating to turn over the pages of amendment No. 73 and find the charging orders in paragraph 8. Oh, how sweet. There is a lovely get-out if a person owns his house. There is no need to bother with attachment of earnings—tell the boss not to bother—and no point in sending the man to prison. Instead, a charging order can be put on the property. For those with properties, there is no imprisonment. For those who do not have properties, there is imprisonment. For those with properties, there is no imprisonment. Are we not a sweet little nation and do we not have a sweet little Government?
      When one is at the bottom of the pile all the worst things happen. What about those a little further up the pile? What about the percentage of home ownership? What happens if there are tenants in common, co-owners who are not married? The house is to be charged, but against which share? How is the charge levied? Does that put a block on the person who is not liable for the charging order? Again, there is a lovely minefield for the lawyers. It has been created, regrettably, by a Minister who is a lawyer but who said that he did not know as much about it as I do.
      I have had only the time since the amendments were published to look at them. I have mentioned just a few of the little problems that I found in the new schedule. When the real professionals get at it, they will create a morass of questions. Once again, the Government will have rendered a piece of legislation a litigation paradise but will have done nothing for the ordinary person. The penal clauses can be summed up beautifully: a person with a house and a job will not go to gaol. However, when a person has a rented place and not much furniture and he is at the bottom of the pile, may not have a job and may be on benefit, the authorities will not waste a moment on him. They will not go to that expense and trouble. Magistrates courts are inconsistent. That is why I ask the Minister to produce some guidelines for consistency, because they will not bother. They will just lock a person up.
      Then the silly situation will arise as a result of which it will cost more in a week to keep someone in a police cell—because the authorities will have run out of prison places, as they always do—than it would cost to collect the poll tax off that person for two or three years. At the moment, it costs £1,000 a week to keep a person in a prison cell.
      Perhaps the Minister will have the courage to take away Government amendment No. 73, bury it and come back. with some better ideas.
      5 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to start exactly where the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) left off, but I shall address my remarks to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) because it seems to me that there is no logic in the Government's proposals. Yesterday the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle argued that, whatever else we did, we

      857
      should seek to be logical and consistent. As he is a lawyer, I ask him to think about the logic of the proposals before us.
      According to the logic of the Government's proposals, there will be three penalties for people who do not pay. First, one's earnings may be attached; secondly, one's goods may be the subject of a distress warrant and may therefore be sold; thirdly, and most severe, one may be sent to prison. We are grateful that the Minister has made it clear that he intends that the amendments ensuring that those penalties will apply to all people, whether earning a wage or receiving benefits from the state, will be part of the Bill.
      When the Bill was originally published, it did not refer to imprisonment. Imprisonment for non-payment of the poll tax does not apply in Scotland. However, imprisonment will be imposed on anyone, unless the amendment tabled by the Labour party or that of my party is accepted. It will be up to the courts to decide who will be imprisoned. Given the injustice that will follow, all hon. Members should think carefully about whether to support the amendments even if a schedule has to be brought into the Bill.
      Although I do not like the implications, especially in respect of the schedule, it is not as bad as it might have been. When the matter was raised in Committee—the Minister, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and others will know that I was not a member of that Committee because I was sitting on the Housing Bill Committee at the time—it was originally proposed that, in some cases, no discretion should be available to the courts. An amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on that point was debated. At that stage, it was conceded that discretion should be available for the courts, so that there would be a more flexible approach towards those who default. That is right because justice must always be tempered with mercy by those who administer it. That system allows judges, not juries, to pass sentence in this country. We all want to uphold that system.
      I intervened in the Minister's speech on the matter of phraseology. There has been a change and a penalty will be available if it can be shown by the prosecuting authority that non-payment is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The problem is that the illogicality remains. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South was right. The earnings of those who earn a wage or salary can be attached. They will not go to prison because there will be no need. The money will be recoupable by an attachment order. For those who have property, that property can be taken away. They will not need to go to prison because the less severe remedy will be available to those seeking to enforce it. Who will be likely to face the reality of imprisonment? It will not be the person who is earning, even if he is not earning much. It will not be the person with property and goods, even if they do not amount to very much. It will be the person who has neither.
      Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know that people who have no goods, no regular income, apart from that provided by the state, and often no home
      858
      appear in the courts throughout the country every day. They appear regularly on all sorts of charges in magistrates courts and they are often queuing up to be dealt with first thing in the morning, having spent the night in a cell.
      Those people will inevitably face imprisonment because they have no earnings that can be attached and no goods that they can hand over. Those people will be liable to go to gaol. Who will the bulk of them be? They will be the people on the most pathetic incomes and those with no homes. The homeless will face imprisonment in the already overcrowded prisons. Those who are least likely to be able to contribute will be sent to prison as a result of the Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: That is an important point and, if I put the wrong reflection on it, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will correct me. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is not to catch that sort of person with no means. The Bill aims to catch, for example, a company director who wilfully refuses to pay rates and puts property into the hands of his company.
      Mr. Hughes: That is an important point, but the facility to deal with the company director is there. The attachment of earnings ability is there. One can deal with somebody with a large amount of money or three homes—the Minister appears to think that many of us have three homes—by dealing with their goods. The company director can be dealt with. There must be a backdrop if, for some reason, the company director manages to avoid anybody paying him anything in a visible or tangible way.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
      The people who will be in the front line, because they have no earnings to attach and no goods on which a warrant of distress can be executed, will be the homeless. They will be locked up. It is a funny way to solve the crisis of homelessness in Britain by putting people in prison.
      Mr. Boateng: Given the Government's great difficulty in catching, convicting and sending to prison any company director for insider trading, is it really likely that they will be able to capture and imprison one for evading the poll tax?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a generally well-agreed and self-evident point. The Government increasingly add laws to penalise people with the least money. The people who escape most and have most left to play with financially are those with most money.
      Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the sanction of imprisonment will not be used to pursue a poor person who is unable to pay? The courts would not take the view that that was a proper thing to do. The sanction of imprisonment would be used for somebody who wilfully refused to pay, even when he had the capacity to pay, and who, having had the money, loses it in some way and wilfully defies the law. That is the point of that ultimate sanction. It is likely to be used only in those circumstances. Those are the only circumstances in which it is used currently.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would be right if the only definition given by the Government was wilful neglect or refusal, but that is not the case. The definition also includes culpable neglect.
      In an earlier intervention, the Minister said that amendments will be introduced to allow an attachment of earnings to be made in respect of people who are entirely dependent on income support. My borough will pay a higher than average poll tax, as will many other boroughs and some districts. There will be a gap between the amount my constituents receive in income support and their poll tax bill because they will get at most an 80 per cent. rebate and then the average amount of the differential rebated and paid to them. They will not have money from the state to pay their bill. That is all they will receive because the social security system will provide them with no more.
      The Minister refused to say that in those cases the court could not send those people to prison because of "culpable neglect"—the Government's phrase from earlier legislation. The Government want to go after those people—this was clear from the leak in The Independent on 26 February—because they are terrified that if people on income support do not have their income attached, they will use the money from the state for other purposes—for example, to pay an electricity or gas bill. So those people are liable to be guilty of culpable neglect and to go inside. That is the inequity of the system.
      There is no guarantee that somebody who has not a penny piece left of the income that the Government—the meanest to the poor in my lifetime—say is the minimum necessary to survive will not go to prison because he cannot afford to pay the poll tax.
      Mr. Butterfill: Can we surmise what may be meant by "culpable neglect"? If a person receives money in social security, repeatedly uses it on beer and betting shops, and time and again does not pay his bill because he has wasted the money, what do we do to bring home to him the reality that something must be done about that conduct?
      Mr. Hughes: I shall not be drawn down that road. When our society has finished dealing with the money wasted on beer, betting shops and the rest by people on enormous salaries, it can turn to those who have £30 a week to live on. Then we can see whether we can act as judges on their spending.
      The provision is clear. Apparently, the Cabinet Committee decided in February that people should be prevented from using their income, even if theirs is the lowest income in society, in such a way as to avoid a poll tax bill for which they will not have income from the state to pay. That is the inequity of the system. It is a disgrace for a civilised society to allow the best off massive reductions in their bills—the Prime Minister and her colleagues on the Front Bench will have massive reductions in their bills—and to allow people with nothing to be imprisoned because they cannot pay.
      Mr. Wilshire: I wish to focus on three points that have been raised in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to what I regard as wild claims about the administrative burden that will be imposed, especially for collection and enforcement. Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) attempted to water down the provisions for enforcement. Thirdly, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) made outrageous points about
      860
      the Labour-backed campaign to frustrate the collection of the community charge when the Bill reaches the statute book.
      It seems right that somebody should say something about the administrative side of this issue. Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 both sit within schedules 8 and 11, which deal with administration. They need to be put into context, because wild claims are made about the administrative problems of collection and enforcement. It is claimed that the cost will be vastly more than the present cost, and that to run the new system we shall need a huge army of extra council staff.
      My 11 years in local government, five of which were as leader of an authority, have taught me to treat such claims with the most enormous pinch of salt. If one tries to conduct a calm study, as I have tried to do in the past, one concludes that to double the staff is likely to cost less than double the cost. Yet I have seen reports which claim to be accurate and calm which suggest that the cost will be three or four times as much, or even five or six times as much. Those are some of the crazy allegations being made about the cost of collection and enforcement.
      We would do well to ask why these wild claims are being made. Clearly, some are politically inspired. If people can be frightened about the cost of a proposal, they may oppose it. Some claims have been based on wholly incorrect assumptions and have been made by people who have not taken time to study the Bill in detail or to get to know the intricacies of local government. I have seen council reports that claim for the whole future staff numbers that will probably he needed only to start the system and will certainly not be needed to keep it running.
      5.15 pm
      I do not see any need to apologise for the additional cost and for saying that collection and enforcement might need additional staff. There is no need to apologise for that, because fairness costs money. If Opposition Members wish to argue that only the cost of the system matters, perhaps they should advocate highway robbery to collect local government money, because that must be the cheapest way to get money from people.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is not a question of reports. In my case it is a question of talking to officials in Lothian and central region. They are staid, serious assessors, who are faced with the job. Scotland is a year ahead in this respect and that is the problem that we face. I assure the House that the assessors and others who must deal with this matter will not employ people needlessly.
      Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not had the good fortune to study those figures in detail, but I have looked at many others and will be delighted to look at those figures to see whether any of my points about incorrect assumptions and people building empires are valid. I shall happily look at the figures if the hon. Gentleman supplies them, but I cannot comment on them if I have not seen them.
      The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke about enforcement. There is no need to be coy about the provisions in the amendments on this score. I have not heard Opposition Members mention any need for us to ensure that those who keep the law and pay, often with difficulty, are protected by Parliament. Those who do not keep the law should not be allowed to get away with it and to undermine the principles that drive most British people,

      861
      so there must be proper enforcement and adequate penalties. The means of extracting money from such people is not enough when they seek to defy the law of the land.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what has been happening in Strathclyde region in the past few weeks? The poll tax registrar has been acting against the clear instructions of the law, in that he has sent poll tax forms to householders with an accompanying postcard which says that they have three days in which to return the form instead of, as the law clearly states, 21 days. There will also be 21 days in the English and Welsh legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman not be worried if that occurred in England and Wales, and would he not advocate steps to prevent that throughout Britain?
      Mr. Wilshire: That matter can be dealt with adequately by the registrar's employers.
      Mrs. Fyfe: This point was raised on an interim interdict with the sheriff in Strathclyde region, and her judgment was that the matter was between the registrar and the Government, because for these purposes the Government, not Strathclyde regional council, are the employer. That is why I am addressing the question to the hon. Gentleman. Otherwise, I would address it to Strathclyde regional council.
      Mr. Wilshire: It is fascinating getting lost in the details of the Scottish system, but I was trying to address myself to the Bill and not to what is or is not happening in Strathclyde.
      It is proper that a range of sanctions should be available in trying to enforce collection of the community charge. Non-payers are not represented by one particular group of people who can all be dealt with in the same way. There seem to be two groups among those who do not pay. There are the "can't" payers and the "won't" payers. Yesterday, I and others were discussing rebates and exemptions as they apply to the first group and we do not want to return to that, but it is important to understand that the "can't" payers of this country, who have genuine problems with their ability to pay, need help. I am sure that the Government will address themselves to that issue, so that such people can be eliminated from the system by being helped through income support and other measures.
      The people to whom we must address ourselves are the "won't" payers. They must not be allowed to sponge off others. As I said earlier, when it comes to wilful refusal, it is more than a matter of finding a means of extracting the money that is owed. There needs to be some mechanism for enforcing a penalty against those who try to take a free ride on the back of society.
      The third point made by the hon. Member for Broadgreen was about campaigning to defy the law. I suspect that the pressures to water down the enforcement mechanism are a means of trying to help that campaign. If there are no real penalties for defying the law, there is very little risk in withholding the money that is owed, other than that of having it taken away at some stage in the future.
      If the campaign to defy the law is successful, two very nasty things will happen. First, local government itself will be harmed. If an unknown number of people do not pay,
      862
      how will any council be able to organise its finances, make plans, or produce budgets? As a result, services will suffer. It is as well to understand that those who advocate a campaign of defiance are arguing that services should be reduced in their communities.
      Complaints were made earlier that powers would be taken away from local authorities if they did not observe the law. The Opposition Front Bench complained that treasurers had powers which councillors cannot exercise. I was invited to rise to my feet and say that it would serve councils right if that happened to them. I am now happy to say that for the record. If councils defy the law, they must not be surprised if Parliament takes steps to ensure that services improve and that proper care is taken of the local population. That is the second thing that will happen.
      If the campaign to undermine the rule of law is pursued, all of us will suffer. The Opposition Front Bench tried to wriggle out of saying whether the voice of Labour Back Benchers was that of the Labour party. I believe that earlier this afternoon we heard the authentic voice of the militant Left. We heard what really is going on. There is a cancer that is gnawing at our way of life. It is not just the Mace that those people wish to smash; they wish to smash also our way of life.
      Mr. Boateng: Absolute rubbish!
      Mr. Wilshire: If it is absolute rubbish, I look forward to hearing the Labour party disowning what was said earlier this afternoon.
      In debating these amendments, it is high time that we exposed the exaggerations of those who claim that administration of the system will get out of hand. It is high time that we made clear the fact that there will be a complete range of sanctions against those who wilfully do not pay. Above all, now is the time to shine the spotlight on the Left, which is determined to defy the law and destroy our way of life.
      Mr. John Fraser: At the end of the Spartacus revolt in Rome, the poor and depressed who took part were crucified in their thousands along the roads leading to the capital.
      Mr. Leigh: They broke the law.
      Mr. Fraser: They broke the law in wanting their own freedom. I rather agree with that breach of the law, but if the hon. Gentleman believes in oppression, then he must follow his own conscience.
      In a token way, the Government are out to crucify the poor and the oppressed, certainly of the borough that I represent. There are about 90,000 ratepayers in Lambeth. When the poll tax is introduced, about 190,000 people will be liable to pay it. The number of people now receiving income support—or social security, as it was last week—represents about 25 per cent. of the population of my borough, or about one person in four. So just under 50,000 people liable to poll tax in Lambeth will be receiving income support. They will be entirely reliant on the state for their income. They are the people who, until 1 April this year, when they were liable for rates, paid no rates at all. About 50,000 people will now have to pay the poll tax.
      Secondly, the average burden that people will bear in my borough will be twice the present level. The projected poll tax of £547 per person per year is almost exactly double the average burden of rates, although for the

      863
      poorer members of the community the burden of poll tax will be, not untypically, 400 per cent. greater than the burden they now bear.
      I turn next to the 50,000 people who will be paying one fifth of their poll tax in cash from income support. The nature of the crucifixion will be that those people will suffer much more agony than they do at present in managing their personal affairs. They will feel more wretched and stressed because the poll tax will be greater than the compensation they now receive under social security arrangements; they will be more impoverished than they are at present. To do that to 50,000 people is a kind of financial crucifixion, of which the Government will be guilty.
      The Minister told the House this afternoon—although this provision has been slipped into the new schedule—that it is possible that not all such people will go to prison, but they may find that their income support is attached. When housing benefit was introduced, for sensible reasons and in the order to ensure that vast arrears of rent did not accrue, as happened among many poorer boroughs, the arrangements operated in such a way that the whole of the housing benefit payable to the recipient went in settlement of his rent and rates. As a result, at least there is not the level of rent and rates arrears that there was with the previous system, under which supplementary benefit was paid to the recipient, who in turn was meant to pay his rates of council rent direct.
      We are now returning to a system where recipients will be paid some compensation for the payment of poll tax. However, the 50,000 impoverished members of my borough will find that if they do not pay, they will be taken to the magistrates court. The costs of that action will inevitably be added to the amount owing. If they still cannot pay and are found guilty of wilful refusal, their income support will be attached. We shall return to the same point as before, where people will be more wretched, more agonised and more impoverished than when the system started.
      I represent a borough and a constituency where the level of crime is far too high. It is often exaggerated, but even so it is very significant and substantial. Since my election, I have tried to work with Governments—whether my party has been in government or in opposition—and with my local police force and the community to reduce the level of crime, because I consider crime to be an invasion of people's civil rights. It has not always been an easy ride for me, particularly representing an area such as Brixton.
      5.30 pm
      It is almost a cliché that, to ensure that we operate against crime to achieve a more stable and tranquil community, we must try to get the community working with the so-called forces of law and order—the local police force, the local authority and so on. We must work cohesively to battle against crime, and in other respects to have that more stable and tranquil community. Graffiti and anti-social behaviour, for instance, lower the quality of people's lives in an area that is already very much impoverished.
      What will the poll tax do? It will mean that those 50,000 people are much more likely to find themselves sent to prison for non-payment than under the present system. I say that for two reasons. First, those who may now be candidates for prison at least have a number of hurdles to
      864
      cross before they get there. There must be wilful refusal to pay; and, if they are very poor, until now they will have been receiving certificated housing benefit, in which case the problem will not have arisen in the first place.
      Secondly, if those people are not receiving certificated housing benefit, it is likely that they will own personal property of some kind, or they may have bank accounts or earnings that can be attached. Many of my constituents are both in receipt of housing benefit and owners of property. Of course, they will not be receiving benefit for much longer, because of the £6,000 rule. But we are now introducing a new class of people. I am talking about the people—nearly 50,000 of them—who will not have certificated benefit or personal property, many of whom will be paying the tax for the first time. Those 50,000 are much more likely to be adjudged by the courts as wilfully refusing to pay their poll tax.
      If Conservative Members think that magistrates take a benign view of refusal to pay, they are mistaken. A good many people are sent to prison for that reason. Although some of them at present have the money, or can find it somehow, the new group of 50,000 candidates for prison do not fall into that category.
      Who will have to chase those people around the estates and the streets? The very people with whom the community has been trying to work for the last decade to increase co-operation between the police and the community, and thus to combat one cause of the lower quality of our lives.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack rose—
      Mr. Fraser: I think that it would be unfair to accept interruptions. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
      We already live in a society that contains refuseniks. Very poor people do no always pay their television licences, or car tax, and often they do not even pay the fines imposed on them when they are unlucky enough to find themselves in the magistrates courts. Not a few people, but a great cohort in an inner city London borough, will be pushed up against the police, who will have to act in a civil role to enforce a law that is being introduced by the Government in a most oppressive way.
      The last poll tax, in 1381, prompted a civil revolt. I do not wish to encourage or prophesy civil trouble on the streets. I have experienced quite enough of that already in my constituency, but if there is one thing that could fracture the co-operation with my police force and others working for a stable and tranquil community—one course that is likely to undermine that co-operation, and put thousands of people at risk of imprisonment, financial penalties, degradation and ultimately criminalization—it is the legislation, and the amendments to it, that we are discussing. If the Government want a society in upheaval, they are certainly going the right way about it.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the lack of logic in the Government's proposals to reintroduce the ability to send people to prison for non-payment of rates, he could have extended his argument to the lack of consistency in the approach to sentencing between the Department of the Environment and the Home Secretary.
      When the Bill was going through its Committee stage, the Criminal Justice Bill was also in Committee. On that Bill, we discussed report after report and survey after

      865
      survey that clearly demonstrated that we were sending far too many people to prison. We were discussing the principles and criteria on which we decide which offenders merit imprisonment. The time to review whether rate defaulters should be sent to prison is now, in our current debate. If we are to avoid more and more people being sent to prison, that inevitably means that we must look at the offences for which the courts can sentence them. I remind the House that in 1987 the average prison population in England and Wales was 49,000, and the prison capacity was 42,000. Prisons in England and Wales are now overcrowded to the extent of 7,000 prisoners. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made a clear and valid point about that.
      The Government give the impression that they seek value for money in these matters, yet they seem to have conveniently forgotten that it costs £250 a week to keep a person in prison, whereas, for example, it costs £14 a week to impose a community service order. Would it not be better for the Government, rather than thinking of sending people to prison for rate default, to consider ways in which those people can benefit the community, at much less cost? The Government should certainly accept an argument that offers them cost benefits.
      I was much taken with the hypothetical discussion cited by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary. I can imagine the Home Secretary, discussing the matter with his colleague—perhaps on the way from a Cabinet meeting—saying, "Be careful about this proposal, because you may well be reminded of the speech that I made to magistrates in London at the beginning of the year."
      As the discussion is hypothetical, I may as well remind the House of what the Home Secretary told the south-east London branch of the Magistrates Association on 15 January this year. He said:
      "The Court of Appeal has long made it clear that courts should not sentence on a purely punitive or deterrent basis without regard to the costs or the individual characteristics of the offender. We must try to ensure that custody is used only when the offence is so serious that a sentence outside prison would bring the system into disrepute".
      It seems to me that in the Bill the Government are giving the courts powers to do the opposite.
      Apart from considerations of prison overcrowding and the undesirability of increasing the prison population, we should also consider the principle behind the Government's proposal. The Government have disregarded the consensus view within the legal profession, and, increasingly, among judges, that we should not send people to prison for this sort of thing. Sending people to prison should be retained for the serious offences that we all abhor. All the organisations concerned with offenders and people who continually offend believe we should not send people to prison for minor technical offences. We are discussing a civil not a criminal matter, yet we are going in the opposite direction.
      The Government's approach could lead to absurdities; there are already some. Take, for example, a man who is ordered to pay maintenance to his wife but refuses to do so. A court may send him to prison for that. Year after year he may go to prison for non-payment of maintenance, but his wife will not get the maintenance—it is wiped off
      866
      the slate. That is absurd and helps no one—neither the wife nor society. Like all other countries in western Europe, we must move away from the idea that we must send people to prison for non-payment in these matters.
      The Government did not intend to include this provision originally. Had they intended to do so, it would have been in the Bill. The provision has been included because of what Conservative Members have said about rebellions that might take place in parts of England. That does not help the millions of people who will pay the poll tax and may fall into difficulties in certain circumstances. Everyone will be caught in the net and tarred with the same brush.
      I sincerely urge the Government, on the basis of consistency and logic and because we are moving away from the sort of arguments the Government are using, to consider accepting amendment (a) to amendment No. 73.
      Mr. Butterfill: Many of the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition have exaggerated the problem. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—I know his constituency well—suggested that there would be a large extension of the intrusion of the police into the affairs of certain members of the community in his constituency. To a degree, that may be so, but there is the problem that a minority in certain sections of society consider themselves above the law and somehow outside the general principles that govern society. They think that they do not need to comply with the law.
      That is where we come to the principle of wilful refusal. Anyone who has had any experience of trying to collect debts from those who are determined not to have them collected from them, even though they possess the resources, will know of the difficulties that face officers of local authorities who are charged with such responsibilities. I shall give an illustration of that from my personal experience.
      When I was driving home from the House late one night a couple of years ago, a gentleman drove a car out from a side road into the side of my car. He said, "Oh unhappy day," and proceeded to be helpful. He gave me his name and address and the details of his insurance company and admitted that the accident was entirely his fault. I assumed that a claim on his insurance company would mean I would be able to recover my loss, but I am afraid that I was mistaken. I discovered that my insurance company was not going to try to recover from the man because it was a waste of time. The company said it would delete my no-claims bonus. I said that that was ridiculous; the man was insured and I knew his insurance company. My insurance company said that, although he had cover, he had not claimed against his insurance company, and unless he made a claim against it, it would not meet the liability. My only recourse was to take action against him personally. My company said that if I could recover the money from him, it would reinstate my no-claims bonus. I proceeded to try to do just that. I went to the local court in Battersea which gave me judgment against the chap, and then the problem of trying to recover the money started.
      Time after time I used all sorts of devices to recover the money, but all in vain. I sent bailiffs to his home. He kept moving and when they eventually found him they discovered that nothing in his home belonged to him—it all belonged to relatives or others, so there was nothing for them to take. They said that this was a common problem

      867
      that happened all the time. The police agreed that the man's lifestyle showed that he had plenty of money, but said that I was wasting my time trying to get it from him.
      5.45 pm
      In the end I abandoned the attempt. That is the sort of person whose actions constitute wilful refusal, and the provision in the Bill is intended to deal with such behaviour. It relates to the right of a public authority to recover money that is due to it.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he did not like the extension of culpable neglect. When I pressed him on that and asked how one would deal with someone who repeatedly received money from social services and had money with which to discharge his debt, yet used it on beer and betting shops, the hon. Gentleman castigated me and said that lots of rich people spend their money on beer and betting shops. He asked me why, if that was good for them, it was not good for such people. My response, from a sedentary position, was that the rich people were spending their own money, not public money.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted such people to be dealt with. Will he tell the House how he proposed to have them dealt with? Does my hon. Friend recall the hon. Gentleman's words?
      Mr. Butterfill: If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey cares to intervene, I shall be glad to give way.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Enforcement of attachment of earnings and distraint of goods are ways of dealing with these sorts of people, and imprisonment, if it is available at all, should be available for those who wilfully refuse to pay. If someone wilfully refuses to pay, when he could do so—the category of person to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—that is a different issue from that which the Government have addressed.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. Attachment of earnings for people who are not earning and distraint, which I found impossible to enforce despite the support of the courts and the bailiffs, are not adequate remedies in every case. From the discussions that I have had with bailiffs, I fear that this is a frequent problem.
      I suggest that there are people who may not be wilfully refusing but who so manage their affairs as repeatedly to fail to use money being given to them by the state and the taxpayer to discharge their debts for that purpose—they waste it on other things. There will come a point when some sanction must be brought to bear on them to convince them that they need to comply with the ordinary standards of our society.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important point. There can come a time—it can be prescribed in regulations—when certain activities, such as failure to answer requests for information or to fill in forms, will be deemed wilful refusal.
      Mr. Butterfill: At least we are getting somewhere with the hon. Gentleman. Of itself, wilful refusal is inadequate. Culpable neglect will be used sparingly. The court will not use it other than in extremis, when it believes that somebody is behaving quite unreasonably. At the end of
      868
      the day, there must be a sanction that persuades people that they must behave in the way in which 99 per cent. of civilised society behaves.
      Ms. Mowlam: Many Opposition Members wish to speak in the debate, so my remarks will be brief.
      One difficulty that we have in speaking to the amendments is that which we faced in Committee—the lack of information and factual detail from the Government. It is like pulling teeth. For every bit of information that we want, we must pull all the time so that we may have a sensible, open, honest, rational debate. The charitable interpretation of the difficulty is that, as the Minister said when opening the debate, the answer is not yet available and that it is truly legislation on the hoof. As we have heard, the maximum amount that will be attached to benefits to get money back has not been decided.
      The uncharitable interpretation is that the Government have made a specific, concrete decision to make it difficult for people in the House and outside to know exactly what has happened. To support that argument, one has only to refer to the document that was leaked from the Prime Minister's Office. It said about the poll tax:
      "Careful thought would need to be given to the timing of any announcement of a change to the proposed community charge rebate. It would be desirable to avoid giving precise details until after the debate on April 18th."
      That is the uncharitable explanation, but, in view of what has been leaked from the Prime Minister's Office, perhaps it matches the reality of what we are dealing with. The Minister for Local Government said that we could discuss the principle—the principle is there—but we do not need the specifics. I have never heard a more ludicrous, crass statement in the 140-odd hours in which I have listened to the Minister during debates on this subject. It is like saying that we can discuss the Alton Bill without talking about the number of weeks. It is like saying that we can discuss the Licensing Bill without knowing when public houses are to open and close. We have been subjected to this kind of illogicality time and again when debating the Bill in the House and in Committee.
      It would be useful to hear the answer to the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I do not know whether it is charitable or uncharitable. My hon. Friend said that as the regulations seep out, poll tax will be deducted from people's benefits at source. That is what Opposition Members fear. It would be useful if the Minister, who is undecided about the question, could let us have an answer—yes or no, undecided, do not know—so that people who are surviving on family credit and income support may have some idea of what the future holds.
      Amendment No. 137 refers to the attachment of benefits for the non-payment of poll tax. When he moved the amendment, the Minister for Local Government said that he supported equality of treatment. We all support equality of treatment. We would support equality of treatment so that all school children may have decent, hot meals. We want everybody to have decent housing and decent holidays, although the Minister for Health obviously does not believe that people on benefit should have holidays. How can the Minister talk of equality of treatment in relation to the poll tax when people on income support who do not have the financial wherewithal to pay the 20 per cent. will still be required to do so?
      The Minister cannot ignore the other factors that affect payment of the 20 per cent. At present, somebody on

      869
      income support faces a cut in benefit. If we are honest with each other, we will agree that, back in October 1977, benefit was actually cut. We are faced with single payments being abolished. Out of the £203 million that replaces single payments, only £60 million is in the form of grants, and the rest is in the form of loans. Already, someone on income support who has specific needs will have to pay back what he or she borrows. Water rates are included, without any clear element of income support to pay them. Electricity prices and television licence fees are going up. Many pensioners will face an increase in television licence fees.
      Many people on benefit face such outgoings, and we are told that under the rebate system it will be possible for them to pay. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) cannot ignore the fact that 20 per cent. is the national average. It is no good ignoring Opposition Members who say that people will be faced with more than the national average. Even by the Government's own standards, they will have less money to pay back.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady accept that the remedy is in people's own hands? If they were to elect a sensible council, such as mine in Bournemouth, the national average would more than cover the 20 per cent. If they choose to elect high-spending authorities, it will not. The remedy is in their hands.
      Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring two points. First, there are differences in needs. Many Labour local authorities face variations in needs, which is why the figure will be above the national average. Secondly, one lives in the real political world and knows that 25 per cent. of a local authority's budget will come from the business rate, 50 per cent. will be what the Government decide is needed, and the remainder will come from the poll tax. This means that there will be direct Government interference in the running of local authorities. This is not the democracy or the accountability about which we have heard in the arguments about the poll tax. Exactly the opposite will be at work. That is why the hon. Gentleman's point does not match reality. It is not local accountability; it is central Government control. That is the bottom line of what the poll tax is about.
      Mr. Richard Holt: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in the context of her point and the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), the proof of the pudding will come next week, when the Conservative party takes control of Langbaurgh council? Thereafter, there will he a direct comparison to enable all the people in that constituency to decide which way to vote in the future.
      Ms. Mowlam: I do not know why I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on such a facile point. I hope that he will live in political reality and not in the political fantasy in which he seems to operate today. Langbaurgh council is a good example of a council in an area with a high level of needs, where the poll tax will not serve the needs of the people.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that we must remember that fairness costs money. Many people will agree with that clear statement, and it must be remembered when debating the amendments. Opposition Members, along with some Conservative Members, have
      870
      pushed hard for the rebate system and the amendments because it costs money to be fair. The prime aspect of the poll tax is that it is unfair and unequal.
      Mr. Cormack: It is not good to send people to gaol for debt. The stories about debtors' prisons in the 19th century are hardly the most inspiring in our history. However, one must accept that there must be an ultimate sanction for those—that small group—who wilfully refuse to pay. I hope that there will be most strenuous efforts to ensure that nobody who cannot afford to pay finds himself or herself going to gaol. That would be quite unacceptable to people throughout the country.
      Opposition Members know that their dislike of the measure cannot exceed mine. I have made that point plain on many occasions, both by what I have said and by my votes. At the same time, members of the Labour party who succour, support, encourage and incite those who are inclined to break the law do a grave disservice to parliamentary democracy and to their own position.
      I know that there are strong feelings about this measure in Scotland and, no doubt, there will be in England and Wales. The way in which those strong feelings should be channelled and directed is the parliamentary, democratic way. Parliament is where the law is made and where it must be changed. If this measure is not amended significantly in future years, a Government will be elected, of whatever political complexion, who will change it. There will need to be much alteration and careful monitoring. I am unhappy that as yet no significant amendments have been made, but I hope that they will be made in the House of Lords. If they are, I hope that they will not be overturned here.
      The law is the law. No legislator should ever encourage people to break the law that has been democratically passed by Parliament. Opposition Members share my dislike of the Bill and I hope that they will share that view. I hope that in a calmer atmosphere, in Scotland, England and Wales, there will be consistent democratic opposition while the measure is going through Parliament. By all means, let there be pledges to change, alter or repeal the Bill, but not incitement to break the law, because there lie anarchy and the destruction of the system that we are here to uphold.
      6 pm
      Mr. Barnes: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) would be present when I made my speech because we had a dispute earlier about whether his role in these amendments and the provision for imprisonment had been that of a midwife. I refer hon. Members to the Standing Committee Hansard of 18 February 1988, columns 819–36, to check the role that he played. Had he been present, I would have gone into greater detail and he could have responded to my interpretation of what he said.
      Just as many people have been unable to adjust to the cuts in social security and housing benefit—they are trying desperately to survive and are panicking about how they will manage—so masses of people will be unable to adjust to the imposition of the poll tax. Despite all that has been said about exemptions and rebates, that problem will become apparent, and it should be considered in the context of the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).

      871
      If this measure is passed by Parliament, it will ride on people very strongly indeed. Parliament should give thought to what it is doing and should not impose on people burdens which lead to responses that cut over the division between law and order and potential lawlessness. There are bureaucratic pressures in this system and it makes attacks on privacy. There will be penalties for non-registration, and the penalties for non-payment will include the attachment of earnings, the sending in of bailiffs and distraint of goods and imprisonment.
      With regard to poor people, the Minister says, strangely, that the ability to pay will be taken into account by the courts. If that is so, why cannot it be taken into account in the legislation? It is for us to introduce that principle into the measure.
      The bureaucratic arrangements, invasions of privacy, penalties and, above all, the unjust payments that people will have to make will lead to many people disappearing from the poll tax register and the electoral roll. Many young, mobile people, and those who are encouraged by the Government to get on their bikes to look for work, will begin to disappear from the register. That is already happening in Scotland, and the surveys that have been carried out in this country show that that problem will extend here. At the election in June 1987, excluding Northern Ireland as this measure will not apply there, there was a 75 per cent. turnout. There were 42 million people on the electoral roll and just under 32 million people voted. If 10 per cent. of those people disappear from the electoral roll, 3·5 million people will lose their voting rights. That is a very serious problem.
      Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Barnes: I shall not give way as the hon. Gentleman has not been present during the debate.
      Young people and the lower socio-economic groups would be much more likely to vote for the Labour party, given the pressures that will be created by the poll tax, were it not for the fact that disproportionately large numbers of them will begin to disappear from the electoral roll. Conservative voters will certainly not be in that position. At the last general election, the Conservative party polled 13·7 million votes, the Labour party 10·1 million votes and there were 7·3 million votes for the then alliance party. The disappearance of 3·5 million people from those socio-economic groups is a very disturbing matter.
      There have been many historic battles in the House about the extension of the franchise, and its development. We now have a universal franchise, but it is under attack. The poll tax seeks to perpetuate the Government's rule. It is not an open measure; it is not like the Parliament Act 1911 being used to extend Parliament because it is claimed that there is an emergency, such as during war time, nor is it a crude and hideous device such as that used in Nazi Germany when Hitler managed to pass an enabling Act to impose his diktat on society. Nevertheless, it is a fix, and we should be concerned about that. Parliament should be bothered about the manipulation that is taking place in this legislation.
      Every hon. Member is a beneficiary of the extension of the franchise and should act to protect the franchise and ensure that a measure such as this is not passed.
      The fate of those on the electoral roll who cannot pay or who feel justified in refusing to do so because of the
      872
      injustice of this measure needs to be considered. Attachment of earnings will be used against them. It is a highly problematic measure, but when difficulties arise and when information is available to employers, will it finish up with the Economic League and will people end up on black lists and be unable to find employment? Will it be used politically against them?
      Bailiffs present serious problems. Bailiffs may be directed against self-employed people and against many unemployed and partly employed people to get payments. I do not know whether many hon. Members have had a visit from the bailiffs, but I have been visited by the bailiffs because I objected to the operation of the Housing Finance Act 1972, not in any great illegal sense, but merely in a Gandhian sense of civil disobedience. I was willing to go before the court and face its decision and use that as pressure against that measure.
      I was chairman of a ratepayers and rent payers association in the Dronfield area. For a fortnight we ran a rent and rates strike. I did not pay rent, only rates, and I withdrew the payment of the princely sum of £2·79. The bailiffs were sent in under the General Rate Act 1967. They took new furniture—a table, four chairs and a coffee table—and six LP records. If that system operates for many ordinary people for sums much greater than £2·79, it will be damaging. A table, four chairs and a coffee table might not matter much to some people, but at that time my home seemed to be denuded by the absence of those pieces of furniture. They were taken away because more money was needed than £2·79. Money was needed to cover the visit by the bailiffs and the retention and sale of the goods. I am not saying that four times as much money than is owed will have to be collected in regard to much larger sums owed for poll tax, but the secondhand value that could be obtained from the contents of many people's home will mean that their homes will be almost denuded.
      That will not be the case when people have taken action to ensure that bailiffs cannot get hold of them, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Ordinary, decent people who do not have the ability to pay will be visited by the bailiffs. The bailiffs' first visit will be to put the frighteners on people. They will put a marker on the furniture to be taken and give the people a time to pay. Later, they will come back and take away the furniture.
      The final measure involves imprisonment. It is not unreasonable in certain contexts, but in the context of the poll tax it is an entirely unacceptable measure which exacerbates the evil of the Bill. We should be extremely careful about treating a whole section of society as criminals, as it is more likely that they will then start to behave in that way. Parliament will be responsible for creating such circumstances if we do not resist the poll tax legislation.
      I am greatly concerned with the aspect of the measure involving democracy and civil liberties and rights. I mentioned it in the House when I pointed out that the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that in Scotland petitions would be a legitimate means of finding out the names of people who should be on the poll tax register.
      6.15 pm
      Petitioning is an ancient right that goes back to Anglo Saxon times when people could petition the monarch.

      873
      Later they could petition Parliament. In that regard, I wish to quote briefly from "Erskine May." On page 858 it, states:
      "The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times, and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure."
      On page 147, it states:
      "Any abuse of the right of petition will he treated by either House as a breach of privilege."
      On page 869, it states that petitions themselves may be forwarded to Ministers—it does not say anything about the names—so that they can make use of and respond to them.
      It is quite clear that public petitions—we are discussing public petitions in this case—are the property of the House and that people have a right to petition Parliament and to press their views without fearing that the information will be used against them, even at a future time when an illegal situation might then exist.
      I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity that he did not take on Monday to disown that provision. If he does not, it may have to be raised as a matter of parliamentary privilege of interference with rights.
      The House has to face a most serious situation concerning the defence of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is under attack in this measure, which hits at civil liberties, petitioning rights and rights of franchise. Everything must be done to stop the measure being introduced, otherwise there will be problems about responding to the injustices that will occur.
      Even the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who believed in sovereignty and in the right of the sovereign body to determine matters and considered that nobody should have the right to challenge it, asked that the sovereign authority should act in a wise fashion and not rile people or exploit them too strongly, because, whatever the circumstances, people could rebel. It is up to hon. Members not to pass legislation that puts people into a situation whereby the only way that they can justifiably defend their interests is to rebel against the provisions.
      Mr. Boateng: There is something peculiarly unpleasant about the sight of Conservative Members in hot pursuit of those whom they would classify as the undeserving and intransigent poor. That is what the penal provisions of the Bill do. They establish as part of the monstrous machinery of enforcement envisaged in the Bill a means by which the poor will be persecuted, because under this Government, in particular, the rich get the pleasure and the poor get the pain. The Government's proposals are fundamentally unfair.
      The Bill is monstrously divisive between north and south, between inner London and outer London, between London and the rest of the south-east and even between black people and white people because 67 per cent. of the black community in London will be net losers after the introduction of the tax compared with a far smaller proportion of the rest of society.
      Still more, the Bill is divisive between those families who care for those who are least fortunate among them—an unemployed son or daughter or a distressed or disabled grandparent—and those who do not. It will be divisive among families and a threat to the cohesiveness of
      874
      our community. Nowhere is that threat greater than in the monstrous administrative and enforcement machinery that the schedule envisages.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman suggests that those who care for elderly relatives will be disadvantaged by the Bill. That suggestion was made yesterday by a number of hon. Members, and I tried to intervene but was unable to do so. That is just not the case. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that whether an elderly dependent relative living in a home is liable for the community charge will depend entirely on that person's income. If he or she is on a low income, or has no income, there will be an 80 per cent. rebate and they may also qualify for—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying from the amendment. We must return to the question of administration, enforcement and collection.
      Mr. Boateng: We have drifted away from it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have no intention of running away from it. If a family chooses to have the grandmother or the grandfather to live with them as opposed to putting that person in a home, as a larger family it will be penalised for making that choice. All the statistics bear that out. If the family income is limited, the position is even worse.
      The provision is divisive both between groups of people and within the community. That division is made still worse by the provisions in the schedule that relate to administration and enforcement. A burden will be placed on councils. They will have to administer the community charge at great cost. It has been suggested in this debate that the cost will not be so great as we have suggested and that for political motives we have deliberately inflated the sums involved. Conservative Members would do well to consider the advice that this Government have received on that point.
      One would hardly describe the Rating and Valuation Association as a politically motivated body, dominated by the extremists of the Left, whom Conservative Members have asked us to disavow. It is a responsible body that will be directly and professionally concerned with the procedure for the administration and enforcement of these provisions. The Rating and Valuation Association says that it is concerned because it believes that millions—that is the association's word—of people will attempt to evade the impact of this legislation. It says that an "expensive and intrusive inspectorate" will be needed to track down those whom it describes—they are the association's words, not mine—as the "missing millions."
      We need to look at the impact of that expensive and intrusive inspectorate on civil liberties and on local authority and Exchequer expenditure. How will that inspectorate be received in the communities that it will be required to police? I mean quite literally police, because the idea that that inspectorate will be able to avoid a policing role and that it will not be required to poke and pry into people's lives is absolute nonsense. It will be responsible for compiling the register. Ordinary members of the public may have access to the register under the Data Protection Act 1984, but they will not have access to the minutiae, to the trivia, to the tittle-tattle, to the pieces of information to be found here, there and everywhere that the inspectorate will have to collect in order to compile the register. We have heard not a word from Conservative

      875
      Members about the access of the general public to that hidden register. We want to hear from them exactly how the privacy of the individual will be protected.
      It goes even further than that. Local authorities will be required—they will have no choice in the matter—to act as the Government's snoops and agents. A fiscal gestapo will he established by the diktat of this Administration. It will be the job of men and women to gather information about who is or who is not trying to evade the impact of the tax. Conservative Members smile, some of them are indignant, but this intrusive inspectorate will be operating in their communities. They, too, will have to face that reality, just as ratepayers will have to face the reality of paying for it. Because of its impact on the ordinary people, that is entirely wrong and entirely unjustifiable.
      In constituencies such as mine we are trying to create cohesive communities that stick together and can sustain growth and enterprise. How is the impact of such an inspectorate on those communities to be judged and evaluated? What will be the impact of the policing and the exercise of the bailiff's functions that will inevitably follow from these provisions? It will split those communities. It will set neighbour against neighbour. It will provide a fertile avenue for individuals to denounce people because they have a grievance against them.
      We are told that the Government have received advice, not from a politically opinionated or motivated body but from a body that during the passage of previous legislation the Scottish Office felt it necessary to approach for advice, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It appears that CIPFA has given advice to the Government on this issue and that local authorities have been told that it is important that they should be inventive in their approach to this task. Is it to be suggested that local authorities should set up sneak boxes, as was done during the French revolution, to get people to say whether a new person has moved into the neighbourhood or block, whether Mrs. X or Mr. Y has a new member of the household? Whether X is registered or not may determine whether X should be allowed to use certain civic amentities. Will local authorities be encouraged to produce a card to this end? It will be up to the local authorities; there is nothing in the legislation to preclude it.
      Imagine in such places as the city of Westminster or the London borough of Wandsworth, where the writ of the Conservative party holds sway, people having to carry a card to show that they have paid their community charge before they are allowed to use the public swimming baths. Is that to be the nature of the enforcement procedure that Conservative Members propose? If it is, there is every reason to believe that we shall, indeed, have to put up with an expensive and intrusive inspectorate. If it is, this tax will be an incubus on the backs of our communities. It will sap and drain the civil liberties of individuals throughout the country.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have made great play of civil liberties. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is a proper description of civil liberties to say that large numbers of people can seek to disappear—to use the description of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East—and avoid making right and proper
      876
      payments to the rest of the community while at the same time wanting all the benefits of belonging to the community? Is that his view of civil liberty?
      Mr. Boateng: What is inconceivable and unacceptable, when introducing an inherently unfair tax, is the creation of machinery which will be intrusive, expensive, and all embracing and which will not provide adequate protection for the liberty of the individual in terms of his or her privacy. It is because it is unacceptable that we shall seek to divide the House tonight. There will be a price to be paid for this legislation. Initially, it will be paid by the whole community, but, ultimately, it will be paid by the Conservative Members responsible for introducing it.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Frank Doran: I make two preliminary remarks before I turn to the substance of my speech. First, as a solicitor, like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I should declare an interest. I am pleased that the Government are making provision for my old age, with the amount of litigation that this legislation will create.
      Secondly, I commend the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). He showed by his statement and, of course, his vote the other night, along with his colleagues, an integrity which is sadly lacking on the Government Benches.
      I came to this debate hoping to hear what the Government have learnt from the Scottish experience. In Scotland, we are conscious that the poll tax was floated there a year earlier than in England, as an experiment. I am sorry to say that the Government have learnt nothing from what is going on in Scotland and from the year's experience that they have had there. I listened, for instance, to the Minister talking about the low number of people whom he would expect to suffer imprisonment for debt. The Minister should look at and listen to what is happening in Scotland.
      Let us look at some of the statistics that the Government have presented. They have produced estimated figures of the poll tax for every local authority area in the country. In Scotland, we have had the opportunity to look at those very carefully. In my own area of Aberdeen, the estimate was £200 per individual. From that estimate, we could see that the Government has not, for instance, taken any account of the cost of collecting the poll tax, of the shortfall in payment, and of those people who will not register and will simply hide from the register. Whether the Government like it or not, that will happen.
      The figure that we in Scotland produced for each individual was nearer £260 or £270 a year for the current year. I am gratified that the director of finance for the Grampian region, which is the rating authority for my area, agrees with that figure. He assesses the figure for poll tax in my area as £261 on this year's figures. He has had to be realistic, as have all local government officers in Scotland. Unfortunately, the Government are not being realistic. The local authorities in Scotland are taking into account, for example, the fact that they anticipate a shortfall of some 10 per cent. in registration. I raised that point with the Minister at Question Time a couple of weeks ago.
      We had about 63,000 electors at the June election in Aberdeen South, but by the time the draft register came

      877
      out in December the total had reduced to 58,000. I do not pretend that the 5,000-odd voters whom we lost are all due to the poll tax, but a significant proportion of them are.
      In addition, local authorities estimate that there will be about 10 per cent. of people with bad debt—people who will not or cannot pay. It is important to compare that with the present shortfall in rates payments. The Minister will be aware that the national figure is something less than 1 per cent. of arrears for bad debt on the rates. Local government officers in Scotland have to plan for about 10 per cent. of bad debt, because this tax will apply to far more people and will be far more difficult to collect.
      The process of recovery which the Government have instituted in Scotland was recently analysed by a professor of Scots law at Edinburgh university, Professor Robert Black. He is one of our leading legal commentators. He commended the Government, not for the poll tax, because I think that he is an opponent of it, but for the way in which they had drafted the Scottish legislation. The professor said that it was drafted very tightly and that he had, in fact, never seen such watertight legislation. That legislation made it very difficult for people to evade their responsibility for payment of the poll tax. Those are not my thoughts, but the thoughts of Professor Black.
      I compare that with what we have in England. As I understand the Minister's response to the various points that have been made by my hon. Friends, there are a number of difficulties which the Government are facing and which clearly have not been considered. I am not an expert on the English procedure. I know Scots law and, if I were to learn anything about English law, it would simply confuse me.
      I read, for example, amendment No. 73 concerning the liability orders. In Scotland the procedure excludes the possibility of going to court. According to paragraph 3 of the schedule, the authority may apply to the magistrates court. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for hearings. What account has the Minister taken of the extra burden that that will place on the courts? If I am correct, and the local government officers in Scotland are correct, about the 10 per cent. bad debt, 37 million people in England and Wales may be liable to pay. That means between 3 million and 3·5 million new debtors. That is an assessment of the burden that this legislation will place on the courts, because of the fact that individuals will be entitled to defend themselves in court. What assessment has been made of the extra cost of, for example, legal aid? Have the Government done any research on that? As I say, in Scotland that opportunity is not available. I am not advocating the Scottish procedure as it is an outrage—it is almost an administrative procedure.
      I wish to hear what the Government have to say about the extra costs that are involved. There are also the additional costs of imprisonment. Thankfully, in Scotland, when Parliament passed the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, it did away with the idea of imprisonment for non-payment of debt. However, we see it being introduced here in England.
      The Minister played down the anticipated number of people who will be imprisoned. If that provision existed in Scotland, people would be queuing up to go to prison.
      878
      That is how strong the feeling is on the poll tax in Scotland. What consideration has been given to the burden that that will place on the prison service?
      I have been travelling around London and the south-east of England, speaking to local groups about the poll tax, and I know that the feeling that we had in Scotland a year ago is here in England today, and is building up. In Scotland, there is a ferment about the poll tax. There is now as strong a feeling about this issue in England as there is in Scotland. There will be people who will take the opportunity to make a court appearance, because they will vocally refuse to pay the poll tax. What consideration has been given to such matters?
      I conclude by saying that the Government have not learnt anything from the Scottish experience. That is typical of the arrogant and reckless way in which this Government carry out their business.
      Mr. Pike: This afternoon we have been debating a group of amendments which address issues of considerable importance. They give us considerable fears as provided for in the Bill, and the amendments that the Government have tabled will further increase their power to enforce this legislation.
      As I have cut my speech to the minimum, I shall not be able to refer to every speech that has been made in the debate. I have done so to allow as many hon. Members as possible—particularly my hon. Friends—to speak in the debate. It is significant that most of the contributions have been made by my hon. Friends. There have been few contributions from Conservative Members. That in itself shows our anxiety over these provisions in the Bill and in the Government amendments.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) did something that is typical of the Government. Repeatedly throughout the passage of this legislation, when the Government have been in difficulty defending their legislation, they have tried to divert us from what the Bill is proposing and to focus attention on unimportant issues.
      The hon. Gentleman said that two categories of people would be covered by the provisions in this part of the Bill—the "can't payers" and the "won't payers". It is significant that at least he accepted that there will be some people who cannot pay, because that is the issue that we have been arguing during our debates on this legislation. Because of the Bill's failure to take into account ability to pay, there will be people who cannot pay. That is the message that the hon. Gentleman should send to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his hon. and learned Friend the Minister who is to reply. The Government have not addressed themselves to the problem of dealing with those who are unable to pay.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pike: No. I shall not give way now because I intended to give way only once as time is short and I want to say something else about the hon. Gentleman before I give way. I shall save him the need to intervene on a second occasion.
      The hon. Gentleman then went on to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the Labour party's position on the operation of the law. My hon. Friend made it clear where the Labour party stands on that issue. The Labour party is a democratic party and believes in exercising its power

      879
      through winning elections at local and national level through the ballot box. That is the way in which we believe in operating.
      There is a difference between breaking the law, which we do not advocate, as we believe that laws must be made by Parliament or by local byelaws or decisions by democratically elected councils, and non-co-operation with the law. Conservative Members always seem to imply that breaking the law and non-co-operation with the law are unique to people on the Left of politics in this country. That is not true. One needs only to consider the legislation relating to comprehensive education. Many Conservative-controlled councils with responsibilities for education refused to co-operate with the legislation for many years and thereby hindered the education of our children.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. Pike: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman just once.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Taking him back to my reference to "can't payers", I wish that he would remind the House that, as well as referring to such people, I explained the way in which we should handle that problem. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will conveniently have forgotten that I was explaining that the way to deal with "can't payers" was to do something about their income support.
      With regard to my comments about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), we still have not had an answer—can the hon. Gentleman give the House an answer—on whether he does or does not dissociate himself and his party from the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to the effect that he was in favour, and that Liverpool seemed to be in favour, of refusing to implement the legislation? That is incitement to break the law. It is criminal activity. Is that the policy of the Labour party?
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was very clear on that. In fact, I have his statement on that, but because time is short I shall not repeat it. The hon. Member for Spelthorne and other hon. Members will be able to read my hon. Friend's comments in the Official Report tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman's attitude typifies the way in which the Government and the Conservative party work. They want to divert attention from the crucial issues of the legislation to issues which they feel are of more advantage to them and which, in many cases, are totally irrelevant to the real issues.
      Dr. John Reid: Does my hon. Friend not find it the height of hypocrisy that Conservative Members should mouth platitudes about staying within the law when on two occasions recently Ministers have come to the House with two sets of regulations which have been found to be unlawful by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments but have insisted on railroading unlawful regulations through the House to impose the poll tax on Scotland?
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Indeed, the Secretary of State who is responsible for this legislation probably has the record among Secretaries of State for breaking the law on the greatest number of occasions.
      880
      6.45 pm
      I turn quickly to the amendments in the time that is now available. I must emphasise a point that has been made on several occasions this afternoon. The registration officer responsible for creating the register and for the collection of the poll tax is not responsible to the local authority, but is subject to the direction of the Government. The Bill clearly provides for that and the officers must carry out its provisions.
      The Minister suggested that attachment of benefit was an issue that the Government intended to deal with by an amendment in the other place. We are rightly worried about the implications of that, because we will not he able to debate it at the length at which we would wish to do so. I hope the Minister will seek to ensure that when the Bill returns from the other place we shall have an opportunity to discuss that amendment. We in this House have the right to discuss Lords amendments, but because the Bill is guillotined here, it will be guillotined when it returns from the other House. Time may well be so tight that we shall be unable to debate these important issues at that stage. We are worried about that amendment and may well be utterly opposed to it and want to debate it at length.
      Last night the Minister suggested that he would be conciliatory and that at a later stage he intended to introduce an amendment relating to prisoners on remand in custody. Having been given that undertaking, we want to see exactly what he proposes to do because we have fears about it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a valid point about enforcement and the role of the police. They will encounter difficulties and conflict because of certain duties that they will be asked to perform as a result of the Bill. They will come into conflict with the very people with whom they have problems in enforcing something that should not be within their responsibilities.
      Unfortunately, because of the way in which the guillotine falls, we shall have to vote against the Government's first amendment in this group, No. 43, which is not the one that we consider the most important in the group. Because of the guillotine, we are precluded from voting on amendments that are perhaps even more important. However, by voting against that Government amendment we shall be showing our feelings on the subjects that we have been debating this afternoon.
      Amendent No. 137 is a Labour amendment which would prevent the attachment of income support or social security entitlements to poll tax payments. I wish to make an important point, which has been made once or twice earlier. If there is an attachment for those who are entitled to the 80 per cent. rebate—against the other 20 per cent. which will be paid for from their benefit—and if that attachment to their benefit to meet that 20 per cent. Is an authority where the poll tax is above average, what will be the position if the attachment of benefit to pay the poll tax reduces that person's level of income, through benefit or income support, below what the statute decrees that person needs for his or her requirements? We would argue that such attachments of benefit to meet the 20 per cent. payment defeat the whole object of the accountability that the Government claim for the Bill. Such situations could arise where the poll tax is more than what the Government say it will be and where it is more than the average that win be paid in benefit to cover the 20 per cent. That is an important point.

      881
      As I have said repeatedly in our debates on the Bill, both in Committee and in the House, I want us to get out of the situation where we allow the Government to get away with talking about over-spending and high-spending authorities. The Government have failed to recognise that authorities have to meet the different needs and requirements within the communities that they represent. The Government are not prepared to accept that there are different needs and requirements throughout the country.
      Government amendments Nos. 55 and 56 provide for imprisonment for the non-payment of residual rates and the national non-domestic rate. The Opposition believe that it is wrong to provide the power of imprisonment in such instances. Such powers are unnecessary and draconian. By placing these powers in the Bill the Government are showing once again that they recognise that the proposed tax is unpopular and that it will be difficult to collect. They understand that if they do not provide fall-back powers they will be unable to collect the tax and it will not work. They have failed to understand that they must deal with the crucial and fundamental problem of ability to pay.
      Mr. Howard: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) to the Opposition Front Bench. He and I have spent many hours discussing the community charge and many other issues in various Standing Committees. He made a substantial contribution to the deliberations that took place as we considered the Bill in Committee.
      Unfortunately, in the devotion which he attributed to his party in its desire to abide by the law, the hon. Gentleman was guilty of a good deal of wishful thinking. We shall study with care the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). We shall also read and study with great care the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Field). We noted the embarrassment which was experienced by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Burnley when they listened to the incitement to law breaking from the hon. Member for Broadgreen. Their embarrassment was apparent to the entire House.
      The contributions of Opposition Members have been characterised by what can be described only as hysterical hyperbole. Their technique is to describe legislation which is not yet before the House and which was not before the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) suggested that the proposed legislation will interfere with the right to petition Parliament. It will not. He asserted that it will interfere with the public's right to vote. It will not. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that it will be divisive for families. It will not. When we bring these facts to the attention of Labour Members, they say, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said yesterday, "That is a matter of theory." We are not discussing theory. We are discussing the Bill as it stands and not as it is in the figments of the imagination of Labour Members. We are not discussing it in the form in which they would like it to be for the purpose of stirring up anxiety throughout the country. We are discussing the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Wilson: The difference between the subjective and the theoretical can be illustrated clearly by the Minister's
      882
      response to the claim that we are discussing an anti-family tax. No one is claiming that there is a provision in the Bill that declares that it is an anti-family tax. Therefore, it becomes a matter of subjective judgment when determining whether it is or is not. My hon. Friends and I prefer to accept, for example, the unanimous view of the Scottish churches that it is a profoundly anti-family tax. We prefer to accept the view of organisations such as Age Concern that it is a profoundly anti-family tax. We are permitted to apply our subjective judgments and to conclude, whatever conscience-salving fig leaves the Minister chooses to wear, that the tax is all of the things that he has denied it is. That is why it is opposed by 80 per cent. of people in Scotland and why it will come to be opposed by 80 per cent. of those in England and Wales.
      Mr. Howard: It is true that there are many individuals and, sadly, many organisations that have been misled by the propaganda of the Labour party. When my ministerial colleagues and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Back Benches discuss these matters, we do not base our opinions on the opinions of others. We base our opinions on the contents of the Bill, and it is to its contents that I invite the attention of the House, not the second or third-hand opinions of others who themselves are likely to have been misled by damaging and hysterical propaganda.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's argument would be rather more credible if on one of the substantive issues in this debate—the rules for dealing with those on income support—the relevant provisions were before the House. The reality is that they are not. We have only his information that an amendment will be introduced in another place. That is probably because he dare not introduce it in this place.
      Mr. Howard: As I said earlier, all the arguments that we have heard on this important matter have been based on principle. Opposition Members have not said, "We might be in favour of imprisonment, depending on the terms of the regulations. We might be in favour of adopting the methods that you, the Government, have in mind for those on income support, depending upon the details." We have heard only arguments on principle from Opposition Members, and it is possible to discuss them in principle without having before us details of the legislation that will be introduced in another place.
      I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. I wish to put right some of the misleading assertions that have been made by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Perry Barr spent a great deal of his speech—it was an extraordinary passage that bordered on hysteria—talking about the extent to which those who are to be responsible for enforcing the collection of the community charge will be employees of local authorities and responsible to them. He suggested that that would not be the position. The fact is—this is an excellent example of why it is important to read the provision in the Bill—that the Bill places all the powers and duties in respect of billing, collection and recovery of the community charge on the charging authority and not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the treasurer. This is in contrast with the registration duties that are placed on a named officer, the community charge registration officer.

      883
      It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman to claim that the treasurer and not the charging authority will be responsible for collection and recovery.
      The treasurer and his staff will carry out collection and recovery in practice but they will act under the direction of the authority. I do not know what caused the hon. Member for Perry Barr to make such an inaccurate assertion. I do not know whether he was confused by the provisions in part IX, which require each local authority to have a chief finance officer and set out the qualifications of that officer. That, of course, is an entirely different matter. Responsibility for all the duties that we have been discussing in this group of amendments will lie with the charging authority.
      Nor is it the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), that it was recently decided in the courts in Scotland that the registration officer for Strathclyde was an employee of the Scottish Office. The registration officer for Strathclyde is a local authority employee. He carries out the duties that have been placed upon him in both primary and secondary legislation. The recent court case in Scotland found that he was—
      Mr. Rooker: Deal with the specific questions.
      Mr. Howard: I am dealing with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill. The registration officer for Strathclyde was acting entirely in accordance with the law.
      The hon. Member for Perry Barr talked about reasonableness and the information—
      Mr. Rooker: Deal with the specific questions.
      Mr. Howard:The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions and I shall respond to them if he will give me the opportunity to do so.
      The hon. Gentleman raised a question about reasonableness and whether registration officers should be confined to requesting information they reasonably require. That too was a matter that I dealt with yesterday in the course of the debate. I also said yesterday that there was nothing between us on that matter and I said I would see whether there was anything between the hon. Gentleman and the Government
      Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Howard: The only tactic that the Opposition can adopt in relation to these provisions in the Bill is—
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution of 18 April, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order relate to the conduct of the Division? If so, I shall take it now. If not, I shall take it afterwards.
      Mr. Bermingham: Indeed it does. Is it not a fact that, when a point of order is raised before a Division is called, that point of order ought to be taken at that stage because it may materially affect the calling of the Division? My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
      884
      Wilson) attempted to raise a point of order a few moments ago and, although the point of order had been acknowledged by your good self, the Division continued to be called. Therefore, whatever point my hon. Friend wished to raise, which may have been germane to the legality or otherwise of the Division, was denied by the fact that the Division proceeded. Is it not stated in "Erskine May" that, once a point of order has been called, time and the House stand still until the point is cleared?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The short answer is that I am hound by the timetable motion to put the Question at 7 o'clock. That is what I did.
      Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but merely seeking guidance. Is it the case, therefore, that once a timetable motion comes into existence, the rights of hon. Members to question the procedures of the House are put into abeyance?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he must not drag me into arguments of that sort. I am bound by the timetable motions that are passed by the House.
      The House having divided: Ayes 333, Noes 222.

      Division No. 267]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Allason, Rupert

      Butcher, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Butler, Chris

      Amess, David

      Butterfill, John

      Amos, Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkins, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Atkinson, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Churchill, Mr

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Colvin, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Conway, Derek

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Cope, John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boswell, Tim

      Curry, David

      Bottomley, Peter

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Day, Stephen

      Bowis, John

      Devlin, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dicks, Terry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bright, Graham

      Dover, Den

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Dunn, Bob

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Durant, Tony

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

      Eggar, Tim

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Evennett, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fallon, Michael

      885

      Farr, Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lang, Ian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Latham, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Forman, Nigel

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forth, Eric

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lightbown, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lilley, Peter

      Franks, Cecil

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      French, Douglas

      Lord, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner, George

      McCrindle, Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gorst, John

      Maclean, David

      Gow, Ian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mans, Keith

      Gregory, Conal

      Maples, John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Marland, Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Grist, Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Ground, Patrick

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Grylls, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mates, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hannam, John

      Mellor, David

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

      Miller, Hal

      Harris, David

      Mills, Iain

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Moate, Roger

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Heddle, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hill, James

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Holt, Richard

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

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

      Neubert, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hunter, Andrew

      Page, Richard

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Paice, James

      Irving, Charles

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Jack, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Jackson, Robert

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Janman, Tim

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Jessel, Toby

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Pawsey, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Key, Robert

      Price, Sir David

      Kilfedder, James

      Raffan, Keith

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Redwood, John

      Knapman, Roger

      Renton, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Riddick, Graham

      886

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thorne, Neil

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rost, Peter

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Ryder, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Tredinnick, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Trippier, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trotter, Neville

      Scott, Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Sims, Roger

      Walters, Dennis

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Speed, Keith

      Wells, Bowen

      Speller, Tony

      Wheeler, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Wilshire, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stokes, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Sumberg, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Allen, Graham

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Anderson, Donald

      Cartwright, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Clay, Bob

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clelland, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Coleman, Donald

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Battle, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beith, A. J.

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Cox, Tom

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Crowther, Stan

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blair, Tony

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boyes, Roland

      Darling, Alistair

      Bradley, Keith

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dewar, Donald

      Buchan, Norman

      Dixon, Don

      Caborn, Richard

      Dobson, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Douglas, Dick

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      887

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Maxton, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Michael, Alun

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morley, Elliott

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Flynn, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Foster, Derek

      Nellist, Dave

      Foulkes, George

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fraser, John

      O'Brien, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Neill, Martin

      Galbraith, Sam

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Patchett, Terry

      George, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Gould, Bryan

      Prescott, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Radice, Giles

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hardy, Peter

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Reid, Dr John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Richardson, Jo

      Henderson, Doug

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Robertson, George

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Holland, Stuart

      Rogers, Allan

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Howells, Geraint

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Janner, Greville

      Skinner, Dennis

      John, Brynmor

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

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

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M¯n)

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Soley, Clive

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kennedy, Charles

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stott, Roger

      Lambie, David

      Strang, Gavin

      Lamond, James

      Straw, Jack

      Leighton, Ron

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lewis, Terry

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Litherland, Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      Livsey, Richard

      Vaz, Keith

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wall, Pat

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wallace, James

      McAllion, John

      Walley, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McCartney, Ian

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McFall, John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McKelvey, William

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Wilson, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Winnick, David

      Madden, Max

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Worthington, Tony

      Marek, Dr John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Martlew, Eric

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      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, up to the end of clause 22.
      Amendment made. No. 44, in page 13, line 33 at end insert—
      '(3) Schedule (Community charges: enforcement) below (which contains provisions about the recovery of sums due, including sums due as penalties) shall have effect:—[Mr. Howard.]

    Schedule 2

      COMMUNITY CHARGES: ADMINISTRATION
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 78, line 32, leave out `and recovery'.
      No 48,in page 78, line 34, leave out 'and recovery'.
      No 49,in page 80, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 50.
      No 50,in page 81, line 35, leave out
      `as a simple contract debt'.
      No. 59, in page 82, line 47, at end insert—
      `11A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that a certification officer shall supply to a registration officer for a charging authority such information as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below and fulfils the following conditions—

      (a) it is in the possession or control of the certification officer,

      (b) the registration officer requests the certification officer to supply it, and

      (c) it is requested by the registration officer for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this Part.

      (2) The information is—

      (a) the name of each person who (on the day the request is made) is undertaking a full-time course of education at the educational establishment of the certification officer and has his sole or main residence in the area of the charging authority, and

      (b) the address of the sole or main residence of each such person.

      (3) The regulations may include provision that the information is to be supplied in a prescribed form and within a prescribed period of the request being made.
      (4) A certification officer is an individual who is a certification officer by virtue of regulations under section (Students) above.
      (5) The educational establishment of a certification officer is the educational establishment as regards which he is the certification officer.'.
      No. 51, in page 85, line 5, leave out 'or 6'.—[Mr. Howard.]

    Schedule 3

      COMMUNITY CHARGES: PENALTIES
      Amendments made: No. 60, in page 86, line 46, leave out `or 11' and insert', 11 or 11A'.
      No. 52, in page 87, line 34, leave out 'and recovery'.
      No. 53, in page 87, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
      No. 54, in page 88, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above' and insert 'this paragraph'—[Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 22

      APPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 14, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).

      889
      No. 57, in page 14, line 2, at end insert—
      `(cc) any designation of an individual as a certification officer under regulations under section (Students) below,'.—[Mr. Howard.]

    Clause 23

      REBATES
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 14, line 24, leave out clause 23.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 14, line 24, after `(1)' insert
      `after consultation with local authority representatives, the Child Poverty Action Group and such organisations which appear to him to be concerned.'.
      No. 229, in page 14, line 39, at end insert—
      `( ) The amendments shall provide that rebates of 100 per cent. of the community charge shall be available to—

      (a) people entitled to receive:

      (i) income support with disablement premium;

      (ii) income support with pensioners' premium;

      (iii) attendance allowance;

      (iv) mobility allowance; or

      (v) severe disablement allowance;

      (b) people who are registered blind or partially sighted'.

      No. 230, in page 14, line 39, at end insert—
      `No regulations shall be made under this section until the Secretary of State has presented to Parliament a report on the effects of the rebate scheme on elderly, disabled or handicapped people.'.
      Government new clause 8—Rebates: additional provisions.
      Government new clause 9—Rebates: Extent of provision.
      Government new clause 16—Social security—
      `Schedule (Social security) below (which amends the Social Security Act 1986 so as to make provision for benefits in respect of community charges in England and Wales and Scotland) shall have effect.'.
      Amendment (a), in line 1, at beginning insert
      `After making a report to Parliament on how community charge affects families and those on low incomes, the Secretary of State shall produce a scheme for rebates up to 100 per cent. and'.
      Amendment (b), at end add
      `providing rebates extending up to 100% of liability to an authority's community charge using an identical system of rebate entitlement assessment for all individuals over 18.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 123, 233, 236, 234, 121, 122 and 124.
      Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 124, in paragraph 6, at end insert—
      '31 (H) A person who is

      (a) entitled to receive:

      (i) income support with disablement premium;

      (ii) income support with pensioner premium;

      (iii) attendance allowance;

      (iv) mobility allowance; or

      (v) severe disablement allowance; or

      (b) registered blind or partially sighted,
      shall be entitled to community charge benefit of 100 per cent. of their liability for community charge,'.

      7.15 pm
      Mr. Ridley: In Committee I said that we would replace with new provisions the provisions of the existing clause 23 which deals with rebates. Perhaps I may quickly explain the technicality of that.
      890
      Clause 23 provides for regulations amending the Social Security Act 1986 so that a rebate scheme can be made. That scheme will be made in further regulations. The clause 23 system, therefore, envisaged two sets of regulations, the one preparing the way for the other. The amendments which we are now discussing do away with the need for one of those sets of regulations by making on the face of this Bill amendments directly to the Social Security Act.
      The details of the scheme will then be set out in regulations made under the amended Act and will be subject, of course, to full consultation with the local authority associations and other interested bodies. The House will also have an opportunity to debate the regulations in due course and to decide on an affirmative resolution.
      Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State will be aware that the amendments introduce legislation which will apply to Scotland. There is no Scottish Minister on the Front Bench to answer questions about that. In view of the urgency of finding out exactly what this flagship of Tory Government policy means before the local elections in Scotland, can the Secretary of State tell us when and how the consultations will take place in Scotland before 5 May?
      Mr. Ridley: Of course, the amendments will apply to Scotland. Under the Social Security Act, when it is amended, regulations will be made affecting Scotland in advance of England, and also affecting England at a later stage when the community charge comes into force. We cannot make regulations in relation to the community charge until the Bill is enacted.
      The central amendment is amendment No. 124 which sets out in a new schedule the detailed changes necessary to the Social Security Act to enable a system of community charge benefits to be established. The schedule adds community charge benefit to the other income-related benefits of the Act, and sets out the criteria for entitlement in general terms. These are similar to the entitlement criteria for the other income-related benefits. It sets out, again in general terms, the way in which the amount of benefit is to be calculated, and makes provisions for regulations to cover benefit for people who will be paying residual rates in the transitional period. Provision is made for regulations to set out the way in which couples are to be assessed for benefit.
      The new schedule specifies that payment may be in the form either of a reduction in people's community charge bills or of a cash payment, if necessary. Benefit will be administered, as is housing benefit, by local authorities. The new schedule provides for this and for regulations setting out the administrative details. It provides also for a scheme of subsidies to be paid to local authorities in respect of community charge benefit.
      Amendments Nos. 233, 236 and 234 are technical amendments designed to ensure that community charge benefit can operate in Scotland—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) heard that—on the same basis as the rest of Great Britain when it is introduced.
      In short, these amendments pave the way for a detailed scheme of benefits to be paid to people with low incomes. The amendments themselves are technical and do not

      891
      contain details of the scheme itself. As I have said, that will be for later regulations which will be the subject of full consultation, and debate and vote in the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be difficult about this, but it is urgent because of what is happening in Scotland. Can the Secretary of State explain exactly what action will be taken by the Scottish Office or by his Department to clarify things north of the border?
      Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am coming to the details of the rebate scheme which will be put forward in due course by the Government. The regulations cannot be made until this Bill has become law because it amends the Social Security Act to enable the regulations to be made. Therefore, until this Bill becomes law, there is no possibility of making the regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
      I was going to explain exactly how the rebate system will work.
      Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once more only.
      Mr. Douglas: It is one thing for the right hon. Gentleman to plead in aid that he needs to get this Bill through both Houses, but we have a Scottish Act and we are up against a time scale. If the Secretary of State wants to plead that in aid in relation to England and Wales, I can understand that constitutionally, but the same argument cannot apply to Scotland, where we have an Act of Parliament on the statute book. Why have the Government been so niggardly and laggardly in explaining so that we can understand what the "great" benefits will be for the Scottish people from these measures?
      Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman will let me tell him, I am coming to that. He has interrupted twice, asking me for what I have been trying to tell him. I do not know what more I can say than that.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government has sent a letter to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), giving the full effects of the new scheme. Of course, the scheme must take account of the changes in the Budget, which were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the improved rebate scheme, which I announced last week, and which greatly alters the benefits, the figuring and every detail of the rebate scheme. It is not proper, or possible, to give a full account of the true nature of the rebate scheme until those two aspects have been considered.
      The Government's scheme, as improved last week, is extremely generous. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) tried to pretend otherwise in his winding-up speech on Monday night, but he grossly misled the House in his figures and missed the main point. The rebates are much more helpful than he alleged. I shall quote from his speech and then put the facts before the House, and the House may judge from what I say. He said:
      "A couple with young children will receive no rebate if they earn over £130 a week".
      In fact, a couple with net earnings of £130 a week will receive a rebate of 75p on the average community charge of £8·62 a week for two people.
      Mr. Rooker: From what column is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?
      Mr. Ridley: I do not have the precise column, but the hon. Gentleman will find it in his speech.
      The rebate entitlement for that couple would run out not at £130 but at £131·77. The important point, however, is that the hon. Gentleman was quoting net incomes although he talked about earnings. A net income of £130 for that couple means a gross income of £170, or 81 per cent. of the national average wage. For a community charge of £300, that rebate would run out at £193 a week gross, or £10,036 a year.
      Mr. Rooker: I have found the reference. The right hon. Gentleman is not very well briefed if he does not have the column numbers. I have found the comments in column 634. I went on to refer to a couple with a net income. Every reference was to net incomes. Why did not the right ho n. Gentleman say the same thing in response to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—it is column 619; I have column reference numbers—on the same point about a childless couple who will pay the full charge if their income is more than £100 a week? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman get his facts right?
      Mr. Ridley: I did not intervene in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr because I wanted to check the facts first. The hon. Gentleman said:
      "a couple with no children will receive no rebate if their earnings are over £100 a week."
      That statement is not true. A childless couple on £100 a week would get a rebate of £1·11 towards the average charge for a couple, which is £8·62 a week.
      Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State is misleading the House. Why does he not read the next paragraph?
      Mr. Ridley: Rebate entitlement would run out at £104·17. Again, the hon. Gentleman was quoting net incomes. A net income of £100 a week would gross up to £123 a week. The hon. Gentleman said:
      "a couple with no children will receive no rebate if their earnings are over £100 a week."
      The hon. Gentleman spoke not of their net earnings but of their earnings. He should have said net earnings. If the hon. Gentleman means earnings, it is not £100 a week but £123 a week. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
      "A couple with a net income of £100 per week will be expected to pay £10, that is, 10 per cent. of their net income, in local authority taxes."
      The hon. Gentleman arrived at £10 by doubling the figure of £5, which he described as "near enough" the community charge per adult in the average area. In fact, the average charge per adult is £4·31, which doubles up to £8·62 for a couple. As explained, that couple would also receive a rebate of £1·11, which would bring their charge down to £7·51, which is 7·5 per cent. of their net income. The hon. Gentleman claimed that it would be 10 per cent. of their net income, which was totally wrong.
      The hon. Member for Perry Barr said:
      "the worker under 25 years of age … will receive no rebate once his earned net income goes above £50 a week."
      The hon. Gentleman got it right that time.
      Mr. Rooker: I did not. I was '75p out, and I am sorry.
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman was 2·5 per cent. out. He said that that worker's
      "poll tax will be £5, or 10 per cent. of his income."— [Official Report, 18 April 1988 Vol. 131, c. 634.]

      893
      That was what the hon. Gentleman majored on. In that case, the rebate would be 61p on an average charge of £4·31, leaving a charge of £3·70, or less than 7·5 per cent. of net income. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in both forecasts of 10 per cent. of net income. The answer is 7·5 per cent. of net income and, of course, a very much smaller proportion of gross income. In fact, no one pays more than about 7·5 per cent. for the average community charge. I doubt whether the hon. Members who listened to the hon. Member for Perry Barr that night realised just how generous the Government scheme was and just how much the hon. Gentleman was misleading the House by quoting those statistics.
      Mr. Rooker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ridley: Only if the hon. Gentleman will apologise.
      Mr. Rooker: Where I have rounded and used average figures—£5 a week when the amount is under £5—the comment is fair enough. I do not want to mislead anyone, but my point was that the scheme is not very generous. I used rounded figures and on one occasion neglected to use the word "net" in front of the income concerned, and I apologise. Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the figures in the next paragraph when I said that someone earning over £400 a week would pay only 1·6 per cent. of his net income in poll tax? Will the right hon. Gentleman correct me and say where I was wrong there?
      Mr. Ridley: I never said that the hon. Gentleman was wrong on that point. I said—the hon. Gentleman has now admitted it—that, by shaving, rounding and making a few mistakes, the hon. Gentleman got the figures wrong. He majored on the point that there would be people who would pay 10 per cent. of their net incomes on the standard average community charge, whereas the figure is 7·5 per cent. If I had made such a mistake, the hon. Gentleman, rightly, would have taken me to the cleaners. I hope that he will acknowledge that he has been taken to the cleaners as a result.
      I have now introduced the Government measures. I should like to hear what Opposition Members have to say on their measures and I shall reply later.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Matthew Taylor.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
      Dr. Cunningham rose—
      Mr. Taylor: I am not sure whether this is an intervention. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should make it clear to the House that, unless I had got it wrong, the Secretary of State had sat down. I proposed the Question and I paused for some moments before calling the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) wishes to catch my eye and I shall bear that in mind.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Taylor: The Labour Front Bench spokesmen made the specific point yesterday that they wanted a contribution from the official Opposition. I am sure that an official Opposition contribution will come in a few
      894
      moments, but, for the moment, let us have a contribution from another party. I am sure that the Labour party will have its turn.
      The rebate proposals were overshadowed at the start of the debate on the poll tax by the leaking of a Government document regarding rebates which exposed the Government's callous attitude towards the poor. We all know that the Budget, the social security changes and the poll tax will penalise the poor. That has been made clear time after time, not just by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members.
      The leaked document put the situation in black and white and revealed that, while giving so generously with one hand, as the Government said they were, they had in fact considered ways of clawing back the money. That was indeed callous and calculating. The document stated:
      "Careful attention should be given to the presentation of the terms of any change to rebates. This would need to be put in positive terms and in easily comprehensible layman's language".
      The Prime Minister claims that the document has now been withdrawn, but the truth is that, in clear layman's language, the Government were trying to do a dirty behind the scenes. The Prime Minister and others may now state that there is no possibility of that being introduced; but we must now seriously consider whether there might be other schemes in the Cabinet, proposing other ways of taking back the money from the very people to whom the Government claim to be so generous.
      If we consider the Government's supposed generosity in the new rebate scheme, there appears to be a significant failure there too. For 26 million people, the poll tax will still be a flat rate charge, under which a new teacher on a salary of £7,899 a year will pay precisely the same as a company director on £40,000 a year. That is fundamentally wrong and there is nothing in the rebate system that changes that fact.
      Ministers may shake their heads vigorously and say, "No, no, no", but, at the same time, Conservative Back-Benchers say, "Yes, yes, yes. You're right. Something should be done about it."
      Mr. Butterfill: I am a Conservative Back-Bencher and I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. He is wrong to say that teachers will pay the same as a company director because the company director will be contributing far more through national taxation and thereby through the 50 per cent. than the Government subvention to the rate support grant.
      Mr. Taylor: I have been hoping that somebody would make that point because the Conservative party is sending out a leaflet to constituencies. On one side of that leaflet, there is a standard text from Central Office. One section of that text points out how much more a company manager gives because of the VAT and income tax that he pays, but, in a different part of the page, it claims that poor people have never made any contribution to local government. Where do their VAT payments come in? The leaflet assumes that the poor do not pay VAT. If only the poor did not pay VAT. But they pay it and suffer far more as a consequence in terms of their ability to buy things.
      Furthermore, the capital rule that has been introduced in respect of the Social Security Bill will apply to poll tax rebates through the housing benefit rules. People with capital of over £6,000 will receive no help from rebates. They are yet another section of society which is missing out

      895
      and desperately needs such help. How can one say to an old-age pensioner, "You should not be entitled to help because you have had the good sense and thrift to put aside £6,000 towards your old age"? Those people will get nothing from the rebate scheme, as it was originally proposed or as it is now put forward.
      Many pensioners and others will look at the rebate scheme and think that the Government have offered some help to them. They may think that they cannot possibly be expected to pay the full charge, but, when the time comes in 1990 and they start to receive the bills, they will find that that is precisely what they are expected to do.
      The change in the taper does not change the 80 per cent. ceiling imposed on rebates and, again, that will affect the poorest. Those who receive the full help of the benefit system will be precisely those to whom any changes in the rebate scheme introduced by the Secretary of State will make no difference. The artificial age barrier that has been written in stone in the Social Security Bill means that those under 25 years of age will not even receive the same help with their poll tax contributions as those over 25.
      Those people earn the lowest wages and find it particularly difficult to obtain jobs, particularly if they have missed out after leaving school and have become part of the long-term jobless at an early age. Those people who find the lowest forms of paid employment—there are many of them in such parts of the country as my own, where wages are 20 per cent. below the national average—will be penalised still more strongly than their colleagues.
      Mr. Leigh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on a remark made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government last night. He said:
      "a newly qualified nurse would be likely to pay more local income tax than community charge in every local authority in England. In Camden her bill could be as high as £1,500. in Manchester £375, and in Durham £300."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 751.]
      Will that account for more than 10 per cent. of the nurse's income? What sort of rebate system does the Liberal party propose for a newly qualified nurse?
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not listen to the debate at other times when he is in the Chamber. The figures quoted by the Government are based on their system of local income tax. Those figures are not based on our system. We gave those figures to the Minister yesterday and the figures that he quotes are quite simply wrong. Student nurses will do better under our local income tax system. We have given the figures to show that fact and, if the Minister cares to go through them, no doubt he will find this in them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: When my hon. Friend was making his point about the scheme that was leaked in the document in the last few days, the Secretary of State was nodding his head and saying, "Shame, shame." The Secretary of State can put the record straight in one of two ways. He can either release the whole of the correspondence, so that we know what was really devised, or he can give a guarantee to the House that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, the scheme will not be altered to anyone's detriment. Would my hon. Friend like to ask the Secretary of State if he is willing to give those assurances?
      Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State heard my hon. Friend's point.
      896
      There is one other point worth making. In a proper system of democracy, where the only secrets are those that directly affect the national security interest and not just the interest of the Government, we would be able to look at those documents. We would be able to judge the Government, if not this week, then in the near future, after the immediate decisions have been taken. I hope that the Secretary of State will come forward with the appropriate measure, as he should.
      The amendments are designed to meet many of the difficulties that I have mentioned. Above all, the amendments are about giving 100 per cent. rebates to those who need them. The Government have acknowledged the need for people on benefit to have such support. They have said that they will uprate benefits to cover people's 20 per cent. contributions to the poll tax. By making such a commitment, they cannot argue that those who currently do not contribute should contribute from the money that they now have. In one sense, they are accepting that those people should be fully compensated, but they have created the most appallingly complicated way of doing so, which hurts those people most in need of help and those who find it hardest to manage the money that they have and their day-to-day existence.
      All hon. Members know through their experience in constituency surgeries and through correspondence that there are people who are simply not able to manage their affairs and who get into trouble. We are loading another difficulty on to them because they will receive a bill that they will not be able to meet. More than that, the rebate will go only to the more fortunate. Whole groups of people will not be fully compensated by an increase in their benefit to meet that 20 per cent. It will be done on an average basis and not on the money that they are asked to pay.
      That may be done, as the Government say it is, to increase what they call accountability, but they mean to increase the tendency to vote Conservative because they believe that otherwise people will be penalised. Obviously, it will not work like that because this has a historic basis.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Taylor: In a moment.
      The basis of local authority spending has been built up over many years, as has the Government's assessment of what local government should be spending. It is subjective at that. The Government can manipulate the figures according to how they wish to work the grant system, and they do. On that basis people will be penalised, not through any fault of their own, but because of decisions which were taken quite possibly at a time when they were not voting in the local authority. It is inconceivable that Camden, Tower Hamlets or any other authority will suddenly be able to adjust its charges because of the poll tax and because these people will have to pay it. Even if the Government are right about accountability and the rest of it, it will take years to help those people, and that is not fair on them.
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down like a Jack-in-the-box, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Butterfill: I wanted to intervene before the hon. Gentleman left that point. He suggested that we had the political motive that people would vote Conservative. Was he implying that only Conservative authorities were likely

      897
      to be prudent and have lower rates, and that authorities controlled by his party and other Opposition parties would always have high rates?
      Mr. Taylor: Interestingly, in this year's round of rate increases, we managed to have the lowest average of all parties, so the hon. Gentleman does not make a good point. We have fundamental criticisms of the present grant system. I believe that a report today suggested that the gains would be almost exclusively in Tory constituencies, but that is not surprising when the grant system is biased in that way.
      Tower Hamlets will be one of the hardest hit by these proposals. It has an acknowledged problem with supplying housing to an immigrant community. The need is not being met under Government financial aid. That is an exact example of the way people will be penalised for reasons that have nothing to do with them as individuals and, indeed, have little to do with any local party. A most draconian party could be determined to cut whatever it wanted, yet still have to spend substantial sums.
      Do the Government intend to uprate the benefits as they claim they will, even in so far as this is written into the legislation? Ministers have steadfastly refused to assure us that the uprating of the 20 per cent. will be maintained. We accept that the Government will uprate benefits to meet the 20 per cent. contribution, albeit on national average figures. However, there have been reports that the Government intend to claw that back in coming years by failing to increase benefits as a whole in line with inflation. That appeared in The Guardian on 23 September 1987.
      In Committee we asked on more than one occasion for a categorical assurance from the Minister that that would not be so, and we failed to get it. Will the Government give us that absolutely categorical assurance now because it is important that it should be given? In the light of the leaked Cabinet document, they must understand why we believe that it is so important that this assurance should be given.
      The amendments relate to the treatment of those under 25. The age barrier written into the social security legislation will penalise the youngest in society—those on the lowest wages. Even with the new tapers, or an average community charge of £224 a year, it has been estimated that people over 25 will lose all help on income of about £58 a week. But for a person under 25 the comparable figure is about £50. I have not heard an explanation or justification for that and I hope that the Government will accept the need to amend that, so that at least these rebates are not based on something already iniquitous that becomes more iniquitous as a result of the introduction of the poll tax.
      I hope that the Secretary of State can answer a specific point. Thank goodness, we have gained something from our debates. We appear to have had something of a minor victory on the collective community charge. It was repeatedly said, and the Minister assured us he would respond, that there were problems with the collective charge for people in hostels for the homeless, because they would have to pay the tax in full and then get a rebate, instead of paying only the 20 per cent. charge in the first place. The Minister said that he would look into the problem and, as I understand the regulations, I think that
      898
      he has met that point. I hope that he can confirm that minor victory because the technicalities make it hard to be absolutely certain.
      Those are the reasons why we are not at all happy about the rebate system. It is nothing like as generous as is claimed. These amendments do much to meet the specific problems that we raised.
      Mr. Leigh: The rebates are too generous.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will not find that when his constituents spell out their financial difficulties. In three or four years' time he will be writing letters to Ministers and the Secretary of State, begging them to intervene to help constituents who have got into financial difficulties.
      7.45 pm
      Dr. Cunningham: These amendments are about rebates. Government amendment No. 120 rewrites the legal basis in the Bill under which rebate schemes will operate. In other words, the Government are not to rely on the social security legislation, as the Secretary of State said, but will include in the Bill a new schedule, Government amendment No. 124. The Government's need to write that into the Bill contrasts starkly with their refusal to include safeguards on civil liberties and privacy. The fact that they are making that change does nothing to improve the rebate schemes or to change advantageously the circumstances of millions of people who will be adversely affected by the poll tax.
      We already know of the total inadequacy of these provisions because we have seen them in the recently implemented social security changes. Are the Government so proud of those new, mean, unfair and divisive social security provisions that they simply want to replicate them in the Bill? The answer is yes. Whatever word the Secretary of State might have used to describe the Government's proposals, he chose "generous" which was most inappropriate. He castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for misleading the House. No more misleading statement has been made this week in the discussion of these matters than that these proposals are generous.
      The replication of the social security provisions means that pensioners with lifetime savings of as little as £6,000 in a bank or building society will receive no rebate of any kind. That cannot possibly be described as generous. Is it generous, for example, to implement proposals which mean that two pensioners living in their own home, whether a flat, bungalow, council flat, council bungalow or sheltered dwelling scheme in Dulwich, will pay more than a millionaire living in a mansion in Dulwich? Could that possibly be described by any reasonable person as generous? Of course not. It is grossly misleading to suggest that the scheme is in any way generous.
      The scheme also means that an unemployed person, perhaps someone with a family who has lost his or her job in his or her forties or fifties and has redundancy payments of as little as £6,000, will not receive any rebate. In many cases, that will contrast sharply with the circumstances of the person who may have sacked him. In today's economic climate, a company director could easily be earning as much as £6,000 a week, yet will pay the same poll tax. Is

      899
      that generous? Would the Secretary of State like to comment and give his view as to whether he thinks that is generous?
      Young people under 25 years of age also will be heavily discriminated against because there is no provision for a 100 per cent. rebate. The 3 million households that pay nothing now under the present rate rebate system—or did not do so until the beginning of this month—will now have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the charge. Is it generous to make 3 million households pay 20 per cent. when previously, under the much criticised rating system, they paid nothing? Of course that is not generous and the Secretary of State knows it.
      I come to the Minister's much lauded—by him if by no one else—concession of last week. He appeared to be making a concession, but what will it mean in practice? The Secretary of State made great play about the figures. It has taken him and his hon. Friends until today to produce any figures. Those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr were provided at a few hours' notice by the House of Commons Library. It has taken the right hon. Gentleman nearly a week to come up with the same figures.
      I left the Chamber after Question Time today and received a telephone call from the BBC who said, "The Secretary of State has written you a letter about the rebate scheme." I said, "Oh no he hasn't." They replied, "Oh yes he has—we know all about it."
      Mr. Ridley: Was it another leak?
      Dr. Cunningham: No, it was not a leak. The letter was deliberately released by the right hon. Gentleman's office before it even arrived in my office. I had to phone the Secretary of State's office to obtain the letter that he was supposed to have sent to me. That is how proud he was of publicising his information about the rebates; he left it until the last possible moment. To cap it all—if that is an appropriate phrase—when the letter did arrive, it did not give the figures. I had to telephone the Secretary of State's office again and ask them to fax that information to me.
      What do those figures mean? We know of the Government's intentions because of the leaked correspondence between the Secretary of State's office and the Prime Minister. In case Conservative Members have not yet had an opportunity to read that correspondence, I have brought along some copies, which I table for them to read. I hope that they will do so, because they are very important documents. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he did not understand the full story because he had not seen all the letters.
      Today, we asked the Secretary of State's office to give us copies of all the rest. If the Minister wants us to argue on all the facts, why does he not provide copies of the other letters? Not surprisingly, he refuses to do so, because he does not want the House to have all the facts. That is the reality of the situation. Why does he not put all the correspondence on the Table now so that his right hon. and hon. Friends and the Opposition can discuss the matter in the way that the Prime Minister apparently wants? Of course the Minister will not do so, because he wants to keep it all dark and because he knows how disgusting are all the manoeuvrings.
      Mr. Ridley: I would not say that.
      Dr. Cunningham: I say that it is disgusting for a Secretary of State in the British Government to make a public announcement that a concession is being made that will cost £130 million, if the House will forgive me for using round numbers, when at the same time the Government are planning to make others liable for the poll tax pay for that concession. The Government are even talking about changing the slope on the housing benefit scheme, to claw back more money from people even before the alleged concession can be implemented. If all that is not disgusting, I do not know what is.
      Mr. Butterfill: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should just print the money? Surely someone has to pay, and it must be either the general tax payer or the poll tax payer. The money cannot be manufactured out of thin air.
      Dr. Cunningham: Of course not, but I contrast the hon. Gentleman's comments with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement. He did not seem to have any difficulty finding the money then. Money did not seem to be a very scarce commodity when the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box reducing taxes for the very well off in society. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman standing up then and asking his right hon. Friend where the money was to come from; he knew that it was coming from the poor and those on low incomes.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman that his questions about where the money is to come from are just a little partial on this occasion. The Government were awash with money a few weeks ago when they wanted to help the very well off in society and reduce upper tax rates to 40 per cent. There was no concern then on the Government Benches about where the money was to come from; there was not a frisson, not a ripple. Conservative Members were waving their Order Papers in the air at the thought of all that lovely money showering down on those who were well off.
      The hon. Gentleman is also fond of saying that problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them. The Government have certainly been throwing money at the well off as fast as they can. Money seems to solve their problems quite nicely, thank you very much. I say to the hon. Gentleman that his intervention was rather ill advised.
      Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that, while Ministers were telling their Back Benchers facts that were far from the truth, by the end of the week No. 10 was very busy organising the Sunday newspapers, so that The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Times all carried identical front page stories saying that the poll tax revolt among Conservative Members was all a plot by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to get into No. 10? Mr. Ingham must have been working overtime.
      Dr. Cunningham: Indeed, all sorts of stories were put about concerning the revolt by Government supporters over the iniquities of the proposals. It seems that anything was possible or usable in trying to discredit right hon. and hon. Members involved. When I reflect on some of the things said about them, they must flinch that, even now, Government Whips are again approaching them in the Lobbies, touching them on the elbow and saying, "Well, dear boy, you will be in the Division Lobby next Monday

      901
      night for the Third Reading, won't you?" I hope that they will think long and hard before joining their colleagues in the Lobbies and voting for this appalling legislation.
      I return to the nitpicking of the Secretary of State over the rebate scheme. I shall give him some examples of his generosity. It is true that if one takes the average poll tax in England of £224, a single person aged under 25 with take-home pay of £50·75 per week—which is what he has to live on—will enjoy no rebate. To ensure that my figures were right, I asked one of my friends and advisers to make the calculation. It showed that such a person will have to pay a weekly poll tax of £4·30, which is 8·5 per cent. of his take-home pay. A pensioned couple in the same circumstances with a net income of £110·40 will have a weekly poll tax bill of £8·60, or 7·8 per cent. of their income. They also will receive no rebate. In inner London, where the poll tax will be higher, the figures will of course be worse.
      8 pm
      The Secretary of State need not try to—I hesitate to use the word—mislead the House about the generosity of the measure. He knows very well what is happening to these people. The now famous exchange of correspondence includes a letter from his private office from one of the civil servants who are of the highest integrity, in this instance Deborah Lamb. The letter points out that the Secretary of State himself expressed concern because
      "in his view, the marginal tax rate illustrated in that minute of 90·1 per cent. for low earners is already excessive, particularly after the income tax reductions in the Budget".
      I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) listened to that. Even the Secretary of State recognises, at least in private, the unfairness of the Government's approach following the Budget. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's correspondence says. But then he comes to the House and tries to convince us and the country that he is being generous. Of course he is not.
      By definition, because of the averaging on uprating of social benefits, people in areas where 20 per cent. exceeds the national average will be additionally out of pocket. In some cases, especially in inner London, they will be substantially out of pocket. In other areas, without reason, they will be gainers. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who said, "We accept it." My hon. Friends and I certainly do not accept it, because it does not properly recompense even those people who have to pay 20 per cent. of this appalling tax.
      During Question Time today, I asked the Secretary of State what he had to say about his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet at the commemorative service at Westminster abbey this morning. He did not reply. I shall give him a second opportunity. In the responses in the service to launch the Church urban fund the Archbishop of Canterbury asked:
      "What is he sending us to do?"
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and, for all I know, other Ministers who were there—responded with gusto and alacrity:
      "To share our wealth with those in our cities who are poor, powerless or disadvantaged, and to help them to build a new future for themselves and for us all."
      Does the Secretary of State really believe that the poll tax will contribute to that aim? Does he agree with that? Of
      902
      course, we know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with it from the many quotations on the record which were referred to in Monday's debate.
      Our amendment (a) to new clause 16 introduces the principle of 100 per cent. rebates. It is possible, because of the guillotine, that we will not be able to express our support for the amendment, although I hope that arrangements can be agreed that will enable us to do so. Let me say, however, that we strongly support the principle of 100 per cent. rebates, and I urge all hon. Members to vote for the amendment. If it is not possible for us to record a positive vote, we shall express our disgust at the meanness of the proposals by voting against the Government's amendments.
      Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on this issue. We are much closer to agreement on it than on most other issues, as I have made clear in my votes—and non-votes—on this measure.
      Although I intend to address my remarks to rebates, it is a pleasure at last to rise to speak on the Bill. I tried gallantly to do so on Second Reading and again in Monday's debate on new clause 1. Let me now briefly say that, while I am very grateful for any concessions that help poorer people, the rebates as offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are insufficient to change my mind on the Bill.
      I do not wish to appear ungrateful. My right hon. Friend knows that I am a nice sort of person. If he were to make a concession that in any way altered the principle of the Bill—as was so ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and those who voted with him—rather than a belated concession that helps the poor but is essentially financial, we might reconsider our position.
      My interest in the subject is fairly long-standing. I do not expect hon. Members to remember it, as it may not have been particularly remarkable, but I made my maiden speech on the subject back in March 1974. Then, and in subsequent speeches over the years—for instance, on ten-minute Bills—I have urged the abolition of the rating system. What I have never urged or believed in, rebates or no rebates, is a community charge, let alone a uniform business rate.
      Let me explain briefly why the rebates have not changed my mind, in spite of my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Essentially, the principle remains as unfair now as it did before the concessions. The ability to pay is crucial. The hon. Member for Copeland has done my job for me with the facts and figures, but I have a list that has been cribbed from hon. Members on both sides of the House—£1 here, £5 there and £10 there. The fact remains that we are dealing with the principle of a poll tax that is fundamentally wrong. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, 26 million people will pay the standard rate of poll tax. It has also been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—in response to a very able intervention on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—that the £6,000 capital limit applies in this instance.
      Another principle that is unaltered by the rebates is that of the nature of the poll tax, which is undisturbed by the fact that it represents only 25 per cent. of overall local government revenue. I hope that I was not alone in being slightly amused yesterday morning when, lo and behold,

      903
      my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made one of his earlier broadcasts—after the 7 o'clock news—following the result of the vote on new clause 1. I waited for him to say, with all the eloquence that he has displayed over the past year, that this was not a tax but merely a charge on 25 per cent. and that the remaining 75 per cent. would arrive one way or another through taxation. But, in an able and dazzling interview lasting some four minutes, he referred to the charge as a tax no fewer than eight times—I counted them. I wonder whether that has anything to do with a change of mind on his part, or with the other place, which no doubt will be considering his earlier utterances.
      Another fundamental point is that the 25 per cent. leaves 75 per cent. That is another reason why the rebates are insufficient for me: the 75 per cent. will become a matter of Government control, either through grant or through the uniform business rate. The House would be foolish if it consented to such a degree of Government control.
      My third reason—rebates or no rebates—is that we cannot govern this country as if it were entirely ruled by extreme Left-wing socialist authorities—it is not. This measure is not the best way to deal with those parts of the country that are so ruled.
      Finally, although I am not ungrateful for the concessions—I welcome the rebates—and shall not be voting against the Government on this, I slightly resent aspersions cast against us at the weekend that we are trying to embarrass the Government. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East was terribly kind about last weekend. It is perhaps easier for me than for him to say that it was not one of the most angelic political weekends that I can recollect. I say, as one Back-Bench rebel on this matter, that I am not out to embarrass the Government. I am not nature's greatest rebel, but when something is as fundamentally wrong as this, and the decisions on it have been taken in the sequence that they have been, it is the duty of at least some of us to stand up and be counted. The late concession of these rebates serves only to add to the strength of our argument. The necessity for them shows the fundamental weakness of the measure.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: My high regard for the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was justified the other evening when he voted against the Government, and when, the following day, The Guardian awarded him a knighthood. That was evidence that virtue is its own reward. I agree with many of the things that he said this evening, and he will forgive me if I concentrate on amendment (a) to new clause 16, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred.
      I want to talk about the problems of the disabled, the frail and the elderly, whom the amendments could help. Even if there were a distant prospect of the amendments being carried, the measure that the Government support and the legislation for Scotland that is already on the statute book will do untold damage to the most vulnerable people in society, and their very existence invites urgent repeal.
      The Secretary of State said—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was right to mention this—that this was a generous measure. His capacity to use the English language in that inspiring way is not shared by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, by Mencap, by RADAR, by the Royal National Institute for
      904
      the Blind, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Spastics Society or any such organisation that I know of, nationally or in my constituency, which has considered the poll tax.
      A few weeks ago, during the Easter recess, I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), where I saw the excellent Edinvar community care project. Because of the interest of the community, of Edinburgh district council, Edinburgh university and the people of Edinburgh, that housing project provides a place to live for six people who have mental handicaps. They live in the community and are helped by others there—people who signed a housing missive knowing that help would be expected from them. I was there because of the consequences of the Government's social security provisions. Because of the reductions in housing benefit, there was a disgraceful question mark over whether the project could continue. Happily, mainly due to the help of Edinburgh district council and the flexibility of civil servants in the DHSS, that problem has been resolved since.
      8.15 pm
      The Secretary of State speaks of generosity, but when those six people come to pay the poll tax the question will arise again. Such payment cannot be a viable proposition. I hope that the project can be saved, but I know that community care in many parts of the country will be challenged openly by this provision, and it is disgraceful that Ministers should utter platitudes and give us statistics when they must know of the damage that their poll tax will do to people who are disabled, mentally handicapped, the elderly and others. Bearing in mind the exemption that the Government deliberately introduced in residential establishments, we shall find that people living in them, whatever their wealth—and many of them are there because of the help that the Government are determined to give to private owners through the DHSS—will benefit from the exemption and so triumph over those still living in the community.
      So, despite the fact that the number of places in no way meets the demand, if people in community care do not have the sorts of rebates to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland referred, they will naturally look for places in residential establishments. Because of the difficulties of access, many people in residential establishments who might be able to live in the community and would often be encouraged to do so will refuse to do so. This measure, therefore, offers no help to those in residential care or those in the community and is a further sign that the Government have no strategy to deal with community care for the most vulnerable people in society.
      I want to refer briefly to two important reports. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read them, but he and the rest of the Cabinet are obliged to assure the House that there is some co-ordination of policy objectives. That hardly seems to be the case now. The Griffiths report on community care does not coincide with what the Government are proposing. The Government have riot sought to publicise the report, so I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what Sir Roy said:
      "If community care means anything, it is that responsibility is placed as near to the individual and his carers as possible."
      He also said:
      "It cannot he managed in detail from Whitehall".

      905
      What is the poll tax if not an attempt by Whitehall to manage in detail?
      Lady Wagner said:
      "Every adult person entering a residential establishment with a view to an extended stay should be entitled to a trial period during which nothing would be done to dispossess them of their previous accommodation."
      Does anybody really think that the system of elderly people going into care and having that trial period, during which they will be expected to pay the poll tax, will work? The truth is that the Government are introducing chaos instead of community care.
      There are many defects in the so-called community charge. That view is shared by the overwhelming majority of British people. When the time comes to repeal the legislation the people of Great Britain will accept that, at long last, the House will have accepted its responsibilities to the most vulnerable people within our society. Clearly, this measure is a long way from achieving that.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is absolutely right. There appears to be a total lack of co-ordination in the Government's policy on disabled people. The amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends—Nos. 229 and 230—which are combined with this bank of amendments, try to ensure that a rebate of up to 100 per cent. of community charge is available to certain specifically defined groups of disabled people.
      The Bill will make disabled people suffer. It takes no account of ability to pay. The organisations to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred would have preferred some form of banded system or progressive system of taxation that would take into account the needs of disabled people and their resources. Allowance could also have been made for their additional needs. In the absence of any such progressive system, there needs to be a better provision for rebates.
      The advantages of our amendments are, first, that they offer a means of defining disability that is as automatic and unobtrusive as possible. Secondly, the amendments are compatible with the principles of good community care, in that they seek to ensure that there are no financial penalties for people seeking to move into the community or financial disincentives to stay in the community. The hon. Member for Monklands, West made that point. In other contexts, he and I have argued about the need to ensure that policies of other Departments supplement and co-ordinate the community care policies that the Department of Health and Social Security is advocating.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to two recent reports. There is also the Audit Commission report. A series of reports go down the same road. We should certainly look for greater recognition of disabled people within major legislation, such as the Bill.
      As the Bill stands, disabled people will lose disproportionately. While, to some extent, the present rating system is progressive, the poll tax will be regessive, falling hardest on those who are least able to pay. Disabled people are disproportionately represented among low income groups and will therefore be hit harder by the poll tax. As many as 40 per cent. of long-term sick and disabled people have low incomes, compared with 23·3 per cent. of the non-disabled population, according to the DHSS low income families review.
      906
      In considering ability to pay, it is important also to bear in mind that an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that half of all employees with disabilities had incomes below 42 per cent. of average earnings, while one quarter had earnings below 32 per cent. of the average. The rebates in the Bill do not provide disabled people with appropriate protection from the consequences of paying the personal community charge.
      The compensation for the 20 per cent. contribution, which apparently is built into income support for those who depend on income support, can be argued to be far from adequate for disabled people. It does not take into account the additional costs of living that disabled people have to face. They will undoubtedly suffer as a result, even at the 20 per cent. level, particularly in areas in which the poll tax will be at higher levels. Many inner city areas, with which I am not so conversant from a personal or a constituency point of view, that provide most services for disabled people—some of the boroughs that do most for disabled people—happen also to have a high level of rates and may have a high poll tax. There are instances of disabled people who have moved into such areas because they know that services are available there that are not available in areas which are not willing to raise money to provide services.
      The poll tax will also have damaging consequences for the benefits that some disabled people are getting from the present domestic rate concessions. Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1968, disabled people can receive rebates on housing that has been adapted to their needs. During the passage of the Scottish legislation in another place, Lord Glenarthur for the Government recognised that fact, when he stated:
      "We therefore propose that additional help which could extend up to 100 per cent. of the community charge should be available for a clearly defined group of severely disabled people.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 1987: Vol. 486, c.1665.]
      Up to 100 per cent., he said. That commitment appears to have been ignored in the way in which rebates are being calculated.
      Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act, the cost of rebates was £61 million, benefiting 102,000 disabled people in 1985. Many of them were on low incomes, but not necessarily on income support. As we know, many disabled people want to be in jobs, but they are in jobs that, necessarily, are low paid.
      Another unacceptable part of the Bill is the way in which mentally handicapped people are being stigmatised and defined. By inserting our amendments, there would be a way around that, because the same benefits could be defined without categorising mentally disabled people as a group on their own who need to be certified. Despite the changes that have been discussed, the process of exemption remains certification by another name. There is certainly a dilemma facing the parents of mentally handicapped people who are considering applying for exemption. They risk further labelling of their severely mentally handicapped son or daughter or paying tax themselves out of what are often scarce resources. To that extent, the measure is offensive to people with a mental handicap and to their parents who deal with them.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to the effect on community care. There is a real danger that the pressure of the system will be towards keeping people in

      907
      institutional care. The Government's own social security advisory committee noted that if claimants are expected to pay 20 per cent. of their rates, the result would be
      "increased hardship, increased debt or both."
      The poor levels of rebate under the present proposals will ensure precisely that for disabled people. The prospects for community care will look bleak as disabled people are presented with yet another financial hurdle to overcome if they are to live in the community. Disabled people do not seek or want special treatment under the poll tax legislation because of their disability. What they do need is a system that takes account of their ability to pay and the problems that they face. That is the intention of the amendment. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has applied itself to that matter. In the context of the amendments, it states:
      "We envisage that disabled people will face major problems should the Government's proposals pass through Parliament unamended. First of all, the proposals for the operation of the community charge will act as a direct disincentive to the community care policies we are all so keen to see extended. With exemption from the community charge for residents of residential care homes, and the failure to compensate adequately disabled people living at home, there will in the first instance be a simple financial disincentive for disabled and elderly people to continue to live in or move hack into the community."
      That is the background of my amendment. I realise that, if the Government's amendment is passed and clause 23 is deleted, it may not be possible for me to press the House to a Division on amendment No. 229 as I would otherwise wish to do. Although amendment No. 230 brings in a general point, it is still geared to clause 23. Therefore, it may be in the interests of the House to look for an amendment—possibly Labour's amendment (a)—that broadens the argument which applies to other groups but which could be applicable to the disabled people to whom I have referred. Whichever way, the Government are duty bound to say how they will give disabled people a better deal.
      8.30 pm
      Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) rightly said that the thrust of Government policy for care in the community is not assisted by the introduction of the community charge, which penalises members of families who are removed from hospitals or nursing homes and taken home.
      Our deliberations in Committee were greatly assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). Tonight's debate is the poorer for his absence, and I suspect that the Government's majority will be one greater because he is not here. However, he has left us with new clause 8.
      It is generally accepted that it is a bad idea to tax the poor. We are now agreed that we are talking about a tax, and I was slightly surprised by the Government's initial proposals, whereby those on benefit would have to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge, but made no provision for increasing their benefit to enable them to pay that amount. However, that matter was put right about a year ago.
      It is further agreed that the system of obliging the poor to pay makes no contribution to the funding of local government. Those who are on benefit can get 80 per cent. rebated at source and 20 per cent. back through their
      908
      supplementary benefit. At the end of the day, a vast sum of money will have changed hands with no net contribution to the funding of local government.
      The poll tax is being introduced for one reason only—accountability. It is important to discover whether accountability is achieved by rebates. We have a foretaste of what is likely to happen because this year, for the first time, those who receive benefit have had to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. I shall give an example from my constituency of a man and wife who receive benefit and are out of work. This year, for the first time, they must pay 20 per cent. of their rates and their benefit has been uprated by 20 per cent. of the average poll tax.
      However, other things have happened at the same time. Rents in the London borough of Ealing have increased and service charges and underlying rates of benefit have changed. At the end of the day, that man and wife may be £1 or £2 better off, but there is no way in which they discover whether they are in or out of pocket because rates in Ealing are at a specific level. The sums are not disaggregated, so if they are out of pocket they do not know whether to blame the Government or their rent and rates. Already, one is seeing people at one's advice bureau who, as a result of the social security changes, are somewhat perplexed. They are unable to decide whether the London borough of Ealing or anyone else is responsible for what has happened.
      At present, that man's wife receives no rate demand. To that extent, she is left out of the equation. He applies for a rebate and pays 20 per cent. of his rates. The purpose of the poll tax is to include his wife. What will happen when the poll tax comes into force? The wife will have to register and will receive a bill. As she will have no income, she will apply for an 80 per cent. rebate, which will be rebated at source. What about the remaining 20 per cent.? She will not receive that sum because it will be added to her husband's benefit. Thus, she is brought into the equation and becomes accountable, but will not have a penny to pay.
      The Government say that the husband will go to the post office, draw benefit, find the 20 per cent. of the national average poll tax—which is not his, but his wife's—and give it to his wife, who will then see whether the national average is more or less in the London borough of Ealing. If it is more, she will be out of pocket, and I do not know how she will pay rates. If it is less, she will pocket 4p or 5p a week. She will then go to the post office and pay her bill.
      We all know that that scenario is absurd. The husband will pay the bill for both of them out of the joint benefit that he will have received. The notion that his wife will be made more accountable and that the new system will rekindle a long-lost interest in municipal affairs is rubbish. Much bureaucracy will be involved, and those two people will say, "Who on earth invented this new system?". The idea that they may take their anger out on the London borough of Ealing, if they work out that their rates are above average, is misguided. I think that their attention will focus on whoever devised the new scheme.
      We have gone beyond the stage at which it would be possible to exempt them from the charade of being marched into the system, being given money, and marched out again. However, we can insulate against any financial loss, which is why, if there is to be a Division, I am minded to vote for amendment (a). Although it would not offer total protection, which would be logical, it would insulate

      909
      them from the financial consequences of this measure. We are talking about people on low incomes, and I see no reason why we should make their incomes any lower.
      Mr. Terry Davis: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that people tend rightly to focus their discontent on the Government.
      The two terms that will live and be repeated whenever people discuss the poll tax are, first, that used by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who described the poll tax as the "Tory tax", and, secondly, the adjective used by the Secretary of State, who described the rebate scheme as "generous". Those terms will be repeated constantly by Opposition Members and their supporters.
      My hon. Friends have already drawn attention to the problems of disabled people. I shall not say anything further about those problems other than to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends will recognise that many less well-off people deserve to be considered for more generous rebates. I use the phrase "less well-off" because it was used in the famous correspondence that was leaked this week.
      The Government tend to assume that people who are less well-off, whether they be disabled or not, have been adequately helped by the improvement in income support of 20 per cent. of the average poll tax rate. The Government forget that many less well-off people do not receive income support from other sources—whether it be as a result of their thrift from wages or private pensions; the pension is deferred remuneration and deferred wages—and because their income is pence above the threshold at which one stops receiving income support, they have not had an increase of 20 per cent. of the average poll tax rate. Those people will particularly suffer, and in the past many of them have voted for the Conservative party. They will describe the Secretary of State's proposals as the Tory tax and will express through the ballot box their resentment of his description of the rebate scheme as generous.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for the opportunity to make one or two remarks. I was prompted to comment during the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). His speech was economically illiterate and politically disingenuous. He is an intelligent man, and I think that he was doing that deliberately. His speech was a pot pourri of traditional Labour party taxonomics—tax the rich, soak the rich and away with enterprise and wealth creation. What he said was quite irrelevant to the debate and wasted our time.
      The hon. Member for Copeland repeatedly drew examples out of the air. It is easy to make comparisons between the chairman of a company earning a large salary and somebody who is just above the rebate line and say, "They are paying the same poll tax." The hon. Gentleman gave example after example, ignoring the fact that the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers will be paying 10 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that when this reform is passed three quarters of the cost of local government will be accounted for by the business rate and the general taxpayer, which is based on ability to pay.
      The Labour party continually tries to divert the debate along the line that we shall all be paying the same for local
      910
      services. By so doing, it is deluding the electorate. The hon. Gentleman did not apologise on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who tried to convince the House that some people on low incomes, even after rebates, will be paying 10 per cent. or more of their income. My right hon. Friend said that they could be paying as little as 7·5 per cent.
      Whatever system of local taxation we have, whether it is the local income tax favoured by the Liberal party or the system favoured by the Labour party—a local income tax coupled with a property tax—there is bound to be a high marginal rate of income tax at the bottom and it is bound to create some poverty or earnings trap. They know that there is no way out of that.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Member give way?
      Mr. Leigh: No. I have very little time as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to reply to the debate at 8.40 pm.
      All systems suffer from that. The hon. Member for Copeland failed to present any system of his own to the House. He knows that any system would result in a relatively high level of taxation on the lower paid. I want my right hon. Friend to know that we on this side of the House think that the rebates that he has brought forward are quite generous enough. We do not feel that he needs to go any further. He has got the equation about right.
      Mr. Ridley: It is not surprising that Monday's debate spilled over into rebates and that the debate tonight on rebates has spilled back into the principle. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was saying, as many other speakers have tried to get back to the principle that was established in the vote on Monday night. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's inability to be called on that occasion, and I am delighted that he was called today, but I do not think that he will expect me to repeat the arguments of Monday.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was also speaking on the wrong day, because the incentive to go into residential care or stay at home was debated yesterday and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government gave a convincing and comprehensive answer, which the hon. Friend clearly did not hear. I recommend him to read Hansard, and I shall not bore the House by repeating those arguments this evening.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ridley: No. I have very little time as I have cut my time short so that every hon. Member could get in.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) repeated the arguments that were made in Committee about rating relief for the disabled. He knows perfectly well that under the present rating system disabled people who had to have extensions to their houses which could have led to a higher rates bill were excused that increase. Of course that will not arise. Whatever the facilities in someone's house, he has to pay the community charge, not on the basis of his housing, but on the basis of his status as an individual. Therefore, it is inappropriate to reintroduce that relief, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
      The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) kept asking for categorical assurances and guarantees, as if the world would never change and no contingencies would be applied. I can tell him, particularly in relation to the

      911
      maintenance of benefits in real terms, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a statutory obligation to review benefits each year. Decisions are made taking account of all the circumstances at the time. The hon. Gentleman will find that each year the House has the opportunity to debate the uprating of social security benefits. In the same way, community charge rebates will become a benefit and will be within the purview of those arrangements and will be assessed, put to the House, debated and voted upon every year.
      The hon. Member for Truro, supported by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), returned to the question of a 100 per cent. benefit, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). He argued again, as those three hon. Members did in Committee, to substitute for the 20 per cent. uprating plus the 80 per cent. rebate arrangements a 100 per cent. rebate. However, as has been pointed out, a 100 per cent. rebate would be nonsense. It would be a pointless process to make someone liable and then give him a 100 per cent. rebate. Therefore, that in itself cannot be the answer.
      As has rightly been pointed out, the reason why it is better that everyone should contribute at least 20 per cent. is that everybody would have an interest in the conduct of their local authority and would be able to play a part in forming the decisions of that local authority through their votes. That is the basis of the whole scheme. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton does not like it, but it would be absurd at this stage to return to the point of principle that has been established that everybody will play a part. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept amendment (a).
      8.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Truro also spoke to amendment (b) and referred to the different treatment between single people under 25 and those over 25. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the debate in Committee, when the point was firmly made that this is a part of the social security reforms to which the House assented in what is now the Social Security Act.
      The main reason why there is a distinction between the under-25s and the over-25s is that most of those under 25 live at home and do not have household expenses, while the majority of those over 25 are householders and therefore have household expenses. That is not an entirely watertight distinction, but it recognises the special expenses that older single people have when they become householders.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way, as I have little time and many points to answer.
      That means that the structure of the community charge benefit is the same for individuals under and over 25. For net income up to income support level they will receive the 80 per cent. reduction. As income rises above that level, benefit tapers off by 15p for each extra £1 of income. The only difference is that the income support levels themselves are different for individuals above and below 25. As I have already explained, that merely reflects the fact that 80 per cent. of those under 25 are not householders and therefore face lower household expenses than do the majority of those over 25. That view commended itself to the House when it approved the income support level regulations.
      912
      The hon. Member for Copeland did not receive the letter that I placed on the board at 3 pm, and I apologise to him if the communications between us did not work with their usual immaculate regularity, but I gave him the details of the rebate. I maintain my view that it is a generous rebate.
      The hon. Gentleman can attack the rebate only by returning to the argument about ability to pay and by comparing the rebated contributions of various groups with the contributions of people who are very much better off. Of course, by such comparisons the differences will be very marked as they are on gross income and net income and any other way in which we compare the fortunes of the rich and the poor. There will be large differences, but that is not the point. The point of my assertion that the rebate is generous is that the points at which people start to get on to the rebate taper, and that points where they lose rebate altogether are fairly high figures of net income, arid even higher figures of gross income, which compare very favourably with anything that has gone before, arid certainly anything that the Labour party ever achieved when it was arranging such matters.
      Mrs. Fyfe rose—
      Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ridley: No.
      Finally, I want to deal with the question of the leaked letter, which was referred to by two hon. Members. The word "disgusting" was used in that context. I must confess that I think it is disgusting to pick up stolen goods arid then to shred the evidence. It will give great aid arid comfort to criminals to know that the Opposition are prepared to dispose of the evidence.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland does not seem to understand how the system works. The rebates are paid for by the community charge payers, he said, but that cannot be true, because the rebates before I improved them, and the rebates as we now have them, are all part of one thing. The Government's contribution to local authorities covers both the grant to local authorities and the cost of the rebates. If a higher rebate cost is fixed, it will automatically result in higher community charges for a given, limited, fixed grant.
      My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to tell the House, because the point was not apparently taken, that that flows through into the level of benefits, but that it is corrected, if it is wished to correct it, at the time that the level of grant is fixed. If the total level of grant is increased, there will be no impact on the community charge, but if it is increased it will have an impact on the community charge.
      The correspondence made it clear that I believed. long before my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) put down his amendment, and long before Monday's debate, that the taper was a little harsh and not as generous as I should have liked it to be. It is now clear that I thought that a long time ago. If my colleagues had agreed that we should slacken the taper on the community charge rebate, it would have made no sense whatsoever to increase the housing benefit taper in the same year. Naturally, we decided not to do so. It is all very simple, if only the Opposition would listen to what I am saying.
      Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's return to the Dispatch Box was a bit like the return of Crazy Horse. His speech made a bad situation even worse. He described undiscovered and unnamed civil servants as criminals. That can hardly improve his relationship with them.
      I accept the Secretary of State's apology about the delay in receipt of his letter, but it is a little disconcerting to receive letters that we are not supposed to have more quickly than the ones that we are supposed to have.
      As for the bucolic and intemperate intervention of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), if anyone was here on the wrong day it was he, because he did not deal with rebates. Apart from being here on the wrong day, he also appears not to be on the same wavelength as the Secretary of State. I remind him of what the Secretary of State said about the matter in Committee on 23 February. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle was an assiduous attender in Committee, I am sure that he heard what the Secretary of State said, which was:
      "With a flat rate charge it must be true that the burden will fall more heavily on those with low incomes than on those with high incomes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1988; c. 936.]
      That is what I said, too. That is why we are opposed to the principle of a flat rate community charge. We believe that the rebates are inadequate. That is why we have tabled amendment (a).
      It is Orwellian that something that in Committee was called a rebate has suddenly and miraculously been renamed a benefit. The Secretary of State referred to benefits as though people were being given something. What they are being given, in his terms, is a slightly less onerous Bill. They are not being given anything. To describe it as a benefit is almost as bad as the Secretary of State's use of the word "generous" in this context, a word which will return to haunt the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends again and again.
      I hope that it can be agreed that Government amendment No. 120 should be taken on the nod and that the amendments from then onwards to new clause 5 should not be moved. We agree that the Government's new clause 16 should be taken on the nod. Amendment (a) should be written into the Bill, because it would provide for the paying of rebates of up to 100 per cent. of the poll tax.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25
      DEFAULT POWERS AS TO REGISTERS
      Amendment made: No. 193, in page 15, line 18, leave out 'expires' and insert 'ends'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
    Clause 26
      DEFAULT POWERS AS TO RESOURCES
      Amendment made: No. 194, in page 16, line 2, leave out `expires' and insert 'ends'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
    Clause 28
      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 16, line 34, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Ridley.]
    New clause 16

      SOCIAL SECURITY
      'Schedule (Social security) below (which amends the Social Security Act 1986 so as to make provision for benefits in respect of community charges in England and Wales and Scotland) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
      Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
      Amendment (a) proposed as an amendment to the proposed clause, at beginning insert—
      'After making a report to Parliament on how community charge affects families and those on low incomes, the Secretary of State shall produce a scheme for rebates up to 100 per cent. and'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 330.

      Division No. 268]

      [8.57 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dewar, Donald

      Allen, Graham

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Donald

      Dobson, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Doran, Frank

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Douglas, Dick

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Battle, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bell, Stuart

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Flannery, Martin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Flynn, Paul

      Blair, Tony

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Boateng, Paul

      Foster, Derek

      Boyes, Roland

      Foulkes, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Fraser, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Buchan, Norman

      George, Bruce

      Caborn, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Callaghan, Jim

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Gould, Bryan

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Graham, Thomas

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cartwright, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clay, Bob

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Clelland, David

      Haynes, Frank

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug

      Coleman, Donald

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Holland, Stuart

      Corbett, Robin

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Geraint

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Illsley, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Janner, Greville

      Darling, Alistair

      John, Brynmor

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      915

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Redmond, Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Kennedy, Charles

      Reid, Dr John

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Richardson, Jo

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Lambie, David

      Robertson, George

      Lamond, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Leighton, Ron

      Rogers, Allan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Livsey, Richard

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Salmond, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAllion, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCartney, Ian

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Short, Clare

      McFall, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKelvey, William

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

      McNamara, Kevin

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

      McTaggart, Bob

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McWilliam, John

      Snape, Peter

      Madden, Max

      Soley, Clive

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Spearing, Nigel

      Marek, Dr John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stott, Roger

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Strang, Gavin

      Martlew, Eric

      Straw, Jack

      Maxton, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Turner, Dennis

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Vaz, Keith

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wall, Pat

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wallace, James

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Walley, Joan

      Morley, Elliott

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Murphy, Paul

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      O'Brien, William

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wilson, Brian

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Winnick, David

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Patchett, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Prescott, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Radice, Giles

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Alexander, Richard

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Allason, Rupert

      Body, Sir Richard

      Amess, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Amos, Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Ashby, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bowis, John

      Atkins, Robert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Atkinson, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Batiste, Spencer

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      916

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Burns, Simon

      Hannam, John

      Burt, Alistair

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

      Butcher, John

      Harris, David

      Butler, Chris

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heddle, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hill, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hind, Kenneth

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Chope, Christopher

      Holt, Richard

      Churchill, Mr

      Hordern, Sir Peter

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

      Howard, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochiord)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cope, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cran, James

      Irving, Charles

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jack, Michael

      Curry, David

      Jackson, Robert

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

      Janman, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine:

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kilfedder, James

      Dunn, Bob

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)

      Durant, Tony

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Eggar, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Evennett, David

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Fallon, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Farr, Sir John

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Favell, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Latham, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forman, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forth, Eric

      Lilley, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Franks, Cecil

      Lord, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      French, Douglas

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gardiner, George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maclean, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Gow, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marlow, Tony

      Gregory, Conal

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Ground, Patrick

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grylls, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mellor, David

      917

      Miller, Hal

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mills, Iain

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Speed, Keith

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Speller, Tony

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Stern, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Needham, Richard

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stokes, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Page, Richard

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Paice, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thorne, Neil

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pawsey, James

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tredinnick, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Trotter, Neville

      Price, Sir David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rattan, Keith

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Redwood, John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Renton, Tim

      Walden, George

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Riddick, Graham

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Walters, Dennis

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Ward, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Watts, John

      Rost, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wheeler, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Whitney, Ray

      Ryder, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sackville,' Hon Tom

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wilshire, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Shersby, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring to a decision the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Clause added to the Bill.

    Clause 32

      DUTY TO SET SUBSTITUTED AMOUNTS
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 19, line 12, at end insert 'and'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 23, 33, 34, 24 to 32, 61, 63 to 65 and 62.
      Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of this group of amendments is to change the financing of passenger transport authority expenditure from precepting on the collection fund to billing the metropolitan districts. The change is designed to increase accountability. I am sure that hon. Members will have issues to raise and questions to ask to which they would like to have replies on the record. As there is only a short time available for debate, it may be for the convenience of the House that I hear the points that hon. Members want to make and reply fully to them.
      Mr. Peter Snape: It is deplorable that this group of amendments should suddenly appear on the Notice Paper as part of this appalling Bill. The Minister's speech was entirely in keeping with the Government's view of local democracy and the view of the Department of Transport towards national transport policy matters. When I saw that the Minister was to move the amendment, I thought that we would get the usual carton of powdered valium sprinkled over us. That is something for which the hon. Gentleman is fairly well known. It seems that even the valium is in short supply when he treats the House with such contempt.
      There is no excuse for these amendments appearing during our debates on Report. If any function and service has been overly messed about—I put it at its kindest—since the Government were first elected, it is public transport. As recently as March 1986, as a consequence of the Transport Act 1985, metropolitan county councils were abolished. The deregulation of bus passenger transport in all areas, with the exception of London, consequently took place. New passenger transport authorities .were formed from within the metropolitan districts and the passenger transport executives were obliged to part company with their bus undertakings. Moreover, since 1986 the passenger transport authority has become a precepting authority on the districts. Until the Bill is enacted, it will have a separate needs assessment for grant purposes.
      This massive reorganisation of public transport was in part justified by the Government by removing public transport from what they considered to be remote and out-of-control metropolitan counties and giving it to locally elected districts. My hon. Friends who have sat through our consideration of the Bill will be aware of the quality and calibre of the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is an old political saying about the Peter principle and rising to the level of one's incompetence. The Nicholas principle takes people far beyond that level until members of their own party actually notice.

      919
      In 1984 the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the then Secretary of State for Transport, spoke about the precepting of new passenger transport authorities. He said:
      "In the metropolitan counties we accept the need to provide a continuing mechanism for decisions on a countywide basis—for instance, on the provision of subsidy for socially necessary but unprofitable services. That is why we shall provide for joint passenger authorities with members appointed by the constituent districts. That reverts to the previous arrangements which worked perfectly satisfactorily."—[Official Report, 7 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 202.]
      He was referring to the Local Government Act 1972, which was another attempt at legalised ballot-rigging by the Conservative party. The passenger transport authorities created under that Act were regarded as being eminently satisfactory in 1984, yet we are told that for reasons of accountability they are unsatisfactory in 1988.
      9.15 pm
      The consultative paper that accompanies this shabby piece of legislation states:
      "The principal objective of the new finance regime is to promote accountability to the electorate."
      The new Conservative doctrine on accountability is to stop locally elected councillors from taking decisions. If anything illustrates the lack of confidence, despite the public relations puffs, emanating from Conservative Central Office about the result of the local elections on 5 May, it is a piece of legislation such as this. Far from being confident of taking control of many of the constituent bodies that make up passenger transport authorities, the Government, through this piece of legislation, are reduced, as usual, to removing accountability from locally elected councillors and taking it upon themselves.
      How is this shabby piece of legislation to work? We all know the philosophy behind it. Because nobody took advantage of the Transport Act 1985 as it related to passenger transport authorities, they are being encouraged to do so under this piece of legislation.
      When one looks at bus services across the former metropolitan county areas, one is struck by the number of cross-district boundaries through which those services pass. For example, in Greater Manchester no less than 65 per cent. of bus services cross a district boundary. In the Conservative party's attempt to justify this piece of legislation, it is a pity that passenger journeys do not match the dreams—if that is the right term—of civil servants who thought up the boundaries in the first place. As I have said, in Manchester 65 per cent. of journeys do not match up to that dream. In Merseyside, south Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and the west midlands about 40 per cent. do not match up and in west Yorkshire 30 per cent. do not match that view.
      When local authorities are being encouraged to secede, as they are, do they secede completely or can they do so partly? For example, can they opt out of the concessionary fare scheme that covered the former county council areas while remaining in the scheme for socially necessary bus services? Instead of listening to the Whip who is telling him how long he has to speak, will the Minister write these questions down? If we do not have any other opportunity to hear the reply, we shall see that the same questions are asked in another place where we hope a bit more time will he allowed. Will part secession be allowed under the proposals?
      I know that the consultative document talked about the need for economic efficiency. I believe that that was the
      920
      phrase used. If we are to remain with that phrase, how is economic efficiency to be promoted if all the different aspects of administration at passenger transport authority level are to be spread throughout the districts and if those districts that secede are to be responsible for such things as socially necessary bus services? On a matter of concessionary fares, will part opting-out be allowed?
      From the consultative document one would have thought that only railway services were involved. Obviously they are important. We must ask what will happen in the future to such splendid passenger transport initiatives as the Tyne and Wear Metro, Merseyrail on Merseyside and the light rail transit proposals for the Greater Manchester area and the west midlands. Will authorities like Solihull be encouraged to reduce the amount payable to the former precepting authority because the initial proposal for the metro system in the west midlands does not include Solihull? Is not that likely to be the outcome of the encouragement which is being given to metropolitan districts on secession?
      If a new scheme does not pass through a local authority area, that authority will be encouraged to ask why its ratepayers should be responsible for part of the scheme. That doctrine does not appeal in London where authorities south of the river are still expected to pay towards London Underground, most of which is north of the river. That doctrine does not apply in the last bastion of rural Toryism, the shire counties, where the niggardly amounts of support given to public transport are paid on a shire county rather than on a district council basis. Why do the Government single out these authorities? The explanation is simple. All of them are guilty in the eyes of the Government of being controlled by members of the Labour party. That is what the legislation is about and that is why this tacky amendment has been moved.
      The Minister, in his second major contribution to the debate, shakes his head. He talked about accountability. If we are to be held accountable for public transport, why do the Government not make the same proposals for the police and the fire service? They do not because such a proposition would be laughed out of court. Even some of the tame and neutered tabby cats who sit behind the Minister, hoping for office, would be likely to object. I had better be careful because the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting beside the Minister. However, even some Tory Back Benchers would think that it was going too far to vote for so-called accountability for the police and the fire service.
      Because of the deplorably short time which has been allowed for this debate, I shall have to conclude by putting some questions to the Minister. How will the proposal improve the accountability of passenger transport authorities to the local electorate? We would appreciate a deep insight into Government thinking on that philosophy. How will the billing of district councils improve their accountability to the local electorate? What is the difference between billing and precepting? Perhaps most important, what financial resources will district councils have to pay the passenger transport authorities' bill? Will the Minister, if he ever manages to clamber to his feet again, give an assurance that the resources available to district councils will amount to as much as is given to passenger transport authorities currently?
      Why do the Government claim that fears that district councils will secede are exaggerated when, in the consultative document, they encouraged district councils

      921
      to do so? What effect do the Government expect secession to have on value for money in support for public transport, given the likely duplication of resources to which I have already referred? Do the Government understand what the effects will be on passengers, operators and the quality of service in metropolitan areas if they alone are no longer able to support public transport on a county basis?
      The proposed legislation is deplorable. We shall encourage as much disruption as possible in another place. I say that conscious of the fact that those other tame tabbies who are dining at the moment but who normally sit in the Press Gallery will once again accuse the Labour party of fomenting discontent nationwide. The Government detest public transport. They detest local accountability even more. For those two valid reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Gary Waller: I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister some questions that are perhaps more serious than those raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The Government's objective, which is to bring about greater accountability in passenger transport provision, as in numerous other local government services, is admirable. The question is solely whether the new financial regime for the passenger transport authorities will bring about greater accountability. The theory is that, because members of the PTAs are appointed by the districts and are not directly elected, they are not accountable directly to the electorate. I accept that the existing system lacks that element of full accountability.
      There is quite a strong argument in favour of direct election of the members of PTAs. The question is whether a financial regime incorporating levies instead of precepts would provide greater accountability. There is possibly a question mark hanging over the matter. It seems to be a fairly finely balanced judgment. The trouble is that even if districts believe that they are paying too much they have no sanction available, other than the threat of secession from the PTA if the Secretary of State agrees. It is either one thing or the other. There is no half measure. Secession from the PTAs should be contemplated with the greatest caution. I do not know of any metropolitan district that has considered having recourse to section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985 in respect of any service administered by a joint board.
      Short of seeking to secede, the district representatives, it may be claimed, will apply greater pressure if the districts are billed. I believe that in reality they would want to apply exactly the same pressure if they favoured better value for money, even if the community charge payers were precepted. To put it another way, would a Conservative council put across a muted message because the ratepayers or community charge payers were precepted?
      Dispensing with precepts has certain accountability disadvantages. A major point in favour of the community charge is that it enables the individual responsible for paying it to judge the performance of his or her local authority, with no ifs or buts. The fact that, following the enactment of this legislation, the charge will incorporate an element covering the PTA levy will blur the edges of
      922
      accountability. It could enable high-spending authorities to claim that the responsibility for increases is not theirs but someone else's. This would confuse the elector and perhaps damage the pure accountability of the community charge system.
      The elector will not see on his or her community charge demand a separately itemised figure for local transport services. Even now, I believe that many ratepayers welcome the fact that since the creation of the joint boards they have been able to assess the amount that they are paying for these jointly funded services. This measure of accountability, which was so recently granted for transport, is apparently now being snatched away again.
      I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some questions about secession and to ask for some reassurances for those who live in the metropolitan districts. A large number of passenger journeys cross district boundaries, and commuting journeys in particular fall into that category. Districts do not necessarily coincide with commuting patterns. To give an example from my constituency, the town of Ilkley is in the Leeds travel-to-work area, even though it is in the Bradford metropolitan district. Many people travel each day from Keighley in the Bradford district to work in Leeds.
      The problem arises mainly with train services, which generally cross district boundaries, but also with bus routes to a considerable extent. If a district such as Bradford or Leeds decided that secession was in the interests of its residents, what reassurance can my hon. Friend provide that the district would not be able to secede without proper provision being made for those who do not pay a community charge in the district, but nevertheless depend on transport routes which extend into that district?
      In summary, I wish to ask my hon. Friend two questions. First, cannot the possibility of secession, which is meant to encourage passenger transport authorities to provide better value for money—that is a worthy objective—be allowed for with fewer disadvantages under a precept regime than under a levy system? Secondly, what reassurance can he give my constituents who fear that the proposals might be a threat to the cross-boundary services on which they depend?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall be brief, in my view far too brief for the needs of the subject. The fact that it is being dealt with in 45 minutes is not just a result of the guillotine motion. The matter came on the scene far too recently for proper discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, whatever else happens tonight, the matter will have to be opened up in another place. The classic reason for the existence of another place is to give a chance for a reappraisal, in this case the first real appraisal of a problem that affects the areas of the disbanded metropolitan counties.
      A piece of correspondence was given to me and to other hon. Members when a deputation from the West Yorkshire PTA came to see us. I noticed then that the first letter from the Department of Transport was dated 22 January and that comments had to be received by 15 February. Three weeks is not a sufficiently long period for proper consideration.
      The first point that I want to make is perhaps not too important to those of us who represent the city of Leeds,

      923
      which is probably the most powerful and richest part of West Yorkshire. The cost of the PTA will now be based on the size of the adult population. That may be fine for Leeds, but it may not be excellent for Calderdale and those areas on the sides of the Pennines.
      I noticed, incidentally, that the note that came to the PTAs from the Department of Transport—I read it as a justification—stated:
      "It is proposed to abolish the power of the PTAs to set a local tax rate—a community charge".
      The Department of Transport appears to be against a community charge.
      I promised to be brief so that my hon. Friends could also contribute to the debate, but I wish to raise two points in respect of the same piece of paper mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). We all asked for that to be made available to us. We asked that it should be made available to the Minister for Public Transport. I telephoned and asked that that should be done and, therefore, we were working under the assumption that the questions would be dealt with by the Minister when he opened the debate so that, when we contributed, we could take the matter a step further. Apparently, that will have to be done in the other place.
      I wish to put in practical terms question No. 6 asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East in respect of West Yorkshire. We were told that the services in West Yorkshire that would suffer, if they did not disappear altogether, would be countywide tickets, such as metrocards and saver strips, which are valid with all bus operators and on rail services. What about the uniform concessionary fares scheme? Will we have a separate concessionary fares scheme in all five districts? The public information services cover the whole of West Yorkshire. The timetable changes still occur every two or three days. They have to be published quickly or in advance to cover all operators under the new legislation.
      What about support for the local rail network, the patronage of which has increased by 50 per cent. in the past four years? The cross-boundary services in West Yorkshire account for 80 per cent. of the services. If West Yorkshire is to be split up, if there is to be secession or if the scheme will not work as well as previously, 80 per cent. of West Yorkshire's bus services will require some public financial support. One third cross one district boundary or more.
      What about the management of the infrastructure—bus stations, shelters and stops—and support for innovation? In Leeds we are talking about trolley bus services and light railways, and that would be paid for by the people of Calderdale. I first went to Leeds 25 years ago when it was an old county borough and we are proud of having our bus services and so on. But we are not going back to that; we are going forward to a disjointed service between the five parts of the county.
      In the past week I have listened carefully to all the talk about the community charge. The possibility of community charge capping was put to us. I do not want to take up time and go into that question, but the West Yorkshire PTA is greatly worried that there would be community rate capping there. If we in Leeds implemented a light rail scheme which had to be paid for on the other side of what used to be the county, Calderdale could find itself community charge capped, despite a perfectly proper
      924
      decision by the PTA to undertake major expenditure elsewhere. I shall not develop the point because I imagine that the Minister is well aware of it.
      Those two points out of the six put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East worry us in West Yorkshire. I do not believe that here in London where people are used to the bigger area of the old London county council and the Greater London council the Government appreciate the position in the disbanded metropolitan counties. We require answers to those questions tonight. We shall lose the vote. This is not the exciting stuff of two days ago, but the matter will be raised again in another place. There is great anxiety in West Yorkshire and it has been my aim to bring that again to the Minister's notice.
      Mr. David Clelland: I, too, shall be brief because of the disgraceful shortage of time to discuss this important issue.
      The Government's case appears to be based on the argument that PTAs are not accountable. Yet only a couple of years ago the Government abolished democratically elected councils which were directly accountable to the people who elected them and were responsible for running transport. We know that the police, fire and civil defence authorities will retain precepting powers although they are in exactly the same position as PTAs.
      The argument is not only grossly hypocritical, but is incorrect, because PTAs are accountable. Indeed, they have a statutory duty under the Transport Act 1985 to consult local councils, local operators and other interests and individuals when formulating policies for public transport systems. They have a statutory duty to consult the business community, and during such consultations Tyne and Wear chamber of commerce and major privately owned bus companies have shown that they share the PTA's concern and have offered their support and efforts to change the Government's attitude. The authority must also work in close co-operation with local councils, which provide PTA members. Clearly, Tyne and Wear PTA lives up to the spirit as well as the letter of the law and has welcomed consultation and discussion.
      It is equally clear that if the Government are promoting the disintegration of countywide integrated transport, the Department of Transport is openly canvassing secession and the countywide provision of transport is again under threat. We know that if canvassing does not work, pressure will be applied to the district councils to secede.
      Tyne and Wear is the smallest conurbation in England, and the need for the countywide co-ordination of transport services is widely recognised. Those services have made a great contribution to the area's economic regeneration. The proposal before the House poses a threat to the Metro system on Tyne and Wear, which is the envy of the world, and to the future expansion and realistic fares structure which that system encompasses. Concessionery travel and special needs transport will also be under threat if secession goes ahead, because of the loss of economies of scale. Deregulation has also had its effect on passenger confidence in the public transport system, which has been a significant casualty.
      If the Government want to destroy integration in Tyne and Wear, as would appear to be the case, and to destroy the Metro system, why do they not just send up a squad of SAS men to put a bomb under it? That would be just as effective as the proposal before the House.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief because the case for the six metropolitan transport authorities has been highlighted by my hon. Friends. We must also put on the record the objections of the South Yorkshire transport authority, because it prided itself on the service that was provided when the South Yorkshire county council was in being. It was what people wanted, and that was consistently reflected in their votes.
      Deregulation was then introduced, and various Acts dispensed with South Yorkshire county council. The Government set up the residuary bodies with the intention that those bodies and the joint authorities should be accountable. The Minister of State said at the time:
      "We are faced with an authority being set up to provide a service which, inevitably, is wider than any individual district council. That, of course, is the logic and the rationale behind joint boards for police, fire and transport, so that there can be a co-ordination of policy and an agreement to run what is in essence a public service."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 12 February 1985, c. 1337.]
      The Minister also said:
      "We accepted from the beginning the need to co-ordinate certain aspects of public transport, especially support for rail, decisions about subsidy or unprofitable services in different areas, and concessionary fares. None of that is under threat."
      That was said in 1985. Now, in 1988, it is all under threat.
      We have a right, on behalf of our constituents, to ask why it is wrong now when it was right in 1985. What has happened to make the Government change their mind? We think we know, but we would like the Minister to tell us. We think that it is in the Government's mind to destroy public transport and public transport authorities.
      What will happen when the levy is introduced, and the district authority says, "Sorry, mate, but we want to spend the money on education or social services, not on transport"? What will happen to the existing infrastructure? The light railway in Sheffield has been mentioned. What is to happen to all the bus stations and the combination of train and bus stations in the area? In south Yorkshire, 40 per cent. of the transport services cross other boundaries, as do many of the railways.
      We need time to get over the legislation that has already been introduced, and we need this provision like we need a hole in the head. We are trying to get over the destruction that has been caused by previous policies, and they should not be compounded now. We want to leave matters as they are and wait to see whether the Government were right in the views that they earlier expressed.
      Those are some of the matters that concern us, but to allow others to speak I shall stop now and hope that we will return to these matters on another day.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: Can the Minister give an assurance that Calderdale will not be squeezed out of the new area? We are desperate because, either way, we shall lose. I will not go over our arguments but will the Minister give a guarantee that Calderdale will be given some form of protection?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. David Mitchell: I thought that a number of other hon. Members would rise to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am happy to have the opportunity to reply to the points that have been raised.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) complained about the short period for consultation. We issued the discussion paper on 22 January, and asked for responses by 15 February.
      926
      However, we have continued to receive responses subsequent to that date. We took full account of those responses, including a meeting that I had with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 2 March. Moreover, as late as 28 March I met Manchester Members of Parliament to hear their views. While I entirely understand why the right hon. Gentleman raised that point, I feel that that will reassure him.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and others asked a series of questions about secession. I noticed in particular that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) claimed that the Department of Transport was actively canvassing secession. That is entirely untrue. Indeed, let me go further and tell the House that when the Transport Act 1985 was going through the House we were told that it would lead to a massive amount of secession. That has not happened: not a single metropolitan district has seceded. The reality has not borne out the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman and many others during our debates in 1985.
      Mr. Clelland: Is it not a fact that it is because that situation has not arisen that this measure has been brought before the House tonight? That is what I mean by openly canvassing secession.
      Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the purpose of the measure. In a moment, I shall give the reasons that lie behind it.
      The point that I am trying to make is that we were assured previously of wild rumours of a massive degree of secession, and it has not materialised. One district came to us and made inquiries about the conditions that would be attached to secession, but did not return with further proposals. I have no reason to believe that the measure will lead to secession by districts. I do not anticipate such a development, and I can give any hon. Members who are genuinely worried on that score an assurance that if any authority asks for secession my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look very carefully at the proposals, and set conditions that will have to be met. On that ground, hon. Members can be reassured that secession will not result.
      Mr. Rees: What sort of conditions is the Minister likely to lay down? I do not quite follow him.
      Mr. Mitchell: For example, if the passenger transport authority is sustaining a rail network, the condition might well be attached that any district that sought to secede would still have to contribute towards that network. We are seeking to ensure fairness if secession were ever to take place.
      Let me repeat, however, that the amendment is not designed to bring about secession. I should like to explain what it is designed to do, and why it has been introduced.
      Mr. Snape: Before the Minister does that, may I ask him a question arising from the sentence that he has just uttered? If a district council opted for part secession, continuing to contribute towards the railway network but not towards certain aspects of the bus network, how would the affairs of the passenger transport authority be debated and decided upon? Would that part-seceding district council be allowed to speak and vote on matters on which it had partly seceded?
      Mr. Mitchell: If a metropolitan district secedes, it loses its representation and its commitment to being involved in or contributing to the expense of the PTA.
      Mr. Favell: This may be slightly outside my hon. Friend's remit, but can he deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)'? Why are police and firemen not included under the same provisions? Many Conservative Members who were involved with the old metropolitan counties believe that there should be similar provisions for them. There is no earthly reason why there should be a countywide fire, and possibly police service in Greater Manchester.
      Mr. Mitchell: There are considerable differences between the police and fire services and PTAs. My hon. Friend should be aware that the Home Secretary already controls 51 per cent. of the finance of the police, and there are inspectorates for the police and fire services to ensure efficiency and standards of service. So they are very different. This case is left very much to the PTA. In the case of the fire and police service, standards are set, so there is not the same degree of discretion.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Why the change?
      Mr. Mitchell: I am coming to that. I want first to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, who asked whether accountability could not be increased by directly elected PTAs. As the expenditure of the PTAs amounts to only about 6 per cent. of the expenditure of the districts it would not be realistic or practicable to have an election merely to control such a small expenditure.
      Mr. Bob Clay: The Minister spoke about the conditions that the Secretary of State would want to be met for secession and part secession. What would he the position on historic debt charges? The hon. Gentleman answered one example about revenue costs. Tyne and Wear has huge debt charges because of the Metro system. Would the Minister oblige a district council that wanted to secede to make a contribution to historic debt costs?
      Mr. Mitchell: It would be wrong for me to give a detailed answer to a hypothetical question, as no district in Tyne and Wear has expressed an interest in seeking to secede under these provisions.
      It is right that I should now come to the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has been pressing me to answer—the central issue of this group of amendments, which is accountability. The Bill provided for the costs arising from PTA policies to be met by precepting on the charge payers at large—broadly, the electorate. However, the PTA membership is not chosen by the electorate and we wish to improve its accountability to the electors by bringing the districts and PTAs closer together in the decision-making process. It is the metropolitan councillors who are directly elected, so the metropolitan district councils must be accountable, and seen to be so, for the expenditure. Under the proposals they will receive the PTA's bills. They can consider them and instruct their representatives on the PTA on the future level of service provision and spending that they want.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: They can do that now.
      Mr. Mitchell: The big difference is that if the electorate at large receives the bill but does not elect the PTA it can have no direct influence on the PTA's policies. This measure will mean that the district council will receive the bill, consider it and instruct its representatives about what future bills will be acceptable—or unacceptable. Hon. Members may doubt the importance of accountability, but experience with transport services in metropolitan counties before the introduction of precept control is a good example of what happens if there is not adequate accountability.
      Mr. Hughes: The Minister must justify why, after the Bill was published, revelation and enthusiasm for accountability suddenly came to him like a bolt of lightning. Did he fall or was he pushed by the Treasury, or by somebody else?
      Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. The reason that it has come about is the recognition that, as events have unfolded, districts have taken little interest in what has been happening with PTAs. The reason they have taken little interest is that they were not going to pick up the bill. The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are annoyed because it means that districts will pick up the bill, scrutinise it, and consider what is or is not acceptable in it.
      Mr. Hughes: That will not do. That must have been known to the Minister when the Bill was published. On the face of the Bill was the right for PTAs to be precept-charging authorities. Why, after the Bill was published and when it was being considered in Committee, did he suddenly decide to change the legislation in the way that he now proposes?
      Mr. Mitchell: I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman why that is. I must ask him to accept that explanation. Accountability is the gravamen of the whole case. If we look at the period before precept capping came along, we can clearly see the real problem. Subsidising bus services, either by lower fares or by increased services, is popular—
      Mrs. Mahon rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: I shall finish this point and then I shall give way.
      Subsidising bus services, either by lower fares or by increased services, is popular with the voter but less popular with the ratepayer. If the voter and the ratepayer are not the same person, there is an almost irresistible temptation to buy popularity by spending the ratepayers' money for them.
      Mr. Snape: That is not true.
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.
      When we introduce accountability and make the people who are meeting the bill send representatives to decide what size the bill will be, we shall genuinely have accountabiity and a way of stopping runaway expenditure. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and the House want proof of the validity of that point, I remind them that, before precept control, on average, a. shire county spent £5·45 per head of population for bus service subsidies. In Avon, which was very nearly made

      929
      into a metropolitan county, the figure was £5.12. As soon as we consider the metropolitan counties and the action that I have been describing took place—
      Mrs. Mahon rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: I just want to finish this one point.
      Instead of it being £5 in Manchester, the figure was about £24 per man, woman and child. In Merseyside, it was about £45 per man, woman and child, and in South Yorkshire it was about £59 per man, woman and child. That demonstrates what happens when we do not have accountability. That is why it is right that the House should pass the amendments and give the accountability that is so needed to protect ratepayers in the metropolitan areas of the country.
      Mrs. Mahon: The Minister has not answered the question—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has spoken.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      DUTY TO SET SUBSTITUTED AMOUNTS
      Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 19, leave out line 13.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 222.

      Division No. 269]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

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

      Alexander, Richard

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Allason, Rupert

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Amess, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Amos, Alan

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Butler, Chris

      Ashby, David

      Butterfill, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Atkins, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Atkinson, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chope, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

      Churchill, Mr

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Colvin, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Conway, Derek

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cope, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Couchman, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Curry, David

      Bowis, John

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

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Devlin, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Dicks, Terry

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      930

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Key, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Kilfedder, James

      Eggar, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evennett, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Farr, Sir John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Favell, Tony

      Knowles, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lang, Ian

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Forman, Nigel

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forth, Eric

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lightbown, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Lilley, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      French, Douglas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fry, Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gardiner, George

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McCrea, Rev William

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McCrindle, Robert

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gorst, John

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gow, Ian

      Maclean, David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Mans, Keith

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Maples, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marland, Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mates, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hannam,John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

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

      Mellor, David

      Harris, David

      Miller, Hal

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Mills, Iain

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Moate, Roger

      Heddle, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Holt, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Howard, Michael

      Needham, Richard

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Neubert, Michael

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hunter, Andrew

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Page, Richard

      Irving, Charles

      Paice, James

      Jack, Michael

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Jackson, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      Janman, Tim

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Jessel, Toby

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Pawsey, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      931

      Portillo, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Price, Sir David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Raffan, Keith

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Redwood, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Renton, Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thorne, Neil

      Riddick, Graham

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Tracey, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tredinnick, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Trippier, David

      Rost, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Rowe, Andrew

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ryder, Richard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walden, George

      Scott, Nicholas

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waller, Gary

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walters. Dennis

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Ward, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shersby, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sims, Roger

      Watts, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wheeler, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Whitney, Ray

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speed, Keith

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Speller, Tony

      Wilkinson, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Steen, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Woodcock, Mike

      Stevens, Lewis

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Stokes, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Summerson, Hugo

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Buchan, Norman

      Adams, Alien (Paisley N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Callaghan, Jim

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashton, Joe

      Cartwright, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Clay, Bob

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Stuart

      Coleman, Donald

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blair, Tony

      Cousins, Jim

      Boateng, Paul

      Cox, Tom

      Boyes, Roland

      Crowther, Stan

      Bradley, Keith

      Cryer, Bob

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bruce. Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      932

      Darling, Alistair

      McFall, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McKelvey, William

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McTaggart, Bob

      Dixon, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Doran, Frank

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Douglas, Dick

      Marek, Dr John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Martlew, Eric

      Eastham, Ken

      Maxton, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fisher, Mark

      Morley, Elliott

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Foster, Derek

      Nellist, Dave

      Foulkes, George

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fraser, John

      O'Brien, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Neill, Martin

      Galbraith, Sam

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Patchett, Terry

      George, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Gordon, Mildred

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gould, Bryan

      Radice, Giles

      Graham, Thomas

      Redmond, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hardy, Peter

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Robertson, George

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Rogers, Allan

      Henderson, Doug

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Holland, Stuart

      Ruddock, Joan

      Home Robertson, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Howells, Geraint

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Short, Clare

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Illsley, Eric

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

      Janner, Greville

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

      John, Brynmor

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)

      Soley, Clive

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Stott, Roger

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Strang, Gavin

      Lambie, David

      Straw, Jack

      Lamond, James

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Leighton, Ron

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Lewis, Terry

      Turner, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Vaz, Keith

      Livsey, Richard

      Wall, Pat

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wallace, James

      Loyden, Eddie

      Walley, Joan

      McAllion, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McCartney, Ian

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      933

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Wilson, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr. Alun Michael.

      Worthington, Tony

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the end of clause 36.

    Clause 35
      INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 67, in page 21, line 18, leave out `expiry' and insert 'end'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
    Clause 36

      STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE MULTIPLIERS
      Amendment made: No. 61, in page 21, line 41, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
      '(8) Regulations under this section in their application to a particular financial year (including regulations amending or revoking others) shall not be effective unless they come into force before I January in the preceding financial year.'.—[Mr. Mr. Ridley.]
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Conduct)
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Leader of the House to move the motion in his name, may I remind the House that the exercise of its disciplinary powers in relation to one of its own Members is one of its most solemn and responsible duties. I trust that the forthcoming debate will be conducted in accordance with the best traditions of this House, and that in reviewing the conduct of a colleague we shall conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the responsibility that we bear.
  In order to allow the House the possibility of choosing what alternative penalty, if any, is appropriate in this case, I have selected both of the amendments on the Order Paper. I shall permit a general debate on the motion and the amendments. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, if it is desired to move both amendments after the conclusion of the debate, it will be necessary for it to end approximately 20 minutes before the allotted time so that there will be an opportunity for both amendments to be taken.
  I ask hon. Members to bear these considerations in mind. In view of the long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate, I ask for brief speeches.
  10.15 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
  That Mr. Ron Brown be suspended from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, and be held responsible for the damage that was sustained by the Mace.
  The motion before the House was tabled last night following discussions through the usual channels, and with the agreement of the official Opposition. The points of order yesterday afternoon about the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) after which I undertook to bring forward a motion showed how seriously the House regards this matter. The agreement to the motion from both sides of the Chamber is a clear sign that the House generally accepts the importance of upholding the authority of the Chair.
  The incidents to which the motion refers took place yesterday and the day before, so the House will need little reminding of them. On Monday night, at the end of the proceedings, the hon. Member for Leith threw some papers on to the floor of the Chamber and picked up the Mace. He then released it, and, as it hit the ground, it sustained a certain amount of damage. As you told the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the extent of that damage is now being assessed.
  Arrangements were made yesterday for the hon. Member to make a personal statement at 3.30 pm about his conduct the previous night. Despite being given ample opportunity by you, Mr. Speaker, to make his statement and apologise, he failed to do so in a way which satisfied the House and had to be asked to withdraw from the Chamber.
  I have deliberately given a low-key factual account of what happened, but it is clear that many right hon. and hon. Members are—in my view rightly—very concerned at this behaviour. The conduct of the hon. Member for Leith

  935
  showed a deep disrespect for the dignity and position of the Speaker of this House and the authority he exercises on behalf of the House itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was right to point out yesterday that the House is generous to those who make personal statements expressing regret for action taken in the heat of the moment. I am sure that hon. Members can think for themselves of occasions when this has occurred. Very often the House may decide that on these occasions no further action is needed. But I do not think that anyone who heard the hon. Member for Leith yesterday could believe that he regretted his action, and indeed I understand that he has since said as much to the press. That is why the House must take this matter so seriously.
  The action which the motion proposes is twofold. The first element is that the hon. Member for Leith should be suspended from the service of the House for 20 sitting days. This is, of course, the level of penalty which would automatically follow on the second occasion in a single Session that the same hon. Member had been named. The second element is that the hon. Member should be held responsible for the damage sustained by the Mace, and should thus pay for the repair work it needs. I do not think many hon. Members would disagree with the view that the hon. Member for Leith's aggravation of his original misconduct by his persistent refusal to offer a satisfactory apology justifies a penalty more severe than that which he would have received yesterday had he been named. Nor do I think any hon. Member would feel it right for the public purse to bear the cost of putting right the damage done to the Mace as a result of the hon. Member's conduct.
  It may be helpful if I now say a few words about each of the amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected.
  The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would reduce the penalty for the hon. Member for Leith to financial liability for the damage caused to the Mace. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while that might conceivably have been acceptable to the House if the hon. Member for Leith had shown yesterday any genuine regret for what he had done, in the circumstances where he quite clearly has not, for the sake of its own reputation I do not believe the House would or should agree to that amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), by contrast, would take a tougher line than would my motion which was agreed through the usual channels. He would ask the House to suspend the hon. Member for Leith without pay for 60 sitting days and insist on an acceptable apology before the suspension was lifted. I greatly sympathise with the concerns behind my hon. Friend's amendment. But I do not think that it would be right to bring forward new disciplinary measures—docking salary and making an end to the suspension dependent on an acceptable apology are novel—in one particular case without a more general consideration of the House's power in this respect. As the House will know, I said at business questions last week that I expect to set up the Procedure Committee very shortly. Indeed, I hope to table the motion next week. It may be that that Committee would wish to carry out a review of our disciplinary procedures and, if so, I am sure that the House would wish to take its comments into account before making any changes.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Obviously, the House must take careful note of what he has said concerning the ordinary penalty that this House is accustomed to impose in situations of this kind. Nevertheless, could he state whether there has been an increase in incidents giving rise to suspension in recent years which might lead the House or the Committee that he is setting up to draw the conclusion that that sanction is possibly less adequate than it has been in the past?
  Mr. Wakeham: Since the end of the war in 1945, there have been 24 suspensions of five days for hon. Members acting in defiance of the Chair, of which seven have occurred in this Session, since we returned in the autumn.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House accept that there have been previous examples of many suspensions being made on the same day, for example, in 1881, a total of 28—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members are not interested in any form of historical perspective. In 1881, 28 hon. Members were expelled on the same day. Should not the Leader of the House look back a little further to see what happened in the past?
  Mr. Wakeham: We are living in the present day and are trying to deal with the present problems. I have to say that seven suspensions in this Session of Parliament, compared with the total of 24 for similar offences for the entire period since the war, is something that I should have thought was of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say just this. It is a privilege of which many of us are very conscious to be a Member of this place. That privilege carries the responsibility of respecting the authority the House itself places in the holder of the office of Speaker and of observing the procedures and practices by which we order our discussions. When those are defied, we cannot take the matter lightly, and must act in self-regulation. No amount of regulation by the House can adequately substitute for self-discipline and self-control on the part of each individual hon. Member. But, in the present circumstances, the motion proposes a disciplinary course which I believe the House as a whole will find it right to take. I commend it to the House.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: From time to time, because we are overwrought, angry or frustrated, we all make fools of ourselves, including in this place, but we all live in hope of the opportunity to recover our reputations—
  Mr. Ron Brown: My old mum says that one must apologise, and I cannot knock that. Clearly, individuals here and elsewhere are worried about this mess. I hope that they are also worried about the working class and what it has to suffer. If you, Mr. Speaker, want an apology, so be it, you can have an apology, but only if one apologises also to the working class for what it has to suffer—fair do's. That is fair enough with me.
  Back home in Scotland, back in Leith, there are many unemployed engineering workers. If the Mace has been damaged, they will be willing to repair it. In fact, they will give you a new one, Mr. Speaker. That is a guarantee to you. If you are worried about a bauble, as Cromwell said,

  937
  you are worried about nothing. What is important is this country. It is important because it belongs to us. It does not belong to certain individuals in this place. Democracy will be fought for outside this place. I—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be more appropriate if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) sought to make a speech.
  Mr. Brown: I know that you are trying to protect me, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, if we say and do certain things, we must accept the consequence. Please pass on the bill if I have offended you.
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not attempt to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). I expect that he will be called to speak in the debate.
  Late on Monday evening, the hon. Member for Leith picked up the Mace, for whatever reason, dropped it and damaged it. The following morning, the Opposition Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and explained to him that by custom in this place he could make a personal statement apologising for what he had done, but that the terms of the statement had to be agreed with you, Mr. Speaker. This he agreed to do. He agreed also to make good the damage to the Mace. He was asked to stand by in his office while it was discovered what terms of apology would be acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker. This was done particularly as it was not a matter in which a personal statement about another Member was concerned. It was a matter that was related directly to your authority.
  Later the hon. Member for Leith could not be found. He got in contact with the Opposition Chief Whip at 3.25 pm, five minutes before he would have had to make the apology if he chose to do so. He was given a copy of wording which had been agreed by you, Mr. Speaker, and he told the Opposition Chief Whip that he would make the apology in those terms. Lest anyone feels that the terms suggested were personally humiliating, I shall read them out:
  "I wish to make a personal statement, Mr. Speaker. I regret my action last night in regard to the Mace, and I apologise unreservedly to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for what occurred. I accept responsibility for any damage that was sustained by the Mace."
  You duly gave the hon. Member for Leith no fewer than nine opportunities to make that apology in the terms agreed with you, Mr. Speaker, and this he failed to do. You asked him to leave the Chamber and he did.
  There can be no question of leaving it at that. Such behaviour would not be acceptable in any other organisation and it is not acceptable here. Members are elected to this House to represent the people in their constituencies. Most of that representation is done by word. That is partly by the written word but mainly in here by the spoken word. Before words can have influence, they must be heeded. Before words can be heeded, they must be heard. For them to be heard, there must be order. Without rules of order and without someone to sustain and apply those rules, there can be neither debate nor opportunity to influence those outside this place who hear or read what we have said.
  It is not only Parliament that has rules for the conduct of its business. Every organisation has such rules because
  938
  without them organisations cannot function. Nowhere is this more true than in the Labour and trade union movement. Every trade union has a rule book, and most of them spell out what can and cannot be done at meetings if the views of the members are to prevail. All grown-up people know that such rules exist and that they must be accepted, and that if they are not, those who breach them must take the consequences. A great deal of our childhood is taken up by learning just that.
  I shall give two examples drawn from the heart of the Labour movement to illustrate what I am trying to say. The rule book of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, of which the hon. Member for Leith is a member, sets out the duties of presidents in the union, from branch presidents to national presidents. The first duty of the branch president in the AEU rule book is to preside over all meetings and to see that the business is conducted with propriety and order. For another example I draw upon Citrine's famous book "ABC of Chairmanship" which spells out that if any delegate to the Trades Union Congress refuses to obey the president when called to order he or she shall be expelled from the hall and allowed back in only if he or she expresses regret and the delegates consent to his or her return.
  That springs from the simple recognition by ordinary working people over the years that the proper and orderly conduct of business is necessary if their interests are to be promoted. There is nothing soft, wet or weak about such an approach. Quite the reverse; it requires self-control, self-discipline and team work. Perhaps we should remember Hemingway's definition of guts, which he described as "grace under pressure."
  Of course, the House of Commons is not always orderly. Many of us, including me, from time to time are ill-disciplined. When this place is disorderly or ill-disciplined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, it is only reflecting what has happened many times in the past. There are many things wrong with this place that Opposition Members would like to see changed. We would like to change the policies of the Government. We would like to change the Government. We would like to see changes in the procedures of this place and make all Governments more accountable. We would like to see far-reaching changes in the working practices here. However, I know of no one who wishes to get rid of the rules that are designed to secure a hearing for all or who wishes to diminish the authority of Mr. Speaker to help to achieve that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that my hon. Friend has got on to the question of working practices in the House, will he take into account the fact that in this quaint little club there are practices that allow Members of Parliament to turn up for work when it suits them without clocking on? It allows Members of Parliament, such as Tory Members, to go on jaunts to the Both a regime, paid for by that evil system. It allows many Tory Members in particular to make money on the side by moonlighting with four, five or six different jobs. Is it not time that the Opposition Front Bench concentrated on those issues instead of attacking one of its own?
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with many of the criticisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has

  939
  levelled at this place and at some Tory Members. However, I do not think that what he is suggesting is the way to go about changing matters.
  We have a Government—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me—who are arrogant with power. They are often unwilling to answer our points. They ignore what we believe to be the sufferings of many of our people. We all find that very frustrating, and our frustration manifests itself in many ways. People occasionally, on the spur of the moment, may do foolish things or behave in a disorderly way. However, that does not mean that they care more about what is happening to our country or that they are working harder in the House than others to try to put things right.
  940
  Day in and day out, most Opposition Members are doing their hardest to represent their constituencies, to expose what is wrong with the Government and to propose alternatives to what is happening to our country. They try to make the most of the opportunities available in this place. They try to be sensible, trenchant, committed and coherent. For those qualities to show through, we need a House of Commons that is orderly, or usually orderly. For it to be orderly, we need to sustain the authority of the Chair, and the only way in which we can do that tonight is by voting for the motion and rejecting the two amendments.
  10.35 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: A great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) must be agreed by the whole House. I would respectfully submit, however, that the bizarre actions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) cannot be seen wholly in isolation. They were but one more instance of a deterioration in the standards of behaviour in this place which has manifested itself in the last few months. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman did—I must say this in fairness—cannot wholly be set apart from what went before.
  There is no escape for any of us who have wittingly or even unwittingly made a contribution to this rising tide of disorder. It is one of life's ironies that we do not always see where our own behaviour is leading us. After this latest episode we should be able to see it all too clearly.
  Let us speak plainly. For some time there have been those in our midst—only a few, I believe—who have been openly advocating the disruption of Parliament as a means to a political end. Are they not as much to blame as the hon. Member for Leith?
  I should like to keep this in perspective. Down the years, disruptive behaviour and even violence have not been unknown in this place. There were many instances in the last century and in this of disorder and violence.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am one of those to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. If the argument is to be generalised, one has to take into account other considerations. I happen to think that it should not be generalised tonight. There is the question of the organised mendacity of others if the right hon. Gentleman intends to make generalisations.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that to intervene at the beginning of an argument is often a waste of time. If he would hear what I have to say, I think that at the end of it he, a formidable parliamentarian in his own right, would understand what I am driving at.
  In 1893, during the 47th sitting on the Home Rule Bill of that year, there was not only complete uproar but violence. According to one report, when it was all over, the Floor of the Chamber was found to be strewn with scarf pins and artificial teeth. But always in the past the overwhelming majority drew back from the brink. Extremist behaviour was curbed and the outside world continued to admire the way in which contrary views could be expressed here with lucidity, with feeling and even on some occasions with passion.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
  Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not give way. This is a short debate and I want to say something which I hope is important. I trust that my hon. Friend will understand.
  There is no need for disruptive behaviour in this place. There are those amongst us who know that in the voicing of grievances and in the righting of wrongs there are procedural devices by which the astute can get results. I have learnt a few of the tricks myself in my time. I know of no greater authority on procedure than my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hislop). In this
  942
  Parliament no fewer than seven hon. Members have been suspended, and there is open talk in some quarters of further disruption of our proceedings.
  I am not making excuses for the hon. Member for Leith. If his defiance of the norms of decent parliamentary behaviour continues, he must be dealt with effectively. One of the greatest of parliamentarians, Edmund Burke, held:
  "Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom".
  That is generally good advice, but there is a point at which we have to say that this House is always more important than the sum total of those who constitute it at any one time.
  Governments come and go. Ministers are vested with a little brief authority. None of us is master here. We are all trustees for the nation, for those who have gone before and for those who are still unborn. Running off with the Mace, throwing it down or dropping it are acts of violence. That "bauble", as Oliver Cromwell referred to it contemptuously, symbolises in one sense the authority which you, Mr. Speaker, derive from the Sovereign. In a wider sense, it symbolises everything that we represent here and seek to defend—a system which facilitates change within a framework of order and proper respect for continuity. To treat the Mace with contempt is to treat the system with contempt, and that is to treat all of us and those who elected us to this place with contempt. It fires a shot at the governing party, but, more than that, it fires a shot at all political parties. It is a direct challenge to the authority of the Chair, and that is what is intended.
  You have a difficult enough task, Mr. Speaker, in holding a fair balance between parties and between strongly expressed, opposing and sincerely held points of view. Precisely because you are the protector of our rights in this place, you are entitled to have our support at all times.
  I remember not so many years ago a formidable figure in the Liberal party—the late Mr. Clement Davies—who, in the midst of a disruptive scene when certain elements were attacking the Chair, silenced the House by saying, "In this country people do not like the side that kicks a referee." If we continue kicking the referee, as some hon. Members seek to do, the game is not worth playing and the public will lose interest. There will be great anger. We must stop the rot while the time is right.
  Whatever our differences, the House will be united on that. You have powers, Mr. Speaker. You should use them. If they are not sufficient in the light of future misbehaviour, the House can give you extra powers. I am convinced that the House is about to draw back from the brink and, therefore, I argue that we should accept the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That should do the trick. I hope that this short debate will illustrate that the House of Commons intends to he master in its own house.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I do not want to dwell at length on the actions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), which have been described by the Leader of the House and the hon. Member fo Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). His abuse of the Mace—the symbol of your authority, Mr. Speaker—and pathetic performance yesterday speak for themselves and merit at least the sanction proposed in the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

  943
  I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated his opposition to the fiscal penalty proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Before embarking on the imposition of fiscal penalties on people, it is important that we think carefully. I welcome the announcement that the Procedure Committee will consider these matters. Certain rules of natural justice, which I hope that the Committee will address, should be observed.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends uphold, above all, the concept of parliamentary democracy. Like the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, we believe that this is a place where political issues are debated. It greatly distresses us when organised barracking drowns out free speech, however unpalatable the views expressed.
  Equally, it distresses us when parties represented in the House suggest outside the House illegal methods of challenging laws passed by the House. If we aspire, as all of us in the various parties do, to come to government and pass laws ourselves, we expect the country at large to obey those laws. That is the essence of parliamentary democracy. We very much regret, therefore, the challenge to parliamentary democracy and to your office, Mr. Speaker, mounted by the hon. Member for Leith, and we support the Leader of the House's motion.
  Finally, I believe that there are other ways in which parliamentary democracy can be undermined. The essence of civilised democracy is that the rights of minorities are respected. When a Government say that they will carry on regardless and do not heed the dissenting voices, even within their own ranks, that quality of listening to minorities—the essence of parliamentary democracy—is undermined.
  The institutions of the House are attacked when the Government opt for the grandeur of the stage-managed press conference instead of coming to answer hon. Members at the Dispatch Box. While we deal with the activities of the hon. Member for Leith, we should remember that there are various ways of undermining parliamentary democracy.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Cranky Onslow: It is clear that both sides of the House are largely united in condemning the disgraceful events that have led to this debate on the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). If you, Mr. Speaker, had been led yesterday simply to name him and he had withdrawn from the House for no more than five days, that would scarcely have been sufficient penalty for the gravity of his offence. We are grateful to you, therefore, for the opportunity to debate the matter more widely.
  It is also important to note that the debate provides an opportunity for the House to focus on a situation that has been causing growing impatience both inside and outside the House. No one gainsays that there must be a place in politics for passion, but we all agree that there is no place in the House for deliberate, cold-blooded disruption of democratic processes.
  That is why it is right to reinforce some of the figures that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave by reminding the House that between 1974 and 1980—a period largely dominated by a Labour Government who could not really be described as popular—there were no
  944
  suspensions in this place. Since 1981, there have been 18. I am glad to say that none of those have come from the party to which I have the honour to belong.
  You, Mr. Speaker, know that many of my hon. Friends have been deeply angered by the persistent challenges to your authority. That is why I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said about the re-establishment of the Procedure Committee for which many of us have been pressing for a long time. If cur Standing Orders need to be reinforced, that is the right way to go about it. If the penalties are inadequate, that is the right place to debate how much stronger they should be made. But if the House then decides that the Chair needs stronger powers, the purpose of those powers will not be to suppress opposition or to create martyrs, because it is a mistake in politics to do either of those things.
  In the days of John Wilkes, the occupant of the Chair, Mr. Speaker Onslow, once found himself burnt in effigy on Tower Hill by the street politicians of the day. Because they thought that they were defending a martyr, they raised the cry of, "Wilkes and liberty." However, this evening we are not talking about liberty; we are talking about licence. There is no doubt that the abuse of his position by the hon. Member for Leith makes it necessary that his licence should be withdrawn, as the motion proposes.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like to move my amendment which would—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to move his amendment at the end. This is a general debate.
  Mr. Cryer: I hope that the House will support my amendment and I shall say briefly why. A principal reason is that the atmosphere of the House yesterday was not the cosy, still atmosphere that some hon. Members imply in their condemnation. There was a great deal of shouting and bellowing from the pinstriped hooligans on the Tory Benches, and that must be taken into account. When hon. Members talk about undermining democracy, they would do well to remember that Peter Wright wrote more about that in MI5 than whatever could have conceivably happened in this place.
  This place rests on precedent. "Erskine May" is virtually a list of them—a thick list. We can recall, for example, the precedent of the right hon. Member For Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the night when he came down, took up the Mace and started whirling it around. He was forced to put it back by the moderate Jim Prior who presumably did not think that that was the way forward for the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman apologised the following day and no more was heard about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Gentleman was heard in silence. We are considering the difference between the two cases. The apology from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was less than fulsome, but it was repeated twice—[Interruption.] Yet, the House is saying that for a fumbled apology my hon. Friend should be suspended; for 20 days.
  There is a further precedent for this resolution. On Monday 1 November 1976, the House established a Select Committee to examine the conduct of three hon. Members. The report was considered on 26 July and one

  945
  of the hon. Members subsequently resigned. Those three had consistently over several years used their position as Members of the House for personal financial gain in approaches to Ministers and public bodies, and in asking questions and raising issues in the House. Those financial gains were never disclosed. It would be fair to say that all three were in the pocket of J. G. L. Poulson.
  As I have mentioned, one resigned. Albert Roberts and Reginald Maudling faced a similar resolution to this one. What were the precedents then? Were a large number of Conservatives waiting for blood, as is obviously the case tonight? The resolution to agree with the Select Committee report—a Select Committee established and approved by the House—was defeated and an amendment was inserted simply to "take note" of the report. Resolutions to suspend the two for six months without pay were defeated by massive majorities of about 200. After a career of abusing the House for several years, those two hon. Members got off scot-free, despite being involved in one of the widest cases of local and national government corruption in the 20th century.
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said:
  "We should realise, looking back over the period in question, which is 13 to 14 years, that there are few of us who can say that we have done everything completely as we might have wished or who have not made the odd mistake. If our colleagues have erred in any judgment, they have suffered more than enough from the publicity following the Report and during previous years when their names were constantly in the headlines.
  We can serve the House best and show understanding best by taking note and leaving the matter there."—[Official Report, 26 July 1977; Vol. 936 c. 438.]
  I recall that you, Mr. Speaker were convinced by that
  call for consideration and understanding, and voted for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. I urge the House to have the same compassion and understanding that the hon. Gentleman had on that occasion.
  The truth of the matter is that we are here dealing with two very minor incidents compared with that on 26 July 1977. The House would do well to bear that fact in mind and support my amendment, which allows for a "take note" motion as on 26 July and for the costs of repairing the Mace to be charged to my hon. Friend the Member for Leith.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This is a matter of the utmost gravity, as seems to be widely agreed throughout the House, though I have to say that what has just been said by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggests that he does not understand its gravity.
  We must all begin from the point that the Mace symbolises not only the House itself but your authority, Mr. Speaker. The House cannot let go unrecognised or unpunished the actions of a Member who lifts the Mace and drops it or throws it to the floor and damages it. That action goes beyond the mere damage done to the Mace. It suggests an attitude to the House and to your authority, Mr. Speaker, that is totally unacceptable.
  We are not looking at this action in isolation, because it must be seen in the context of something that has already
  946
  been mentioned this evening—a growing incidence of such activities in the House. It is against that background that the activities of the hon. Member for Edinburgh Leith (Mr. Brown) must be judged.
  Reference must also be made to the events in the House yesterday. When the hon. Member for Leith was given opportunity to apologise to the House, he deliberately refused that opportunity and set out systematically to undermine the authority of the Chair. His use of the phrase
  "I did not write this rubbish."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 676.]
  when referring to the agreed apology, sums up well the attitude of the hon. Member to yourself, Mr. Speaker, to the Chair, and to the House. In that respect, the hon. Gentleman's attitude and activities must be regarded as completely unacceptable.
  There is a motion before the House in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the House should be grateful for the fact the Opposition have seen fit to support it. I do not believe that it goes far enough. One of the main reasons is that it seeks merely to suspend the hon. Gentleman for 20 days, with no effect on his pay.
  I shall now answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He told the House that we are to have a Procedure Committee and that it will consider the matter before us. In the light of what has happened in the past two days, I believe that it is the right and the duty of the House to judge the actions of the hon. Member for Leith and to give the Procedure Committee guidance on the action that it should take, by accepting the terms of my amendment. That would tell the Committee, under the authority of the House, that the House expects the penalties available to you, Mr. Speaker, to be much more severe in future.
  If we were to accept the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, supported by the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Leith, would be suspended, yes, but he would be able to return to the service of the House without ever having given an apology to the House for what he did. I view that as completely unacceptable. My amendment, in requiring from the hon. Gentleman an apology that is acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House before he is allowed to return, is the only basis on which we can allow him to return. I hope that the House will consider that proposal most seriously in determining how it votes this evening.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: This is a sad occasion for the House of Commons, and any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who takes pleasure from this debate must have a perverted sense of justice. It is at moments like this that I never envy a judge or magistrate having to sit in judgment on his fellow men. I do not enjoy what is happening in the House tonight, and I suspect strongly that there are a great many right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches and in all quarters of the House who share my sadness that we have to sit in judgment on one of our colleagues.
  When I go into the Division Lobby, as I will, it will be in support of the motion. I say to my colleagues who are in doubt that this is a Labour party motion—an Opposition motion—as much as it is a Government motion. When I go into the Lobby to support the motion I shall do so, not to punish my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), but to show my personal

  947
  displeasure—I can put it in no other words—at his conduct yesterday and the day before. The one thing that I shall not do is regard myself as going into the Lobby along with Conservative Members: I shall not see it in that light. This is, as I have said, as much a Labour as a Government motion. I shall also see myself, Mr. Speaker, as supporting you and the Chair.
  I say openly and honestly that I have not always done that. I have never voted against a Speaker, but on occasions I have deliberately abstained. There have been times when I have played my part in disrupting the proceedings of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the shadow Leader of the House—made the telling point that, by the very nature of the Chamber, the issues with which we deal are bound, at one time or another, to result in our feelings spilling over so that we do things that we might not have done in our calmer moments.
  Let me inject a lighter note into the few remarks that I wish to make. A comparison was drawn between my hon. Friend the Member for Leith and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and I should like to take the comparison a bit further. After the right hon. Member for Henley had waved the Mace in the House, Mr. Speaker Thomas suspended the sitting and refused to allow him to make his apology there and then. That was why the right hon. Gentleman had to come back and apologise the following day. But look at what has happened to the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to become a Cabinet Minister, and he is now challenging others for the position of leader of his party. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leith should give some further consideration to the apology that he refused to make yesterday.
  Some of my colleagues—with most of whom I have had a lifelong friendship—now take the view that disruption should lead to destruction. Anyone who holds that view should dismiss it from his thoughts. We as a Labour movement have fought long and hard to represent our people here in this Chamber. If we destroy this place, we have no place left in which to voice the fears, worries and concerns of the people whom we represent.
  Some of my hon. Friends may say, "Let us disregard this place and take the argument to the people." All right: we will follow that through. We take the argument to the people and we convince them: where do we go then? We will have no place left for legislation.
  I caution all my hon. Friends who think that the way to unseat the Government—the way to prosecute our case—is to disrupt and destroy the Chamber to think long and carefully about where that process ends. It ends where it began: it ends without representation for the very people whom we are sent here to represent.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: As a new boy—a member of the new intake—I found that it seemed almost like normal behaviour over the past 10 months to see Member after Member named by you, Mr. Speaker, for disruption in the House. It was with some surprise that I found that not a single hon. Member needed to be named and dismissed from the service of the House between 1974 and 1980.
  In 1981 the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) found a method of disrupting this place and had to be named. The rot started there, and unfortunately the
  948
  next person to decide that this was a good way of getting his name into the newspapers was none other than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) who was dismissed from the service of the House not once, but twice. It is interesting to note that on both those occasions, Mr. Speaker Thomas did not need to call a vote. the hon. Gentleman was immediately suspended on the unanimous verbal vote of the whole House.
  Now, time after time, it is necessary to suspend the business of the House for 15 minutes or more at a time, so that some hon. Member can get his name in the papers.
  It is easy to be out of order by mistake in this place. It could be judged a legitimate parliamentary tactic to be deliberately out of order, but what cannot be sustained is that you should be challenged, Mr. Speaker, when you rule an hon. Member out of order. There are parliamentary tactics available to us for attacking our opponents, but we should never attack the Chair.
  The best form of discipline is self-discipline. It would be good if all hon. Members understood that, but clearly they do not. I shall certainly support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for the hon. Member for Leith to be suspended for a long period, to lose his salary and to have to apologise to the Chair before he returns.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: Tonight the House is sitting, as you said, Mr. Speaker, in a judicial capacity. We are the prosecution, the judge and the jury, and the executioner stands in the Serjeant at Arms' Box.
  This is a House of Commons matter, on which we should all be free to vote. I am deeply uneasy about a sentence negotiated between the two Front Benches, for the simple reason that, on matters of this sort, every hon. Member must reach a judgment. [Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen to my argument, because I am not in favour of hon. Members getting themselves expelled from the House.
  If I had ever been asked by anyone—I have not—I should have advised them that there were other ways of getting their case across—in questions, speeches, motions, points of order, and even in motions of censure against the Speaker. On one occasion I moved such a motion, which was well in order. Those who say that hon. Members must support the Speaker forget that there is an ultimate right to move a motion against him if that is the right thing to do.
  At the same time, I know that there is a degree of anger about what is happening in this country and about the violence that is being perpetrated against our constituents by the Conservative party. That leads to much anger among hon. Members. The question for us tonight is solely what we should do about it.
  I want to put a simple point before the House. We are a representative body and our duty is to those who sent us here and not to each other—except in one special context. We hold our privileges on behalf of those who sent us here. If an hon. Member says, "I do not want the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith back until he has done this or that," he is assuming the rights of my hon. Friend's constituents. No hon. Member is in the House because other hon. Members approve of him. The day that we accept that the House can remove an hon. Member will be the day that we destroy parliamentary democracy.

  949
  I say that with some feeling, because, historically, some hon. Members have been in the most severe breach of duty. I refer to hon. Members elected on one party ticket who remain in the House and change their allegiance. I regard that as a profound betrayal of their true responsibility to their constituents. In that regard, I shall make a reference that is of special relevance. My father was the Liberal Member for Leith. The day that he joined the Labour party he applied for the Chiltern Hundreds and left the House. Unlike the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), he did not believe that it was right to be elected as a Liberal Member and remain in the House as a Labour one.
  If we remove my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) we are punishing not him—except financially—but his constituents. I do not think that the House has the right to remove hon. Members. I say that with some feeling, because I was expelled from the House by the House on the most ludicrous ground of peerage. I was an elected Member for 10 years, and the same sort of hon. Member who will troop through the Lobby to get rid of my hon. Friend, denied the electors of Bristol—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member should have a right to say what he wishes, provided it is in order, and the right hon. Gentleman is in order.
  Mr. Benn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for supporting what I am saying. [Laughter.] When the passions of hon. Members subside, it may be that the high excitement tonight would not look so good if a precedent were to be created and became part of the procedure of the House.
  It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith broke the rules of the House, but they are not the same as the basic principles of parliamentary democracy; they are the rules of the club. If parliamentary democracy depended on a bit of metal on the Table, we would all be in trouble.
  If one looks at the history of disorder, one sees that there are some formidable precedents. The King came here and Mr. Speaker Lenthall had to deal with him. Cromwell removed the bauble. The home rule debates of the 1880s led to the first invention of a closure. There was no English word for it, so the French word, "cloture" had to be used, and then we moved to "guillotine" and other French words. It was unknown in our history to limit debate.
  Before the war, Beckett swung the Mace about and was put in the Clock Tower. As there have been so many references to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) I shall not add to them. Manny Shinwell—who, on his 100th birthday, was paid a special tribute in the House of Lords—crossed the Floor of the House and struck Commander Bower because he thought that he had made an anti-Semitic remark. In my time, George Wigg struck a Tory Member in the precincts of the House. Bernadette Devlin struck Reginald Maudling. Private Eye said that she nearly woke him up.
  The reality is that we can become awfully pompous about disorder in the House. I shall tell one brief true story concerning my former hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, Leslie Hale and the then Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Charles MacAndrew. Leslie was
  950
  short and red faced and Sir Charles MacAndrew was tall and severe with white hair that looked like a wig. One night, in the middle of a Committee stage, Leslie Hale was speaking. MacAndrew told him to withdraw a remark. Hale said he would not. MacAndrew said "Are you challenging my ruling?" Hale said, "Yes, I am." Sir Charles MacAndrew said, "I shall ask you to leave." Hale said, "I will not leave." Then it all faded away. I said to Leslie Hale afterwards, "What happened?" and he said, "Charlie MacAndrew came up to me and said, 'I have guests in the Gallery tonight Leslie. Will you challenge one of my rulings?'."
  That is an absolutely true story—[Interruption.] Dare I say it, there is a lot of synthetic indignation and the day will come when we will bring children round and say, "That is where it happened."
  You, Mr. Speaker, have at your disposal the power to suspend the sitting. You can take an idea from the other place—not a Chamber which I like—which adopts the practice of moving that "the noble Lord be no longer heard." That is a disciplinary measure. You, Mr. Speaker, could rely on pressure from colleagues. As you look at the angry faces on our Benches, you know that whatever the House does to my hon. Friend is nothing to the fate that awaits him when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gets at him when he returns.
  Are you, Mr. Speaker, really saying that this is the end of parliamentary democracy? It is nothing of the kind. In my opinion, my hon. Friend did a silly thing. I have told him that tonight, he should get up, read the apology, say nothing and withdraw. I gave him that advice because the House is happy always to accept it.
  I beg the House tonight, in high passion with some entertainment value added, not to go through the Lobby and throw out a Member of this House for four weeks for what, however we judge it, was a minor offence. It was not a pre-arranged offence, it was nothing to do with a plan of disruption discussed secretly by hon. Members. It was nothing of the kind.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Benn: No. I am on my last words.
  I appeal to hon. Members to have a sense of proportion about the whole matter.
  Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Benn: I shall finish on these words, if I am allowed to get them out. I am depending on you, Mr. Speaker to protect me from my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member is not giving way.
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way to my hon. Friend, but if he gets slung out, I will support him. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Faulds: It is parliamentary convention for hon. Members to give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not giving way.
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way only because, knowing my hon. Friend very well, he might make it worse. Therefore, I hope that the House will allow me to say my last sentence.

  951
  Have a sense of proportion. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith has done something for which I fear later his colleagues will exact a terrible price. I shall make a similar speech when the moment comes. Tonight, the House has made its point and I suggest that we leave it with two speeches, we do not go into the Lobbies, and we let it pass into the history of the Chamber along with more dangerous and sensational events.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: We have just heard a delightful speech, a tour de force, a patrician view. Those who live cocooned in that kind of political and physical comfort often can be much more detached, if not semi-detached, about these affairs.
  I suggest to the House that there is an underlying seriousness. The House knows perfectly well that this is a disagreeable and uncomfortable occasion that we would much rather do without. At least we have had the advantage of the debate being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and responded to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in a manner which has elevated it as much as possible in these circumstances.
  I ask the House to consider only two points. They may be dull and pedestrian. They do not have the panache and the glamour of the preceding speech, but they are possibly closer to the working-day reality of the House. The Mace exerts an almost mesmerising attraction for politicians from time to time. Such behaviour has occurred not just since the last war. It occurred in the interval between the two wars when a Mr. Forgan and a Mr. Beckett took charge of the Mace.
  The Mace represents something of the utmost significance to the House. There are very few institutions to which we belong where there are not symbols that command collegiate respect. Therefore, the handling of the Mace is naturally not a matter of farce or dismissive comment. It is symbolic because of its wider implications.
  I speak in all charity when I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) that all hon. Members are fighting their corner and that we have a pretty dismissive view of the judgment of our fellow Members. The hon. Gentleman is being arraigned on a question of judgment, certainly not on a question of honour. When one recalls the opportunity for the apology, it was the hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to abide by an unconditional agreement that worried me. The hon. Gentleman is not the only guilty one, but I do not intend to widen the debate.
  To put it in as neutral terms as I can contrive, there has grown up over some time an increasing reluctance to accept Mr. Speaker's ruling, the judgment of the Chair, in a total and complete fashion, without any qualification whatsoever. I have watched—I must admit, reminiscent of my own days in the ranks of the Army, with some envy—the development of dumb insolence into an art form. That cannot continue. I promise the House that that kind of development is corrosive of authority and that eventually we shall all pay for it.
  That brings me to the point that was so eloquently made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). The rules, orders and conventions, and the symbols that represent them that are evident in this House, are not the manufacture of the Treasury Bench. They are the manufacture of the House of Commons over the decades,
  952
  generations and centuries. Above all, they have been of value to unfashionable minorities—minorities who came here to crusade. When Red Clydesiders came to this House of Commons they did not come to it to destroy its institutions. They came to use them. To the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is muttering away, I say that if he can leave this institution with the reputation of Jimmy Maxton, he will have done pretty well by Socialism and pretty well by radicalism.
  We must defend the Orders of the House, not to be on the side of the establishment but to protect essentially minority interests. That can be done only if we show a much more increased and a much more evident respect for authority both in this context and over a much wider field.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) who, as his neighbour the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out yesterday, suffered an industrial injury which, in the context of a motion for the Adjournment of the House on a matter relating to supplementary benefit appeals, led to his misuse of the Mace.
  I have equal sympathy with you, Mr. Speaker, in your endeavours, with patience and good humour, to hold hon. Members to the Standing Orders of this House and to the precedents of "Erskine May". A massive Tory majority is being used not moderately, as we would expect, to unite the nation but to tear us all asunder. It seems determined to create not one nation among our people but a series of different nations and a series of mini-statelets consisting of the poor, the oppressed and the bewildered who, unable to fend for themselves, find a stony-faced Government bearing down upon them. They look to Parliament to redress their grievances and to protect their interests as best it can.
  Faced with an onslaught on the living standards of those who sent Labour Members to Parliament—the onslaught on our National Health Service, on those who are entitled to social security, on those who have not gained what they thought they might gain under the Budget, and on those who are the victims of an iniquitous and divisive Government, with its poll tax—faced with these monumental and ravaging attacks, it is hardly surprising that discipline breaks down, frustration creeps in, and that frustration should express itself in aggressive ways and manners inappropriate to this House.
  However, to explain how these things happen is not to justify them happening. However high ran the emotions of the hon. Member for Leith on Monday evening, the situation could not justify his refusal to make a personal statement to this House on the following day, when his emotions had cooled and when he had had an ample period for reflection. Indeed, those hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight, and who were in the Chamber yesterday, noted how, with firmness but forebearance, you, Mr. Speaker, gave the hon. Gentleman every opportunity to make the statement which you had given him leave to make. His failure to do so brought contempt upon the Chair, and also brought contempt upon our parliamentary proceedings.
  It is, of course, a parliamentary privilege to make a personal statement uninterrupted, which is without intervention or debate. As the hon. Member for Hornsey

  953
  and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) stated yesterday, the House will listen with indulgence and sympathy to those who have been carried away in the heat of the moment. However, privilege—parliamentary privilege—goes to the heart of our proceedings. The privilege to speak freely on any subject is a privilege that we claim from the Monarch at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session.
  I advise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that this House has exclusive control over its own proceedings, and has seen the enhancement of our parliamentary democracy since the time of William and Mary, many years ago. It was Mr. Justice Coke—if I might tell the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—who in 1565 noted:
  "Whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates and not elsewhere".
  Therefore, if power and privilege rest with us, so too does responsibility. It is a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, we owe to you in the Chair. We owe it to you to uphold the authority of the Chair. It is a responsibility that we bear to the British people that the Executive should be held to account, that its policies should be probed and questioned, that hon. Members should be kept on their toes and feel understandably nervous at the Dispatch Box.
  Any failure of this House to act responsibly towards a Member who has brought it into disrepute demeans the House and its reputation and diminishes it in the eyes of the public. What signal do we send to our collective electorate if we are unable to control the conduct of our own affairs?
  I advise Labour Members that we are in a privileged position. We are in the vanguard of the Labour movement. We represent millions of voters out there in the field. If we act responsibly, they will respond to us. For that reason, I support the motion.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I draw attention to what I said at the beginning of the debate. If the House desires to have two votes on this matter, we should be thinking about drawing the debate to a close.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Ron Brown: Perhaps there was a misunderstanding yesterday about what was meant by a personal statement. Certainly I knew what I intended to say, even though you, Mr. Speaker may have thought differently. That is in the past. I make it clear to the House that, if there is any damage to the Mace, it will be paid for by myself and my friends back home—the members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—who are quite happy to do what they can to make everything better, if that is what you want. They will certainly look at the Mace simply because it symbolises so much to so many hon. Members, on both sides of the House. We recognise that such things are important to certain hon. Members.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you have that as a guarantee from me, but you still know my strength of feeling, bearing in mind what is happening to working class people, not just in Scotland but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should be borne in mind. That is not a
  954
  political statement, but a statement that I make as the representative of Leith. I feel strongly about many things that have happened repeatedly since 1979.
  11.30 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The only reason I intervene is that I am probably the only Conservative Member who knows the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) well. The hon. Gentleman and I have paired for the last nine years—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will not escape the notice of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members that I therefore have something of a vested interest in what the House decides. However, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will accept that that is not the reason why I intervene. I do so because having known the hon. Gentleman for nine years and having got to know him quite well, I know him to be someone for whose political views I have absolutely no time at all and whose judgment I sometimes question politically.
  I seldom agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has urged the hon. Gentleman to apologise, as I did at some length last night. I have intervened because I should like the House, and especially my hon. Friends, to take into account the fact that, having got to know the hon. Gentleman quite well, I find him to be someone of absolute integrity and total honesty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the former Leader of the House said, this is not a question of the hon. Gentleman's honour, it is a question of his judgment. In my opinion, his judgment is appalling.
  No one in the House would feel otherwise than that your authority, Mr. Speaker, has been questioned, that it should not have been and that action must be taken. However, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, when deciding the level of penalty, to take into account the fact that the hon. Gentleman's integrity sometimes leads him astray—on that occasion, it certainly did—and that they give him the benefit of that judgment.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Everyone in the House gets excited on occasions. If they do not get excited, they are not reflecting the worries, fears and excitement of their constituents. I well remember, when I first became a Member of the House, that Dame Irene Ward who had a great problem in her area, and who had raised the matter with the Ministers of the day time after time, without getting anywhere, walked from her place, stood in front of the Mace and, for a period of time, disrupted the House, and was named.
  I had never seen that before, but I stored it in my memory until an occasion when we had been debating the Industrial Relations Act 1971. About 20 or 30 hon. Members—all members of the Tribune group, led incidentally by the present chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—stood in front of the Mace. I got up from the Front Bench and stood with them. We expected to be named, but Mr. Speaker of the day was a highly intelligent person. He looked through, round, above and below us, and he did not see us. He decided that we were not there.

  955
  The Division was called and it was then that the sitting was suspended. The then Mr. Speaker called a Division on a second occasion, as we had done it again.
  Disruption has taken place on many occasions. I remember my hon. Friends and I singing "The Red Flag". I remember also the present leader of the Labour party joining in heartily. Indeed, he may have led the singing of "The Red Flag". Some of my hon. Friends threw pennies at us. They were the old-style large pennies. Had one of those pennies hit an hon. Member in the eye, it could have knocked it out. That was an act of some violence in the House. Let us get these matters into perspective.
  I believe that there was a misunderstanding yesterday—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would listen carefully to what is being said. I said yesterday that I had not realised that personal statements made by hon. Members were agreed. I turned to the relevant passage in "Erskine May", and found that it does not provide that such statements have to be agreed: The passage reads:
  "provided that the Speaker has been informed of what the Member proposes to say, and has given leave."
  I understand that that provision has been interpreted over the years as meaning that Mr. Speaker has to agree the words in the statement.
  I understand also that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) did not meet and speak to you, Mr. Speaker, on any occasion yesterday. Instead, the matter was handled through the Opposition Whips' Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith was asked to go to the Chief Whip's Room, and I understand that he stayed there for some time. He did not stay there throughout, and I do not know to where he disappeared. I know only that he disappeared after a period.
  My hon. Friend was handed the statement when he came into the Chamber, and it had never been discussed between him and yourself, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be an agreed statement, surely Mr. Speaker of the day and the Member, whoever he is, should ensure that there is a properly agreed statement, if that is the way in which such statements are to be handled.
  If we heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Leith said or if we read what he said yesterday, it is clear that he was trying to apologise in his own way—[Interruption] I ask all hon. Members not to use a sledgehammer—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on.
  Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the House is slightly in front of me.
  That is what I want to say to the House. In my opinion, the House has to be compassionate on this issue. I have defended many hon. Members over the years on issues when sometimes, looking back, perhaps I ought not to have done. However, I believe that hon. Members can get highly excited on occasions and we should take that into consideration. That is why I am asking the House to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), which I think is the best answer to the issue before us.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I move my amendment?
  Mr. Speaker: Other hon. Members are rising to speak. It is not up to me to accept a closure on timed business such as this.
  Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are still on the main Question. It is not possible to move the amendment at this point.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) certainly entertained and enlightened the House. However, I believe that he has taken us away from the main issue and I hope that he will not seduce us from it.
  The hon. Members who came closest to dealing with the main issue were, in my estimation, the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). They underlined the fact that this is a House of Commons occasion. We are not seeking vindictively to punish an individual Member who might have done things that he now, to some degree, repents. We are talking about upholding the authority of the Chair because whoever occupies the Chair, it protects all hon. Members. We are also underlining the importance of the two red lines on the floor of the Chamber that we see every time we come in here. They symbolise the fact that here we should seek to solve our differences by argument and persuasion, not by other means.
  A total of 37 of my hon. Friends and I know what it is like to be in a minority this week, and it is for the protection of minorities, above all, that the rules and procedures of the House have been devised. It is important that every hon. Member should have the opportunity to express his opinions, however objectionable those opinions might be to his colleagues. However, it is not up to any hon. Member to usurp or desecrate the authority of the House or to challenge the Chair and, in so doing, to do the gravest disservice that he can possibly do to his constituency and those who sent him here to represent their interests.
  I accept entirely the generous words that were uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who, in three weeks' time will have the good fortune to pair with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). I do not wish to repudiate what he said. I say this in no spirit of personal recrimination, but if the House does not unite behind the Chair and in support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, it will have abdicated its authority. We need a united House behind you, Mr. Speaker, because of what is at stake.
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: In supporting the motion, may I point out that my background is the trade union movement and local government. On no occasion in the trade union movement or in my service in local government would the kind of behaviour that we are considering have been allowed. It is all right for some hon. Members to talk about the rules of the club, but those rules sometimes work in favour of Privy Councillors, who are called to speak before Back Benchers such as myself.

  957
  I take exception to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and other hon. Members who may have been removed from the House saying that they are the only ones who care about unemployment and the poor. Like other Back Benchers, I have to take my chance on being called to speak. I have not had an opportunity tonight to speak about the poll tax, which will affect people in Scotland before it affects people south of the border—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the order this day.
  The House divided: Ayes 463, Noes 27.

  Division No. 270]

  [11.46 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Adley, Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Alton, David

  Butler, Chris

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Amos, Alan

  Caborn, Richard

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Cartwright, John

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkins, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, David

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

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clelland, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beckett, Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, John

  Blair, Tony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cox, Tom

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Crowther, Stan

  Bowis, John

  Cummings, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Curry, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Darling, Alistair

  Brazier, Julian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Day, Stephen

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

  Devlin, Tim

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Doran, Frank

  958

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hill, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Dunn, Bob

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Durant, Tony

  Holland, Stuart

  Eadie, Alexander

  Holt, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Howard, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Howells, Geraint

  Favell, Tony

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Fisher, Mark

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Flynn, Paul

  Hunter, Andrew

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Forman, Nigel

  Irvine, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Jack, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Jackson, Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Janman, Tim

  Foulkes, George

  Janner, Greville

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Jessel, Toby

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  John, Brynmor

  Franks, Cecil

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  French, Douglas

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Fry, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Gale, Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Key, Robert

  George, Bruce

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Gill, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Knapman, Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Gorst, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Gould, Bryan

  Knox, David

  Gow, Ian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Lang, Ian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Latham, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Gregory, Conal

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Grist, Ian

  Lewis, Terry

  Ground, Patrick

  Lightbown, David

  Grylls, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Livsey, Richard

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Lord, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McCrea, Rev William

  Harris, David

  McCrindle, Robert

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Hawkins, Christopher

  McFall, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Haynes, Frank

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Heddle, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Henderson, Doug

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  959

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Rogers, Allan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Rost, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Rowe, Andrew

  Maples, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marland, Paul

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ryder, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Martlew, Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mates, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Maxton, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Michael, Alun

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Miller, Hal

  Shersby, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sims, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Morley, Elliott

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Soley, Clive

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Speed, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Speller, Tony

  Murphy, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Needham, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Neubert, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stern, Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Stevens, Lewis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stokes, John

  Paice, James

  Stott, Roger

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Straw, Jack

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Pawsey, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thorne, Neil

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Reid, Dr John

  Tredinnick, David

  Renton, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Trotter, Neville

  Richardson, Jo

  Turner, Dennis

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Jullan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Vaz, Keith

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Robertson, George

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walden, George

  960

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wilshire, David

  Wallace, James

  Wilson, Brian

  Waller, Gary

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ward, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wood, Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Worthington, Tony

  Watts, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wheeler, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Dlane

  Madden, Max

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Nellist, Dave

  Clay, Bob

  Parry, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cryer, Bob

  Sedgemore, Brian

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wall, Pat

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Harry Cohen and

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Dennis Canavan.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Ron Brown be suspended from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, and be held responsible for the damage that was sustained by the Mace.

  PETITIONS

    Maternity Services
    12.2 am
    Mr. John McAllion: I beg to present a petition on behalf of more than 200 midwives and mothers from Dundee who are calling on the House—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber quietly?
    Mr. McAllion: Those midwives and mothers are calling on the House to face the facts about the crisis in the country's maternity services—[interruption.] caused by the Government's underfunding of the Health Service in general—[Interruption.] and the maternity service—[Interruption.]
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Words are being used by Opposition Members such as louse, coward and philistine. I ask you to ask the hon. Gentlemen to withdraw those unparliamentary terms.
    Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members below the Gangway and elsewhere are not interested in the petition, will they kindly leave the Chamber while we get on with the business of the House?
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Eric Forth: Go, go.
    Mr. Douglas: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has done enough damage today to the reputation of the House without telling me and others how to behave.
    I distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who is standing beyond the Bar refer to some of us who abstained, having listened to all the debate—[Interruption.] Yes, we listened to all the debate—as lacking moral courage. Anyone who says that is beneath contempt. If I used words such as louse, and they are unparliamentary, I would withdraw them.
    I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your powers to censure people who will not come into the Chamber from the outer precincts of the House and who use that situation—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the whole House in the aftermath of the debate we have just had that I hope that behaviour in this Chamber will proceed in good order. I was listening to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who was raising his petition. I was not listening to what was going on beyond the Gangway. I call Mr. John McAllion.
    Mr. McAllion: If the right hon Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) wishes to display moral courage, perhaps he will stay behind and lend his support to the 300 midwives and mothers in Dundee who call upon this House to face the facts about the crisis in the country's Health Service and in particular in the maternity services.
    The petition further calls upon the Commons to support the Royal College of Midwives in calling upon the Government to provide the funding that will remove the risk to mothers and babies that at present exists. I heartily commend this petition to the House.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I beg to present a petition against the poll tax in Scotland which was gathered at the Springburn shopping centre. There are at least 1,500 signatures, including that of my wife, Mary. I can assure the House that no one at Springburn shopping centre refused to sign the petition when asked. That shows that there is absolutely no support for the poll tax in Scotland. I have pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  12.6 am
  Mr. William McKelvey: I much appreciate this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the importance of the subject for debate tonight. While I agree that many elderly people are living contented and satisfied lives in residential and nursing homes, we have evidence that many others are spending years in drab and boring hospital institutions that offer little prospect for privacy and dignity in advancing years.
  Many elderly people become confused and upset when they are uprooted to other types of houses or hospitals as their infirmity advances. The proposal we are debating tonight is that all elderly people in care and in accommodation in Scotland should be subject to some form of registration, and that such registration should cover all providers of care for the elderly, including local authorities, health boards, owners of private homes, and voluntary organisations.
  I am aware that a system of sorts operates in England and Wales, but the legislation underpinning it is merely a consolidation of various practices and legal obligations that have grown with time. That system contains numerous pitfalls that I hope we might escape in Scotland. We have a golden opportunity to learn from those mistakes, so that we can and will create a legislative framework that will take us into the 21st century, with a clear vision of our obligations to the growing numbers of elderly in our communities and our ability to meet them.
  Registration should be a means of demanding that universal standards apply to all settings in which the elderly live permanently. It must include regular inspections to ensure that standards are maintained, as is outlined in paragraph 6 of the Griffiths report and in paragraph 30 of the Wagner report.
  I suggest that the registration body should have to be made up of experts in health, housing and social services, perhaps also including a representative from a national organisation such as Age Concern, which does such magnificent work on behalf of the elderly. I earnestly believe that such a body should have a degree of autonomy, with experts seconded from such major organisations. A multi-disciplinary body such as this is more likely to be able to take enforcement action which a single authority might find itself reluctant to take because of the consequent responsibility for homelessness which the most extreme action may require.
  Demographic trends show a significant and advancing increase in the number of people over the age of 75, and an even greater increase in the number who—thankfully—are living beyond the age of 85. The latter are more likely to be physically and/or mentally frail. They are more likely to be single or widowed, and hence to live alone. They are also more likely, as the records show, to have poor housing and a low income. They are thus more likely to need proper residential care.
  The task is a large one, and it is growing extremely fast. Indeed, outwith my constituency, in Ayrshire alone, the increase in homes for the elderly is already quite stunning.

  963
  In 1980 there were just 200 places; now there are 1,400. Registration is therefore essential to ensure universal and adequate conditions.
  The registration must have as its purpose the requirement to meet basic human needs. The need for food, shelter, warmth, personal space, autonomy and identity are, as I am sure most hon. Members will agree, fundamental, and are not diminished with advancing age. Indeed, the reverse is the case.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when he and I and other Ayrshire Members met the Ayrshire and Arran health board, the officers of that board also confirmed their concern about the increase in the number of places for the elderly, and the difficulty of registration in Ayrshire; and that they support the plea that he is putting forward tonight?
  Mr. McKelvey: I shall underline that shortly by reading a brief paragraph from a communication that I received from the authority.
  Old people should reasonably expect the same standards of accommodation as younger or fit people in their own homes. Indeed, as their universe is often limited to their own surroundings, I feel that it is more important for them to expect and receive a higher standard of accommodation and care. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that the elderly fall neatly into set categories requiring less or more care. We are dealing with human beings, not cans of beans. These people cannot be shuttled about in the system as they grow more frail and elderly—or, indeed, become less profitable. That, I feel, should be uppermost in our minds. I consider it unnecessary and, indeed, cruel to shunt elderly people around because of lack of nursing provision. Often such nursing care may take only a short time to perform, and it is less often in any sense intensive.
  If a residential home becomes overburdened with frail and elderly people at the extreme end of dependency, the level of nursing care for that home should be increased correspondingly. That raises two important issues which I am sure have already been brought to the Minister's attention: the assessment of need for nursing care, and the knotty problem of finance. Age Concern has researched all those issues thoroughly, and has come to the sensible conclusion that full health and social assessment should be undertaken before any elderly person enters any type of residential care, and should continue at regular intervals thereafter—that is most important—for each resident. In that way, the owners or authorities concerned are able to assess requirements, and detect any deterioration or indeed improvement in condition, and are able to plan resources accordingly.
  Assessment takes place in some areas of residential care, particularly in local authority and health board homes and hospitals. Some private nursing homes, to their credit, have also undertaken this form of assessment. The problem is that it is piecemeal and that, when it takes place, some things, particularly social considerations, may be completely ignored or overlooked. That is why I suggest that a multi-disciplinary body, much like that previously suggested for registration, should be set up to assess all potential and permanent residents in all types of
  964
  accommodation. Such a body could consist of health workers, social workers and housing experts and include an advocate to speak on the residents' behalf.
  Nursing care costs money—everyone knows that—and it is likely that fees will increase as the need for nursing care increases beyond a certain point. That must be made clear to residents or their representatives on entering residential accommodation, and the means to do that should be an initial contract with the resident and any subsidising authority. Such a contract is essential to ensuring that residents are not unduly worried by rising fees that are not agreed by the subsidising authority.
  This problem has already caused considerable concern to residents and their families in my constituency. A lady came to see me who was concerned about the care for her mother in a residential home. She had been gazumped. Two months before the new prices were to be announced by the DHSS, the owners of the home demanded another £10 a week—or else. They even went so far as to suggest that the £9·25 that the person received on behalf of her mother—she was on social security and got £34—should be handed over to the home to help to pay. I am glad to say that, following my intervention, the matter was conveniently dropped. The lady is now staying in the home and will receive the additional benefits.
  This subject has been debated in Ayrshire in a lively way, and I shall refer to some of the organisations that have contacted me about it. The Ayrshire and Arran health board—
  Mr. John McAllion: Just before my hon. Friend mentions the agencies that have supported him, may I draw his attention—he may not know of it—to the early-day motion tabled in my name and those of other of my hon. Friends, which will appear for the first time on the Order Paper tomorrow? It reflects the case of Age Concern Scotland for charge in this respect, and has attracted the support of 107 hon. Members.
  Mr. McKelvey: That is splendid news. I am sure that the Minister will have noticed it and will forward it to the relevant Minister for consideration.
  The Ayrshire and Arran health board has said that nursing homes are identifying and meeting the need. That is correct. It also states:
  "Popular areas like Ayrshire attract many many residents from other parts of Scotland which in turn can create—and will create—demands on the National Health Service in Ayrshire for which the Board is not presently funded. It also creates real problems in relation to nurse recruitment and retention for both the public and private sectors."
  There has already been an increase from 200 to 1,400 beds.
  David Watts, a local practitioner on the Ayrshire and Arran local medical committee, has seen for himself the difficulties and unfair load placed on the backs of general practitioners because of the rapid growth in the number of homes in Ayrshire. He states:
  "Nursing homes require nurses and there s a finite pool of nurses in Ayrshire. At present the Health Board employs about 1,900 registered nurses and the nursing homes, who are always advertising for staff, employ 190. If uncontrolled growth is allowed to continue we will experience a nursing crisis.
  The second area of concern relates to the impact of private nursing homes on the workload of general practice. No account is taken of the ability of local general practitioners 1.o cope with the extra workload and the consequence is that homes open and discover the local doctors are reluctant to accept the residents onto their lists of patients because they feel unable to cope with the increased demand."

  965
  I have received a letter from Martin Kuhn, who is a nurse in a geriatric hospital at the sharp end of the problem. None of us envies his working conditions and his job requires the utmost devotion. He has brought to my attention the fact that at its annual conference the Royal College of Nursing will debate the following motion:
  "That this meeting of the Royal College of Nursing congress requests council to urge the Government to establish a national, trained inspectorate to monitor standards of nursng care in all private nursing and residential homes in the United Kingdom."
  The largest nursing union in this country is concerned about the growing problem mentioned in that motion.
  Those who devote all their time to the care of the elderly in the National Health Service know that the elderly and frail are being shunted down to them as they become less profitable to private hospitals. That does not lead to an atmosphere that is conducive to good working practices.
  Age Concern Scotland—in its document "The Case for Change"—says that the distinction between residential care homes and nursing homes providing long-term care should be abandoned as they are no longer useful or appropriate to today's standards. They have written to the Minister along those lines and are still awaiting a reply. I am indebted to Mary Marshall of Age Concern Scotland for her work, which she brings to the attention of hon. Members.
  I have received many letters from Elizabeth Reid of Kilmarnock, who works on behalf of carers. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that last year the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government spent £450 million on private residential care. That is a large sum of money and much profit has been made by those who run private residential homes. Elizabeth Reid says that many people would prefer to keep their elderly relatives at home. She thinks—I am sure that this will happen—that all carers should write to their Members of Parliament asking the Government to change the law so that invalid care allowance is made a free benefit and so that carers are not pressed further into the poverty trap. If half that £450 million were to be transferred to carers, untouched by benefit subtractions, the Government might improve the fate of our elderly and frail people who, despite being happy in residential homes, would prefer to stay at home if they were not a burden to the rest of the family.
  I thank everybody who has written to me about this subject. The matters raised by Age Concern Scotland and the Griffiths report provide us with the criteria to meet the needs of the growing number of elderly people in Scotland. My earnest hope is that their proposals can be transformed into legislation sooner rather than later. I feel that we owe our elderly people the right to live a proper and dignified life in their latter years.
  12.24 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey) on his success in the ballot and his concern in raising this important subject. I join him in paying tribute to the work of Age Concern. Perhaps I could reassure him that I did reply to Miss Marshall on 12 February in response to the booklet and advised her that it would not be possible for us to offer views on the recommendations until we had had
  966
  a chance to consider the recommendations arising from the review by Lady Wagner into the future of residential care and Sir Roy Griffiths's report on care in the community.
  Scottish local authorities currently provide around 60 per cent. of all residential places for elderly persons and other adult groups, comprising some 11,000 places, while the voluntary sector provides around 6,000 places and the private sector approximately 2,400. This is a rather different picture from that which exists in England and Wales where places are divided fairly evenly between the independent and statutory sectors and over two thirds of the independent places are provided by the private sector. Because of the larger private sector, the total number of homes, and places in homes, is considerably greater in England and Wales in relative terms.
  Long-stay nursing homes are provided mainly by the private sector. In 1979 there were 77 registered nursing homes containing 2,612 beds. By 1987 the number of homes had increased to 164 with 5,063 beds. Of those, about 700 beds were in establishments offering acute hospital facilities. The major growth however is in the long-stay sector. While information setting out the position at March 1988 is not yet to hand, signs are that the increase has continued.
  The number of homes and the total number of places available in residential homes has risen relatively slowly in the past 10 years or so. But the fact is that we have in Scotland a higher proportion of elderly persons in long-term hospital care than in England and Wales and considerable unmet demands for residential care as witnessed by the weight of pending applications.
  I am in no doubt that a considerably enlarged residential care sector is desirable in Scotland, not necessarily in the traditional mould of residential homes, though accommodation of this kind is recognised as having a continuing and important role in the care of the elderly. One aspect of this need is the high proportion of elderly, mentally handicapped and mentally ill persons, who are inappropriately placed in long-stay hospital accommodation.
  The current Scottish position in this regard suggests not merely ineffective use of resources on relatively expensive hospital care but a failure to meet the likely needs and preferences of the persons concerned in many cases. There are, for example, currently twice as many occupied beds in geriatric hospitals in Scotland as in England, and the figures for patients in mental illness and the psychiatric hospitals are not very different. Even with the new emphasis on domiciliary care, there is a real risk of a greater imbalance between hospital and community as the size of the very elderly population continues to rise.
  Local authorities cannot realistically plead for more resources when they are not making the best use of the opportunities that are available, at very little cost to themselves, through the private sector. There is evidence now that some at least are beginning to grasp the opportunities available. I see no inherent contradiction between the encouragement of the private sector and proper control of standards. There are indeed plenty of examples of better, more responsive, services resulting in this way for elderly persons and others in need of care in a residential setting.
  In this sphere as in so many others, competition between the public and the private sectors can lead to

  967
  greater choice for the individual consumer and enable the local authority to spread its own resources for care in the community more widely.
  I would not wish to dwell solely on the potential contribution of the private sector. Indeed, I pay tribute to the voluntary sector which has served Scotland so well for many years and remains, meanwhile at least, the principal source of independently provided accommodation.
  It is our view that a well-regulated independent sector has an important and significant role to play in the provision of residential care. Such provision is an important part of the Government's strategy of care in the community for the more vulnerable members of society, including the physically and mentally disabled and particularly the frail elderly whose numbers are growing steadily and will continue to grow.
  Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, responsibility for the control and monitoring of independent residential care and nursing homes rests with the local authority and health board respectively. Registration is not concerned purely with physical standards. It is also about residents experiencing a good quality of life and enabling them to maintain as much personal independence and dignity as possible. Sound local authority practice and procedures relating to the registration and inspection of establishments are crucial if acceptable standards of care are to be maintained.
  The 1968 Act requires that residential establishments whose sole or main object is the provision of social work care require to be registered with the local authority. These arrangements apply to all client groups, including children. Authorities can refuse or cancel registration if they consider the person operating the establishment or person employed as a manager is not a "fit person", if the building, its fitments or staffing are not fit for the purposes intended, or if the conduct of the establishment is not deemed to be, or likely to be, such as to provide the services required. Persons who are aggrieved by refusal or cancellation of registration may appeal to an independent tribunal. In the 20 years since these provisions have been in force we have had only one such appeal in Scotland, and that did not relate to standards of care.
  Local authorities have a duty under the 1968 Act to inspect establishments which they have registered and have appropriate powers of entry.
  Mr. McKelvey: I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, I am not surprised that there are not a great number of complaints about the system, because those who use it are often bullied and are too frightened to complain. If they did, they would be put out on the streets.
  Secondly, the Minister has not responded to my suggestion that there ought to be a multi-disciplinary body. Both Griffiths and Wagner have concluded that that ought to be the means whereby residential homes are monitored.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of the kind of practice that he has just described, I should like to see it. We are still considering the Griffiths report recommendations. We shall also consider very carefully the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has put to us. The evidence that is available to the Scottish Office shows that the standards of care are good, in the main, and that the
  968
  local authorities have powers that they can use, but it seems that it has been unnecessary to use them to maintain standards of care.
  Local authorities have a duty under the 1968 Act to inspect establishments that they have registered, and they have powers of entry.
  Mr. McKelvey: One of the problems that local authorities face is that if they close an institution all that they do is to put the inhabitants out into the street and the community has to take care of them. Therefore, they are very reluctant to use such an extreme measure.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of homes that local authorities wish to close because of inadequate standards but are not doing so. I should like to see it. He is saying that they are not using their powers because they would be unable to provide alternative accommodation. I said earlier that we wish to encourage the wider provision of accommodation in the private sector to meet these demands.
  The provisions that I have described were strengthened during the last Parliament by a measure introduced on the Government's behalf by my former hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan which became the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987. It is relevant to the debate that I remind the House of the provisions of that Act. It enables local authorities to charge fees for the registration and subsequent monitoring and inspection of establishments, as has been done in England and Wales since 1985.
  The Act extends authorities' powers to impose any reasonable conditions of registration, subject to the opportunity given to the home owner to appeal to the tribunal. That enhances authorities' control over establishments registrable with them to a greater degree than is available in the south. Here we meet the point which the hon. Gentleman made about elderly people having to move from one home to another. The Act also introduces the concept of joint registration of establishments, providing both residential and nursing care in contrast to the existing legislation which neither explicitly permits nor forbids this practice.
  The measure as a whole was welcomed by the statutory, voluntary and private sectors alike. We are on the point of issuing a consultation paper outlining our proposals on the level of fees which local authorities will be allowed to charge for registrations.
  The hon. Gentleman is legitimately concerned about the arrangements for regulating standards in both residential care homes and nursing homes. The first essential, I believe, is that homes of both kinds suitable in location, design, construction, furnishing and equipment should be operated by persons who are suitable for the task, have proper training and experience and have sufficient, carefully chosen and suitably trained staff at their command.
  As I have said, responsibility for the registration and inspection of voluntary and private homes rests with local authorities. Authorities are accountable for the actions they take in the exercise of these responsibilities, and may in the last resort have to defend their decision to refuse or withdraw registration before an appeal tribunal. In that situation they must be free to exercise their discretion, and detailed prescription by the Secretary of State regarding the exercise of their functions could not be justified.

  969
  In exercising the discretion available to them, local authorities will need to have particular regard to the physical and care standards in their own homes. It would clearly be unacceptable to have different standards in the independent and statutory sectors. The duty of care that they owe to their own residents is, if anything, greater than that they can discharge in regard to those in the care of others.
  970
  I trust that the hon. Member is satisfied with the assurance I have given regarding the regulation of standards in private and voluntary residential care in nursing homes in Scotland, and the measures currently taken to secure the best interests of residents in care. If the hon. Member—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

WALES

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to increase capacity in health authority laboratories in Wales which handle cervical cancer smear tests; how many additional laboratory staff have been employed in each of the Welsh district health authorities to deal with cervical cancer smear tests in the past 12 months; what are the procedures for dealing with abnormal cervical cancer smear results; what private clinics in Wales give cervical cancer smear tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The cervical cytology screening service is the responsibility of individual district health authorities. A total of £800,000 a year of central funds has been allocated to authorities in Wales to help them improve their cervical screening services. Laboratory staff and equipment are two of the uses to which these funds have been put.

  Figures for the number of laboratory staff employed in 1987 are not yet available, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when they are to hand.

  The procedure for dealing with abnormal cervical smear test results is a matter of operational policy for district health authorities to determine in the light of guidance given in Welsh Office circular WHC(86)31.

  Information is not held centrally on smear tests in private clinics.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average waiting time for the results of cervical cancer smear tests for each of the Welsh district health authorities for 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office is monitoring the cervical cytology screening service on an annual basis. The most recent information relates to the quarter ended 31 March 1987 and was given to the hon. Gentleman in my letter to him of 11 January 1988. As I also explained in that letter, the waiting times for results during the first quarter of 1987 do not reflect the impact of developments since then including the recurring allocation of the additional £400,000 to health authorities in 1987–88. Authorities have been asked to provide up-to-date information on the time taken to notify results in connection with the annual review of their performance which will take place in the summer.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with British Rail about links from the Channel tunnel to Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  432
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend discussed the Channel tunnel with the chairman of British Rail on 5 February. He underlined the importance to Wales of good links for passengers and freight.

ENERGY

  Magnox Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current progress of the long-term safety reviews for the Magnox nuclear reactor programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB has completed its reviews of Bradwell and Berkeley Magnox stations and the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has published its findings of the assessments of these reviews. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Library of the House. The SSEB has nearly completed its review of Hunterston A Magnox station and the HSE expects to publish NII's findings of the assessment later this year. Assessments are in hand for the other Magnox stations.

  Nuclear Safety
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the agreement signed on 31 March between the Health and Safety Executive and the Soviet Atomic Energy Authorities on mutual co-operation on nuclear safety matters, in so far as it affects the pursuit of his departmental responsibilities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  On 31 March 1988 the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate initialled proposals for an arrangement with the state committee on the supervision of nuclear power safety of the USSR on the exchange of information on nuclear safety matters. I welcome these as a further sign of international co-operation on nuclear safety.

  Wind Farms
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to evaluate the prospects for public acceptability of the three wind farms announced by his Department at the recent British Wind Energy Association conference in London.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  One of the main objectives of the wind research and development programme to be carried out in collaboration between my Department and the Central Electricity Generating Board is to evaluate the public acceptability of wind farms.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are(a) the current levels of support and (b) the levels of support, given by his Department each year since 1970, towards research on decommissioning techniques for advanced gas-cooled reactors; and through which organisations research support has been given.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Research support from the Department of Energy into decommissioning techniques is channelled through UKAEA R and D programmes. The
  433
  Department supports generic research into decommissioning techniques of general applicability to nuclear plant. Funding is estimated at £0·71 million in 1987–88, and was £0·60 million in 1986–87 and £0·30 million in 1985–86. This work is not related to specific reactor types. Support for research, development and operational expenditure relating to the demonstration decommissioning of the Windscale advanced gas-cooled reactor in 1987–88 is estimated at £2·4 million, and was £1·9 million in 1986–87 and £3·7 million in 1985–86. Total support for the project to date is estimated at £15 million.

  Comparable figures for earlier years are not readily available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Turkey
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent visit to Turkey, she took the opportunity to discuss the prospects of the sale of United Kingdom nuclear reactors to Turkey.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent visit to Turkey, she raised the matter of the imprisonment of political dissidents, peace campaigners and trades unionists in Turkey.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Since Mr. Ozal's election in 1983, there have been substantial improvements in human rights in Turkey.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the estimated cost of the prosecution case against Jean Hutchinson and Georgina Smith in which the Greenham Common byelaws were found invalid; what is the estimated cost of the appeal against this decision; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  This prosecution was commenced prior to 1 October 1986 when the Crown Prosecution Service was formed and took over the conduct of the case. The information to assess the costs incurred prior to 1 October is no readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Since 1 October 1986 the legal fees expended to date are approximately £3,600. I am unable to estimate the future costs of the case, which is at present the subject of an appeal.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will state the detailed criteria governing eligibility for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The precise criteria are set out in the Legal Aid Acts 1974 and 1982 and regulations made under them. Broadly the arrangements are as follows (the financial limits were revised on 11 April):

  Civil Legal Aid

  The applicant must have reasonable grounds for taking or defending the proceedings. His disposable income must not
  434
  exceed £5,765 a year and his disposable capital must not exceed £5,000, or he must be in receipt of income support. Decisions on granting civil legal aid in individual cases are made by the legal aid administration of the Law Society.

  Legal Aid for Criminal Proceedings

  It must be in the interests of justice for the applicant to receive legal aid and, having regard to his disposable income and capital, his resources must be such that he requires assistance in meeting his costs. Decisions on the granting of criminal legal aid and assessment of contributions in individual cases are made by the court.

  Advice and Assistance

  The applicant's disposable income must not exceed £122 a week or he must be in receipt of income support or family credit. For advice and assistance his disposable capital must not exceed £850. For assistance by way of representation (ABWOR), the applicant's disposable capital must not exceed £3,000, or he must be in receipt of income support. Decisions on the approval of ABWOR in individual cases are made by the legal aid administration of the Law Society. Legal advice and assistance is available from a solicitor without prior authorisation.

  If the hon. Member has a particular problem in mind perhaps he would care to write to the Lord Chancellor.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  South Africa
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the export of Land Rovers to South Africa for use by the South African military and police.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Military and paramilitary versions of the Land Rover are subject to export licensing. Any application to export such vehicles to South Africa would be likely to be refused. However, the basic Land Rover, which has a widespread civilian and commercial use in South Africa, can be freely exported. To prohibit their export would be unreasonable interference with normal civil trade with South Africa.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the recommendations so far agreed of the seven sector working parties established in the northern region of his Department; and if he will place in the Library the working papers of those working parties.

  Mr. Atkins
  The sector working groups do not make recommendations. The groups were formed to facilitate the informal exchange of ideas between industrialist and academic members on such issues as technology and training. They are not Government bodies or responsible to my Department and it is therefore not appropriate to place their working papers in the Library.

  Business Improvement Services Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the annual expenditure in each British standard region on grants under the business improvement services grant scheme; what it was for the last half year; what was the share in the national total of such expenditures; what steps are being taken in the northern region to promote this grant scheme; and what liaison
  435
  arrangements exist between the Tyne and Wear and Teesside urban development corporations in the administration of this scheme.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  October 1987-March 1988

  £000

  per cent.

  £000

  per cent.

  £000

  per cent.

  £000

  per cent.

  North East

  188

  6

  1,206

  10

  1,886

  13

  981

  17

  North West

  1,488

  45

  5,358

  44

  4,259

  30

  1,634

  29

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,493

  45

  5,433

  45

  7,414

  52

  2,951

  52

  East Midlands

  152

  5

  57

  1

  715

  5

  112

  2

  TOTAL

  3,322

  100

  12,055

  100

  14,274

  100

  5,678

  100

  The regional distribution results from the selection of eligible areas, on criteria determined by the European Community regulations. Funds available under the scheme are now substantially committed, so it is no longer appropriate to promote it. The administration of the scheme lies with my Department.

  Experience from the business improvement services scheme has been valuable in devising the new measures contained in the enterprise initiative. The latter is receiving widespread and extensive publicity in all areas of the business community, including of course Tyne and Wear and Teesside.

  Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to encourage private sector investment in Blyth Valley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Private sector investment will be encouraged by the enterprise initiative, with its help for design, quality, marketing, manufacturing systems, business planning and financial information systems; regional enterprise grants for investment and innovation; regional selective assistance where necessary to bring about desirable projects; exports; research and technology; and in the relationship between business and the world of education.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the amount of industrial support given to Blyth Valley since 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1985, £11·93 million of industrial support has been approved or offered through the regional selective assistance, revised regional development grant and support for innovation schemes to firms in the Blyth Valley parliamentary constituency area. Individual payments of over £25,000 under the original regional development grant scheme have, in addition, amounted to £2·4 million in the three calendar years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  New Zealand
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the latest figures for the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the first two months of 1988 trade between the United Kingdom and New Zealand showed a crude deficit of £21·9 million.

  These figures should be treated with more than the usual caution because of major changes to the Customs
  436
  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure on the business improvement services scheme in the English regions, for which my Department is responsible has been as follows:

  procedures introduced in January 1988, details of which were given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), on 7 December 1987, at columns 34–35.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Butcher
  The DTI encourages child care schemes where there is a clear need, where the scheme is financially viable without continuing subsidy and commands sufficient local support for its effective administration.

  Any scheme would need to be financially self-supporting, although accommodation would be provided free of charge if it were available and suitable. In the event that accommodation was not available the Department would be prepared to cover the cost of securing outside premises for the first year of operation. There are at present no schemes operating in this Department. However, discussions have been held which may result in the setting-up of holiday play schemes in south Wales, and interdepartmentally, in London.

  EC Trade Mark Office
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to ensure that the proposed European Economic Community trade mark office is sited in London; and what financial provision it proposes to achieve this.

  Mr. Butcher
  London has a very strong case, and we will continue to pursue it with vigour with our Community partners. We have made it clear that we are prepared to back our bid with financial support, subject of course to the approval of this House, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill currently awaiting its Second Reading in this House contains the necessary enabling clause. It would not, however, be appropriate to divulge what we have offered at the moment.

  Company Account (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions have been initiated by
  437
  his Department against companies for failing to register their accounts in each year since 1958; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The available information, which relates mainly to prosecutions of directors rather than companies, is as follows:

  Prosecutions initiated for failure to file1

  Year

  Annual returns/accounts2

  1958

  653

  1959

  514

  1960

  687

  1961

  652

  1962

  620

  1963

  751

  1964

  1,041

  1965

  1,249

  1966

  865

  1967

  732

  1968

  151

  1969

  146

  1970

  284

  1971

  517

  1972

  731

  1973

  3,355

  1974

  2,201

  1975

  2,635

  1976

  4,483

  1977

  2,589

  Year

  Accounts

  Annual returns

  1978

  818

  2,245

  1979

  3,103

  1,933

  1980

  2,290

  1,430

  1981

  1,952

  1,270

  1982

  1,886

  1,442

  1983

  1,920

  1,494

  1984

  2,928

  2,190

  1985

  4,409

  3,019

  1986

  5,160

  3,359

  1986–873

  5,454

  3,503

  1987–883

  5,339

  2,868

  1 Prosecutions for failure to deliver accounts can be initiated only against individual directors. Prosecutions for failure to deliver annual returns can be initiated against companies and/or their officers. The majority of prosecutions are, however, initiated against individual directors.

  2 Until 1978, when the separate filing provisions for accounts and annual returns contained in the Companies Act 1976 began to take effect, accounts were required to be annexed to the annual return. There was no separate offence of failure to deliver accounts.

  3 Figures are now produced on a financial year basis.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many offices of the Government and their agencies in the United States of America are involved in encouraging investment by United States companies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The encouragement of inward investment from the United States, on a national basis, is the responsibility of the Invest in Britain Bureau of the Department of Trade and Industry. The bureau operates in the United States through the embassy in Washington and the 10 consulates general. In addition the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency 438
  and the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland have a total of six representative offices in the USA.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will take steps to encourage and assist industry to develop alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons;

  (2) what provisions there are under his Department's enterprise initiative programme for the chemical industry to receive assistance for the development of alternatives to ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Atkins
  Assistance to companies which is available within the enterprise initiative is described in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise", presented on 12 January (Cm. 278) and in the enterprise initiative booklets, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Chemical companies within the relevant eligibility criteria should make full use of this assistance.

  Companies themselves are, of course, best placed to assess the implications of changes in their markets. The Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer gives encouragement to the commercial development of alternatives and I understand that industry, including users of controlled substances, is doing this.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in the financial year 1987–88.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: During the financial year 1987–88 this Department has incurred expenditure of approximately £300,000 on official entertainment and hospitality. This excludes similar expenditure incurred as an integral part of external expenditure programmes.

TRANSPORT

  Roads (Maintenance)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost of the annual maintenance and upkeep of the United Kingdom's trunk roads and motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average cost per mile of all maintenance on trunk motorways and other trunk roads in Great Britain is estimated to be about £42,000 in 1988/89. Comparable figures for Northern Ireland are not available because of the different classification of roads there.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that no extension of the practice of securing the management of motorway maintenance by engineering consultations, as set down in "Policy for Roads in England : 1987," Cm 125/1, will take place until the initial five-year contract periods in Greater Manchester and south-west Yorkshire have been completed; and if he will publish his Department's assessment of the relevant consultant's performance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I see no reason to delay assessment of the consultants' performance until the end
  439
  of the five-year period. The Department intends to carry out in the next few months an assessment of the cost and the level of service of contracted-out motorway maintenance in comparison with those of conventional agency arrangements. We intend to present the results and conclusions of the appraisal to the standing committee on highway maintenance.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to publish any audits resulting from his Department's proposal for the technical auditing of motorways and trunk road maintenance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Technical audit is intended to improve the performance of the Department's agents and consultants through the indentification of good practice that can be brought to the attention of other agents and consultants. The Department intends to commence technical audit on a general basis in 1989–90. The Department will discuss with representatives of its agents and consultants whether publication of individual audits would help or hinder the objective.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish immediately the details of the contract between his Department and the engineering consultants engaged in motorway maintenance for his Department in Greater Manchester and South and West Yorkshire; and if he will make it his policy to publish future such contracts.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The details of all departmental contracts are commercially confidential. They are not published. I am placing the model agreement for motorway maintenance commissions in the Library.

  A50 (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his parliamentary reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 25 March,Official Report, column 267, about the A50, if he will name the main roads in urban areas which have all the following : (a) a higher traffic count than on the A50 at the Meir Stoke-on-Trent, (b) a percentage of heavy vehicles of over 19 per cent. and (c) within 5 miles of the point where the traffic count is taken, have only one main lane in each direction and have private housing bordering on to the road;

  (2) pursuant to his replies about the A50 to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 25 March, Official Report, column 267, which of (a) the roads named as having the highest traffic counts and (b) the roads in the west midlands named as carrying a higher volume of traffic than on the A50 at the Meir Stoke-on-Trent, have a percentage of heavy vehicles greater than the 19 per cent. at the Meir;

  (3) pursuant to his answers to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 25 March, Official Report, column 267, how many traffic lanes there are at the points where the traffic counts were taken for (a) the A50 at the Meir, Stoke-on-Trent and (b) for those built up roads having the highest traffic count; and if he will express the traffic count figures in terms of traffic per 12 hours per traffic lane;

  (4) pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 25 March, Official Report, column 267, as to the A50, for those parts of the roads within five miles of the point where the traffic count is taken, what is
  440
  the maximum number of traffic lanes on the (a) A50 at the Meir, in Stoke-on-Trent and (b) roads named as having the highest traffic count; and if he will express the traffic count as the number of vehicles per minimum number of traffic lanes on these roads;

  (5) pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on 25 March, Official Report, column 267, how many of the roads in the west midlands conurbation named as carrying higher volumes of traffic than on the A50 at the Meir, Stoke-on-Trent, have, within 5 miles of the point where the traffic count is taken (a) only one main lane in both directions and (b) houses bordering directly on to the road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The requested information is not readily available. I shall write to the right hon. Member.

  Ships (Radio Officers)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which permission is granted for(a) any vessel and (b) a passenger ferry to travel without carrying a radio officer.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Radio communications equipment on ships has become simpler to operate over recent years. Use of the on-board radiotelegraphy (morse) — which requires a radio officer — is declining in favour of simpler and more effective radiotelephone systems.

  Circumstances in which the Department is prepared to grant passenger or other vessels exemptions from the relevant regulations are considered on a case-by-case basis. They take into account both guidelines issued by the International Maritime Organisation and the results of trials carried out by the Department on the introduction of new radio equipment and practices.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish the report of the public inquiry into the east London river crossing and to announce his decision on the project.

  Mr. Channon
  The inspector's report is being given very careful consideration. I cannot yet say when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will be able to announce our decision and publish the report.

  Air-sea Rescue Services (Helicopters)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there has been any discussion or consultation between his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority as to whether the replacement of Sea King helicopters with Wessex helicopters at RAF Coltishall may reduce the effective capability of the air-sea rescue services in the event of a civilian emergency.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The deployment of military search and rescue helicopters is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence, but he consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the planned changes. The new deployment of RAF helicopters on the east coast will more than meet the minimum criteria recommended by the Helicopter Coverage Group, and my
  441
  right hon. Friend is satisfied that they adequately meet the civil requirement. The Civil Aviation Authority is not responsible for search and rescue arrangements.

  Underground Trains
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken or commissioned concerning the design and construction of underground train carriages on the open plan system adopted by the MRT in Singapore.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 13 April 1988]: Under the terms of an agency agreement between my Department and the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation, inspecting officers of railways have inspected and carried out safety audits of the Singapore system. These inspections included the rolling stock and, in accordance with the agreement, reports have been made to the board of the MRT Corporation.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will pay an offficial visit to study and report on the design and operation of the MRT subway system in Singapore.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 13 April 1988]: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing my attention to certain crime prevention aspects of coach design, including that of the Singapore MRT system, and when an opportunity presents itself I shall look closely at the open plan feature to which my right hon. Friend has drawn my attention.

  Road Programme
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to add any further schemes to the road programme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 April 1988, c. 370]: The estimated works cost of schemes 1 and 4 includes sums of £5·2 million and £2·2 million respectively shown in table 4 of the White Paper "Policy for Roads in England : 1987" (Cm. 125).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Unemployment and Crime
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has made of any correlation between the change in regional unemployment rates with the change in crime rates over the last 18 months; and what were the results.

  Mr. John Patten
  Research has not shown significant associations between changes in recorded crime and changes in unemployment. The article "Unemployment and Crime", in Home Office research bulletin No. 14/82, copies of which are in the Library, reviewed research evidence on the association between unemployment and crime and concluded that little further could be learnt from studies of this topic at aggregate level.

  Prison Population (Statistics)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the proportion of the prison population with literacy or numeracy problems.
  442
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The prison department does not have information on the proportion of the prison population with serious literacy or numeracy problems.

  However, a recent survey showed that of those adult inmates who were tested, 6·2 per cent. were found to have a reading age of eight years or less, and 9·4 per cent. one of 10 years or less. The figures for youth custody centre trainees were 5·9 per cent. and 11·3 per cent., and for detention centre trainees, 5·3 per cent. and 2·8 per cent., respectively.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proportion of prisoners in each security category.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 March 1988, the most recent date for which information is available, 1·6 per cent. of sentenced adult male prisoners were in security category A, 17 per cent. in category B, 45·1 per cent. in category C and 17 per cent. in category D. The remaining 19·3 per cent. were recorded as uncategorised.

  Kirkham Prison
  Ms. WalleY
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances prisoners at Kirkham prison are currently prevented from making telephone calls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Payphones have been provided for use by inmates at Kirkham prison since last year. I am not aware of any interruption to this facility.

  Ballot Papers
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Representation of the People Act or the rules thereunder to ensure that the layout of the ballot papers for parliamentary elections comply precisely with the Local Elections (Principal Areas) rules 1986 and the Local Elections (Parish & Communities) Rules 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The form of ballot papers for parliamentary elections is laid down in the Parliamentary Election Rules (schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983). The Local Election (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 and the Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) Rules 1986 relate only to local elections. We have no reason to believe that these statutory rules are not being complied with, but if my hon. Friend is aware of a particular problem perhaps he would write to me about it.

  Marconi (Fire Service Equipment)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received representations on the delays in the delivery of fire service central mobilising systems by Marconi to fire and civil defence authorities.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. I understand that of the seven fire and civil defence authorities, only London is in the process of installing a Marconi system. We are informed by the authority that, despite some delay, it is anticipated that the system will be operational by the end of the year.
  443
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department will monitor the cost of the central mobilising system on order by fire brigades.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The provision of brigade mobilising systems, including costs, is the responsibility of fire authorities.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after school care is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  No facilities are provided for the pre-school age children of staff. For older chidren, we participate in an interdepartmental holiday playscheme in the Bootle area. We have no immediate plans to increase the provision of child care facilities but would be willing to consider proposals put forward by staff or trade union representatives for schemes which would be expected to become self-financing.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force to indicate, from his inspection of the membership records and applications for membership of the Dunmore shooting centre, Abingdon, how many of the memberships issued which commenced at number 50 to number 92 had been granted to those applicants resident in the Thames Valley police force area; and how many applications resulted in full membership being granted prior to or on 8 December 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that the information is not available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force naming the source of advice and individuals that gave expert testimony to the chief constable that the ammunition used by the late Michael Ryan was classified as armour piercing;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force naming the source of advice and individuals that gave expert testimony to the chief constable that the rifle possessed and used by the late Michael Ryan was a Kalashnikov.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable that he received some technical advice from within the Thames Valley and from the forensic science service.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to what good reason and on what date the late Michael Ryan gave for the purchase of his first two rifles(a) an assault 7·62
  444
  mm calibre and (b) an assault 0·30 in calibre and appropriate ammunition, for his introduction to rifle shooting; and on what ranges.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on 31 March 1988, at column 692. There is no requirement in the Firearms Act 1968 for the purchaser of a firearm authorised to be held by the police to notify them of its acquisition.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to what special circumstances were taken into consideration when agreeing to accept provisional membership of three months with the Dunmore shooting centre, Abingdon, as suitable for the issue to its members of firearms certificates by Thames Valley police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that it is not the practice to issue firearms certificates to applicants holding probationary membership.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to how many firearms clubs were sent letters from the chief constable signed by Inspector Lambert for or on behalf of the chief constable prior to 19 August 1987 requiring provisional membership of a firearms club for the purpose of obtaining a firearms certificate issued by the Thames Valley police force to be a minimum period of six months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable of Thames Valley is not aware of any such letters.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to what firearms the late Michael Ryan requested authority to possess on his original firearms form I application for the grant of a firearms certificate from the chief constable;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to what firearms were subsequently granted by the chief constable to the late Michael Ryan as a result of his original firearms form 1 application for the grant of a firearms certificate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that Michael Ryan originally applied for and was granted authority to possess one 9mm pistol and one ·38 revolver.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force listing for each calibre of firearm the maximum quantity of ammunition for which the late Michael Ryan requested authority to possess on his applications for variations of his firearms certificate;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force listing for each calibre of firearm the maximum quantity of ammunition at any one time for which the chief constable granted authority for the late Michael Ryan to possess as a result of his original firearms form 1 application for the grant of a firearms certificate;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force listing for each calibre

  445
  of firearm the maximum quantity of ammunition at any one time the late Michael Ryan requested authority from the chief constable to possess on his original firearms form 1 application for the grant of a firearms certificate;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force listing for each calibre of firearm the maximum quantity of ammunition at any one time the chief constable granted authority for the late Michael Ryan to possess as a result of his firearms form 1 application for the variation of his firearms certificate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police that Michael Ryan applied for and was granted authority to possess a maximum at any one time of 500 rounds of 9mm, ·38, ·22, ·32, 7·62mm and ·30 calibre each.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to the dates and ranks of police officers carrying out the checks with the local intelligence officers with respect to the applications by the late Michael Ryan for the grant and variations of his firearms certificate;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as the dates and ranks of police officers who acted as local intelligence officers in respect to the applications for the grant and variations of the firearms certificate issued to the late Michael Ryan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that detailed records of the checks made are not available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley to establish at what time the late Michael Ryan is alleged to have put on his bulletproof vest on 19 August 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that witnesses' recollections put the time at which Michael Ryan put on his bullet-proof vest as between 12·45 and 12·55pm

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to on what dates police officers, and of what ranks, acting as crime prevention officers, visited the house of the late Michael Ryan for the purpose of inquiries regarding the applications he made in relation to his firearms certificate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on 31 March 1988, at columns 689–90.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley as to the possessions recovered from the car of the late Michael Ryan, and to where, and by what ranks of officers they were conveyed, giving times.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable of Thames Valley tells me that a police constable and scenes of crime officer recovered from Ryan's car the following items :

  (a) A number of spent fragmented bullets

  (b) 7 live rounds of ammunition

  (c) Empty pistol magazine

  (d) Rifle magazine for a ·30 rifle containing 29 rounds

  (e) Leather shoulder holste

  (f) Shooting magazine (periodical)

  (g) Petrol receipts

  (h) Instruction leaflet for a shotgun

  446

  (i) Street map of Newbury

  (j) Body armour waistcoat

  (k) Gas mask

  (m) Water bottle

  (n) Survival kit

  (o) Waterproof jacket

  (p) Camouflage trousers

  (q) Waxed cotton over-trousers

  (r) Waterproof poncho

  (s) Green haversack

  (t) Beige-coloured haversack

  (u) Ear defenders

  Items (a) to (e) were taken to the forensic science laboratory for examination. The further information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley as to the ranks of officers who attended to the body of the late Michael Ryan; if he will list the possessions recovered from the body; and to where, and by whom, the body and possessions were conveyed from the school at Hungerford, giving times.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that a detective superintendent, detective inspector and sergeant attended Michael Ryan's body at the John O'Gaunt school. At the school they recovered :

  (a) Two 9mm spent cartridge cases.

  (b) One pair of handcuffs.

  (c) One weapon cleaning kit.

  (d) One 9mm misshapen bullet from classroom noticeboard.

  (e) One 9mm spent cartridge case under body.

  (f) One 9mm Beretta pistol and magazine containing 5 live rounds.

  (g) One 9mm live round.

  These items were taken by the sergeant to the forensic science laboratory and following examination were retained in police custody.

  At the post mortem the following items were taken from the body and retained in police custody :

  (a) Flak jacket.

  (b) Pair of boots.

  (c) Pair of socks.

  (d) Pair of trousers.

  (e) Pair of underpants.

  (f) Shirt.

  (g) Vest.

  (h) Handkerchief.

  (i) Knotted cord.

  (j) Shoe lace.

  (k) Library ticket.

  (l) 2 x 2p bronze coins.

  The additional information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of all questionnaires developed by his Department to assist police officers in their inquiries when visiting applicants for the grant, variation and renewal of firearms certificates and all such amended variations of such questionnaires since 1968 to include drafts and any final copies of those forms recommended by his recent working parties.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No forms have been devised by the Department to assist in firearm certificate applications save for those prescribed in the Firearms Rules 1969.
  447
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the reports prepared by the chief constable of Thames Valley police force for his Department, which were sought as a result of the parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East about the murders committed by the late Michael Ryan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answer of 31 March to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East Official Report, columns 693–4, concerning the sale and transfer by the late Michael Ryan of all firearms possessed by him; if he will make a statement as to what further information is held by the chief constable of Thames Valley police; and if he will also provide information on the date of purchase, sale or transfer of all shotguns in the possession of the late Michael Ryan, giving the make, model and quantity of ammunition in each case and the names of all firearms dealers involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 31 March concerning the firearms possessed by Michael Ryan. He was granted a shotgun certificate in 1978. The Firearms Act 1968 does not contain a requirement to notify the sale or transfer of a shotgun or shotgun cartridges.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to whether on 19 August 1987 a police constable offered to a police officer the use of his personal and privately owned handgun stored in Hungerford for the purpose of containing the late Michael Ryan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable of Thames Valley tells me that he knows of nothing to substantiate this statement.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to whether the late Michael Ryan practised police pistol and other styles of target shooting with officers of the Thames Valley police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable of Thames Valley has no such information.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to what route Michael Ryan was taking from Hungerford on 19 August 1987 when he killed his first victim; and how far the site of this murder was from the direct route between Ryan's home and the Wiltshire shooting centre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that inquiries have not established Michael Ryan's route from Hungerford to the Savernake forest, the location of the first killing. However, the forest borders the A4 road which would have been the most direct route between his home and the Wiltshire shooting centre.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to how 448
  many Thames Valley police officers, shot at, or were members of the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury, when managed by proprietor George Sturm;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to how many Thames Valley police officers, shot at, or were members of the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury, when managed by proprietor George Sturm, on the date the late Michael Ryan applied for membership;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to the date on which the late Michael Ryan was granted full membership of the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury, when managed by proprietor George Sturm, stating by whom, after what assessment, and by what procedure;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to the date the late Michael Ryan was granted provisional membership of the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury. when managed by proprietor George Sturm, stating by whom, after what assessment, and by what procedure;

  (5) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to the date the late Michael Ryan's application for membership was received by the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury, when managed by proprietor George Sturm, and by whom;

  (6) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to what date the late Michael Ryan made written application for membership of the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury, when managed by proprietor George Sturm;

  (7) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to how many entries were made by the late Michael Ryan in the register of users of the range facilities of the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury when managed by proprietor George Sturm;

  (8) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to how many visits were made, and on what dates, the late Michael Ryan paid visits to the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury when managed by proprietor George Sturm.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the Thames Valley that one of his officers was a member of the club in question. He has no knowledge of Michael Ryan having been a member.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions at Newbury magistrates court under the Greenham common military lads byelaws were found invalid on 25 February; how many cases are outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There were two cases before the Crown court at Reading on 25 February. The number of other cases outstanding is not available from records of
  449
  court proceedings held centrally. The Crown Prosecution Service has now appealed against the decision given on 25 February, and it would not be appropriate for me to make any further statement.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date the club, run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury when managed by proprietor George Sturm, was first granted Home Office approval; and on what subsequent dates this approval was reviewed and certificates reissued or renewed;

  (2) if he will (a) list and (b) place in the Library copies of all relevant documents relating to inquiries made and completed by the Home Office and Thames Valley or other police forces into the applications by the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury when managed by proprietor George Sturm, for consideration for the issue, amendment, addition to, or renewal of, the Home Office approval certificates;

  (3) if he will (a) list and (b) place in the Library a copy of all documents submitted in the course of the applications by the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury when managed by proprietor George Sturm, to the police or the Home Office for the issue, amendment, addition to, or renewal of the Home Office approval certificates;

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the original Home Office approval certificate for the club run by the Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company based in Membury when managed by proprietor George Sturm, and any subsequent amendments or additions to, and renewals of it.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The club was approved for the use of small and full-bore rifles and pistols on 30 April 1986. The approval was withdrawn on 27 May 1987 in the light of information from the Thames Valley police that the club had ceased to operate.

  It is not the practice to place such documents in the Library.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force to establish whether or not the chief constable placed before the coroner, for his consideration prior to or during the inquest into events on 19 August 1987 involving the late Michael Ryan, statements and copy documents provided by the Wiltshire shooting centre and its proprietors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that statements and copy documents provided by the Wiltshire shooting centre and its proprietors were placed before the coroner prior to the inquest.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force listing all the firearms clubs that his inquiries have revealed the late Michael Ryan either visited, applied to join, or joined;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force listing all the firearms ranges that his inquiries have revealed the late Michael Ryan visited to shoot.
  450
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that Michael Ryan is not known to have visited firearms clubs other than the two of which he was a member.

  Firearms Certificate (Gwent)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Londonderry of 13 April, what is his assessment of the implications for policy on the efficiency of police procedures of the failure to draw the letter, reference MLB/JD, dated 19 January 1985, to the attention of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Nil.

  Crime Detection
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to chief officers of police about the practice of recording crimes as detected following visits to persons serving custodial sentences.

  Mr. Hurd
  Copies of the guidance circulated to all chief officers by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary have today been placed in the Library.

  Lunar House, Croydon
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of unopened letters on 21 March at Lunar house, Croydon; and of those how many were(a) applications for citizenship and (b) applications for variation of leave.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: On 21 March, 54,700 applications for citizenship were unopened and a further 41,700 applications for citizenship were opened but not acknowledged; 40,400 other items of mail, principally relating to variations of leave, were unopened. The position has since been further substantially improved, as set out in my reply, on 19 April, at column 410, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) about the position as at 11 April.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Derelict and Unused Land
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to what steps are being taken to sell off vacant, dormant and derelict land in the ownership of Government Departments.

  Mr. Major
  Government Departments are encouraged to list all their surplus land on the land registers. Since the land registers were set up in 1981, over 42 per cent. of Crown land listed has been sold or brought back into use. Departments assess their land holding operational requirements regularly, and discuss plans for disposals with the Treasury.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what child care provision his Department
  451
  provides for pre-school children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after school care is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Brooke
  No child care provision is currently provided by my Department. Any provision which was set up in the next five years would have to be self-financing.

  Finance Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meetings of Finance Ministers in Washington.

  Mr. Lawson
  A number of meetings of Finance Ministers took place in Washington last week.

  There was useful progress on a range of issues. The major industrial countries reaffirmed their commitment to co-ordinate economic policies and promote greater exchange rate stability.

  The problems of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa were again highlighted. I welcome in particular the establishment of the enhanced structural adjustment facility (the ESAF) where the United Kingdom has pledged the largest single contribution to the interest rate subsidy on ESAF lending; and the World Bank's special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. Progress has also been made on the United Kingdom's own initiative to provide debt relief to the poorest countries through the Paris Club, and I am continuing to work to secure agreement on interest rate reductions on Paris Club reschedulings.

  There was general agreement that the continuing problems of highly indebted middle-income countries are best dealt with by continuation of the present approach and by further exploring market-related solutions, including extensions of the "menu" of options.

  Copies of the communiques issued and of my statements to the meetings have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Number and proportion of pupils in one teacher classes of over 30 pupils January 1987

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Pupils

  per cent.

  Pupils

  per cent.

  Barking

  714

  5·7

  95

  1·2

  Barnet

  2,260

  11·3

  1,092

  6·6

  Bexley

  3,813

  24·4

  808

  6·1

  Brent

  898

  5·1

  286

  2·5

  Bromley

  4,226

  22·8

  1,279

  8·2

  Croydon

  4,456

  20·6

  1,657

  9·9

  Ealing

  2,885

  14·3

  384

  3·4

  Enfield

  5,083

  27·2

  2,123

  13·5

  Haringey

  247

  1·7

  31

  0·3

  Harrow

  3,684

  26·5

  426

  4·9

  Havering

  3,303

  18·8

  1,345

  8·3

  Hillingdon

  3,044

  18·5

  941

  7·1

  Hounslow

  3,158

  21·5

  928

  7·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,715

  33·5

  849

  12·4

  Merton

  1,930

  25·1

  515

  4·7

  Newham

  589

  3·3

  312

  2·4

  Redbridge

  7,383

  49·2

  1,451

  11·5

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,278

  15·5

  440

  7·2

  Sutton

  3,289

  32·8

  1,638

  15·9

CIVIL SERVICE

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will announce the results of ethnic monitoring of recruitment by the Civil Service Commission.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service Commissioners' annual report, published today, reports on the commission's recruitment activities in the calendar year ending 31 December 1987. It also sets out and reviews the results of the first year of their ethnic monitoring. A copy of the annual report and of two research studies relating to the work on ethnic monitoring is available in the Libraries of Parliament.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service on what basis the categories of human groups listed on the official forms for the purposes of ethnic monitoring of Civil Servants were chosen.

  Mr. Luce
  The ethnic origin categories used in the Civil Service monitoring surveys were based on advice from the Commission for Racial Equality and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and on the results of a pilot survey in Leeds in 1982.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Primary and Secondary Pupils
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number and proportion of primary and secondary pupils in classes of over 30 pupils in each local education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The number and proportion of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in classes of over 30 pupils in each local education authority in England in January 1987 is given in the table. The analyses relate to classes taught by one teacher at a selected time on the day of the census count in January and do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.
  453

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Pupils

  per cent.

  Pupils

  per cent.

  Waltham Forest

  2,115

  14·5

  93

  0·8

  Inner London

  3,159

  2·5

  2,165

  2·3

  Birmingham

  28,543

  33·0

  7,632

  11·8

  Coventry

  5,065

  21·2

  1,035

  5·2

  Dudley

  7,118

  29·0

  736

  4·0

  Sandwell

  6,426

  25·0

  828

  4·2

  Solihull

  5,199

  32·3

  1,520

  10·2

  Walsall

  3,172

  15·4

  1,048

  5·0

  Wolverhampton

  2,832

  14·1

  753

  4·4

  Knowsley

  1,931

  12·9

  552

  5·4

  Liverpool

  6,048

  14·6

  2,572

  9·0

  St. Helens

  3,741

  25·0

  956

  7·0

  Sefton

  5,726

  24·9

  1,970

  10·3

  Wirral

  4,528

  17·1

  1,875

  8·9

  Bolton

  9,378

  42·3

  1,411

  8·0

  Bury

  4,049

  30·3

  1,668

  15·4

  Manchester

  6,765

  19·4

  1,702

  6·6

  Oldham

  7,282

  38·2

  1,035

  7·3

  Rochdale

  4,845

  31·5

  707

  4·7

  Salford

  3,674

  18·9

  573

  4·0

  Stockport

  6,117

  27·6

  1,849

  9·8

  Tameside

  5,051

  28·1

  1,210

  8·5

  Trafford

  5,470

  37·2

  426

  3·5

  Wigan

  7,241

  29·6

  1,305

  5·7

  Barnsley

  1,795

  10·1

  375

  2·5

  Doncaster

  2,801

  11·9

  1,369

  6·5

  Rotherham

  2,216

  10·3

  1,516

  8·6

  Sheffield

  3,314

  9·0

  924

  3·1

  Bradford

  4,191

  14·2

  3,199

  8·3

  Calderdale

  4,187

  25·5

  1,088

  8·8

  Kirklees

  6,536

  21·9

  1,620

  5·9

  Leeds

  10,449

  25·7

  4,807

  9·2

  Wakefield

  4,599

  20·5

  2,037

  8·9

  Gateshead

  825

  5·1

  945

  7·7

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3,245

  18·6

  583

  3·4

  North Tyneside

  417

  3·0

  441

  3·2

  South Tyneside

  1,357

  10·7

  283

  3·0

  Sunderland

  3,680

  14·1

  2,052

  10·5

  Isles of Scilly2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Avon

  32,201

  46·1

  5,323

  9·8

  Bedfordshire

  8,165

  24·3

  3,510

  8·7

  Berkshire

  16,784

  32·8

  4,889

  10·6

  Buckinghamshire

  23,699

  43·6

  2,066

  6·4

  Cambridgeshire

  14,641

  29·7

  4,285

  11·2

  Cheshire

  28,981

  37·7

  9,871

  14·7

  Cleveland

  8,046

  16·5

  1,788

  4·4

  Cornwall

  11,714

  34·3

  3,657

  12·6

  Cumbria

  5,897

  16·5

  2,048

  6·2

  Derbyshire

  18,316

  26·6

  6,218

  10·3

  Devon

  17,363

  26·0

  5,123

  9·2

  Dorset

  13,800

  40·0

  3,293

  9·1

  Durham

  11,600

  23·8

  3,644

  10·0

  East Sussex

  13,783

  33·7

  4,135

  12·0

  Essex

  30,912

  26·8

  8,796

  8·8

  Gloucestershire

  12,972

  34·2

  4,022

  12·7

  Hampshire

  33,760

  29·9

  7,496

  8·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  13,386

  30·9

  6,355

  13·0

  Hertfordshire

  17,240

  24·2

  6,431

  9·7

  Humberside

  10,135

  16·5

  5,524

  8·4

  Isle of Wight

  1,753

  29·5

  1,085

  11·4

  Kent

  40,142

  36·8

  6,828

  7·0

  Lancashire

  41,735

  38·6

  8,446

  9·9

  Leicestershire

  13,422

  19·5

  1,323

  2·3

  Lincolnshire

  17,091

  39·7

  3,073

  8·6

  Norfolk

  12,049

  21·8

  2,295

  5·5

  North Yorkshire

  11,161

  23·2

  5,063

  11·6

  Northamptonshire

  10,243

  24·2

  3,335

  8·2

  454 455

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Pupils

  per cent.

  Pupils

  per cent.

  Northumberland

  7,340

  40·0

  2,339

  9·3

  Nottinghamshire

  7,611

  10·7

  3,419

  5·6

  Oxfordshire

  8,212

  24·3

  2,488

  7·6

  Shropshire

  5,389

  18·4

  2,356

  8·6

  Somerset

  10,582

  34·5

  3,267

  11·5

  Staffordshire

  17,290

  23·4

  8,987

  12·4

  Suffolk

  6,042

  15·5

  2,485

  5·9

  Surrey

  13,935

  21·1

  4,338

  9·6

  Warwickshire

  11,019

  28·9

  2,412

  9·2

  West Sussex

  11,914

  26·0

  4,709

  11·8

  Wiltshire

  8,593

  21·9

  3,048

  8·7

  England

  848,960

  24·8

  243,230

  8·3

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 There were no classes with over 30 pupils in the Isles of Scilly in either primary or secondary schools.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not currently provide child care provision for employees' children. There are no firm proposals for making such provision during the next five years, although the possibility of providing creche facilities for the Department's Darlington office is under consideration.

  Computing (Women Students)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to counter the decline in the numbers of women studying computing at universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  The overall number of women starting computing courses at universities and polytechnics has increased over the past five years.

  The figures are:

  Female enrolments on computing courses

  Polytechnics1 in England (full-time equivalent)

  Universities2 in the United Kingdom (full-time)

  1982

  496

  412

  1983

  589

  381

  1984

  557

  342

  1985

  688

  363

  1986

  785

  367

  1 All advanced courses in computing.

  2 Full-time courses for first degrees or diplomas.

  Annex A

  Proposals for the ESG programme in England in 1989–90 Activities with New Starts in 1989–90

  Expenditure in 1989–90 cash

  Total in new starts plus committed

  Rate of Grant

  NEW ACTIVITIES

  Financial Delegation to Schools

  1. Financial Delegation to Schools

  25·0

  25·0

  70

  Education Reform
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State far Education and Science if he will publish his proposals for the programme of education support grants in 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have written to the local authority associations proposing expenditure of £125·5 million on the programme next year. Some £48·5 million of this will be for the continuing support of projects begun in earlier years, and £77 million will be for new and extended activities. The purposes for which I propose to pay grant are set out in the table. My main priority in drawing these proposals has been to reflect the priorities of the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament. £35 million of the new expenditure would be devoted to activities relating to financial delegation, including over £5 million for training governors in schools and colleges. I propose to make some £30 million of support available in areas relating to the introduction of the national curriculum, including £10 million for information technology equipment as well as almost £9 million earmarked for science and English.

  I also intend to make £9 million available for adult literacy and educational guidance programmes, open learning and the training of youth leaders for the inner cities. There will be further funding for advanced computer-aided engineering equipment.

  I believe that this programme will help local education authorities introduce the national curriculum and the wide-ranging changes in the management of schools and colleges proposed in the Education Reform Bill.
  457

  Expenditure in 1989–90 cash

  Total in new starts plus committed

  Rate of Grant

  2. Financial Delegation to Colleges

  1·2

  1·2

  70

  3. Training for School Governors

  4·9

  4·9

  70

  4. Training for FE College Governors

  0·2

  0·2

  70

  National Curriculum Related

  5. LEA Inspection

  1·9

  1·9

  70

  6. National Curriculum

  10·0

  10·0

  70

  7. English in the Curriculum

  4·8

  4·8

  70

  Social Responsibility and Inner Cities

  8. Youth Leaders for the Inner Cities

  2·4

  2·4

  70

  9. Establishment of Adult Literacy Centres

  3·0

  3·0

  70

  10. Improvement and expansion of Educational Guidance for Adults

  2·0

  2·0

  70

  EXTENSIONS

  Financial Delegation—Related

  11. Management Information Systems in FE

  3·5

  6·8

  70

  National Curriculum—Related

  12. IT in Schools—expansion of hardware scheme

  10·0

  20·9

  150/70

  13. Science and Technology in Primary Schools

  4·0

  10·9

  50

  Social Responsibility and Inner Cities

  14. Open Learning

  1·7

  3·0

  70

  15. Computer Aided Engineering

  2·3

  2·3

  70

  Activities Continuing without New Starts

  16. Action to combat misuse of drugs

  —

  0·3

  70

  17. Maths in Schools

  —

  8·3

  50

  18. Improving the Quality of Education in Rural Primary Schools

  —

  1·5

  70

  19. Improving the Quality of Education in Urban Primary Schools

  —

  0·4

  70

  20. Education for a Multi-Ethnic Society

  —

  2·7

  70

  21. PICK UP

  —

  0·2

  70

  22. IT in Non-Advanced FE

  —

  4·6

  70

  23. Education for the Unemployed

  —

  0·4

  70

  24. Support for Parents of Children under 5 with Severe Learning Difficulties

  —

  1·9

  70

  25. Pilot projects to develop the use of the spoken word

  —

  0·3

  70

  26. Promotion of social responsibility in young people

  —

  1·3

  70

  27. Pilot project to develop Records of Achievement

  —

  1·2

  50

  28. Diversification of First Foreign Language in Schools

  —

  0·5

  70

  29. Learning by Achievement for 14–21 year olds

  —

  2·1

  70

  30. School teacher and lecturer appraisal

  —

  0·5

  70

  Totals

  76·9

  125·5

  1 It is proposed that grant should be paid at 50 per cent. on the second tranche of expenditure and at 70 per cent. on commitments arising from 1988–89.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  El Salvador
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his assessment of the level of human rights abuses in El Salvador including those by both Government and non-Government agencies.

  Mr. Eggar
  We share the view of the United Nations Special Representative in his latest report that the human rights situation in El Salvador has continued to improve, although there is still room for further progress. We are concerned about the abuses noted by the Special Representative on the part of the guerrillas, including indiscriminate use of land mines, summary executions and kidnappings.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the presence of oil reserves near the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  Studies undertaken by companies in the petroleum industry have been inconclusive.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after school care is
  459
  provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no child care provision at present, either for the preschool age group or for those aged five and over.

  There is a proposal to provide child care facilities for the pre-school age group and/or a holiday play scheme. Both would be user-funded.

  Government Communications Bureau
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role and function of the Government Communications Bureau; when it was created; what has been its annual budget for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government Communications Bureau was founded shortly after world war II. It is a non-departmental body advising on international communications systems principally for the Foreign and Commonweath Office and Ministry of Defence. It does not have a separate budget.

  United Nations Council for Namibia
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information concerning the total cost of the United Nations Council for Namibia conference held in Istanbul on 21 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline any representations which he has made to the United Nations concerning the activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made no representations about the United Nations Council for Namibia. However, at the last session of the General Assembly we made it plain that we remained concerned at the continued financial extravagance of some of the activities of the Council for Namibia.

  Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any Soviet inspectors have yet been permitted access to the United States cruise missile sites at Royal Air Force Molesworth and Royal Air Force Greenham Common for the purposes of verification under the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  South Africa (Submarines)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom is party to(a) any United Nations agreement or (b) European Economic Community agreement prohibiting the provision of blueprints, materials or hardware for submarines to the Republic of South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We adhere strictly to

  (a) Security Council resolution 418 of 1977, which embodies the United Nations arms embargo against South Africa; and

  460

  (b) the agreement reached by Foreign Ministers of the European Community in September 1985 to refuse to co-operate with South Africa in the military sphere and on a rigorously controlled embargo on exports of arms to that country.

  We would therefore not permit British companies to supply blueprints, materials or hardware for submarines to South Africa.

  Russia—PLO Meeting
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in Moscow regarding the recent meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yasser Arafat; and whether the ambassador has been able to substantiate, through contact with the Soviet Foreign Ministry, the report in Tass that Mr. Gorbachev asked the Palestine Liberation Organisation to recognise the state of Israel.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not clear whether the welcome remarks which Mr. Gorbachev is reported as having made concerning recognition of the state of Israel were, in fact, directed at the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Jack Lewis-Walker
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by his Department to the Government of Zimbabwe about the imprisonment without trail of Mr. Jack Lewis-Walker, about whom the hon. Member for Macclesfield has written to him; and on what date he expects to be able to announce that Mr. Lewis-Walker has been released.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have not yet received any letter from my hon. Friend on this subject, although I received letters from other hon. Members with constituency interests.

  The British high commission at Harare is in touch with the authorities in Zimbabwe and has been granted consular access to Mr. Lewis-Walker, who is detained under the emergency powers regulations.

  We cannot speculate when Mr. Lewis-Walker may be released. This is a matter for the Zimbabwe authorities. The British high commission has made formal representations to try to secure his release on the basis that this has been recommended by the review tribunal.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numerised and percentage increases or decreases in the following categories of National Health Service hospital service manpower since 1973–74(a) nursery and midwifery, (b) ancillary, (c) medical and dental and (d) administrative and clerical.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information as is available for England is shown in the tables.

  Staffing figures have been given (a) for all hospital and community staff and (b) for hospital nursing and midwifery staff and medical and dental staff. (These are the only two staff groups that can be split between those working in the community and in hospitals).
  461

  NHS Staff in Post England 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents1

  1973

  1986

  Change 1973–86 WTE Change

  Percentage Change

  Nursing and Midwifery23

  308,500

  402,700

  94,200

  +30·5

  Ancillary4

  165,100

  124,300

  -40,900

  -24·7

  Medical and Dental5

  32,300

  43,200

  10,900

  +33·8

  Administration and Clerical6

  77,100

  111,400

  34,200

  +44·4

  Source: DHSS annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest (100) hundred whole-time equivalents. Percentages are calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Not adjusted for reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week).

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Not adjusted for transfer of Operating Theatre Assistants from Ancillary to Professional and Technical Staff group on 1 April 1984.

  5 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  6 Clinically related staff = 35,900, non-clinically related staff = 75,400 (Difference in total due to rounding).

  General Note: Figure for 1973 and 1986 are not consistent due to the effects of the 1974 NHS reorganization.

  NHS Hospital Staff in Post England 30 September

  Whole time equivalents1

  Change 1973 to 19861

  1973

  1986

  WTE

  Percentage

  Nursing and Midwifery234

  266,400

  354,700

  88,300

  +33·2

  Medical and Dental1

  28,300

  38,800

  10,500

  +37·2

  Source: DHSS (SR7) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents. Changes calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Because of the 1974 NHS reorganisation, which involved definition and classification changes, figures for 1973 are not consistent with those for 1986.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 Not adjusted for reduction in nurses working hours (from 40 to 37·5 per week) during 1980–81.

  5 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Locum staff for 1973 are estimated.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been spent by Her Majesty's Government in each year since 1980(a) directly and (b) through grants to non-Government organisations, on education measures to reduce solvent abuse.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government have directly spent the following sums on specific education and information measures designed to inform young people, parents, professional workers and retailers about the problems of solvent misuse.

  Direct Expenditure£

  Via Voluntary Agencies£

  1980–81

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  1,100

  1982–83

  —

  1,000

  1983–84

  10,000

  —

  1984–85

  10,000

  38,667

  1985–86

  —

  33,600

  1986–87

  —

  55,200

  1987–88

  —

  34,333

  20,000

  163,900

  Total £183,900

  The Government have also funded drug education coordinators in every local education authority, whose work has included activities aimed at preventing solvent misuse; have funded the Health Education Authority which (as the Health Education Council) produced a leaflet on solvent misuse; and have invested in a major expansion of drug misuse services, some of which offer help to solvent misusers.

  NHS Property (Kettering)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all National Health Service property within the Kettering district health authority area, stating acreage and current open market valuation.

  Mrs. Currie
  A list of NHS property, and acreage, within Kettering district health authority is as follows. Information on the current open market valuation is not readily available and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost. Disclosure of the open market value may also be prejudicial to any future sale of this property.

  Property

  Acreage

  Mayfair Day Hospital, 32–34 Headlands, Kettering

  0·2710

  Redcliffe Day Hospital, 49–51 Hatton Park Road,Wellingborough

  0·4600

  Stockburn Mein Home, Southlands, Kettering

  0·7380

  Ambulance Station, Forest Gate Road, Corby

  0·2440

  St. Mary's Hospital, London Road, Kettering

  11·5840

  Corby Health Complex, Cottingham Road, Corby, Community Hospital and Health Centre

  14·1600

  Isebrook Hospital, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough

  11·5560

  Hardwick Park Health Centre, Olympic Way, Wellingborough

  0·6120

  Health Clinic, British Lane/School Lane, Kettering

  0·2500

  Health Clinic, Stuart Road, Corby

  0·3440

  Health Centre, High Street, Burton Latimer

  0·2800

  18a Oxford Street, Wellingborough

  0·1160

  150 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·0810

  142 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·1060

  140 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·1090

  126 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·3720

  Kettering General Hospital, Rothwell Road, Kettering (includes Ambulance Station)

  37.9920

  247, 249 Stamford Road, Kettering

  0·1800

  123 Headlands, Kettering

  0·1650

  Health Centre, Bridge Street, Rothwell

  0·5000

  463

  Property

  Acreage

  Health Clinic, Sharman Road, Wellingborough

  0·8480

  Health Centre, Regent Street, Finedon

  0·1900

  Health Centre, School Lane, Chester

  0·1560

  114 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·1150

  156 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·0700

  154 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·0820

  152 Rothwell Road, Kettering

  0·0790

  8 Queensberry Road, Kettering

  0·1150

  10 Legion Crescent, Kettering

  0·0790

  Rushden Hospital

  17·7625

  Rushden Memorial Clinic

  0·9820

  Health Clinic. Rectory Road, Rushden

  0·4310

  Land at Adnitt Road, Rushden

  0·1350

  Ambulance Station, Glapthorne Road, Oundle

  0·2500

  Ambulance Station, Station Road, Rushden

  0·2110

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate his latest estimates of the numbers of persons gaining and losing as a result of social security changes coming into effect in April, in the following categories(a) those affected by the abolition of housing benefit supplement, (b) those affected by the reductions in housing benefit related to amenity charges paid to landlords and (c) those affected by the increase in housing benefit non-dependant deductions.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that data are not available in the form requested. Available information is contained in "The Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits." These tables allow for the effect of the abolition of housing benefit supplement, but not for the change to the structure of non-dependant deductions. The tables make no allowances for changes to the support received under the former housing benefit scheme by those people on supplementary benefit who were paying for their fuel with their rent—around 90,000 claimants. This help is being phased out over the next five years.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage loss in income in(a) Burnley and (b) Pendle due to housing benefit reductions of those earning (i) £60 per week, (ii) £80 per week and (iii) £150 per week.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the local government housing authorities which failed to convert their housing benefit regulations in line with the Social Security Act 1986 by the designated time;

  (2) if he will investigate those housing authorities which failed to convert their housing benefit regulations in line with the Social Security Act 1986 by the designated time and deposit his findings in the Library.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the local authority housing departments which have failed to convert all their housing benefit claimants' cases from the old system to the new, as defined by the Social Security Act 1986, by the due date of 4 April; and what percentage of claimants for each authority had not been notified of their precise entitlements by that date.
  464
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which local authorities had housing benefit systems in operation in time for the start of the new housing benefit scheme on 1 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Cochlea Implants
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average cost of a cochlea implant; how many such operations have been performed under the National Health Service in the most recent 12-month period; what steps have been taken to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Implantation of cochlea stimulation devices is undertaken at University College hospital, London, from non-National Health Service funds and with support from the National Institute of the Deaf. There are also research programmes at other National Health Service hospitals. Cochlea implants are still at a research and development stage and it is for health authorities to decide whether and when to make them generally available, taking into account medical advice as to benefits for patients and results of research and evaluation. Cost estimates vary according to the type of device from about £6,000 to £10,000 per patient.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any medical research relating to AIDS being undertaken on chimpanzees is financed by the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Under its fourth medical and health research programme the European Community contributes to the funding of a breeding colony of chimpanzees in the Netherlands. It is proposed that 20 animals should be used in AIDS research to the end of 1991.

  Social Security Appeals (Carlisle)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many social security appeals were made by claimants who live in Carlisle city in the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; and what percentage of these claimants were represented during the appeals.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table gives the available information. The national administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals are not disaggregated for areas smaller than a social security region and the figures relate to the north-western region, which includes Carlisle city. Equivalent information is not available prior to April 1984.

  Social security appeal tribunal statistics are now published annually in "Social Security Statistics" The 1986 edition contains information on social security tribunal statistics from April 1984 to December 1986 while the 1987 edition contains information from January 1986 to December 1986.
  465

  Social security appeals in north-western region 1984 to 1987

  Number attended by the appellant

  Number where the appellant was represented

  Year

  (1) Number of appeals lodged

  (2) Number of appeals heard

  (3) Total number

  (4) As percentage of column (2)

  (5) Total number

  (6) As percentage of column (2)

  19841

  30,686

  12,125

  6,997

  57·7

  2,745

  22·6

  1985

  38,777

  19,631

  10,888

  55·5

  4,261

  21·7

  1986

  42,584

  18,167

  9,864

  54·3

  3,849

  21·2

  19872

  23,367

  11,821

  6,193

  52·4

  2,450

  20·7

  1 April to December.

  2 January to June.

  Maternity Grants
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women claimed maternity grants in the last year of availability in Blyth Valley; and what is his best estimate of the number of women who will receive social fund payments for maternity in the first year of availability.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures requested (for Blyth local office area) are as follows :

  Number

  Maternity grant claims (15 April 1986–13 April 1987):

  1,281

  Social fund maternity payments (6 April 1987–8 April 1988):

  353

  Death Grants
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many death grants were claimed in Blyth Valley last year; and how many were awarded.

  Mr. Portillo
  Death grants ceased with the introduction of the social fund funeral payments in April 1987.

  During the last year of availability (9 April 1986 to 6 April 1987) 1,094 death grants were claimed at Blyth local office. Figures on the number of payments made are not available.

  In the first year of operation (7 April 1987 to 8 April 1988) 97 claims to social fund funeral payments resulted in 59 payments.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which pupils will be entitled to free school meals in the Northumberland education authority currently on supplementary benefit; and what is his estimate of the number of pupils on the new family credit scheme and income support who will be entitled to free meals.

  Mr. Portillo
  In October 1987, (the latest date for which information is available) there were 5,863 children receiving free school meals in the Northumberland education authority area on account of their family's receipt of supplementary benefit. We estimate that a similar number are now entitled on account of receipt of income support. Children from families in receipt of family credit are not entitled to free school meals. Instead, provision is made in cash by including an additional amount of £2·55 in the child credit rates for each child for each week of the year.

  Haringey Health Authority
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of hospital beds available in the Haringey health authority area on the latest available date, and for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Average Daily Number of Available Beds, Haringey District Health Authority1. 1979–1986

  Year

  Average daily number of available beds

  1979

  1,236

  1980

  1,122

  1981

  1,143

  1982

  1,157

  1983

  1,109

  1984

  1,028

  1985

  986

  1986

  1,072

  1 Haringey district prior to 1982.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of people on hospital waiting lists in the Haringey health authority area on the latest available date; and what are corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Number of patients on in-patient waiting list at 31 March, Haringey District Health Authority1, 1979–87.

  Year

  Total cases

  1979

  2,063

  1980

  1,721

  1981

  1,602

  1982

  1,710

  1983

  1,456

  1984

  1,108

  1985

  1,208

  1986

  1,225

  1987

  1,004

  1 Haringey district prior to 1982.

  Industrial Death Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his Department's decision to withdraw the industrial death benefit of those widows receiving it whose husbands died before 11 April.
  467
  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) on 18 April 1988 at columns 344–45.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the formula which determined the allocation of social fund grants and loans to local offices, what was the expenditure on single payments for each office in the period used for assessment under the formula; what that figure is as a percentage of the national total; and what the social fund loan and grants allocations to each office for 1988–89 were as a percentage of the national total.

  Mr. Scott
  A note explaining the basis of the allocation of the social fund budgets for 1988–89 has been in the Library since December. For information on single payment expenditure for the 32-week period ending 7 April 1987, I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 18 February at column 701. Social fund allocations were announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November 1987 at columns 774–81.

  Abortion
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total number of abortions, under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, in the Sheffield health authority area for each of the last seven years for which figures are available; how many of these abortions were performed on ground 4 where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped; and how many of these abortions were performed on ground 5 to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 to usual residents of Sheffield health areas, by selected grounds 1980–1986

  Area of usual residence

  All grounds

  Ground 4

  Ground 5

  Sheffield area health authority

  1980

  1,299

  16

  —

  1981

  1,317

  22

  —

  1982

  1,322

  21

  —

  Sheffield district health authority

  1983

  1,308

  22

  —

  1984

  1,398

  29

  —

  1985

  1,402

  17

  —

  1986

  1,486

  10

  —

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations his Department has received from the Disablement Income Group with reference to the decision not to disregard savings of mobility allowance for the purchase of a car in evaluating 468
  capital and entitlement to income support; when they were received; what action has been taken; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Mr. Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group wrote to me on 27 February on this subject. I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations his Department has received from the joint committee on mobility for the disabled with reference to the decision not to disregard savings of mobility allowance for the purchase of a car in evaluating capital and entitlement to income support; when they were received; what action has been taken; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No representation has been received from the joint committee on mobility for the disabled.

THE ARTS

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what child care provision his Office provides for pre-school age children of the Office's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to he funded.

  Mr. Luce
  At present no child care provision is provided by the Office of Arts and Libraries for employees' children.

  There are no plans to introduce such facilities in the next five years.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) whether he has figures updated from the 1980 Department of Education and Science review of the Victoria and Albert museum conservation department for(a) the proportion of 16th to 20th century miniatures which now require conservation; (b) how many 16th to 20th century miniatures now require major treatment; (c) how many objects in the prints and drawings departments now require urgent treatment and (d) how many items in the reserve collection of tapestries are now decaying;

  (2) what have been the receipts from the sale of Army objects in the collections of (a) the British museum and (b) the Victoria and Albert museums in each of the past 10 years;

  (3) whether the Clore gallery at the Tate gallery has a computerised alarm system; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what he estimates would be the cost of introducing computerised alarm systems at (a) the Tate gallery and (b) the Victoria and Albert museums;

  (5) whether the collections in (a) the Tate gallery, (b) the British museum and (c) the Victoria and Albert museum are insured; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) whether, pursuant to paragraphs 4.17 of the National Audit Office report "The Management of English Museums", he will name the collection of manuscripts in the Victoria and Albert museum's national

  469
  art library which, according to that report, is in a distressing condition with widespread deterioration of paper and bindings; and what is its estimated value;

  (7) whether he will list the off-site storage locations of (a) the British museum and (b) the Victoria and Albert museum and indicate (i) which are devoted solely to storage and (ii) the storage space of each in square metres;

  (8) what estimates he has of the cost of installing (a) temperature controls, (b) humidity controls and (c) an air filteration system for the storage of the British museum's prints and drawings department;

  (9) how many duplicates of objects are in the collections of (a) the British museum and (b) the Victoria and Albert museum;

  (10) how many objects in the collections of (a) the British museum (b) the Victoria and Albert museum have become useless for the purposes of the collection over the past 10 years by reason of (a) damage, (b) deterioration or (c) infestation;

  (11) whether, pursuant to paragraphs 2–4 of the National Audit Office report, "The Management of National Museums" he will list the potential acquisitions which have been rejected by (a) the Tate gallery, (b) the British museum and (c) the Victoria and Albert museum in each of the last five years on the grounds of consequential resource costs;

  (12) how many objects in the collection of (a) the British museum and (b) the Victoria and Albert museum have been (i) given away, (ii) sold or (iii) transferred to other museums and galleries, over the past 10 years; and whether he will list all such objects whose value is greater than £1,000;

  (13) how many professional and qualified staff were employed in conservation at (a) the Tate gallery, (b) the British museum and (c) the Victoria and Albert museum in (i) 1977 and (ii) 1987;

  (14) what information is available to his Department, pursuant to paragraph 1.10 of the National Audit Office report, "Management of National Museums", Cm. 394, to make it possible to identify areas where action is most urgently required at (a) the Tate gallery, (b) the British museum and (c) the Victoria and Albert museum;

  (15) how many objects are in the collection of (a) the British museum and (b) the Victoria and Albert museum.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall write to the hon. Member and will place copies of my letter in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Tribunals (Appeals)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many appeals to industrial tribunals were made by workers living in the city of Carlisle in the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; and what percentage of those workers were represented during the tribunal hearings.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The relevant statistics for residents within the Carlisle postal district are as follows:470

  Number of complaints heard by industrial tribunals

  Per cent of applicants represented at hearings

  1983

  21

  48

  1984

  19

  58

  1985

  68

  99

  1986

  8

  75

  1987

  15

  80

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to require claims for unfair dismissal to be made in writing to industrial tribunals and to be made available to the employers against whom complaint is made before the hearing.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The industrial tribunal rules of procedure already require this to be done.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to require claimants who fail in their applications to industrial tribunals for unfair dismissal to bear their own costs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Parties to unfair dismissal cases generally bear their own costs, though under their rules of procedure industrial tribunals may order a party who has acted frivolously, vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably to pay the costs of the other party.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the actual and percentage changes in employment for the years 1977 and 1987 were in (i) Yorkshire and Humberside and (ii) Don Valley constituency in the following main industry groups:(a) mining, (b) manufacturing, (c) construction, (d) distribution and leisure, (e) financial services and (f) public and other services.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  Employees in Employment in Yorkshire and Humberside Region Changes in the levels of employment between June 1977 and June 1987

  Numbers

  Percentages

  Manufacturing

  -273,000

  -37·9

  Construction

  -16,000

  -15·2

  Wholesale distribution, hotels and catering

  56,000

  34·6

  Retail distribution

  -6,000

  -3·4

  Banking, insurance and finance

  57,000

  64·0

  Public administration and defence

  -1,000

  -0·8

  Education, health and other services

  59,000

  17·4

  The available employee estimates for parliamentary constituencies are from censuses of employment taken in September 1981 and September 1984. An industry breakdown is not available for the earlier year, but, overall, the estimated number of employees in employment in the Don Valley constituency showed a reduction of 2,700, or 12 per cent., between the two census dates.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each standard region the most recent figures which are available showing the annual change in (i) the number of employees in employment and (ii) the number of full-time equivalent employees in employment.
  471
  Mr. Lee
  There is insufficient detail in the quarterly employment estimates to form the basis of a calculation of a full-time equivalent series. The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment Changes in the levels of employment between December 1986 and December 1987

  Thousands

  Males

  Females

  All

  All

  All

  Part time

  employees

  South East

  40

  107

  40

  149

  East Anglia

  19

  17

  9

  35

  South West

  1

  17

  8

  17

  West Midlands

  11

  32

  21

  43

  East Midlands

  13

  20

  7

  33

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5

  18

  10

  22

  North West

  -7

  12

  11

  4

  North

  4

  10

  7

  13

  Wales

  1

  7

  2

  8

  Scotland

  -10

  14

  14

  4

  The labour force survey provides information on a different basis from which can be calculated the person hours usually worked by employees. The changes between spring 1986 and spring 1987 are shown in the following table.

  Increase between spring 1986 and spring 1987 in person hours usually worked by employees

  Thousand person hours per week

  Per cent.

  South East

  154

  0·1

  East Anglia

  223

  0·8

  South West

  2,064

  3·4

  West Midlands

  -1,379

  -1·9

  East Midlands

  -838

  -1·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  332

  0·5

  North West

  1,882

  2·2

  North

  830

  2·1

  Wales

  51

  0·1

  Scotland

  -516

  -0·7

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in the northwest.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 March 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the north-west region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers was 347,800, a fall of 15.8 per cent. since March 1987.

  Termination of Employment
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to require employers to provide dismissed employees with reasons in writing for the termination of their employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 gives an employee the right, subject to certain qualifying conditions, to be provided with a written statement giving particulars of the reasons for dismissal.

  Race and Sex Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will institute an inquiry to seek detailed information on the full extent of race and sex monitoring in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. To institute such an inquiry would have considerable resource implications and impose additional burdens on employers.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the 374 major private sector employers visited by the Department of Employment's race relations advisory service(a) have introduced ethnic monitoring and (b) are actively considering the introduction of ethnic monitoring; and if he will place a list of such employers in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Of the 374 major private sector employers visited in the period April 1985 to December 1987, 79 had introduced ethnic monitoring and 47 were actively considering the introduction of ethnic monitoring. I cannot place a list of these employers in the Library for the reasons I gave to the hon. Member in my reply of 18 April 1988, at column 319.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will issue a circular to major employers in the private sector, requesting them to comply with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and of the Equal Opportunities Commission, in respect of monitoring and positive action.

  Mr. Nicholls
  An initiative of this kind would be more appropriate for the commissions to undertake. The Government encourage the adoption of the recommendations in the CRE and EOC codes of practice, including those relating to monitoring and positive action. This Department's race relations employment advisory service is at the present time giving particular publicity to the positive action provisions within the Race Relations Act and is encouraging employers to use them whenever appropriate. It will also be supporting the CRE's forthcoming campaign to promote its code of practice.

  Race and Sex Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) by whom the research project will shortly be commissioned to investigate the benefits that accrue from the introduction of ethnic monitoring systems by employers; by whom the project will be carried out; how long the project will take; how much it will cost; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will commission a research project to investigate the benefits that accrue from the introduction of sex monitoring systems by employers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The research project to investigate the benefits of ethnic monitoring systems will be commissioned by my Department. It will be carried out by an independent university-based research team, will take one year, and will cost up to £40,000

  The research project to investigate the benefits of ethnic monitoring should also throw some light on those that accrue from sex monitoring. It would therefore be premature to consider further research on sex monitoring until the current project has been reported.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Lee
  In the Department of Employment group a care-parent scheme operates for staff with children under five years old at the Health and Safety Executive headquarters in Bootle. Holiday play schemes, for employees' children aged five years and over, operate in the Department of Employment's headquarters at Runcorn, the Manpower Services Commission headquarters at Sheffield and the Health and Safety Executive headquarters in London. Additionally, we participate in two interdepartmental holiday play schemes in Bootle and Edinburgh. Several initiatives are under consideration or are proposed. These include the provision of creche facilities, at the Department of Employment in Runcorn and at the Health and Safety Executive in Bootle; also a care-parent scheme for Manpower Services Commission staff at Sheffield and an interdepartmental holiday play scheme in London (SW1). As regards plans to increase provision in the next five years, the Department will continue to consider sympathetically proposals for day care and holiday play schemes and, where possible, will provide practical help where there is evidence of sufficient demand to make it financially viable. The Department may be able to offer initial financial support to new daycare schemes but they must be viable without a continuing subsidy.

  Former Chemical Factory, Ilford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Inspectorate last visited the site of a former chemical factory in Uphall road, Ilford; what were the results of its monitoring; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive last visited this site on 1st March 1988 to meet the prospective developers of the site and discuss their plans for development. No monitoring of the site was carried out by the Health and Safety Executive during the visit.

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now reply to the letter sent to him on 3 February by the hon. Member for Gower in relation to a constituent residing in Llanmadoc, Gower.

  Mr. Lee
  I have now written to the hon. Member.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Potatoes
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the market support prices for 474
  potatoes to apply in Northern Ireland for the 1988–89 crop year beginning on 1 July have been determined; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Yes, following consultation with the Ulster Farmers Union it has been decided that the support price for the 1988 ware potato crop should remain at the level which applied to the 1987 crop, namely £46 per tonne. Any support operation will be limited to a maximum of 60,000 tonnes and as previously announced the target area for Northern Ireland planting in 1988 is 12,500 hectares.

  I believe that these arrangements will provide growers with a reasonable degree of assistance should it be necessary to introduce potato market support measures. I would, however, hope that support measures will not be necessary and I look to producers to make a positive contribution to market equilibrium by avoiding over-planting.

  China (Trade Delegation)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the Northern Ireland trade delegation to China.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding reply 14 April 1988.]: I visited China from 20–31 March with a trade delegation comprising representatives of eight Northern Ireland companies. The delegation, which was organised and supported by the Industrial Development Board, visited Shanghai, Tianjin and Beijing.

  The companies representatives visited a large number of potential customers and orders have been secured as a result of contacts made. I also met a number of organisations interested in investing outside China and these discussions have already led to a follow-up visit by a major Chinese clothing manufacturer to Northern Ireland.

  School Assemblies
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy towards the holding during school assemblies, of public signings of pledges as part of campaigns organised by bodies which do not recognise or support the role of the security forces in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding reply 15 April 1988]: This is primarily a matter for school authorities operating within existing legislation. I am not aware of any campaign in schools being organised by bodies opposed to the security forces.

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the privatisation of the electricity industry in Scotland will require any minimum level of electricity generation by non-nuclear plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have no such proposals in mind.

  Low-alcohol Lager
  Mr. Michael Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to prevent licensed grocers from selling low-alcohol lager to children under 18 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The sale of any beverage which in strength exceeds 1·2 per cent. of ethyl alcohol to children under the age of 18 years is an offence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Anyone possessing evidence of such an offence should bring the matter to the attention of the police.

  Child Care
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given by him to the EEC resolution on child care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the resolution on child care infrastructures adopted by the European Parliament at its session on 10 March 1986 and published subsequently in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Such resolutions are not binding on member states.

  Scottish Ferry Companies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of subsidy paid to the Scottish ferry companies expressed per head of the population in the islands for the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures requested are as follows :

  £

  1983–84

  95·41

  1984–85

  100·91

  1985–86

  106·42

  1986–87

  102·75

  1987–88

  190·82

  1 Estimate.

  The subsidies are the deficit subsidies paid to Caledonian MacBrayne and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company (OISC) and the fare subsidies payments made to P and O Ferries. Payments to OISC ended in 1986–87 when responsibility for support was transferred to the Orkney Islands council. This figure was £1·0 million in the final year. The population figures are from the 1981 census for Orkney, Shetland, the Outer and Inner Hebrides and islands in the Clyde.

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the rate of return to be obtained by the South of Scotland electricity board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board currently and after completion of the Torness power station.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1986–87, the latest year for which figures were available, the current cost rate of return on net assets employed achieved jointly by the Scottish electricity boards was 2·8 per cent. The agreed financial target for 1987–88 is 2·7 per cent, and for 1988–89 is 2·8 per cent. The rate of return for the period beyond 1988–89 is still to be discussed.
  476
  Torness power station is expected to start supplying the grid in the course of this year and should be fully commissioned by the early 1990s.

  Courts Administration
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been employed by the Scottish courts administration in the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents employed by the Scottish courts administration at 1 April in each of the last five years was as follows :

  Year

  Number

  1 April 1984

  880

  1 April 1985

  882½

  1 April 1986

  868½

  1 April 1987

  869

  1 April 1988

  872½

  District Courts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by court the number of criminal cases dealt with in the district courts in Scotland in the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on Monday 18 January 1988, at column 518.

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the establishment of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service in Scotland; and how many people have been employed in each of the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of staff who are and have been employed in the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service, on 1 April each year, are as follows:

  Year

  Staff

  1988

  1,007

  1987

  981

  1986

  956

  1985

  968

  1984

  942

  1983

  927

  Air Pollution
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the dangers that can be caused by the discharge of an excessive level of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere over Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Emissions of sulphur dioxide from Scottish sources amount to less than 5 per cent, of United Kingdom emissions. There is no evidence that current levels of SO2 in the atmosphere are having any direct effect on human, animal or plant health, but SO2 emissions can contribute to the acidification of

  477
  freshwaters. A considerable monitoring and research programme, with substantial Government funding, is being undertaken in Scotland to assess the levels and effects of deposition.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the dangers that can be caused by the discharge of an excessive level of heavy metals into the atmosphere over Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no evidence that current levels of heavy metals discharged into the atmosphere in Scotland are having any effect on human, animal, fish or plant health.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment is made by his Department of the level of heavy metals discharged into the atmosphere over Scotland annually from the burning of fossil fuels by electricity generating stations in England and Wales; what are the levels for the remaining discharge of heavy metals; and what is treated as a safe level.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Assessments of the concentrations of heavy metals in the atmosphere in Scotland are carried out on behalf of the Scottish Development Department by the Warren Spring laboratory. It would he very difficult at present to establish the proportion arising from power stations in England and Wales, but it is likely to be negligible.

  The concentrations of lead recorded in Scotland have been within the limit value set by the EC directive for lead in air. No generally accepted concentration is set for other elements, but the levels recorded in Scotland have been below mean levels normally recorded in urban atmospheres in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measurements are made by his Department to assess the emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Measurements of the levels of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere are not made as a matter of routine by the Scottish Development Department, but are undertaken as part of a survey organised on a national basis under the auspices of the Warren Spring laboratory of the Department of Trade and Industry and funded by the Department of the Environment.

  Ski Facilities
  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given further consideration to the proposals for a ski facility at Aonach Mor in Fort William; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I understand that new proposals for the ski development at Aonach Mor near Fort William are under discussion between the developers and the public bodies involved. The proposals have not yet been submitted to the Industry Department for Scotland.

  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any proposals for the extension of the Glencoe ski facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am not aware of any plans for extending the Glencoe ski facility at present. New facilities were 478
  opened for the 1987–88 season with Government financial assistance from the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Sports Council.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Purity
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on progress made towards full implementation of the European Economic Community directives on drinking water and bathing water.

  Mr. Ridley
  Most public water supplies for which derogations have been sought from the European Commission are expected to comply with the EC drinking water directive by 1990. In addition, I have asked water undertakers in England to review their investment programmes in the light of my statement of 2 December 1987 about a revised interpretation of this directive.

  All significant seaside resorts are included within the scope of the bathing water directive. More than half the bathing waters comply with the directive's standards and major improvement schemes are in hand or planned to bring the others up to these standards.

  Planning Laws
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking legislation to reform the planning laws.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I receive frequent representations asking for planning legislation either to he tightened or to be relaxed.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of(a) Age Concern, (b) the Child Poverty Action Group, (c) the Low Pay Unit, (d) the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and (e) the British Council of Churches to discuss the effects of the poll tax; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  I have not had a request for a meeting to discuss the community charge from any of these bodies.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of electors in the boroughs of Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough currently pay domestic rates; and what forecast he has of the proportion that will pay the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  About half the electors in Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees pay rates, whereas virtually all electors will pay the community charge.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of gainers and losers from the proposed poll tax in Lewisham.

  Mr. Howard
  The estimates of gainers and losers from the introduction of the community charge which I published on 13 Janaury were produced using data from the family expenditure survey. Projections for individual local authority areas are not possible because of the limitations of the sample survey data.
  479
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people and how many organisations have made representations to him in favour of the community charge since June 1987.

  Mr. Nicholas Ridley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average community charge that would be levied in 1988–89 if the Local Government Finance Bill were in force.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 28 March at column 312.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of people who will be exempt from paying any community charge under the proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  I estimate that about ½ million people will be exempt from the community charge.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps, following the introduction of the community charge, to ensure that landlords allow a reduction in rents equivalent to the amount of community charge which the tenant will thereafter have to pay personally.

  Mr. Howard
  Many tenants already pay rent exclusive of rates, and pay their rates direct to the local authority. Tenants with registered rents, which are always fixed exclusive of rates, will no longer be liable for any separate rates contribution to their landlord when the community charge is introduced. For tenancies granted before the current Housing Bill becomes law, tenants who do not have a registered rent, and who do not know what the rates element of their rent may be, can if necessary at any time register a rent to establish this.

  Where a rent assessment committee arbitrates on market rents for new-style assured and shorthold tenancies granted after the Housing Bill becomes law, but before domestic rates are abolished, these rents will also be exclusive of rates. For other assured tenancies granted before the introduction of the community charge, where the tenant has not been paying rates direct to the local authority, it will be for the parties to negotiate a reduction in the rent to reflect the abolition of rates. We shall be issuing advice to tenants on this. We see no need for further measures.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost to local authorities of developing computer systems for the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  This is one of the aspects of a study now being undertaken by Price Waterhouse on which a report is expected next month.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the increase in the maximum net weekly incomes that would qualify for community charge rebates by using a taper of 15 per cent. instead of a taper of 20 per cent. in calculating rebate entitlement.

  Mr. Howard
  The increase in maximum net weekly incomes that would qualify for community charge rebates 480
  by using a taper of 15 per cent. instead of a taper of 20 per cent. would vary according to circumstances of the claimant and the level of the community charge.

  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the increase over a range of community charges, for a single person aged 18–24, a couple with two children under 11, and a pensioner couple aged 60–79.

  So, for example, on the basis of a taper of 15 per cent., a couple with two children aged under 11, where the community charge is £224 would qualify for a rebate with a net weekly income of up to 131·77. In gross terms this would be approximately £7,700 per annum or nearly three quarters of the national average wage.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to announce the appointment of the chairman of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Next year. However, I hope shortly to make an announcement about the chairmanship of the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee.

  Waste Disposal Sites
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about safety arrangements for waste disposal sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received my hon. Friend's letter of 22 March about building houses on or near old waste disposal sites.

  Following a letter in December last to all waste disposal authorities, my Department is currently in the process of establishing the numbers of sites capable of generating methane, and will publish later this year a waste management paper on how to deal with the problem.

  Housing (South of England)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has for increasing the amount of land available for housing in the south of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend has asked the south east regional planning conference to consider the implications for housing requirements in the south-east of the new population and household projections. In light of SERPLAN's advice, we shall consider the need for revised regional guidance to county planning authorities on the appropriate scale and distribution of housing provision in county structure plans.

  Derelict and Unused Land
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reviews his Department is undertaking with regard to the release of derelict, vacant, dormant, underutilised and unused land in public ownership.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department keeps under constant review the extent of unused and underused land owned by public bodies that is entered on the land registers; and, where necessary, statutory procedures to force disposal are initiated.
  481
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether details of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land in Crown ownership are included in the register of vacant land held in his Department.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that details of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land in Crown ownership to be included in the register of vacant land held in his Department.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now arrange for details of vacant, derelict and underutilised land in Crown ownership to be included in the register of vacant land held by his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  Details of unused and underused land in Crown ownership are included in the registers of such land compiled and maintained under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of under one acre of vacant, dormant and derelict land are in the ownership of his Department; and when he expects to sell them.

  Mr. Chope
  Fifteen sites, all of which are in varying stages of disposal, and I expect to complete sales by the end of this financial year.

  Litter
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any recent representations from tourist authorities for more effective powers to combat litter.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No, but I am aware of their concern about litter, which I share.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the chairman or board of the London Docklands development corporation concerning its response to the letter from Messrs. Robson Rhodes concerning its financial procedures.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has examined the issues identified by Messrs. Robson Rhodes following its 1985–86 external audit of the corporation and the LDDC board's response. I will make a statement shortly about the Department's conclusions.

  Reddish Vale (Sale)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the sale of Reddish Vale by the Greater Manchester residuary body.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received representations from hon. Members, from Stockport and Tameside district councils, from the Tame Valley joint committee and from local residents.

  Local Authorities and Housing Associations
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is planning to take to reinforce the partnership between local authorities and housing associations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have provided the framework for partnership between local authorities and housing associations. We are considering ways in which Exchequer support might be continued for local authority funding of housing association schemes. It is up to local authorities and housing associations themselves to develop partnership.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the demand for private rented accommodation at market rents.

  Mrs. Roe
  It is not possible to make any precise estimate of the demand for private rented accommodation at market rents. It is, however, clear that there will always be people who want to rent, in particular, the young, single and mobile and those who cannot afford owner-occupation. We owe it to these people to provide a healthy private sector and we are confident that deregulation of future lettings will help to achieve this objective.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the chairman of Nirex to discuss matters relating to the management of nuclear waste.

  Mr. Moyniham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 17 February at column 673.

  Vacant Land (Disposal)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much vacant land has been handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal and has not been sold after 12 months.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal and has not been sold after 12 months.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the owners of public vacant land in respect of which he has issued more than three disposal notices since the procedures were introduced.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows :

  My right hon. Friend has given notice, under section 99 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, on more than three occasions, to the following public bodies in respect of unused and underused land in their ownership :

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  Cheshire CC

  Derbyshire CC

  Doncaster MBC

  Hounslow LB

  483

  Kingston LB

  Kingston-upon-Hull City Council

  Lambeth LB

  Leeds City Council

  Manchester City Council

  Sheffield MDC

  Shropshire CC

  Southwark LB

  Sunderland MBC

  Tameside MBC

  Trafford MBC

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by size of land holding, the largest public owners of vacant land.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows: On 31 March 1988, the 10 public bodies with the largest areas of land recorded on the registers of publicly-owned unused and underused land were:

  Acres

  1. British Rail

  8,613

  2. DHSS

  3,926

  3. CEGB

  2,724

  4. Commission for New Towns

  2,507

  5. Telford Development Corporation

  1,878

  6. British Coal

  1,781

  7. Warrington Development Corporation

  1,640

  8. Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority

  1,410

  9. Bristol City Council

  1,312

  10. Leeds City Council

  1,222

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much dormant land has been handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal and has not been sold after 12 months.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) earlier today.

  Rates
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in respect of the average increase in rates from 1 April.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) earlier today.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average increase in domestic rates from 1 April.

  Mr. Howard
  8·8 per cent.

  Public Vacant Land
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average time that public vacant land sites remain on the land register.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Southern England (Development)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce new controls to restrain development pressures in southern England.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are pursuing a range of policies designed to encourage development in other parts of the 484
  country, particularly the inner cities. But provision for economic growth and new housing will still need to be made in southern England. It is the job of the planning system to ensure that necessary development is accommodated in ways which do not conflict with our policies for the green belt and the protection of the countryside.

  Rubbish (Illegal Dumping)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities about the possibility of strengthening present legislation on the illegal dumping of rubbish in residential areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There have been no recent discussions with local authorities about illegal dumping. but the Government remain concerned that action should be taken to reduce or eliminate it. Our proposals for strengthening the law on waste disposal, including a duty of care on waste producers and registration of waste carriers, were made in a consultation paper issued in September 1986. We are considering the responses and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Metaldehydrate and Methiocarb
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any evidence of harmful effects to land, rivers and plant life caused by the use of metaldehydrate and methiocarb.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am advised that the substance referred to in the question as metaldehydrate is probably metaldehyde. Products containing metaldehyde and methiocarb are approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 for specified uses, mainly as molluscicides. Both substances are toxic and can be harmful to pets and to wildlife, including birds and fish. Pesticides containing these substances should not present an undue hazard to the environment when used according to the conditions of approval.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the president of the Rugby Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I last met the president of the Rugby Football Union on 16 December 1987. We discussed taxation and rates, sporting links with South Africa, drug abuse in sport, the rugby World Cup and the redevelopment of Twickenham.

  Berkshire Structure Plan
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning his proposed modifications to the Berkshire structure plan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend has received 2,188 written representations to his proposed modifications to the replacement structure plan for Berkshire, together with a substantial petition. The six-week period for representations ended on 31 March 1988.

  Green Belt Development (Legal Costs)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make provision for assistance with legal costs for objections against substantial planning applications affecting rural land and land within the green belt.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to alter the longstanding arrangement that the cost of promoting and of resisting development proposals falls to the respective parties. Nevertheless, applicants who unreasonably pursue on appeal proposals which are contrary to established planning policy, whether in the green belt or elsewhere, may find that the costs of the proceedings where there is an inquiry, including the costs of objectors, are awarded against them.

  Benthall Park Development
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his decision on the proposed Benthall park development, in the light of the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the green belt.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Benthall park development was allowed because of the pressing need to provide new housing for Harlow and the Stansted airport expansion. The detailed boundary of the green belt in the area has yet to be defined. The circumstances of that case were exceptional, and the decision does not signify any lessening of the Government's commitment to protect the green belt from inappropriate development.

  Vacant Inner-City Land
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department has commissioned to examine the causes of inner city land remaining vacant.

  Mr. Trippier
  In February 1988 we published "Vacant Urban Land : A Literature Review 1976–86", the central part of which outlines the current state of knowledge on the nature of the urban land market and in particular the causes of urban land vacancy. The Property Advisory Group is presently examining the problems of vacant inner city land, and we expect to commission further research in the near future.

  Tree Preservation Orders (Compensation)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to limit the compensation that may be paid when a tree preservation order is issued to a valuation as woodland.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Adjournment debate which took place in the House on 22 March at columns 335–38. The Government are giving urgent consideration to the most appropriate action to maintain the general effectiveness of tree preservation orders affecting woodland, following the recent decision by the Court of Appeal.

  Housing Tenancies (Fiscal Neutrality)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to create greater fiscal neutrality amongst the different housing tenancies.
  486
  Mrs. Roe
  One of the aims of the Government's housing policy is to encourage the revival of private investment in rented housing. The Chancellor's proposal, announced in the Budget, to extend the business expansion scheme to cover the provision of private rented housing will be a major help in encouraging investment in this sector.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the care and protection of ancient monuments.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We receive various representations and correspondence from time to time about the care and protection of ancient monuments. Many of these relate to applications for scheduled monument consent, suggestions that monuments should be scheduled, or other policy matters connected with the subject. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem in mind, perhaps he would care to write to me so that I can look into the matter properly.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to strengthen the powers of local planning authorities in respect of protecting open spaces and the green belt.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Planning authorities already have adequate powers to protect these areas.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to increase the home improvement grants available to home owners.

  Mrs. Roe
  The number of improvement grants awarded is determined by local authorities in the light of their assessment of the stock condition in their area and the resources available to them through their housing investment programme allocation and the prescribed proportion of capital receipts. The eligible expense limits used for calculating individual grants are expected to be increased later this year.

  Westminster City Council (Cemetery Sales)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in respect of investigations by the district auditor into the disposal of cemeteries by Westminster city council.

  Mr. Chope
  The district auditor is still investigating the matter and I cannot anticipate the outcome.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking in the context of the recent Government policy statement "Action for Inner Cities", to speed up the disposal of land from the land registers.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 7 March at columns 75–76. The policy

  487
  outlined then is additional to action already in train: the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 streamline the procedures for directing disposals; and since 7 March further disposal directions have been issued and statutory procedures initiated in respect of other pieces of land.

  Government-owned Empty Property
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is initiating any action to bring Government-owned empty property into use for families in housing stress.

  Mrs. Roe
  Departments are fully aware of the need to bring empty dwellings back into use or, where they are no longer needed, to sell them as quickly as possible. Operational requirements are reviewed regularly and targets (agreed with the Treasury) set to reduce their vacant stock.

  Where Departments have no immediate operational need for empty dwellings but disposal is not practicable, they are encouraged to let them temporarily to local authorities or housing associations so that they may be used for homeless people. So far more than 275 lettings have been arranged by the Ministry of Defence.

  House Repairs
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to find their own schemes for repairing houses designated as defective under the Housing Act 1985.

  Mrs. Roe
  Of the 50 repair systems for designated house types now licensed by PRC Homes Ltd., six have been commissioned by local authorities, and three more are currently under appraisal. Local authorities are already encouraged to submit their own schemes for licensing, particularly where they possess house types not commonly found elsewhere.

  London (Voluntary Sector)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent study he has made of the effect of Greater London council abolition on the voluntary sector in London.

  Mr. Chope
  I have not commissioned such a study and have no plans to do so.

  Water Companies Association
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the Water Companies Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  With the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Water, I met representatives of the Water Companies Association on 25 January. We discussed their response to our two consultation papers on the statutory water companies.

  Out-of-Town Shopping Centres
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he uses, with particular reference to the impact on employment in the inner cities, when deciding upon planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres; and if he will make a statement.
  488
  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to a planning policy guidance note on major retail development (PPG6) issued by my Department and the Welsh Office on 20 January this year. Copies are in the Library. The note advises that, exceptionally, it will be necessary to consider whether the cumulative effects of other recent and proposed large scale retail developments in a locality could seriously affect the vitality and viability of a nearby town centre as a whole.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now announce the areas where the first housing action trusts will he established.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on 16 March 1988 at column 598.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to add an additional member nominated by the Association of London Authorities to the London residuary body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 April at column 233.

  Redundant Farm Buildings
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to encourage the conversion of redundant farm buildings for small businesses.

  Mrs. Roe
  The planning policy guidance note on rural enterprise and development (PPG7), issued jointly by my Department and the Welsh Office on 20 January this year, emphasised yet again the contribution that reuse of redundant farm buildings can make to the rural economy without harm to the rural environment. Grants for the conversion of redundant buildings in rural development areas are available from the Rural Development Commission.

  System Built Housing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the types of building systems designated under the Housing Defects Act.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have no general plans to review the list of nationally designated property types; but we are currently reconsidering Milton Keynes borough council's request that certain properties in its area be designated nationally and hope to reach a decision shortly.

  Special Need Housing
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the future provision of special needs housing by housing associations; and when he will publish the planned consultation paper on the future of hostel deficit grant.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Government recognise the achievements of the housing association movement in the provision of
  489
  special needs housing, and continue to attach great importance to the work of associations in this area. The Department's consultation paper on the future of hostel deficit grant will be issued within the next few weeks.

  Private Empty Properties (Lease-back Arrangements)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is making additional funds available for local authorities to enter into lease-back arrangements with the owners of private empty properties.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend's statement of 9 March indicated that he would consider giving additional capital allocations to facilitate projects which were brought within the capital control system by the measures announced in his statement, but which had not primarily been entered into for the purpose of avoiding capital expenditure or borrowing controls. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 24 March that £28 million extra capital allocations would be targeted on local authorities where homelessness pressures are most acute. These allocations will not be confined to schemes for the leasing of property as these are not necessarily the most cost-effective means of providing accommodation.

  East Deane Local Plan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the inspector into the East Deane local plan, relating to Taunton Deane, Somerset.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Inspectors who conduct inquiries into local plans report not to my right hon. Friend but to the local planning authority which prepared the plan. I understand that the inspector's report on the East Deane local plan was sent to Taunton Deane borough council on 15 April.

  Haringey (Rate Support Grant)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of rate support grant to Haringey borough council in each year since 1979 at current prices; and what proportion this represented of their total income.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows :

  Rate support grant £ million

  Per cent. of total income1

  1979–80

  52·902

  56·7

  1980–81

  61·816

  51·9

  1981–822

  56·489

  38·9

  1982–832

  60·325

  41·0

  1983–843

  56·986

  33·5

  1984–853

  56·691

  31·0

  1985–863

  63·605

  30·0

  1986–874

  51·047

  n/a

  1987–884

  71·511

  n/a

  1988–894

  84·667

  n/a

  1 Total income is defined as rate fund revenue account gross income comprising sales, fees, charges, interest receipts, local rates, specific grants and rate support grant. It is net of general administration recharged to other services and accounts.

  2 The grant figures and grant as a percentage of total income are not comparable with those for years before 1981–82 because the arrangements for paying grant changed in 1981–82; the needs
  490
  resources and domestic elements of grant were replaced by block grant and domestic rate relief grant.

  3 Income and grant as a percentage of total income are not comparable with those for years before 1983–84 due to the introduction of the unified housing benefit scheme in 1983–84 when arrangements for paying grant to local authorities were changed.

  4 The grant figures are not comparable with those for years before 1986–87 because of changes in local authorities' responsibilities following the abolition of the GLC.

  n/a = not available.

  Rhinoceros Populations and Products
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 28 January,Official Report, column 375, what progress he has made in formulating a detailed response to the resolution passed at the sixth meeting of the parties to CITES, relating to rhinoceros populations and trade in rhinoceros products.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A detailed response to this resolution remains a matter for discussion with our European Community partners. Meanwhile the controls on international trade in rhino horn remain as set out in my reply of 28 January. We have in addition, through our embassies in Kinshasa and Dhubai registered with the Burundi and UAE authorities, United Kingdom's concern about illegal trade in this product.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions are in existence to ensure that employment opportunities are made available to local residents in those areas where urban development corporations have been established.

  Mr. Trippier
  All urban development corporations see the creation of employment opportunities for those who live in and around their areas as an important part of their work. Each makes provision which seems appropriate to its circumstances.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban development corporation the percentage change in unemployment that has been realised since their establishment.

  Mr. Trippier
  Unemployment statistics are not available specifically for the areas of urban development corporations, although certain surveys have been carried out in Merseyside and London docklands. The Department of the Environment, the Manpower Services Commission and the corporations themselves have recently presented evidence on this complex subject to the Employment Committee. This will be published in due course, but in the meantime I refer the hon. Member to the uncorrected proofs which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban development corporation the percentage and real term increase in value of property for sale and lease since their inception.

  Mr. Trippier
  Property values vary widely within each urban development corporation's area. There is no single measure of property values in each area currently available. The answer I gave the hon. Member on March 22, at column 55, may be helpful in indicating current values in the areas of the first two corporations, the range of those values and the factors which influence them.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the identity of the present owner of Heveningham hall, and as to their nature and status.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Heveningham hall was conveyed in November 1981 to ID Investment Development AG, a company registered in Switzerland.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to identify the persons or bodies responsible for discharging the undertakings given at the time of the sale of Heveningham hall: and what steps are being taken to enforce the discharge of those undertakings.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Heveningham hall was conveyed to ID Investment Development AG in November 1981. Mr. Abdul-Amir Misr Al-Ghazzi personally covenanted with the Secretary of State in December 1981 that he would himself, so far as he was able, observe, or procure the observance of, the covenants of sale if the company should in any respect fail to fulfil them.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 18 February in respect of the discharging of the covenants of sale. We continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  River Bailiffs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision there will be for bailiffing of rivers when the National River Authority is created.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The National Rivers Authority will assume the responsibility of the water authorities for fisheries conservation and management, and will he expected to adopt positive policies for fisheries management, including bailiffing.

  Hydrologic Code Comparison Project
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the hydrologic code intercomparison project sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nuclear energy agency has been completed; and whether the United Kingdom has contributed any technical assistance to the project.

  Mr. Moynihan
  If the hon. Member is referring to the international HYDROCOIN (hydrological code inter-comparison) project, which was started in May 1984 by the Swedish nuclear power inspectorate (SKI), the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development participates as a member of the project secretariat, I understand that the project is complete and that reports of the various test cases are being prepared for publication in the near future. The British Geological Survey, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Atkins Research and Development Ltd. have participated in the project.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Montreal protocol.
  492
  Mr. Moynihan
  The text of the protocol was laid before both Houses on 26 January 1988 and the necessary parliamentary procedures are, therefore, complete for the United Kingdom. We are now consulting the dependent territories and expect this process to be completed in good time to meet the target date for the protocol to enter into force on 1 January 1989. We are also discussing with our European partners a proposed decision that would enable the Community and its member states to ratify the protocol simultaneously.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what nations are currently signatories to the Montreal protocol; and which of them have ratified it.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information is as follows:

  At a Diplomatic Conference on 16 September 1987 the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer was signed by :

  Belgium

  Canada

  Denmark

  European Economic Community

  Egypt

  Finland

  France

  Germany, Federal Republic of

  Ghana

  Italy

  Japan

  Kenya

  Mexico

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Panama

  Portugal

  Senegal

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Togo

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  Venezuela

  We understand from the United Nations environment programme that it has since been signed by :

  Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic

  Greece

  Israel

  Luxembourg

  Morocco

  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

  So far as we have been informed, the United States is the only country to have ratified the protocol.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the amount by which (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the European Community will have to cut consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by (a) 1990, (b) 1994 and (c) 1999 to meet the requirements of the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Under the Montreal protocol all parties are required by 1990 to freeze consumption of CFCs 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115 at 1986 levels; to reduce their consumption by 20 per cent. by 1994; and by a further 30 per cent. by 1999. The proposed regulation for implementing the protocol envisages that obligations in regard to consumption will he fulfilled by the Community as a whole but complete information about its level of consumption is not yet available. Separate figures are riot available for the United Kingdom or other individual member states.
  493
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on (i) the outcome of the European Community Council of Ministers meeting on 21 March regarding implementation of the Montreal protocol, (ii) what implementation programmes have been and will be undertaken by each of the European Community member states and (iii) future plans for consultation among European Community member states.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On the hon. Member's first point, I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on 24 March at columns 186–87. Communitywide implementation of the protocol is the subject of a proposed regulation which is being examined by member states and which will be discussed by the Environment Council on 16 June.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to request a review of the terms of the Montreal protocol in the light of new scientific data particularly that published by the International Ozone Trends Panel on 15 March; and if he will make a statement.

  £'000s

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  DOE

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  48

  118

  140

  171

  Met Office

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  221

  164

  180

  353

  n/a

  NERC

  n/a

  531

  493

  912

  455

  443

  344

  505

  n/a

  SERC

  50

  100

  100

  200

  850

  1,000

  2,000

  1,100

  n/a

  Note: n/a indicates figures not readily available. SERC current commitments for 1988–89 arc £335,000.

  Expenditure by the Department has risen steadily over this period, and we are considering a further increase.

  Sewers (Leeds)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what request he has received for an increase in the capital funding for the Yorkshire water authority for the completion of resewering of the Rothwell area of Leeds; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what request he has had for additional assistance to the Yorkshire water authority to help prevent raw sewage entering the river Dolphin in Rothwell, Leeds; what response he has made, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. This year my right hon. Friend increased capital expenditure provision for Yorkshire Water to £132 million.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Water Authorities Association about the regulation which will apply in the water industry following the privatisation legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Pursuant to my answer on 9 March to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) at column 228, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water met the chairman of the Water Authorities
  494
  Mr. Moynihan
  The Montreal protocol contains its own provisions for regular reviews of the control measures on the basis of scientific, environmental, technical and economic information. The first such review will be undertaken in 1990. In the meantime the Department's stratospheric ozone research group is studying all the latest scientific evidence, including that of the ozone trends panel, and will publish an up-to-date assessment in the autumn.

  Ozone Research Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for public expenditure on each stratospheric ozone research programme receiving grants from Her Majesty's Government for each year since 1980 for which figures are available; and whether he plans to increase expenditure on such research.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Expenditure on stratospheric ozone research by the Department, the Meteorological Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council, for each year since 1980 is as follows:

  Association on 8 March and 19 April to discuss a range of issues relating to the privatisation of the water industry, including regulation.

  Water Services
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assurances he has given to the Water Authorities Association about the maintenance of the efficiency of water authorities' services after the demise of the integrated river basin concept of management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the consultation paper and policy memorandum, published by the Government in July and December last year. Copies of both were placed in the Library of the House.

  Air Pollution
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the dangers that can he caused by the discharge of an excessive level of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere over England and Wales.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There is extensive literature on health and other effects of sulphur dioxide, a convenient summary of which is contained in WHO "Air Quality Guidelines for Europe," WHO regional publications, European series No. 23. The permitted level for SO2 in air is set by the EC directive 80/779/EEC.
  495
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on the dangers that can be caused by the discharge of an excessive level of heavy metals into the atmosphere over England and Wales;

  (2) what assessment is made by his Department of the level of heavy metals discharged into the atmosphere annually from the burning of fossil fuels by electricity generating stations in England and Wales; what are the levels for the remaining discharge of heavy metals; and what is treated as a safe level.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There is extensive literature on the health and environmental effects of excessive levels of heavy metals. In England and Wales Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution ensures that best practicable means are used to reduce emissions to the atmosphere from power stations and other scheduled works to safe levels set on the basis of the available scientific data. Current presumptive emission limits are given in appendix 7 of the industrial air pollution report for 1986, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Total emissions are not assessed as a matter of routine in the United Kingdom, but concentrations of a wide range of metals in the environment are regularly measured in both urban and rural areas. The results are reported in Department of the Environment "Statistical Bulletin (87) 1", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. For lead the permitted level in the air is set in the EC directive (82/884/EEC).

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measurements are made by his Department to assess the emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere in England and Wales; and what comparable information he has for France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Finland over the years since 1980.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Estimates of sulphur dioxide emissions are made from the quantity of fossil fuel used and of its sulphur content. The results are published annually in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Details of the methods used are given in the Warren Spring laboratory report WSL. LR634 a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. In 1986 the executive body of the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution published a major review entitled "National strategies and policies for Air Pollution Abatement" which contains estimates of SO2 emissions provided by France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Finland for years since 1980. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.

  Water Byelaws
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the new model water byelaws.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The latest edition of the model water byelaws was published in June 1986.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to bring the quality of 496
  drinking water in England and Wales up to the standard required by the European Economic Community in advance of the date previously given.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: I welcome any steps being taken by water undertakers to comply with the EC drinking water directive in advance of dates already set.

  Water (Nitrates Pollution)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what evidence he has of increased pollution of public water supplies by nitrates over the past 20 years; and what are the reasons for the increase;

  (2) what evidence he has of the increased pollution of groundwater supplies by nitrates over the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement on the implications of this for public health policy.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer, 19 April 1988]: In 1986, 152 groundwater sources occasionally or persistently contained nitrate concentrations exceeding 50 mg per litre, compared with approximately 90 in 1980 and 60 in 1970. The increased nitrate concentrations can be attributed to the substantial change in farming methods over the last few decades.

  As a result of action by water undertakers, nitrate concentrations regularly exceed 50 mg per litre in only 50 public supplies though the concentrations are not considered unsafe by medical advisers. Nevertheless, the rising trend in some areas is a matter of concern and the Government are considering ways of tackling the problem.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he agreed to the European Community directive restricting nitrate pollution of water supplies to 50 mg; what expert advice was received from outside his Department on the health aspects of the issue; and what is the level now recommended by the World Health Organisation and other comparable bodies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: The EC directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption was adopted in 1980. The nitrate standard was agreed because the figure of 50 mg of nitrate per litre had been recommended by the World Health Organisation as a guideline value since 1970, and medical experts in this country accepted that recommendation. Guideline values are intended to safeguard health, assuming life-long consumption at that value.

  The World Health Organisation has since reviewed its guideline values for substances in drinking water and in 1984 published recommendations which included a revised value of 10 mg of nitrate as nitrogen per litre (equivalent to 44·6 mg of nitrate per litre). The apparent reduction from 50 mg of nitrate per litre to 44·6 mg per litre is of no medical significance.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of public water supplies which exceed the 50 mg limit in relation to nitrate pollution; what will be the cost of bringing these supplies within the directive; and what is the body responsible for paying such costs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: Fifty public water supplies are estimated to contain nitrate concentrations above 50 mg per litre. The Department is

  497
  currently seeking information on how much it would cost water undertakers to comply with the EC drinking water directive limit for nitrate.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the Single European Act provisions on the responsibilities for pollution in relation to Government policy; how these are determined; and if consideration has been given to the allocation of the cost of preventing nitrate pollution.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: The Single European Act introduced changes to the treaty of Rome. Among these is a new chapter on the environment. This lays down broad objectives in the area of environmental protection. It also confirms the principles of preventive action, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay. However, the Act does not have specific implications for Government responsibilities; rather, it serves as a platform for the production of further Council legislation, which will be more specific in its terms.

  The articles in the new environment chapter (Articles 1308, 1305 and 130T) now provide the usual legal base for environmental measures. These articles proceed on the basis of unanimity, at least in the first instance.

  Limestone Purchases
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice was given by his Department to the Central Electricity Generating Board on purchases of limestone for flue gas desulphurisation from quarries outside the national parks.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: My Department was one of a number of organisations consulted by the Central Electricity Generating Board on its proposals for obtaining the supplies of limestone it needed for flue gas desulphurisation. My Department drew the board's attention to the importance of the Government's policy on winning and working of minerals in national parks and the statement by my hon. Friend the member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on 9 April, at columns 393–94. We also called attention to reports published by the British Geological Survey which described the location and quality of limestone resources both inside and outside national parks. We advised the board to discuss its needs with the mineral planning authorities, in order to establish whether suitable supplies of limestone would be available from outside the national parks, and the wider planning issues.

  Richmond Terrace
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of the annual budget for property valuation and revaluation was used over the valuation of Richmond terrace;

  (2) whether he will make a statement as to the effect on resources available to the Property Services Agency for valuation and revaluation of property arising from his decision to employ Cluttons to value Richmond terrace.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: Sums for valuation and revaluation of property are made available from resources set aside for expenditure on consultants' fees. Final figures for PSA expenditure on consultants' fees in 1987–88 for the civil estate are not yet available, but the
  498
  total is expected to be about £56 million. Cluttons' fee for the valuation of Richmond house comprised substantially less than 0·1 per cent. of this expenditure. The effect on resources available to PSA for the employment of consultants was therefore minimal.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the National Employer Liaison Committee on stimulating recruitment into the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  Provision has been made to find the central major publicity campaign recommended by the National Employer Liaison Committee. Preparatory work had already been carried out and planning is now under way, in order to launch the campaign in autumn 1988. Although this campaign is intended primarily to improve the status, and promote public awareness, of not only the Territorial Army, but the other reserve forces, we would hope to see benefits in both recruitment and retention.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what number of beds there are, and what is the average level of occupancy, in each of his Department's hospitals in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on 12 January, at columns 200–2.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the movement of United States' nuclear weapons from continental Europe to the United Kingdom as part of the redistribution of nuclear forces in Europe under the terms of the Montebello decision.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to comment on the location of nuclear weapons.

  NATO
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the next nuclear planning group meeting will be discussing modernisation and redeployment of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation maritime tactical nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 22 January at column 899.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement regarding his definition and understanding of the use of the expression class of firearm in relation to the civilian use of firearms on ranges either constructed, maintained or approved by his Department;

  (2) on what dates and for what calibre of firearms his Department granted or amended range safety certificates

  499
  for ranges at (a) Dunmore shooting centre, Abingdon, (b) Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company and (c) Wiltshire shooting centre, Devizes, Wiltshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  The expression "class of firearm" accepted by my Department is as set out in the current Firearms Act and in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. Range safety certificates have been issued as follows:

  a. To Dunmore shooting centre, Abingdon on 18 August 1986 for 0·455in centre fire weapons;

  b. To Berkshire Downs Firearms and Ballistics Company (now known as the Lambourn Valley gun club) on 11 May 1987 for centre fire pistol and rim fire rifle 0·455in calibre weapons;

  c. To Wiltshire shooting centre, Devizes, initially on 19 September 1983 for 0·455in pistol on the 25m range and 0·455in rifle and pistol on the 100m range. This was amended on 8 April 1985 to increase the calibre for both ranges to 0·8in; on 10 September 1985 to permit single shot firing of 0·5in maching gun into a special bullet catcher from a fixed breach block on the 100m range; on 22 May 1986 to include handheld and tripod mounted automatic weapons on the 100m range; on 6 February 1987 to allow firing of 0–5in Browning machine gun in the automatic mode on the 100m range; and finally on 19 June 1987 to permit a 20m Hispano Suiza cannon to be fired on the 100m range.

  MOD range certificates and inspections cover only the safety of range structures and the adequacy of safety rules.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of charges brought by the Ministry of Defence police under the Greenham common byelaws that were ruled invalid by Reading Crown court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total number of charges brought under those provisions of the Greenham common byelaws which have been held to be invalid cannot be identified without disproportionate effort. The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against the decision given at Reading Crown court on 25 February 1988 and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment further.

  Enford (Firing Incident)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate an inquiry into the accidental firing of a 105mm artillery shell into the village of Enford on Salisbury plain in Wiltshire, on 11 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 11 April a 105mm artillery shell fired by 14 Field Regiment from a light gun on Salisbury plain landed outside the range danger area in the back garden of a resident in Enford. A young boy at school in Enford was hit by a piece of metal, but, fortunately, he was not injured. There were no other injuries, but there was some damage to property and windows. Claims relating to the damage to property will be handled by the Property Services Agency on my Department's behalf and a representative from the Property Services Agency has already visited the properties concerned. The claims branch in my Department is empowered to pay compensation where a causal link has been established between the loss or damage incurred and the military activity.

  A preliminary investigation of the incident has been carried out. It has concluded that it was not caused by a
  500
  fault either in the ammunition or the gun. It is, therefore, likely that the incident was caused by an error in drill by one or more members of the gun crew.

  In view of the fact that the incident is believed to have been caused by human error, artillery firing on Salisbury plain has not been suspended. The crucial importance of closely following safety procedures has been drawn to the attention of the regiment concerned. Investigations into the incident are continuing and a board of inquiry will be convened when appropriate. All incidents involving public safety are treated extremely seriously and all practical steps will be taken to find the cause of this incident and to prevent any recurrence. Further safeguards may be introduced in the light of the outcome of the board of inquiry.

  Ports (Category 2 Berths)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all category 2 berths in the United Kingdom by port.

  Mr. Sainsbury:

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Barry

  Brodick Bay

  Campbeltown

  Cardiff

  Coulport

  Devonport

  Firth of Forth

  Glen Malian

  Lamlash Bay

  Lerwick and Shetland Isles

  Liverpool

  Loch Ewe

  Loch Fyne

  Loch Goil

  Loch Striven

  Portland

  Portree

  Portsmouth

  Raasay

  Rosyth

  Rothsay

  Southampton

  Spithead

  Thurso Bay

  Torbay

  RAF Bentwaters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why two squadrons of United States Air Force A-10As are being moved from RAF Bentwaters to RAF Alconbury; on what dates this move is to be started and completed; what are his plans for the future use of the facilities at Bentwaters vacated by these aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The redeployment of United States Air Force A-10 aircraft from RAF Bentwaters to RAF Alconbury, which was announced in August last year, is part of the continuous process by which the United States seeks the most cost-effective disposition of its assets based in this country in support of NATO. The move began this month and is planned to be complete by the autumn. RAF Bentwaters will continue to be an operational flying station used by the United States Air Force.

  Wessex Helicopters
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be(a) the range, (b) the poor-weather performance, (c) the station-keeping abilities, (d) the speed and (e) the accuracy level of the navigational equipment of the Wessex helicopters to be used by the air-sea rescue squadron at RAF Coltishall in place of Sea King helicopters.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Wessex search and rescue helicopters which will replace those Sea Kings presently at RAF Coltishall have a range of 120 nautical miles. They can operate in most weather conditions, by day and night but for station keeping reply on visual reference only. The maximum speed is 110 knots and they carry a sophisticated navigation system which is highly accurate for low-level flying. Each aircraft also has a fully trained SAR navigator.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the replacement of Sea King helicopters with Wessex helicopters at RAF Coltishall will not reduce the performance of the air-sea rescue service covering the North sea.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. The search and rescue service covering the North sea will not be reduced following the replacement of the Sea King helicopters at RAF Coltishall with Wessexes.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the various establishments now occupying the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, indicating the number of people employed at each.

  Mr. Sainsbury

  Number of employees

  MOD Units

  Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance

  1,256

  Naval Publications Store

  83

  Air Publications and Forms Stores

  105

  RAF Movements Unit (London)

  33

  RAF Signals Unit

  206

  Ministry of Defence Police

  50

  Non MOD Units

  Books Supply Department (British Library)

  24

  Her Majesty's Customs & Excise Stores

  50

  National Maritime Museum

  3

  Civil Service Catering Organisation

  14

  Property Services Agency/Department of the Environment

  65

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans for a new headquarters building for the directorate general of quality assurance at Woolwich arsenal were drawn up; and what costs have so far been incurred on the project;

  (2) how long the location of the headquarters building of the directorate general of quality assurance has been under review; what sites have been considered during that period; and when a decision will finally be taken.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sketch plans for a headquarter building at the royal arsenal, Woolwich for the quality assurance directorate (ordnance) were completed in 1983 at a cost to the Property Services Agency of £300,000. This directorate 502
  became part of the directorate general of defence quality assurance in 1984. Since then the directorate general has concentrated on three of its five original sites and a dozen sites in the midlands and the north and south of England including the royal arsenal have been studied by accommodation staffs for suitability as a single headquarter location. This is an expensive project and a decision will be taken when the complex and continuous preparatory work of exploring options is complete.

  Tain Bombing Range
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of certain services at Tain bombing range.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 24 March 1988, we informed the trades unions of our intention to seek tenders for the provision of services at Tain. If these services are put out to contract, some seven civilian staff would be affected. However, no final decision will be made until the tenders have been assessed and compared with the cost of current arrangements.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to receive the results of the current review of search and rescue operations;

  (2) if it is the Government's intention to maintain search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Freeman
  Certain elements of our review of the most effective deployment of military search and rescue helicopters have been completed and announced. Studies into the deployment of the remaining aircraft continue, and I shall announce the outcome as soon as possible.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the need to maintain search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), have raised with me the importance of search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the statutory and other powers under which his Department authorises military low flying training.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: Military low flying training is carried out in the essential interests of national defence under the royal prerogative.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what child care provision his Ministry provides for pre-school age children of the Department's employees; what child care provision for school holiday and/or after school care is provided for employees' children age five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.
  503
  Mr. MacGregor
  Summer holiday play schemes are currently being arranged at two locations and pump-priming finance has been made available to help them succeed. Similar assistance will be given to any other appropriate child care scheme presented by parents.

  Brucellosis
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the number of cases of beef cattle found to have brucellosis in on-farm tests for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. However, the numbers of beef and dairy herds from which brucella abortus has been isolated since 1983 are:

  Herds from which brucella abortus isolated

  Year

  Number

  1983

  25

  1984

  32

  1985

  69

  1986

  39

  1987

  3

  Fresh Water Fisheries
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money is spent on fresh water fisheries research in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  Government expenditure on research and development related to salmon and freshwater fisheries in 1987–88 is estimated at £2 million. Of this amount, £625,000 was expenditure by my Department on work relating to both England and Wales. Expenditure on research and development related to salmon and freshwater fisheries is also incurred by the water authorities and NERC research institutes, but details are not held centrally.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting on 18 and 19 April in Luxembourg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The greater part of this meeting, at which I represented the United Kingdom, was devoted to discussion of the Commission's proposals for farm prices and related measures in 1988–89. No decisions were taken, and no real progress was made. The Council will return to the subject at its next meeting. I again emphasised the 504
  importance I attach to the devaluation of the green pound and the removal of monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat.

  The Council had, at its two previous meetings, reached agreement on the Commission's proposals for detailed implementation of the arrangements for stabilising agricultural expenditure and related matters, including the set-aside of arable land, following the outcome of the summit in February. This Council meeting included a session with representatives of the European Parliament, at which the Parliament's opinions on the Commission's proposals were discussed, with the exception of the stabiliser in the wine sector, on which the Parliament's opinion is not yet available. Following this discussion, it was decided that the texts of these measures should be formally adopted without further discussion next week except for wine which will be formally adopted as soon as the Parliament's opinion has been received. I made it clear that since it has always been crucial to the United Kingdom Government that the stabiliser package must be approved as a whole it would be necessary that appropriate arrangements were agreed for ensuring that the wine stabiliser was not weakened; I secured a satisfactory Council declaration on this point.

  The Council reached agreement on the remaining technical points on a draft directive on quick-frozen foods. I successfully resisted attempts to reduce the 10-year transitional period for retail cabinets and temperature tolerance, which are of substantial importance to our industry. This directive will be finalised after further discussion on the implementing details.

  I opposed the adoption of the proposals for the harmonisation of meat inspection charges, which is unsatisfactory in its present form. This proposal, together with those on the therapeutic use of hormones and the import of meat for pet food will come back to the Council at its next meeting after further discussion at official level.

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grant applications received by the Sea Fish Industry Authority in 1987(a) have been successful, (b) have been unsuccessful and (c) are still to be processed.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 April 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Type of application

  Received

  Approved

  With-drawn/rejected

  Under consideration

  New vessel

  122

  49

  13

  60

  Re-engining

  131

  122

  6

  3

  Improvement

  2,348

  1,954

  97

  297

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Lord Napier of Magdala—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Bridges—Took the Oath.

Care in the Community: Griffiths Report
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to implement the Griffiths Report on Care in the Community either wholly or in part.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are giving careful consideration to Sir Roy's recommendations and will bring forward our own proposals in the light both of further work now under way and also of reactions to Sir Roy's report.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Can he indicate how long the Government will take to consider the Griffiths Report? Can he also indicate whether the Government will give this House a chance to debate it in the near future?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the chance of debating Sir Roy's report, it will be for recourse through the normal channels. It is as yet too soon to say when the Government will bring forward their proposals. The work must not and will not be rushed if we are to arrive at the right solutions in this vital area.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that mentally handicapped people of all ages are still in long-stay hospitals and, in many cases, they have been there all their lives? Will the Government bear in mind that it was decided as long ago as 1981 that help should be given to voluntary societies in order that some of those people should receive care in the community?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are aware of my noble friend's point. Furthermore, they will be looking closely at the implications of Sir Roy's approach for individual client groups such as mentally ill people as part of their consideration of the issues raised by the report.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that this matter is of the greatest urgency? I speak as the chairman of the National Council for Carers. The effect of removing people from institutions and dealing with those still inside is putting a heavy burden on people who are finding it difficult to handle such burdens. We cannot delay
1502
putting the new arrangements into effect as soon as possible.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are fully aware of the importance of Sir Roy's report and the necessity to bring forward our proposals. I have explained how we intend to do that and I take particular note of the comments of the noble Baroness.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, speaking not only from this Bench but also as chairman of the National Association for Mental Health, I should like to associate myself with the view that this is an extremely important report on a crucially important issue. If the Government have not yet made up their mind, may it not be that their mind will be more clearly made up as a result of a debate in your Lordships' House? Will the noble Earl press his colleagues to ensure that time is given for a debate on this important subject?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have said, if a debate is required to be initiated in your Lordships' House it must be done through the normal channels.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that the great medical professions have subjected the report to close scrutiny and would it not be sensible to collect their views before a final decision is made?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, at the moment the Government are happy to receive any views or comments upon Sir Roy's report.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in order to underline the importance of this issue, is the noble Earl aware that I have been in touch with the department about two tragic cases? One is that of a young man who committed suicide on the eve of his discharge from hospital because he was so frightened by the prospect before him. The other case is that of a social worker who was murdered by a patient who had been discharged into the community under the scheme. Not having had the Griffiths Report before we started the hospital closures, may I ask whether further closures can be halted until the recommendations of Sir Roy and others are enforced?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware that the noble Lord has been in touch with the department in respect of this matter. I take serious note of the two instances that he raised and I shall ensure that they are reported to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that there is an acute shortage of skilled but non-professional workers in community care? Is he aware of a pilot project at Evesham College of Further Education which, under my chairmanship, provides training under the National Council for Vocational Qualifications for those who wish to undertake community care seriously?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect to the noble Countess, I think that is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

New Jobs: EC Comparison
2.44 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the United Kingdom's record in creating new jobs compares with that of other European Community member states.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, according to the latest available figures, the United Kingdom's record of employment growth compares very favourably with the rest of the Community. Between 1983 and 1986 total employment here increased by over 900,000, which is substantially more than the total for the 11 other member states combined. Of the individual countries' increases, the largest—that for the Federal Republic of Germany—was only half as large as that recorded in the United Kingdom.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps he can tell us what impact the completion of the single European agreement in 1992 might have on these employment figures?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the estimates which have been made so far as to the economic effect of the single market in Europe is that employment in Europe will increase by some 5 million. There will he some 5 million new jobs. It is the determination of the Government that as many of those jobs as possible should be within the United Kingdom.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment further on the figures that he has given in his original Answer. Will he split those figures in statistical terms between the creation of jobs for male heads of household, part-time jobs and self-employed jobs?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if the noble Lord would care to put down a specific Question on that point I shall be more than happy to answer him. Of all the citizens of working age in the United Kingdom no less that 66 per cent. are in paid employment. Throughout the rest of the Community the figure is 58 per cent. In other words, we have 15 per cent. more of our citizens in jobs. Surely that is the point on which we should be congratulating ourselves and that is what we would wish to maintain.
A noble Lord: You have your mathematics wrong.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not my noble friend's hope that from 1992 onwards we shall continue our good record in comparison with our European friends very greatly dependent on the exercise of restraint in wage increases by all those concerned?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not only wage constraints; we must also ensure that we make this country attractive for those who wish to invest in it, particularly in areas in the North and in Scotland.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is this not a question of the sort of jobs which are available? Is not the increase mainly in service jobs rather than manufacturing jobs? Can the noble Lord perhaps give us the figures? Is the Minister not further aware that we now have a balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods for the first time that one can remember? We are importing far more manufactured goods than we are exporting. We have plenty of waiters but not many production workers. If that trend continues, does it not bode ill for the nation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that it bodes very well for the nation. The jobs we have are jobs which pay a salary or wage. They are the important jobs to have. The sort of jobs they are is very much a secondary matter.
I should remind all in your Lordships' House that in manufactured goods the United Kingdom exports more per capita than Japan. It so happens that we import rather more than most other countries. What is important is that the jobs of the future and the wealth creation of the future are coming from the service sector.
Lest the noble Lord believes that that has something to do with the present Government. I should point out that we have been losing manufacturing jobs month in and month out at a rate of about 10,000 per month every month since the middle of 1966. That is due to technology and the changing pattern of employment and is a pattern which has been followed by every other industrialised nation with the single exception of Japan, and today Japan is showing a fall in employment in manufacturing industries.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will consider and deal with a difference in method which appears to have arisen between other European countries and ourselves, in that when it comes to new products they appear to be willing to help finance the introduction of these whereas in this country small firms are only given help if what they intend to do is research which has no direct commercial product in view. That is something which small firms are highly unlikely to do and therefore the help which is being given is only going to larger firms when it should be going to smaller firms.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that we help those firms, through the Enterprise Initiative, to look at important concepts such as quality, design, marketing, manufacturing systems, and now information systems and financial management.
I think it is important to look at the economy as a whole. The United Kingdom is now in the midst of its eighth successive year of growth. It shows a record of which the whole of the Community should be envious. Our economy is growing, and I believe that that is strictly as a result of the prudent policies of this Government.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have not looked at the figures recently but can the noble Lord tell the House why he chose the year 1983 as the base year? Is that an especially good year to throw light on the problem?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. I am happy to go hack even further, because the number of jobs has been rising since 1981. Before the noble Lord follows up with a supplementary question, I understand that we lost a considerable number of jobs between 1979 and 1981. The point is that in many industries we lost jobs but the actual amount manufactured did not change. I can do no more than remind the House of the example of BSC, which still produces roughly the same amount of steel today while employing less than one-third of the people it used to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords. I am sorry to press the noble Lord on this point, but does he not have in his brief a breakdown of job creation by male heads of households in the European Community and how we rate compared to the rest of the Community?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if I had that information, I should of course provide it. However, I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord. I think that perhaps the noble Lord overlooks the fact that when employment increases to the level that it has in the United Kingdom, and especially when we find jobs for women—on which only Denmark can challenge our record—then more of those jobs by their very nature have to be part time. They are the types of job that many of our citizens are in fact looking for.

Homelessness
2.51 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest measures they are introducing to tackle the problem of homelessness.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the proposals in the Housing Bill are aimed at increasing the amount of rented accommodation available. We are continuing to encourage local authorities and others to make better use of the existing housing stock, especially for priority categories of the homeless. To assist the provision of appropriate accommodation the Minister for housing and planning announced on 24th March additional resources and measures directed at authorities with the most acute homelessness pressures.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can he say how satisfied Her Majesty's Government are with the implementation of the right-to-buy scheme?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, since 1979 more than 1.1 million tenants have taken advantage of the opportunity to experience the challenge of freedom and the independence of home ownership. Three-
1506
quarters of those people have bought under the right-to-buy scheme. Right-to-buy sales are still running at over 100,000 units per annum.
Lord Mellish: My Lords. I am sure that the Minister will he aware that the burden of homelessness is carried by just a few local authorities. Is he aware that the problem is much too big for them? I again plead with the Minister and the Government to look at the possibility of taking over on a regional basis to see whether anything can be done. Some boroughs do not even know anything about homelessness.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Mellish, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, that will not do any good.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Mellish makes a most important point regarding the problem? This problem is severe in certain areas. Is the Minister further aware that in those areas the latest figures show that the situation continues to deteriorate despite the increased funds—welcome funds—that the Minister announced the Secretary of State had made available a short time ago? Is the Minister also aware—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister also aware that the Housing Bill he referred to is not greeted with any acclamation whatever by people who are dealing with the problem, because they think it is completely inconsequential on the subject of homelessness?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware, as are we all, that homelessness is centred in the inner cities. However, it is not a matter for the Government alone. The clear fact is—I give this example—that from 1st April 1987 both Camden and Hammersmith had £60 million of accumulated capital receipts which they would he entirely within their rights to spend on the 150 to 250 council dwellings which they have respectively and which were awaiting major repairs at that time. At the same time, they also had some 600 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. They have at their own executive level the ability to remove a large section of the problem which confronts them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister correct in saying that those massive sums of money from the capital receipts to which he has just referred could be spent? Is he saying that that figure equates to 20 per cent. of the total of their capital receipts that they are entitled to spend? How often does the Minister and his colleagues try to relate to the boroughs which have the problem of homelessness and to encourage them to build new housing? Surely the answer for homeless people is not to urge them to buy their own house but to ensure that there is an adequate stock of rented accommodation at prices they can afford?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are well aware not only of the need but of the desire for rented property. The reason that the Housing Bill will come before this House shortly is to ensure the increase and availability of rented accommodation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham? That is, do the figures he mentioned represent 20 per cent. of the boroughs' total available capital?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as regards capitalised repairs, local authorities do not have to abide by the 20 per cent. regulation for phasing.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that the housing corporation grants are concentrated on stress areas, whereas physically disabled people live throughout the country. Can he ensure that the Government spread their money more widely so that more money is available for housing for those physically disabled people who live in non-stress areas?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I shall certainly bring my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Gainford asking what are the latest measures being introduced has not yet been answered? When the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, raised what he may think is a valid point, the answer given was that his observations would be referred to the Minister's right honourable friend. I revert to the Question. What are the latest measures to be introduced by the Government to tackle the problem of homelessness, especially with regard to those people sleeping in cardboard boxes in the metropolis?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is no one, simple answer to the problem of homelessness. The Government have initiated a number of programmes, which range from the large—such as the Housing Bill due to come before this House—to the latest increased special sums of money that have been allocated to stress areas which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, very kindly pointed out.
As I have already said, there is no single, simple solution to the problem. However, we are all well aware of it and are constantly and regularly taking initiatives. I draw my noble friend's attention to one of the most recent, which was in the Budget itself, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced an extension of the Business Expansion Scheme to encourage the development of residential property to be let and further to increase the availability of rented accommodation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for homelessness, especially in London and other parts of the South-East, is that people are travelling from the regions—Scotland, Wales and the north of England—to London and the South-East to obtain
1508
employment? Therefore, would not one solution be to move the available jobs to those areas where there is plenty of housing for those people?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is probably beyond my competence to answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Young, would like to answer that.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that the Victorians recognised that the link between poor health and poor housing was a clear one? Can he say what Her Majesty's Government are doing to help the homeless in regard to health care by providing general practitioners and premises for sick people to attend?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Countess on that specific point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the recent visit of Mother Teresa to London? Further, will the Government be supporting Mother Teresa's initiative in setting up a home for the homeless?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are sympathetic to Mother Teresa's work and concerns. We are concerned with the level of homelessness, and to this end we have recently announced an additional allocation of £28 million to be targeted on those authorities with particular homeless pressures. The Department of Health and Social Security also has responsibility for providing temporary board and lodging for people with an unsettled way of life.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister confirm what I believe a number of noble Lords believe he said—namely, that if any local authority with housing powers wishes to build new houses, it may build from its accumulated assets?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if a local authority wishes to commence new builds it may use 20 per cent. of those accumulated receipts.

Fur Marking Order: Consultations
3 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked the Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had with the Government of Canada concerning the proposed Trade Descriptions Act (Fur) (Marking) Order 1988.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the proposed fur marking order has been notified under the normal GATT procedures to contracting parties, which include Canada. In addition, my honourable friend the Minister for Trade has met the Canadian High Commissioner, and my department's officials have met a number of Canadian Government representatives to discuss their concerns.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does he not realise that it is seriously misleading? Does the Minister realise that Her Majesty's Government did not consult with the Government of Canada in any way before the publication of the order and that it was the Government of Canada that consulted with the Government of the United Kingdom as regards this measure?
Perhaps I may further ask my noble friend whether his department is aware of the serious implications that this order has for the economy of some of the most vulnerable people in one of our Sovereign Lady the Queen's largest and most important territories.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm to my noble friend that we did not consult the Canadian Government before making the order for the simple reason that we have not as yet made the order. What we have done is to go out to consultation. We are considering the position and listening to what the consultations actually say. The precise form of the order will be decided in the light of the response to the consultation letters. The consultations have reinforced our view that there is widespread public concern about the use of the leghold trap.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, in these consultations have the Government discussed with the Government of Canada what steps they are taking to safeguard not only the economy but, as I understand it, the whole way of life of the Eskimo Inuit people? In a recent debate in another place as regards the future constitutional position of Canada, these people made it clear that they looked to the Crown of this country as a particular friend and protector of their rights.
While having every sympathy with those who object to the methods of catching fur-bearing animals, I hope that not only the economy but the whole way of life of the Eskimos is being considered.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure that it is right that they should be looking towards the Government of the United Kingdom. As regards leghold traps, their use was prohibited in the United Kingdom by the Pests Act 1954. There have been some developments towards the use of padded traps in Canada. All that the proposed order may well do is put a notice on furs that they have been caught using the leghold trap. It is not proposed in any way to prohibit the sale of these furs.
Earl Cowley: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister on what quality of evidence Her Majesty's Government are relying to make the assertion contained in the order that the animals listed in the schedule are commonly—I stress "commonly"—caught in leghold traps.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this is in the process of consultation which is now going on. We are looking at all the evidence that has been put to us. We are informed that these traps are used in catching the majority of fur-bearing animals. I shall be happy to listen to any representations which my noble friend would care to make to me or to my department.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a live-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply a formal time limit, but I know that the House will appreciate it if noble Lords speaking in the body of the debate keep within the 15 minutes recommended by the Procedure Committee as a maximum and accepted as such by the House.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Elliott of Morpeth and the Lord Grantchester be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Transport and Traffic Congestion Problems
3.5 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill rose to call attention to the state of public transport and the problems of traffic congestion; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to stress first of all that the provision of public transport and the problem of congestion are to a very great extent complementary. One-third of the households in this country are still without a car and a substantial number of women are without driving licences. In any event, the car is not readily accessible to them and they, the young, elderly, disabled and others on low income are dependent upon public transport for journeys for various purposes.
No large town can function effectively without public transport, but for those living in rural areas without a car and with little or no public transport the position is one of some misery. Despite its importance, transport in the United Kingdom functions with less financial support than that in most other European countries. We regard this as a public service which deserves public support.
Recently the Department of Transport issued a consultation paper purporting to be,
"A review of deregulated bus services under the Transport Act 1985".
This in no way seeks to analyse how deregulation is working but it deals only with procedures which the department considers should be changed or modified. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Passenger Transport Executive Group considered it highly desirable that the impact of the 1985 Act should be independently assessed. The Oxford University Transport Studies Unit has been commissioned to undertake a three-year study on the effects of the legislation.
The first report was published in September and Ministers have commented that it was well balanced. In addition, other reports were commissioned from a well-respected and independent consultant transport economist who is well known to the department, Mr. W. G. Tyson. His second report was received as recently as 7th April this year. All this work concerns the metropolitan areas. It appears that there is very little detailed information on the assessment in the shire counties.
The 1985 Act made illegal general revenue support for bus services. However, the relevant authorities have the power to subsidise services where, in their view, there is a transport need which is not met commercially. Soon after deregulation bus operators did not register about 20 per cent, of bus mileages which was considered unprofitable because of low passenger use on early morning, evening and weekend services. Other reasons were that they operated in sparsely populated areas or they were mainly used by children at reduced fares.
The PTAs brought back these socially necessary services, but since deregulation operators have withdrawn yet more services. The demand for PTA-funded services is increasing. This has imposed significant financial and administrative burdens upon the PTAs and without adequate funding other services inevitably must go. Another concern is the continued change in the pattern of services. Commercial services are potentially unstable as they can and do change at 42 days' notice. In metropolitan areas more than half of the services have changed at least once since deregulation. West Yorks has had over 1,000 changes.
Strathclyde had some 2,000 changes over nine months in 1987. This is continuing at an average of 15 changes each working day. Not all PTAs arranged concessionary travel schemes for children immediately following deregulation. Some left it to operators to offer what was regarded as a standard half-charge concession. This did not occur, but now all the PTAs in conjunction with their districts have been obliged to arrange such concessionary charges for children, pensioners and the disabled. Most schemes are time-based to ensure better use of vehicles in off-peak periods. This reduces costs and at the same time protects those with the greatest needs.
In the large conurbations of our country covered by the PTAs, bus patronage has fallen since deregulation. The best estimate is between 7·5 per cent. and 10 per cent. overall, with much higher losses in some areas. This is due to enforced increased fares, reductions in off-peak services and uncertainty of services. With only one exception the areas covered by this study have all suffered substantially increased fares in real terms. Travel cards have also been affected either by an increase in price or by the scope of the facilities offered.
The average age of conventional vehicles has increased. Very few new buses were purchased in 1986 and 1987. The general appearance and quality of destination displays has deteriorated in many of the services. Furthermore, in these areas the passenger transport executive is the source for information about services. Both marketing and the
1512
provision of information have been made difficult because of the high level of service changes taking place. Yet the study shows that there is considerable public demand for a reliable information service which only the PTE can give in these areas.
There have been some reductions in operating costs and some increases in efficiency. Part of the cost reduction is due to lower wages and also lower pay for minibus operation rather than to any real increase in efficiency. Large-scale redundancies took place in the PTEs which were only partly offset by job gains with new operators. The cost to the PTEs of these redundancies is estimated at £80 million and it may take several years for these costs to be recovered. There is very little scope for further reductions in costs. If the level of external finance continues to fall, it is less and less likely that the bus industry will be able to maintain present fares and services. For instance, there is the unpredictability of the cost of consequential costs. It must be kept in mind that there is no control whatever over the level of fares of commercial services.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene on an important point?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord may, if he wishes, but I have a limited time to speak.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord said that wages had been reduced. Did he mean that the overall wage payment by companies had gone down or that the individual wages of the operators had gone down? I find the latter hard to believe.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I hope that this time will be added to my allocation. In my own area, where London Regional Transport put out to tender some new services, country rates are being paid instead of town rates. A whole garage has been put off because of that. There have been cuts in wages through tendering out and particularly through minibus operations.
It is clear that the market does not provide everything. Intervention has been required by the various authorities to provide concessionary fares, socially necessary services, publicity and information, provision of inter-operator tickets and arrangements for Section 20 grants with British Rail. Of course regard must be paid to cost benefit, but social benefit is also of essential importance. This was stressed time and again during discussion on various transport Bills over recent years but those views were rejected by Ministers.
Public transport must be linked to planning policies. Prior to abolition, metropolitan counties were doing this, because transport was not dealt with in isolation but was considered by the county council along with other policy matters. Much of the major development in the public transport network has come with the establishment of the structure of PTAs and PTEs. I refer to the provision of cross-country services, bus/rail integration, across-border concessionary schemes and various enterprising innovative developments. Time does not permit me to go into those.

1513
Matters were made more difficult under the 1983 Act when the Government took power to determine the expenditure levels of the new PTAs. Then, under the 1985 Act, the Government set the precept level for the new PTA structure for a period of three years ending with the current year 1988–89, but financial constraints on local authorities will continue. Now after less than two years' considerable upheaval of the 1985 Act the Government are proposing further fundamental change in the financing of public transport authorities.
On 22nd January the Department of Transport issued a short consultation paper entitled Proposed Changes in the Financing of Passenger Transport Authorities. It is proposed to change the present procedure of a PTA issuing a precept on its districts to one of billing those authorities. In a Written Answer on 30th March, Mr. David Mitchell, Minister for Public Transport, admitted that most respondents to that paper disliked the proposed change but he said that appropriate amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill would be introduced on Report, after the Committee stage in another place. These amendments are being considered in the other place this evening. I feel free to comment as the consultation paper has been widely issued but I shall reserve detailed observations in case these amendments should come forward in the final Bill presented to your Lordships' House.
Many questions need to be asked. I shall content myself with only four with which I hope the Minister will be able to deal in his reply. Why is transport being singled out for this change while the joint police and fire authorities in these same areas are to be unaffected? Why was the wording of the consultation paper designed to encourage district councils to secede from their PTAs? How do the Government justify the divorce of responsibility from the body responsible for public transport spending decisions and the bodies responsible for financing them? Will the Minister give an assurance that a statement by Mrs. Lynda Chalker, the then Minister of State for Transport, during the abolition legislation debates on the importance of co-ordination through the PTAs that, in the lady's words, "None is under threat" remains government policy? These are important questions in the light of the amendments being discussed today in the other place.
There is widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of services provided by British Rail. There is overcrowding on long-distance Intercity services and considerable discontent with commuter services. British Rail has to operate with one of the lowest levels of government support of any EC country. The public service obligation grant has been steadily reduced from £950 million in 1982. In 1990–91 it will be down as low as £539 million. British Rail has to operate within an expenditure financing level for investment fixed by the Government.
Although there have been a number of welcome investment decisions by the Government, there clearly has to be an urgent review of the Government's financial approach to British Rail. The unions have pressed the Government to restore the level of grant, but to no avail. However, they decided
1514
that there is an urgent need for a better deal for rail passengers and they have launched the "Better Rail" campaign. That proposes better facilities at little or no cost. Those costs were explained at a detailed presentation which I was pleased to be able to attend. Will the Government encourage British Rail, with those helpful proposals, to give an improved image of rail services?
Consideration of rail leads me to the second part of the Motion—the problem of congestion. As is well known, there is congestion on many of our trunk roads as well as in many towns. As much as I want to see an increase in rail freight—I believe that that will be achieved when the through freight services of the Channel Tunnel take place—it will relieve road congestion only to a small extent. However, there is scope for further rail passenger use. There has already been some encouraging increase in Intercity services and Sprinter services in the provinces.
The problem of car usage in towns continues to increase; more off-street parking in town centres only increases the problem. My noble friend Lord Jay will deal with London's transport, but I am sure that he will agree with me on two points in particular. London Regional Transport is tightly constrained on finance, which limits the amount of development that can be undertaken. There must be adequate parking at surburban underground and rail stations to encourage the completion of a journey by public transport, but that requires adequate services with satisfactory conditions.
Congestion is added to by the condition of trunk and local roads. The 1987 National Road Condition Survey shows that until 1980 the condition of all classes of road was improving but that since then conditions have deteriorated. We must remember that a vast amount of traffic is carried on local roads—two-thirds of all traffic, and 93 per cent. of urban traffic. The Secretary of State strongly criticised highway authorities for their underspend on the maintenance of local roads. That that now has to be paid from the authority's revenue is overlooked. With the repeated cut in rate support grant, expenditure on roads has now to compete with what would be unacceptable cuts in other essential local services. As with the issue of public transport, there needs to be a change in the sad relationship between central and local government with an improvement in financing.
The White Paper on Roads in England 1987 set out three objectives for the road programme—to assist economic growth by reducing transport costs; the improvement of the environment by removing through traffic; and the enhancement of road safety. I suggest that a fourth objective is missing; that is, to enhance the accessibility of public transport. The accessibility of public transport is vital if we believe that there should be a development of public transport, for the various reasons I have given.
To save saying many more words, I believe that the issue is nicely summed up in two paragraphs from an excellent document The Way Ahead issued by the British Roads Federation which states:
"There is no simple solution to the problems of urban traffic congestion. There must be a broader approach providing better roads, improved public transport, modern traffic management

1515
systems, more effective enforcement of laws and regulations, and greater parking provision. These, in turn, should be part of a comprehensive programme of urban regeneration and should recognise that since cities differ in many ways, so too will solutions to their problems.
Finally, it needs to be understood that negative and suppressive measures which take no account of the interdependence of people and movement will only serve to accelerate urban degeneration and encourage spread into the green belt and rural areas".
I believe that that neatly sums up the problems of congestion, which are linked to the development of public transport. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for introducing this important debate. It is too long since the House has taken time to look at the perennial problem of traffic congestion. It is one of the problems of the century. It even existed in the last century. It dates back to the era of the horse. We read reports and see pictures from before the First World War showing the overcrowded streets of London and other cities, and yet as we progress with the technology of transport we get only deeper into the mire of congestion.
What is significant about the debate is that in pointing to a problem it couples with it a solution which we have neglected. Good public transport could do so much to overcome traffic congestion, and yet we have seldom fully appreciated that fact. Rather, we find fault with our buses instead of seeing to what extent they serve us all, even the motorist.
It is probable that that is because those of us who have the opportunity to do something about the problem are ourselves car users and see those large big red, blue, orange or green buses as getting in our way. Do we not say, "If only that bus were not there"? It would be replaced by up to 40 cars, and how much worse that would be.
It is not just bus passengers who benefit from buses. If car owners could be attracted back to buses the benefits to all who live or work in towns or cities would be significant. The sheer number of cars, moving and stationary, in a limited area can impede the traffic flow so much that the car ceases to be an efficient method of transport in towns and cities.
Congestion also makes bus services less competitive and more costly. Some years ago, London Transport estimated that if Monday to Friday services could run as quickly as they did on Saturday mornings the 15 per cent. speed-up would save £38 million a year and generate an additional £12 million of passenger revenue by attracting 50 million extra passengers. The figure must be much higher now.
Despite that, people like private cars. They must be given reasonable facilities and opportunities to use them. No government can fail to recognise the fact that it would be undesirable to try to restrict personal mobility by failing to provide for the private car. At the same time, buses are a necessity because, first, everyone is a potential bus user; secondly, not everyone has access to a car—most car-owning households have one car and one driver only. It is curious to note that only one woman in three has a driving licence. Thirdly, the congestion caused by
1516
large numbers of vehicles concentrated in urban areas destroys the very mobility that the private car is designed to provide. Fourthly, the environmental damage caused by large numbers of cars lowers the quality of life and costs large amounts of money.
People need buses to take them to work, to enable them to see their friends and relations, to go shopping, to visit places of entertainment and so forth. Buses are vital for people who are looking for work to enable them to go to prospective employers. On that point I shall digress. Some years ago I was in Vancouver where there was a three-month strike. Even in that what we may consider to be affluent city there was no alternative transport. People were severely impeded because there was no way that they could visit prospective employers. Those who live in some of the larger urban areas have alternatives: tube, metro or train. But in the majority of towns the bus is the only form of public transport apart from the taxi, of course.
Some would suggest that the solution to urban transport problems lies in constructing more urban roads and car parks. In this context it is important to realise that if just half the people who now commute by bus went by car instead, Birmingham and Manchester would need at least another 80 acres of car parks and London another 190 acres. Even without including the need for substantial new road development, that would mean in London the loss of an area twice the size of St. James's Park, or about half the size of Regent's Park or Hyde Park, or in Birmingham an area the size of Cannon Hill Park and in Manchester that of Heaton Park. The alternatives would be an increased urban sprawl or destroying buildings and other facilities.
In view of the importance of the bus relieving urban congestion and providing mobility for all, I am somewhat concerned to learn that since the deregulation which we hoped would improve bus services and make them more attractive for passengers, the number of people using local buses outside London has fallen by 10 to 15 per cent. The noble Lord mentioned 7 to 10 per cent., but I think that outside London it is 10 to 15 per cent. More people must be using their cars and this is a source of great concern and disappointment.
We have all been told that there are more buses on the roads doing more miles. But if there are fewer passengers using them then their effectiveness in reducing congestion must be diminished. If they are not being used effectively and efficiently, ultimately they will disappear, leading to even more congestion.
What can be done? We have freed buses to compete with each other but we have done little to help them compete with the private car which, on congested roads, is enjoying an unfair advantage because its users are not paying for the congestion it causes. We have an obvious example on our doorstep: bus priorities. Buses coming over Westminster Bridge can turn right into Parliament Street and Whitehall and do not have to go all the way round Parliament Square. This often saves them and their passengers four or five minutes, it reduces costs and helps keep fares down. All in all, this is a sensible policy. But we do not have enough of these opportunities.

1517
It is also absolutely vital that the traffic regulations and parking restrictions be enforced. Failure to do that can entirely negate the beneficial effects of bus priorities and lead to the lack of punctuality and reliability which will encourage people to prefer their cars to public transport. Traffic warden forces must be kept up to strength and penalties must reflect the real cost in congestion and accidents, of parking and traffic offences. If they did so, it would benefit all road users, as the improved reliability of bus services would attract more passengers back to the bus, with corresponding further improvements in traffic conditions for the ordinary motorist.
These considerations demonstrate the need both for a balance in policies between public and private transport and the most accurate possible appreciation of the true costs of different policy options. Social cost benefit analysis is a well established process and is used by the Department of Transport when making decisions about road projects. It is important that the public transport option is given full weight when deciding between expensive new urban highways and the more efficient use of existing roads.
I am somewhat concerned that the effort everyone had to put into making bus deregulation happen may have diverted attention away from the wider policy issues of the relationship between public and private transport. Many of the changes which we have seen in the past few years, for example, the reform of metropolitan area local government, have reduced the ability of those at local level to take a broad view of transport.
The 1985 Transport Act reduced considerably the ability of public authorities to use public transport policy as an instrument to fight congestion. Putting on additional services on a road where there is already an adequate service may attract people from their cars. But it may be difficult to achieve without inhibiting competition. We should review all options available to improve public transport's competitivness with the car and ensure that it is still up to the job of helping to reduce urban traffic congestion.
Before finishing with buses, I think we should remember that buses can cause congestion, especially where there is intense competition. There have been several examples of this. I think we should review the powers local authorities have to deal with this problem now that we have 18 months' experience of deregulation. We have in many towns and cities under-utilised bus stations and we should see that steps are taken to make sure that they are better used.
I am not confining myself entirely to buses. Railways make a major contribution to the relief of congestion. Here I think I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I may agree with him about road passenger transport, but I feel that this Government have done a great deal to improve the lot of British Rail. I would even go so far as to say that British Rail has been the Government's favourite transport child. More than any other government, as far as I can see, they have attracted investment into improving their services. Also, as a result of that investment, the
1518
amount of subsidy has been reduced and will continue to be reduced.
Turning to congestion, as the noble Lord pointed out, we are not only concerned with streets. Anyone who travels on a motorway, especially the M.1 on a Friday evening, must be a masochist to wish to undertake that journey unless his destination is in some deep rural situation. Even going on the M.25 is totally intolerable. Last Friday, on leaving the Heathrow area to go home to mid-Sussex, I took one look at the M.25 and saw that it was totally impassable. I went by various means to the A.3; I had another look at the M.25 and thought that it was even worse. Even in that appalling rain I had a most pleasant journey across country. The motorways, especially the M.1 and the M.25, and I am sure there are many others, are the roads to which much attention should be paid.
I think I have said all that I wish to say about railways except for Intercity. The marketing policy of British Rail has, I am sure, encouraged many people to use the Intercity services. Again, I look forward to being a senior citizen, especially in the month of November. I am sure I shall take full advantage of roaming round everywhere for £5—perhaps by then it will be a mere £6 or £7.
I applaud British Rail's policy for investment in the London and South-East Networks. We have had the railways for a long time, but even more encouraging is the recently announced go-ahead for the light rapid transit in Manchester. I understand that several other schemes are being developed which will all contribute to relieving urban congestion. It is one of the best pieces of innovation in public transport and it should be encouraged. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to these new schemes. On that optimistic note I shall end.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving us the opportunity of looking yet again at the problem of traffic congestion and public transport. What makes it all the more important that we should be considering these problems today is that the evidence suggests that the difficulties could progressively get worse unless urgent action is taken.
I should like to concentrate on London because I am most familiar with the traffic scene there. It is perfectly true to argue that traffic congestion is not a new phenomenon in London. Many of your Lordships will no doubt have seen pictures of, although I think few would have witnessed, the congestion caused by horse-drawn traffic in various important parts of London such as Oxford Street, Liverpool Street and other such areas.
It was as long ago as 1902 that there was set up a Royal Commission to improve road traffic speeds. I do not know what success was gained in 1902 but all one can say is that in 1988 road traffic speeds in London cannot be very much more than they were then. The average speed is about 12 miles an hour, so we are told, and in central London it is down to eight miles an hour. On all forecasts both these speeds, which are moving towards walking speed, will

1519
progressively diminish according to the information provided by those who have studied this subject.
The fact is that we shall get an increasing car population. All the evidence suggests again that although the human population in Greater London may have diminished in recent times, the car-owning capacity of those living in the city will increase and that by the year 2001, just at the start of the next century, 52 per cent. of those employed and living in London will be using cars compared with about 35 per cent. in 1981. That is a massive increase.
So car ownership in households will rise substantially. We have seen from the statistics of car sales in the first quarter of this year that they have gone up by no less than 11 per cent. That would be a highly desirable development if there were the road space and the facilities in which to use those extra cars.
The cost of road congestion is very considerable. This is an element which is sometimes forgotten. The British Road Federation, which has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has estimated that that cost is running at about £3 billion a year. That is the cost of congestion throughout the country. That represents roughly 1 per cent. of GDP. One could argue that we could think of better ways of spending £3 billion than merely in sitting around and not moving in traffic.
Another figure which has been produced and which I think is very striking is that British roads appear to be more congested than those elsewhere in the EC. In the United Kingdom over 6,000 cars move per kilometre on the motorway. In other Community countries it varies between 2,000 and 4,000. So we are apparently more congested than they are.
We have a situation in which on all the evidence the vehicle population is rising but the capacity for meeting it is not. There are greater delays, slower speeds and increased costs of congestion. I do not think therefore that anybody could argue that we do not have a problem here which requires pretty urgent attention. What it needs above all is a concerted and co-ordinated approach. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was quite right to emphasise the quotation from the recent report of the British Road Federation.
What is needed is for this solution to be found by combined action between central and local government, transport operators public and private, and the police; and not least let us mobilise the public in trying to find a solution to this problem. I have looked at a number of reports which have been prepared on this issue, as other noble Lords must have done in preparing for this debate. I have looked at reports prepared by the RAC, the AA, the British Road Federation, the CBI, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, Transport 2000, the London Centre for Transport and a recent series of articles in The Times which was completed only a few days ago. It is becoming increasingly clear what kind of solution we should be going for.
It is perfectly true that initiatives are being taken. Westminster Council, for example, has launched a major review of its plans for the area for which it is
1520
responsible and transport will be included. The Secretary of State for Transport has launched a central London rail study in which British Rail and London Regional Transport will be participating. Tests are being carried out on the Autoguide, which is intended to provide guidance to road users in order to enable them to avoid congested areas. All those are desirable initiatives.
But the difficulty I find in all this is that the initiatives are disparate. They are separately undertaken by separate bodies. We need to bring all this together. I should like to suggest that thought be given to what might be described as a five-point plan for London traffic.
The five points are as follows. First, there should be effective enforcement of rules about parking. With this, one must associate providing sufficient parking. We might do well to study what is happening at the present time in central Paris where enormously increased underground parking areas have been made available. We should in connection with this part of the plan consider whether there should be some restraint on the movement of cars into central London. I know that we all object to restraints but nevertheless ideas have been worked out about supplementary licensing. That could be some discouragement and the proceeds from the supplementary licences could be used to improve public transport which could then move about more freely. I feel that these issues need to be very seriously considered.
The second part of the five-point plan would be improved management schemes. There have been quite a number of improved management schemes in London but there are still congested areas. Outside our front door there is a permanently congested area which could do with a bit of improved traffic management. Trafalgar Square is another such area. I do not believe that these problems just solve themselves. I think that they require very urgent detailed attention. Let us try to find a solution to them.
Thirdly, better roads are needed. Here both the British Road Federation and the CBI have pressed very hard for further road improvement. It is only a small proportion of the road tax that is devoted to road improvement in this country. The commitment which was given when the road tax was originally introduced has never effectively been observed. It is about time that we got back nearer to equilibrium and spent more of those resources on improving the roads, which is what the resources were originally intended for.
Fourthly, there should be better public transport. There have been improvements and there is the rail inquiry. Nonetheless, there is much more that needs to be done. Increased numbers of people are travelling by rail and by Tube and they must be catered for. The point has already been made that we have to get better facilities for public transport at main railway lines. When people arrive in the centre of the metropolis they need to get on to their destination, and if there are not adequate public transport facilities they will be frustrated.
Finally, I wish to mention a point which has not been mentioned by either of the previous speakers;

1521
that is, the question of coaches. This is a relatively new phenomenon in London and one which has been referred to many times before. I remind your Lordships that the late Lord Boothby never lost an opportunity of drawing attention to the problem of the coaches. I should like to do so once again in his memory and for the benefit of all those who are suffering from the plethora of unregulated coaches wandering around London.
Of course the tourist trade must be stimulated. No one is against having coaches that take people to view the historic parts of London. However, the way in which coaches occupy large parts of main thorough-fares, apparently without any system or control, is to be deplored. We need to know what the position is.
The other aspect of the coach problem is the coaches doing regular internal business. I refer to a subject which I have raised many times and which I have no hesitation in raising again: Victoria Coach Station. That is further evidence of the way in which we fail to take action on major traffic issues simply because there are so many bodies involved. As regards Victoria Coach Station, the Department of Transport, Westminster City Council and London Regional Transport are all involved. Discussions have gone on for a considerable time between the three bodies without any solution in view. What is urgently needed is to make sure that there are other coach terminals in London. It is ridiculous that north-hound traffic should have to start from the South and that traffic coming from the North should have to go all the way through to Victoria. We are all agreed that there is a problem to be resolved. The way in which we set about resolving such problems does not seem to get us anywhere.
We who live in the Victoria area were promised a public inquiry early this year. That has now been put off to the latter part of the year. The latest information I have from the Minister is that even that may not occur. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell me when he replies what is being done about that problem.
I conclude by suggesting that the proper way to tackle the very important issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has drawn attention is to do it on a concerted basis. I support the proposal which has been made for a Minister in the Department of Transport to be specifically responsible for London traffic and who would have as his prime task initiating the strategy, bringing in all the participants who are involved and seeing that the co-ordinated scheme with its five parts was progressively introduced. I am conviced that if such an initiative were taken it would get very strong public support.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I have to confess to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that a comparatively short time ago I was in a large coach—I presume it was unregulated—which was struggling towards Westminster Abbey. We left Manchester this morning shortly after seven o'clock and had a comparatively smooth run down the M.6 and the M.1. Then the horrors of getting into the
1522
centre of London began. The reason was a special one. Together with my noble friends who sit on either side, I was attending the special service in Westminster Abbey marking the launching of the Church Urban Fund, which is a follow-up to Faith in die City.
On the coach were 40-plus people from inner city Manchester and Salford who had come up for that particular occasion. I therefore took the opportunity of talking to them, in preparation for this debate, about some of the problems they were experiencing in the field of public transport. The great majority of those who were on the coach, and possibly a majority of those who were coming for the service in Westminster Abbey, were people who could be described as coming within the one third of the population, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in introducing the debate, who do not have access to private transport. They travel on buses, trains and coaches.
Many people in the inner city areas are being deeply affected by the deteriorating state of public transport. That became clear in the discussions I had with them and from other evidence which is being accumulated on every side. When your Lordships' House discussed the proposed deregulation of public transport, we had those sorts of people principally in mind. We discussed whether they would benefit or whether the services would deteriorate. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I turn now to the spectacular growth in car ownership to which reference has been made. To a great extent, I think that that should be welcomed. However strongly we may believe in public transport, none of us who has had access to cars would wish to be separated from them on many occasions. The convenience of having a car is great. Many people who in past ages would not have had an opportunity to own a car now have one. That is a positive good. However, it is not an unlimited good.
The late Fred Hirsh, the economist, commented in his significant book, Social Limits to Growth, some 10 years ago that the trouble with what he termed "positional goods" such as cars is that it all depends on how many people have them and how they are used. It is rather like people in a crowd standing up on tip-toe. When the first one or two people do so, they get a better view. When large numbers begin to stand on tip-toe, nobody can get a better view. So it is with the enormous numbers of private cars which have been coming on the road.
I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, particularly interesting and encouraging. He has seen clearly the weakness of deregulation on bus services and how it has not succeeded in getting more private cars off the road. That seems to be the evidence, although it is early days to make a considered assessment. I also felt that his personal illustration—or ghastly nightmare, if one may call it that—of Heaton Park in Manchester being covered with cars comes close to home for me. I was walking my dog there yesterday. That is the last thing that I should wish to see.
The growth in car ownership has been damaging because it has not been sufficiently limited. One could

1523
make a rapid list of the problems which include traffic congestion, which at times comes near to what the Americans call "grid lock" when the whole of an urban area locks solid. The number of road accidents is, as we all know, absolutely horrifying. There is the nuisance of heavy lorries. People worry over the danger to both the old and the young from increased traffic. The environment in our cities is becoming more and more unpleasant for everyone and especially for pedestrians and cyclists. I leave the problems of rural transport for other noble Lords to deal with. However, they are clearly very acute.
Some restrictions on cars are necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed particularly to what could be done in the London area. I think that the idea that people should be allowed to use their cars without limit is one which is coming to the end of its useful life. I hope that we shall give full attention in this debate to the problems of those without cars who have no access to private transport.
Since deregulation, in Greater Manchester many people have been coping with the difficult changes which have been brought about. I do not wish for one moment to give the impression that everything was lovely in the field of bus transport before deregulation. That is quite untrue. Also, we must admit that there have been some benefits. There has been the pruning of staff at all levels which has led to some cost savings. There has been more emphasis on efficiency and service quality. Discipline over drivers has been tightened up to combat poor attendance and lateness which has been a problem we have been cursed with over the years. Smaller buses which have been appearing on the streets of Greater Manchester have been welcomed. Those are the pluses.
However, as far as I can tell from the evidence now coming forward, which is partly anecdotal and obtained by speaking to people such as those on the coach whom I have described, the minuses are far greater. For example, the public is still very confused about what is happening over timetables and such matters. In spite of the efforts of the passenger transport authority—to which I shall make reference in a moment—it has been very difficult for them to get good information about the services available. They have been faced with constant change. We have been told that the situation would settle down, but so far it has not settled down.
One anecdote that may amuse your Lordships concerns a passenger who ran for a bus, boarded it and then discovered that the destination was quite different from that advertised on the back and suggested by the number on the back. When she complained to the driver he said, "I am only responsible for the front of this bus, luv; I am not responsible for what goes on at the back"! Needless to say she was not well pleased.
Some routes are discovered to be non-profitable and so are deregistered, while others are inserted either to fulfil possible needs or to compete with other bus companies on the really profitable routes. Then one gets the ludicrous situation that some main corridors are over-bussed, while small estates in the outer regions of the Greater Manchester conurbation are very poorly served by transport, and increasingly so.
1524
To complete the picture, I must add that the people from inner city Manchester and Salford say that at peak times of the day they do extremely well for buses—of course, because those routes are being funnelled through into the centre of the city and so the competing bus companies can run large numbers of buses at those times. The problems begin after 6 o'clock in the evening or on Sundays—the off-peak period. It is in the outer regions—and remember that 20 per cent. of the route network in Greater Manchester was lost on deregulation—where the real problems arise. Some buses are timed to run approximately three minutes in front of another bus in order to cream off passengers. That is a threat which we foresaw would happen when deregulation was proposed. It seems to have happened. Quite frequent minibus services with good penetration into smaller estates were very welcome initially; but they then proved impossible to maintain. That is another problem that was foreseen: could they be maintained if they ceased to be really profitable?
The question of wages was raised by the noble Lord who is no longer present in the Chamber. The figures I was given show that Bee Line, which operates small minibuses, pays its drivers £2·80 per hour compared with £4·26 paid to double-decker drivers on Greater Manchester Buses. While one might say that there is an element of greater responsibility in driving a double-decker, that is a tremendous difference in wages. I think that it bears out the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that in certain areas of the bus services wages have been depressed as a result of deregulation.
The emphasis on high-use times and corridors means that women's needs are often ignored. They want services all through the day for part-time work, for shopping and for travel with children.
One of the most important points relates to the level of subsidies. That is a point which was discussed vigorously in your Lordships' House when we considered deregulation. The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority applied for £89 million for the year 1988–9 and were allowed only £80 million in subsidy. That is a very substantial drop—well over 10 per cent. It inevitably has an effect on the services which are run in our area.
I think that if one were trying to draw up a balance sheet of profit and loss from deregulation, the answer must be on the minus side at the moment. There are some very serious problems which need attention.
The other point which I wish to make this afternoon has already been referred to. That is the role of the passenger transport authorities, and particularly that of Greater Manchester. Some of the less desirable effects of deregulation have undoubtedly been ameliorated by the work and the efforts of the passenger transport authority. It has played a critical role in restoring stability and making deregulation work in the interests of the community to some extent. In Greater Manchester the authority has been working very hard to establish effective machinery for consulting on the development of transport policies with the conurbation's 10 constituent district councils and with the wider community. So we read with dismay in the

1525
consultation paper which has already been referred to that:
"It is proposed to abolish the power of the PTAs to set a local tax rate—a community charge in the new regime. Instead each PTA would finance its expenditure by billing its constituent councils".
That would undoubtedly weaken the role of the PTAs. It is very significant that that change is not proposed for police and fire services. Why not? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But no, apparently the PTAs are to be weakened and metropolitan councils encouraged to opt out, but not the police and fire services.
The fruits of the efforts of the passenger transport authority are clear for all to see: the very fact that we have the concept of a county-wide public transport network, the role which public transport plays in promoting economic and social regeneration, and the effort to maximise co-ordination and integration. The importance of all those is widely recognised in the Greater Manchester area. Of course it should be when one remembers that 67 per cent. of the routes which are run by the local buses cross the metropolitan district boundaries. It is absolutely essential to have some integration and proper overall planning in transport. I know that the argument is used that if responsibility reverted to the district councils in isolation it would bring it closer to the people. I cannot believe that that is really true or that that would be the result. What is likely to happen is that opting out would lead to a weakening of such planning as we do have which I believe has mitigated some of the more undesirable effects of deregulation.
In conclusion, I would say that public transport, road and rail, needs to be more vigorously supported in the years ahead. The concept of subsidy is also important. I would back the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when he says that we need a concerted and co-ordinated approach.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I fully agree with the right reverend Prelate that we are faced with a deterioration of public transport in many areas. Perhaps I may return for a moment from Manchester to London. It is my experience that London Transport's Underground services in the past few months have been more seriously disrupted by delays, congestion and breakdowns than at any time previously, even during the war years. Gaps between trains, prolonged waits—particularly on the Circle and Northern Lines—have made it impossible to predict journey times to an extent which was unknown before the Government took over London Transport from the GLC.
That description is not an invention by exasperated passengers. It is virtually admitted in the two London Regional Transport documents—the Annual Business Plan 1988–89 and Consultation Document 1988–1991—which have just been issued. The first of these says:
"Service reliability has not been as good as planned"—
that is something of a euphemism. It also says:
"The peak period growth is creating serious congestion".
1526
The consultation document says:
"One effect of attracting new users has been the increase in over-crowding in ticket halls and lifts and on escalators, platforms and trains".
I fully agree with that description.
Of course there has lately been a large and rather sudden growth in the number of passengers on London Transport. I think that it was ill advised of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to say in answer to a question in this House on 11th January that that was proof that the Underground was now "providing a good service". The increase in the number of passengers has in fact been due to two causes. First, it is due to the very sensible issue of travel cards, Capital Cards and new forms of ticket in recent months. Secondly, it is due to the fact that car congestion in the streets of the city, of which we have heard so much this afternoon, has made the bus services very much less reliable than they used to be. That is why there is such an increase in the number of passengers on the Underground.
Surely the proper response to that increase in passengers should have been an increase in staff on the Underground to serve them. The refusal to allow that is, I believe, the main cause of the present difficulties. The simple truth is that both the Underground and bus services have been disrupted by a growing shortage of staff, which in turn has been caused by an attempt to save money enforced on London Regional Transport by the financial targets imposed on it by the Government. The main responsibility for these troubles lies with the Government and not with the management of London Regional Transport, which cannot be blamed for trying to meet targets which have been forced on it.
There is conclusive evidence of the fact that London Regional Transport, not alone among public services, is suffering from acute undermanning at the present time. Every day on Underground platforms one hears through an official loudspeaker—when it is audible—that the exceptional delays are due to staff shortages. Secondly, as a variation on that, the voice tells one that the causes of the gaps in train services and the exceptional delays are due to signalling failure or what is described as "an incident". Such incidents and signalling failures are presumably due to lack of maintenance staff and a backlog of maintenance work. Such incidents did not occur until the past year or so.
In addition, London Regional Transport has itself stated that delays on the Northern Line have been due to a shortage of drivers. In his Answer to a Question raised in this House on 11th January the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, also admitted that the total number of staff employed by London Regional Transport had been cut from 56,600 in December 1984 to 42,800 in December 1987. Naturally, if one cuts staff ruthlessly by 25 per cent. at a time when the number of passengers is rapidly increasing there is bound to be considerable disruption.
Moreover, any traveller can see for himself on London Underground that at many stations booking offices are not manned at all for many hours. Should noble Lords not believe me, let them go to Westminster Underground station after nine o'clock

1527
on any evening. The London Regional Transport Business Plan admits throughout that management has been struggling to comply with the government financial targets by reducing what it calls real unit costs, which in effect means largely by cutting staff. That document states:
"Objectives for London Regional Transport set in 1984 have been more than achieved … with revenue grant needs being about half the target level set by the Secretary of State and real unit costs also falling faster than target".
Therefore I do not think that the Minister can say that the Government have no responsibilities for what is happening.
We are told that real costs per passenger mile have been reduced. But what does that mean in real life as distinct from economic jargon? It means that if there is a train every 10 minutes instead of a train every five minutes a fall in real unit costs is achieved because fewer drivers are needed; but every passenger has to wait twice as long and probably twice as many people have to stand in the train. The fall in real costs simply means in this case an increase in inconvenience suffered by the public, which in itself is an instructive piece of economics.
Thus in this case a direct conflict exists between service to the public and the profit or loss of the enterprise. Indeed, the same is true if there is only one official instead of two present in the booking office and the queue for tickets is lengthened as a result. It is typical of this Government that they seem to care far more for the profit and loss account of the organisation than for the needs of the public.
Even more serious is the effect of manpower cuts on safety in the Underground. I speak from my own experience when I say that twice since Christmas I have found that an Underground platform (in fact, the southbound Circle line platform at Notting Hill Gate) has been so crowded that further pressure might have risked people being pushed on to the line. In those cases the loudspeaker announced that shortage of staff was responsible for the fact that so few trains were running. On a third occasion we were packed so tightly in a Bakerloo train which kept stopping in the tunnel that passengers were becoming scared. Since noble Lords have been offered several anecdotes today, perhaps I may confess that I was so scared that I escaped into the fresh air and was very glad to go home on foot that night.
On the basis of that and other experiences in the past few months I have been driven to the firm conclusion that the Government's financial targets are not merely causing inconvenience but are endangering safety on the Underground, and that if the present excessive manpower cuts continue and the whole organisation is not restored to the level of efficiency that we knew in previous years there is a risk of a really serious accident.
Although London's Underground has been reduced to such a state, in other European capitals an attempt to cover all costs out of passenger revenue would be regarded as absurd. Paris boasts of its modern Metro, as we all know, but only 38 per cent. of its current costs are covered by passenger fares; most of the remaining costs are covered from the
1528
public rates. That is why the Paris Metro looks thoroughly modern, up to date and efficient.
In conclusion, the final irony of the de-manning policy—and that is London Regional Transport's own phrase—is that it appears doubtful whether even the profit and loss account, which is the whole object of the exercise, will in the end be improved. As a result of an absence of booking office staff or indeed inspectors on many occasions, it is now possible to travel for some hours on the London Underground system from anywhere to anywhere without buying a ticket at all. Of course in those circumstances fraud increases and is bound to do so. Several times I myself have had to leave a small pile of coins on an unattended shelf at a deserted station in order to pay my fare. At present British Rail admits that it is losing £34 million a year through fraud.
One hears rumours about the wonderful machines which have been invented which issue passengers with tickets and give the correct change. By all means let us have them on London Underground. But unless and until they are installed, surely it would be more sensible to make it possible for people to buy tickets at booking offices before they travel.
In fact, the energies of London Transport management in the past few years have been diverted from serving the public in order to meet a paper financial target. Certainly it is possible for an enterprise to be overmanned, as we have been told so often. But it is also possible for an enterprise to be undermanned, and I believe that that is the present state of London Transport and the cause of a great many of these difficulties.
4.20 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we seem to have discussed transport fairly frequently, which is why I have tended to say frequently that I must declare an interest in that in a few years' time I shall be in receipt of a small pension from British Railways. I also have to declare that I am chairman of a company which has as one of its clients one of the largest container companies in the world.
I have listened with great interest to the debate. I loved the remark of the right reverend Prelate about a bus of bishops who were getting furious because they could not get to where they wanted. It is very easy to make fun of public transport. In this country we tend to denigrate British Rail and London Regional Transport and compare them badly with the systems of other countries in the Community.
I travel every day on British Rail. If my train is two minutes late in arriving at Fleet station I wonder what has happened, and normally we arrive at Waterloo within one minute of the scheduled time. I get off at Waterloo and go on the Underground. I go to one platform, the train comes and I get on it. I get off at the next stop and walk to the next platform, where I get on the train to Westminster. It is very seldom that there is anything wrong with that service. There may be occasional delays because of staff shortages or because of a previous incident, such as when someone has fallen or been pushed under a train. That is bound to disrupt the services.
There may also be signal failures, but I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Jay, when he says that British Rail and London Regional Transport have

1529
been cutting costs by putting the passengers' lives at risk. I shall never believe that. I worked for British Rail for seven years. Even during the strike, when we had difficulties if a train driver reported something wrong on the track, if he thought there was a broken rail, we would investigate. That driver was always right. Train drivers do not put passengers at risk.
British Rail is always criticised. A few years ago there was a train service running from Brighton along the south coast. That was an uneconomic route and British Rail asked the people in the locality if they wanted the service to continue. They said that they did. They were asked: "Do you use it?" They said: "Well, not very often". "When do you use it?" "Oh, when my car is in for service". A transport service cannot be run in that way.
British Rail has new stock coming on line, new signalling and new track. We are a small country. France may be able to lay out a dead straight line, a brand new track to take trains from Paris to the Channel ports. We do not have the land to do that. We still run the most highly utilised railways system in the world—London South-East.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, spoke of people being crammed into trains and onto platforms. London Regional Transport does not cram people into trains. People cram themselves into trains. On the London South-East section everybody wants to leave and travel into London at a certain time. There can only be a certain number of trains and trains can only be of a certain length. It is physically impossible to have more trains.
I realise that I have been inculcated with a belief in British Rail. I think there is a different situation where buses are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke almost exclusively of buses. I travel by train and Underground and very seldom by bus. Outside central London it is possible to wait for 40 minutes or more for a bus. If the buses do not come on time one may decide that it is quicker to walk or else one takes the car. That is sad. Integrated tickets have been mentioned. I buy a ticket in Fleet to go into London and can travel on the Underground and by bus with that ticket. That is wonderful.
My training is on land and sea and in the air. I have mentioned that I worked for British Rail. I also worked for an international airline. Before that, I was a merchant sailor on the high seas. Today our roads are getting cluttered and our skies are getting even more cluttered. The only place where there is a reduction in traffic, especially with British flag carriers, is on the sea.
Yesterday I came up to London by car, which was a terrible experience, and I went back by car. The journey took two hours. I was a passenger so I was all right. Outside your Lordships' House there is a bus lane, and while this bus lane is in operation private cars and vans use it. They do it with impunity. At box junctions cars do not stop where they should. They go ahead and block the traffic for everyone. They do it with impunity. How often are people stopped for travelling in a bus lane? How often are people "done" for stopping on a box junction?
1530
I returned home last night on the A.3, which has three lanes. The centre one goes straight ahead, the nearside lane goes to the left and the right-hand lane goes to the right. I said to my driver—she was a woman—"Darling, what is the betting that all these cars in all three lanes go straight ahead?" They did so. It was disgraceful. While going down the M.3 we suddenly came to a near halt; three lanes of traffic crept and crept along. This was because one red double-decker London bus had broken down, which meant that three lanes went into two lanes. Once we passed that bus the traffic speeded up and went along normally.
Bearing that in mind, how is it possible that on the M.40, for a 12-mile stretch, the Government intend to build two lanes in each direction? If one vehicle breaks down there remains just one lane. That reminds me of when they were extending the A.1 motorway and it came to Rutland. Rutland was the smallest county in England, so the planners decided that they needed only two lanes instead of three since it was a small county. Two lanes went to Rutland and there were the most awful build-ups. They then had to expand and build another lane. I am reliably informed that if one has a two-lane highway and one decides to build a third lane, that third lane will cost as much as the first two put together.
Everyone mentions the M.25. I have travelled on it fairly frequently; it is appalling. The planners say, "We never thought that there would be this increase in traffic". They must be stupid. It is common knowledge that roughly 300,000 new drivers go on the roads every year, so of course there will be a build-up. However, it is not just that we do not have enough lanes on the M.25. The fact is that the nearside lane all too often is empty and one has cars travelling in the middle lane at a merry 40 miles per hour. They will not pull over into the nearside lane.
If a fourth lane is built they will travel in the next lane. In effect, all one is doing is spending millions of pounds to produce one extra lane that will not be used. I should like to know why the police do not apprehend people who use bus lanes, who cross blocked junctions, and who travel on motorways in the wrong lane.
I believe it is true to say that between £16,000 million and £20,000 million is taken by the Exchequer every year, in various forms of tax. This figure must be increasing. It therefore follows that more and more cars are being used. Yet the surfaces of some of our smaller suburban roads are becoming so bad that soon those roads will have to be closed.
We have to spend more money on roads. We also have to educate our drivers to obey the law, if not the speed limit. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, I think that the speed limit on motorways should be 80 miles an hour. However, until we have that our road system will become clogged, especially in London, where the situation is appalling. We are coming to a time of the year when there will be coaches nose to tail. One will not be able to move in this area. I do not know where one puts coaches, but as sure as hell they should not be parked where they are parked at the moment.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for tabling this Motion for debate today. It is the first debate on transport for some time. We are most grateful to him.
The Motion is quite limited and deals only with public transport and road congestion. I should like to have seen a road safety element involved. However, quite a lot of congestion is caused by driver behaviour apart from that caused by roadworks. I shall return to that point.
On public transport, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has said, over the last few years British Rail has made quite remarkable improvement in nearly all its services with the introduction of new Intercity trains and the electrification of lines. It is true that British Rail has a long way to go before it can provide total satisfaction. But is that ever possible knowing how people complain if their schedule is interrupted even for two minutes? However, let us give encouragement.
The same is true of the Underground system. I use this form of transport in London. It is much easier than travelling by car. When working in the City a few years ago I remember, commuting to work, how unreliable, filthy and appalling the tube trains were. Considering that the system was not designed for the capacity under which it now operates, I believe that the service is better than it was a few years ago.
Both BR and LRT are to be congratulated on bringing the travelling public back to the public sector. However, there it still a long way to go to improve service and reliability.
Before coming to road congestion, I should like briefly to touch on one other area of public transport. That is river transport. I know that there are plans for a service from Greenwich up the river. Why has it taken so long for this to develop? I can only presume that the proposal has been blocked by some unions. We do not use our River Thames nearly as much as we should. What we have on our river is a disgrace compared with Paris. Even our tourist boats are third rate compared with those of the French.
I turn to the subject of congestion. This is partly caused by badly constructed roads due to the Department of Transport's inability to get its traffic forecasts correct over many years under successive governments. The department seems to forget that new motorways and trunk roads create traffic. The M.25 and parts of the M.6, to name two, are classic examples. Like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I hope that we do not make the same blunder on the M.40 extension. Congestion is caused by out-of-date public utilities that have to be replaced, and partly because of driver behaviour. I have in mind how drivers ignore the yellow "boxes" where they exist so that vehicles block major intersections and prevent other drivers from crossing. Traffic congestion is a disaster to our economy. It costs time and money. Successive governments have realised that a modern and efficient economy needs a modern and efficient road system.
1532
The 1987 White Paper contains reference to the development of a computerised notice and register system for streetworks. This was recommended by Professor Horne in his report of November 1985. I presume that it would eliminate the situation where one week the gas board digs up the road followed a few weeks or months later by the water board digging up the same road, probably after it has been resurfaced. This form of control is long overdue.
Not long ago a road and pavement not many yards from your Lordships' House were relaid and repaired. Then the pavement and part of the road were dug up to lay a small pipe, as though overnight someone had said, "We need an extra pipe to that establishment." For weeks the road was in a bad way. A hole the size of a pinhead grew into a crater. One day it was mended, but the pavement will be a sad sight for some time yet. Who pays for the damage caused to vehicles or injuries sustained by pedestrians? A computerised notice and register of roadworks would alleviate this kind of problem. It would save a lot of money and inconvenience. I should like my noble friend to let me know when the legislation laid out in paragraph 229 of the White Paper will be coming forward.
The Minister responsible for roads and traffic has said that our motorways are the most heavily trafficked in the world. I would add our trunk roads also. The figures I have gave Britain 6,763 vehicles per kilometre of motorway compared with Italy which has 4,084, France with just under 4,000, West Germany with just under 3,500. On trunk roads we have 1,545 vehicles per kilometre compared with 872 in West Germany and 850 in France. Traffic forecasts, according to the Department of Transport, show a rise of 22 per cent. by 1995, and I suggest that it will be higher. Congestion is therefore likely to be much worse in the 1990s than at present. Do we want our roads to be as congested as the M.4 on Easter Monday with 120 miles of traffic moving at 15 miles per hour? The only good aspect about congestion is the very low accident rate, which results in a reduction of both casualties and deaths on the road.
I welcome the latest figures published recently. However, as the Minister said at the time, although the figures are very encouraging, no one can afford to be complacent. Far too many people continue to be killed and injured. Nevertheless, it is good news. The new motorway safety measures recently announced will also go a long way to make our roads safer.
In this context I wish to thank the Government and to congratulate Dr. North on his excellent report. Although I have not read it, much of what RoSPA wanted is contained in the report which makes many good recommendations. I look forward to hearing the Government's response later this year. RoSPA held a road safety council meeting today, which was addressed by Professor Allsop, the deputy chairman. However, as I had to leave to attend this debate, I was unable to hear all that he said.
To go back to traffic congestion, a good road network saves money for everyone as well as for industry. Our roads are one of our main arteries. Let us not sever them and bleed to death. Let us get it right. The greater the congestion the higher the cost

1533
to the nation and the more pollution there is in the air until such time as lead-free petrol is standard. We are told that local authorities do not spend all their road allocation on road projects. If that is so, could not all our roads be looked after by the Department of Transport?
In conclusion, I urge my noble friend to plead with his right honourable friends to spend a far greater slice of the £14 billion or £15 billion that the Treasury receives from road user taxation and in some way to force local authorities to spend their road budgets on roads, not other things. The better our roads, the safer they are.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House that, because of a longstanding commitment outside London, I may not be able to attend to the end of the debate. Secondly, I wish to acknowledge a debt to LATA (the London Amenity and Transport Association) as the inspiration for a few of the thoughts that follow.
In a thoughtful first leader last Saturday, to which I subscribe, The Times drew attention to the remarkably small amount of political passion that our increasingly congested roads have engendered in post-war Britain. Graphically, it described our roads as places of traffic jams and wardens, of clamp, crush and crash and of personal temper. On the whole, the road programmes of one government have been slavishly fulfilled by the next, and the regulation of traffic and driver as a corporate behaviour has attracted little electoral disagreement. Transport policy has been low in the list of public controversies. I emphasise that, by this—I mean corporate policy—none would be able to ignore the bonfires created by specific roads or motorway proposals.
The natural counter-balance to the congestion on the roads is the provision of public transport buses, tubes and trains, as we have already heard. Within London, commuting by car is estimated to rise by some 50 per cent. from 1980 to 2000. First, this projected growth needs to be curtailed so far as possible. Secondly, what remains needs to be alleviated by the better provision of effective public transport.
I take first the alleviation of present and projected levels of traffic congestion and the improvement of traffic flow, particularly buses. At a technical level it is quite possible to manage traffic better. Roadside controls such as phased traffic lights might be more widely used for coping with peak priority flow and to allow continuous movement at or near the legal speed limit along such long stretches as London's Euston Road. The prospective autoguide system, information technology applied to measurement of traffic flows minute by minute, and often minor civil engineering works, could well squeeze more out of the existing road system. At a deterrent level, limitation of parking availability coupled with stricter imposition of penalties, in future perhaps by local authorities, would discourage drivers from the centre of metropolitan areas, reduce numbers and congestion and improve traffic flow, especially that of
1534
public transport. Further extension of park and ride—as it is usually called—parking facilities at inner suburban stations—would help. This has already been mentioned.
At a strategic level, road priority should be given on those roads that are major bus routes to increasing the speed, frequency and reliability of buses as well as suitable commercial vehicles and to the simultaneous reduction in the number of cars, if necessary by the physical process of squeezing them out by reducing the number of car lanes to a level where it is self-evident to a majority that it is quicker and less arduous to catch the bus. This in turn begs the necessity of a transfer of resources from road building to public transport and road management. This is a long-term strategy requiring some political courage since, if the Englishman's home is his castle, his second priority seems to be using his car.
A major contributory factor to the increase in the use of cars—and, for that matter, to the remarkable recent increase in the use of the London Underground, of which I shall speak in a minute—is the deplorable decline in the number and frequency of our metropolitan bus services, particularly in London. If a car is certain but arrival of a bus within a reasonable period is problematical, who can blame people for choosing to use their cars? At least one is out of the wind and rain and sitting down even if one is not moving much, which one is not doing anyway if the bus does not come.
A recent experiment in Exeter involved the introduction of a large number of mini-buses. Passenger levels rose dramatically and car usage fell. The fairly recent introduction into London of the rather colourful Hoppers is a move in the right direction; but it seems to me that there are far too few of' them and that their times and routes are not sufficiently marketed to effect a better public awareness. The decline of bus transport must be halted. Indeed, before speaking to a similar motion in your Lordships' House four years ago, I had first examined published statistics of bus numbers in London over a valid span of years and arithmetically deduced that at their then rate of decline—this was in 1984—the last London bus would run in 1992.
In considering location of principal demand for transport, it is important to bear in mind that London has come down to us as a hugh metropolitan city predominantly laid out so that the main roads are radial from the centre rather than orbital. These corridors exist because, as London's population increased in the 19th century, the villages on the old coaching roads were joined in such a way as to allow people to travel from the centre, where they increasingly worked, to their then still rural villages where they and their antecedents had lived. Unless we adopt some mass destruction akin to Napoleon's rearrangement of central Paris, but on an enormously greater scale, we must accept London as we find it. That means that the main demand for transport is along radial corridors to and from the centre. This is not to ignore the use and usefulness of inner—the North and South Circulars—and outer—the M.25 orbital roads in drawing passing traffic, particularly lorries, away from the centre. I am certain however that these two main orbitals are enough. Therefore, if

1535
London is to become a public transport-orientated high-density city, it is vital for it to retain a basically radial transport pattern, first, because that is the way in which it is built and, secondly, because that is the way the vast majority of people wish to travel.
Lastly, as regards the subject of road congestion, there are the cyclists. Although they are normally a single-person unit, they take up far less room than the majority of cars, which are, by common observation, driver-only. They are unloved by many motorists, who say that they are a danger. Cyclists are growing in numbers and the bicycle is particularly efficacious on flat ground, such as in Fulham, where I live. I believe that they should be encouraged and that far more cycle lanes should be provided for them. That provision will not be popular with motorists, at first, but nor was the road tax, which came to be accepted. It works in apparent perfect harmony in cities such as Cambridge and Amsterdam, where people of all ages cycle, doubtless encouraged by the flatness of those cities.
I do not intend to speak about main line and suburban train services. Broadly speaking, they occupy the same position in alleviating congestion as buses and coaches. Having spoken about cars and buses, which are, as it were, above ground, I should like to dive underground to the Tube in London. The network is more extensive than any other in the world and it was the first. We are undoubtedly suffering from that fact in terms of the obsolescence of much of the network. I am grateful for it and use it extensively, making three or four journeys on most weekdays. However, my impression is that on three or four out of five occasions I am greeted with an announcement about delays usually due to staff shortage, points or signals failure, or train breakdown. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, has spoken about that problem in some detail.
The situation has plunged into what seems to be an ever-steepening spiral over the past few months. The Northern Line, which I use, receives the publicity but, from experience, I believe that the same comment applies equally to all lines. I am sure that the cause is a dramatic increase in the amount of traffic, which, being recent, has taken LRT by surprise. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, also mentioned, that is perhaps to a significant degree due to the result of the success of the innovative travel card, coupled with the main line Capitalcard.
Presumably quality of service results from capital investment and the quality of management and staff. Unfortunately capital investment in rolling stock can in some measure be justified only by usage. The rapid rise in usage appears to have got out of step with the much longer lead times of rolling stock delivery. That begs the question of the quality and level of maintenance of existing stock. That in turn begs the question of the level of capital investment. In the case of the London Underground subsidy, it has historically been low compared with that received by systems in other European capitals. However, one must admit that they are of smaller geographical extent. As a believer in public transport versus the car, I believe that investment should be much higher. Other noble Lords have already spoken on this
1536
subject and more may do so, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
As regards the quality of management, I believe that the subject is sub judice until the result of the King's Cross disaster inquiry is known. That will be a guideline and I believe that there is more to be judged than safety. Staff numbers and last month's rather astonishing announcement by LRT of a further reduction of 1,000 staff are seemingly a matter for public concern. That is so especially because they appear to fall mainly on the technical side. Staff shortages, points and signal and train failures are the usual reasons given for the increasingly frequent extended intervals which are occurring in the network.
I am a great believer in the Tube, partly because I have absolutely no bump of locality—I even get lost in big shops. Its use is the only way I can be sure that I know where I am going. More seriously, I believe that the knowledge of direction in a strange city applies particularly to the use of the Tube by the millions of overseas visitors from whom we earn so much towards our balance of payments. For that reason, coupled with the Tube's alleviation of road congestion, I believe that it would be a tragedy if the present self-evident troubles were not to be overcome, let alone allowed to become worse.
Improved public transport is the answer to traffic congestion, so that if one cannot or will not get on one's bike, one can at least get out of one's car. To obtain the necessary improvement in public transport, central government should take a lead in the greater unification of control of underground services (where they exist), suburban railways, partially deregulated buses and the roads. I believe that that is right and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already spoken about it. Part of the problem from which we suffer is that at present the different bodies are in competition and perhaps are not interested in integrating their timetables with each other. They are separate profit centres and go their own way. I believe that a greater unification of control of those services would lead to a better result for the user who frequently hops from one to the other.
In conclusion, I heartily agree with an article published in The Times last Saturday, which stated:
"The Government has, sometimes inadvertently, shown an antipathy towards public transportation as if it were unaware of the mounting economic disadvantages of private car use in the capital. It is a simple inescapable fact that London will only be kept on the move, and London's businesses kept alive, by a functioning public transport system".
4.54 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Underhill for raising the matter today and in the terms in which he has done so. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, one will not solve the problem of congestion unless one deals with public transport. The two issues are inextricably bound together.
My involvement with public transport goes back a long way. I was appointed chairman of the transport committee by the Labour group in the Reading Borough Council. I was appointed not because I knew anything about transport but, I believe, as a punishment. I dared to speak out on a number of

1537
matters and they thought that to make me the chairman of the transport committee would be a sufficient punishment—which it was—and would shut me up on other matters. Being the chairman was a punishment but it did not shut me up. However, it taught me a great deal about public transport. From that moment I began to understand that in a modern society, where the growth of car ownership was bound to continue and increase, the public transport system must grow side by side with that ownership. Unfortunately it has not done so.
From then my involvement with public transport continued as a result of my election as Member for Swindon. That town was built on public transport and would not exist without it. Therefore I began to learn a great deal about the railways and the necessity for them. I came to understand even more that one of the great disasters for transportation in this country was the Beeching axe. It laid the foundations of our present problems because the Government of the day said, "We foresee that in future goods and passengers will be and should be carried by road". Therefore, they set about axing all the branch lines in this country. Of course, if one axes the branch lines one cannot transport the freight or the passengers on to the main lines. That is the reason that in this country 80 per cent. of long distance freight is carried by road whereas in France and in Germany it is only 50 per cent. That is why we have lorries thundering along our motorways in convoy, often at dangerous speeds and, I am afraid, sometimes driven by maniacs instead of carrying our heavy freight in the best possible way; namely, by rail.
One would have imagined that British Rail would understand the problem and would do something about it. Indeed—and I shall not be popular with my noble friends on the Front Bench—I should have imagined that the Labour Governments of 1964 onwards would recognise (indeed I think they did recognise) the problem, would realise the future problems and would have the guts to put back the Beeching cuts and to say that they believed that unless they put those cuts back, the problems of traffic congestion both at that time and in the future would be insoluble. Unfortunately, they did not have that commitment. Things were perhaps too much against them and the opportunities were not taken.
However, I turn to British Rail itself. I have a high regard for British Rail. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had to say about it. However, I have had some nasty experiences with British Rail. I have made representations to it on many accounts, particularly when it incessantly puts people out of work in my constituency by reducing the amount of work in the British Rail workshops and finally closing them down. However, when I saw the British Rail board or chairman and put the necessity to carry more freight by rail, I was always told that it was impossible and that it could not be done. Over a period of time British Rail lost confidence in itself and lost confidence in the railways.
What is more, until quite recently British Rail believed that all it needed to do was to run a railway. It did not matter how that was done. It forgot that it had customers, and the treatment of British Rail customers over a long period of time has been
1538
nothing short of disgraceful. In recent years British Rail has understood that like any other business it will only thrive provided it treats its customers properly. I believe that British Rail is now "getting there" and will increasingly "get there" in the future.
However, the problem of rail freight remains. The Government together with British Rail should re-examine the whole transportation policy of conveying freight in this country. I believe that if they examine it and examine it thoroughly, they will reach the conclusion that one way in which the problem of congestion can be solved or helped to be solved and one way of releasing more space on motorways would to be open branch lines and to carry far more of our long distance freight by rail.
I am also concerned—as are all other noble Lords who have spoken—about congestion in our towns, particularly towns in the South-East because planning seems only to concern how many people can be brought to an area, as my noble friend Lord Underhill pointed out, and how many houses can be built in an area and not how those people will be transported about their business whether it be to work, to shop and so on. Indeed, in this House on 23rd March I raised the problem of the revised Berkshire structure plan and the fact that the Secretary of State intends to impose 7,000 additional dwellings over and above those proposed by the county council. In the revised structure plan there is nothing stated as to how the roads of Bracknell, Newbury and Reading will cope with these additional people. There are no plans to build additional roads or to improve public transport which, of course, is the solution to traffic congestion in our towns.
Indeed, when I was the chairman of the Reading transport undertaking I discovered that people wanted to use public transport and were in favour of public transport. However, what they needed and demanded was in this order of priority: frequency, regularity and price. If you can give that to the customers they will use the services, but all too often either that is not given or cannot be given because the resources are not made available.
I believe, as do other noble Lords, that we have to devise means—perhaps park-and-ride schemes and so on—to persuade people not to take their cars into town centres and either to leave them at home or to take them to a reasonable point and then take the bus. If that is done I believe that we shall not only help to solve road congestion but we shall also improve the quality of life within the towns themselves. It must be realised that roads usually have people living alongside them and whatever kind of road it is, whether a main road or a side road, additional traffic congestion brings additional noise, nuisance, dirt and pollution. Therefore, the more traffic of all kinds—especially heavy lorry traffic—that we can keep out of our town centres the better it will be.
Some of these schemes should be examined. Indeed, I did that recently in connection with a proposed road widening scheme in Reading which will cost £12 million. In fact the local authorities could provide a free park-and-ride scheme at a

1539
fraction of the cost of the annual loan charges of servicing that £12 million over a period of 30 years.
I am running up against my allotted time but I repeat that I welcome this debate. We now have 21 million vehicles on the roads in this country; how many more shall we have if sales of cars top 2 million every year between now and 1996? The population will become completely fed up and will be demanding action. Therefore, I think we shall not be having fewer debates about public transport and congestion; we shall in fact be having many more. Indeed, provided the Minister listens to what we have to say the more such debates we have—the contributions have been most sensible and to the point, if I may so so—the better it will be for the people of this country and for transport generally.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, in introducing his Motion, which I also sincerely welcome, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us that over 30 per cent. of households in this country do not have access to cars. I belong to one of those households—willingly, I should say, and not by reason of a decision of the justices—and I like my public transport to be practical. I like it to be economical in that I pay for the usage when I pay my fare, although I also pay for the facility through my rates and my taxes, and I want it to be attractive. I also want it to be accessible.
Looking at the state of public transport today, I feel that we have seen a considerable amount of change during the period of the last three governments. Some of that change has been for the better; some, as noble Lords have said, has been very much for the worse. In common with other noble Lords, I believe that British Rail is definitely changing for the better. One must congratulate the Government, the management of British Rail and the staff on that fact, especially when one considers that the record levels of investment currently requested by BR—generally with a sound case—and authorised by the Government have been, to a certain extent, a matter of force majeure in that the modernisation plan investment of the late 1950s is in some respects now coming to the end of its life.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the Better Rail Campaign based on the NERA study. I must admit that I found it somewhat selective in its highlighting of the problems. However, I welcome the fact that the unions seem increasingly to recognise the fact that targeted investment can be just as important as subsidy in achieving a better railway. I shall balance the selectivity I found in the report by drawing a little on my own experience as a judge of British Rail's national best kept station contest. That is one of the activities I give up my Recess to take part in. In September last year, when judging a shortlist of some 30 stations, I was given the opportunity to travel some 3,700 miles on British Rail over a period of about three weeks. That travel ranged from Penzance in the west, to Southend and Beverley in the east and to Dundee and Inverness in the north. It really was something of a snapshot of British Rail. I used all manner of trains: high speed, sleepers,
1540
provincial cross-country services and indeed commuter trains.
Contrary to the NERA report I found a standard of cleanliness perhaps somewhat higher than one might be led to believe. In fact I go as far as to say that the trains in which I travelled—some 53 of them—were generally fairly clean. I feel however that they could be cleaner still, especially in this day and age when a cup of British Rail tea with milk and sugar produces no less than six pieces of disposable plastic or paper—not to mention the kernel, the teabag itself. Cannot British Rail assist us all to help keep its trains tidy by providing at-seat wastepaper baskets? It is not a huge investment. It is not on the scale of electrification of the East coast route, but it does make an enormous impression on all of us. It seems a shame that this Continental practice is being overlooked even in the most modern British Rail stock.
I have mentioned the journeys I made. Having read the NERA study, I checked on how many occasions I had to stand. It turned out to be four times; three times arising out of tourism peaks and once out of a commuter peak. I do not honestly believe that the Government can be asked to approve investment to deal with peaks. If peak periods are to be alleviated they must be alleviated by British Rail's marketing activity and by its operational practice. By all means invest and give everybody, all travellers throughout the day, a better service. But we cannot and should not invest in peaks, be it on railways or motorways. Sometimes we even have to stand in your Lordships' House.
Another major fact that I looked up as a result of the NERA study was that of my 52 journeys, I arrived on time or early at my destination on 49 occasions. That is not a fact which is widely circulated in the national press. In fact, reading the media in general one would not believe that that was possible. However I feel that to have 94 per cent. of trains arrive on time is an achievement of which anyone can be proud.
I looked at revenue protection, which several noble Lords have mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, says that you can travel—it is a fact—not only on London Transport but also on British Rail without seeing anyone who will sell you a ticket, check it or collect it at the end of your journey. In that respect we seem to have the worst of all possible systems. However, my ticket was checked practically every time.
I also noted that staff courtesy, as has been mentioned, is very much on the increase. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned this: it is satisfying to the customer—an example of user friendliness. I was most impressed too by the amount of work put in by British Rail staff whenever they saw a disabled passenger.
I turn now to the stations. It is inevitable that in a best kept station contest one judges the cream. But while travelling we had a certain amount of time to experience the milk as well. The winning stations are an absolute tribute to British Rail and to the staff who run them. The other finalists, some 30 of them—indeed, many of the other stations we visited—reflect what is being done in terms of

1541
rebuilding, restoration and refurbishment either currently, recently or, so we are told, shortly to happen. Such improvements are a matter of funding. The other aspect I noticed a great deal which I have already mentioned was the enthusiasm and courtesy of the staff. That is a priceless asset and, in some respects, more valuable than any investment funding or subsidy.
Looking back on those 3,700 miles of British Rail travel I find that there is clearly still scope for improvement. However, I feel that investment, better management and enthusiasm are major steps forward. The Government should be congratulated on the level of funding they have provided. British Rail's management and staff should similarly by congratulated on the use that they are making of such funding.
I wish I could congratulate the Government and say the same about metropolitan transportation and especially the PTEs. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, that is, alas, a different story. I do not think any of us, with hindsight, can be proud of that.
I am sure it will not surprise your Lordships if I refer again to Tyne and Wear. I believe that before the 1985 Act, Tyne and Wear probably had an integrated system of world class. Now the picture is much different. As the right reverend Prelate said, outside the conurbations, outside the peak periods and the day time between, the service is fading away.
I know where I want to go and I generally know when I wish to travel. However, I cannot be certain that it will necessarily be at a time when my requirements will be met by a commercial operator and his profitability needs. In the old days, if those parameters could not be met the PTE picked up the tab. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has mentioned, the PTEs now find themselves being squeezed between falling financial resources and the burden of fixed charges laid upon them—in the case of Newcastle especially the interest charges arising out of the metro itself and to a lesser extent what one might call residuary costs, such as pensions.
Similarly, there is a concessionary fare scheme. If that is to remain at the level required to meet demand—after all, tailoring provision to meet demand is a plank of the deregulation legislation—continued provision at that level also becomes a fixed charge. At the end of the day it means that the ability to subsidise off-peak routes in low density population areas is being steadily eroded. At the same time the quality of service is falling in terms of the availability of through ticketing on a network which is disintegrating. Things no longer connect in the way they did. Where does that leave the practicality of public transport? I can certainly say that it does not leave it anywhere in Tyne and Wear. Economy is a matter of value for money but if services are no longer available one simply cannot form a judgment.
I should also like to mention attractiveness. One does not want to have to buy three tickets because through ticketing and travel cards have faded away. One wants it even less, particularly as a less-affluent member of the community, if the sudden switch from one ticket to three masks no less than three hidden fare rises.
1542
Another consequence of deregulation which causes me a great deal of concern is that of information provision. It seems to me that accessible and accurate information is essential if the consumer is to make the most of the services provided. In a commercial environment the service pattern is constantly changing.
We were told about what I believe is the 48-day rule. That rule has not been terribly well honoured. The second largest operator in Poole closed down all its services at one day's notice. That is hardly a reliable service. In Portsmouth a potential buyer of the former municipal network has suddenly pulled out, again at about 24 hours' notice. That does not generate either a reliable service or public confidence; hence it does not generate usage.
In my part of the New Forest there are now about six operators; but how does one find out what five of them do? One stands by the wayside and jots down the number on the back of the bus. Then one rings that number and hopes that if he is not a one-man operator and a one-man company, there will be someone there to answer. There is no longer any central provision (except in the PTEs) of public transport information. If there is no public transport information—I am sure that many noble Lords will agree—usage will fall.
Sooner or later someone will come to write a history or make a study of public transport under recent Conservative governments. I hope that the author will not overlook two factors which have been scarcely touched upon today. I wish to refer to one particular factor of which the Government can be particularly proud. That is the creation of an environment where private investment in public transport has again become fashionable. This has occurred perhaps at a level not seen since the demise of the passenger shipping companies and of the privately-owned railways. I am thinking not only of the privatisation of buses, British Airways or the airports, but I am also thinking of investment in such projects as the Docklands airport and the Channel Tunnel.
In congratulating the Government on this public transport development, perhaps I may ask two questions. The first concerns implementation of the departmental study on surface access to Heathrow. I work in an office which is neatly situated between the Piccadilly Line on the one side and the Hammersmith flyover on the other. Looking out of the back window of my office I can see when the Underground is having a bad day; so that is not the way to go to Heathrow. Looking out of the front window I can see when the Hammersmith flyover is having a bad day, and equally that is not the way to go to Heathrow.
The department commissioned a study about two years ago. It has had the consultant's findings in its hands since last autumn. It has had a kind of mixed economy proposal for improving surface access. There has been the rail link proposal funded by BAA and BR. Is the Minister able to tell us of any progress after examining these findings? Or can he tell us when he hopes to be able to make an announcement as to the recommendations in the consultant's report?
Turning to the subject of the Channel Tunnel, the Minister will be aware of my concern about rail access

1543
between London, the rest of Britain, and the British terminal at Cheriton. A number of noble Lords who have spoken today supported me when I raised this topic earlier in the year. Given the framework of Sections 40 and 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, can the Minister assure me that British Rail will have the resources, and have them in time, to take full advantage of the growth forecast in domestic as well as in the international traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel?
5.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join previous speakers in expressing my appreciation to my colleague on the Front Bench, Lord Underhill, for introducing a debate on this subject. It is an extremely important one which concerns the present and future wellbeing of ourselves as a nation in terms of communications.
Perhaps I may begin by putting to the Minister something that I believe my noble friend Lord Underhill mentioned; namely, the proposals that are today going through another place as regards transport. The areas concerned are the conurbations. If I understand the proposals correctly, they could lead to a break-up of the effectiveness of some of the PTAs that have now started to operate mainly in the interests of the people living in those areas.
Under the provisions of the local government Bill as originally drafted, the six metropolitan passenger transport authorities will remain precepting authorities. Their precepts will be a direct charge on the collection fund adminstered by the district councils in each PTA area. It would appear that the Government's amendment would abolish the power of the PTA to set a community charge in this way and to replace it by an ability to impose a levy on the constituent districts. The effect of this change would be that the PTA levy would be included within each district council's overall spending, but the decision on the level of the expenditure would remain with the PTA. If I read the proposal correctly, it means that the local authorities will be levied for sums of money when they have had no say in determining the amounts.
In the Greater Manchester area there are 10 district authorities in one metropolitan county area, and one could produce 10 different sets of proposals as to how those authorities would behave. I can foresee a situation where there will be a complete contradiction because of the way in which local authorities within particular areas approach this subject. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred in his speech to the multiplicity of times that the services cross the 10 borders of Manchester. Surely, if what I am saying is correct, it is an exercise or a recipe for disaster to proceed in this way.
As a former local government man myself, one situation which I consider to be quite unfair is that a local authority may have to cut some of its priority services in order to meet this levy unless it is prepared to stand its ground and do what it wants. It may then end up being surcharged to raise a sum of money when it has had no part in making the policy decision. That is one of the points that I should like the
1544
Minister to take on board. If he cannot answer it today perhaps he will come back to it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to Manchester in some respects. I should like also to refer to my ex-home city where I was the leader of the council for quite a while. I wish to give some indication of what has happened since the present organisations were set up. There has been a deterioration in service. I do not live in Manchester but in Leeds, and I am an almost 100 per cent. public transport traveller. I have no grumbles because I live on a main road and there is easy access. However, I believe that in most areas there has been, sadly, a deterioration in some of the more inaccessible parts where it is not commercially viable to run a service.
That was a problem the Government were warned about and I believe they have ignored the situation. This will be at their peril. In some areas people are not getting the service that they ought to get. In 1985–86, the last full year before deregulation, it was calculated that 355 million passengers were carried on local bus services in Manchester. There had been a steady growth in passengers following a period in which the network was stable and fares had not been increased for approximately three years.
However, as your Lordships know, there were two major changes in 1986. First, the metropolitan counties were abolished and the new PTAs were formed by the constituent metropolitan district councils. In the case of Manchester, because of the need to keep spending within the expenditure limits for that year, fares had to be increased, for the first time for approximately three years, by 13 per cent.
The second major event was bus deregulation, which took effect on 26th October 1986. While we accept that the PTE perhaps misjudged the level of subsidised service that users required, there was still an immediate adverse effect on passengers on deregulation day. The acid test of success or lack of success in bus deregulation should surely be measured in terms of passengers. In Greater Manchester the latest figures show that for 1986–87 there was a 14 per cent. decrease in bus usage, a loss equivalent to 51 million passenger journeys.
The loss of passengers in all metropolitan areas, including Greater Manchester, is shown in the latest statistics published recently by the Department of Transport, in which it accepts that in 1986–87 the number of passenger journeys had fallen by about 12 per cent. While we accept that part of this loss may be due to other factors, such as increasing car ownership, surely a large element of the loss must be due to bus deregulation. This loss is of particular concern, for in Greater Manchester service provision in terms of both vehicle and seat mileage has increased.
The other feature of deregulation in Greater Manchester has been the dramatic increase in minibus services following the launch in certain parts of the county of the Beeline Buzz Company, which is part of United Transport International. While this has been a benefit to some passengers in the short term, what are the long-term prospects? I understand that UTI has already sold off its only other venture—Zippy in Preston. It is now a matter of conjecture how long Beeline in the Manchester area will survive. Will it mushroom and die like Sale

1545
Coaches, or struggle on like Yelloway? Surely this is not the proper way to organise public transport.
I also understand that in Greater Manchester the network is still very volatile. This is explained by the fact that 10 districts make up the area. There have been 60 changes a week compared with the stable network that preceded it. Bus services are now being operated for profit without concern for the interests of passengers. This point has been referred to by other noble Lords, today and previously.
One good side effect of deregulation has been the increased usage of rail services. This has improved the case for light rapid transit put forward by the passenger transport authority and executive. The PTE has now been given authority to go out to tender for the first phase of the LRT project. The light rapid transit system which is starting to emerge in Manchester is desirable, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that the system will retain a substantial input from the people who have to use it.
I do not want to see in Manchester what has occurred in the North-East, where a management team was trying to buy out the system which employed them. This led to certain officers being suspended for a while on full pay. The story was reported in the press. However, if it was to be even hinted at that the light rapid transit system was not to be used to its full extent on behalf of the people, it would be very dangerous indeed. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
In the few minutes I have left I should like to deal with one or two national points as I see them. I use public transport almost 100 per cent. of the time but occasionally I use a car and travel on motorways. I realise that motorway repairs are a difficult operation. Early last evening I travelled from Leeds to Manchester on the M.62 and along three or four miles of motorway lined by multi-coloured daleks! That is what they are. They become more menacing the longer one drives along. Luckily it was light, but many noble Lords will have experienced driving along a stretch of motorway with an extended contraflow system. I know that some time ago the Minister himself expressed deep concern at some of the absolutely horrendous accidents that have taken place on contraflow systems.
I wonder whether the Government are keeping motorway repair under review to try to speed up necessary repairs in the interests of motorists. The ordinary motorist is a little fed up with the continual increase in road tax. He appears to get less for his money all the time. In most of our major cities the state of the roads leaves a great deal to be desired.
I should like to draw attention to the way the travelling public is treated by the national bus companies. I refer not to their services, which I understand are good and economical, but to some of the so-called termini in the major cities which people have to use. Some are beyond belief. Some are worse in certain respects than the most ancient of our railway stations. Some are not covered and people are exposed to all kinds of inclement weather. I would rather see a more substantial charge for some of these services, which in comparison with rail are cheaper,
1546
in order to provide decent conditions for people who regularly use this type of transport.
The question of the districts seceding from the present arrangements is very important. In the Greater Manchester area one could end up with 10 different forms of concessionary fares and with some areas without them. It would be a dangerous road for the Government to go down. If the Minister cannot reply to this point today perhaps he will think about it and come back to it in the future. I am sure that when the Bill comes before the House some of us will be better armed to deal with it.
I apologise again. I have an important meeting to attend but I hope to be back in time for the speeches of the Front Bench spokesmen. Once again, I express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Underhill for introducing this debate.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do not want to take up too much of my time talking about public passenger transport. However, I should like to make one or two remarks following references made by my noble friend Lord Underhill in his excellent speech introducing the debate. Research increasingly shows that women rely more on public transport than men do. That of course applies in households where there is no private car. Contrary to many people's impressions, as has been said this afternoon, some 38 per cent. of households have no access to a private car. Even in families where there is a car and both partners have a driving licence, the male member of the household usually has first claim on the car. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, reminded us that only one woman in three has a driving licence.
By and large, women have to rely on public transport for shopping, taking out the children, visiting relatives and so on. They need it to go to and from their places of work. We must not forget that two-thirds of married women are also workers.
Some as yet unpublished research done by WYCROW (the West Yorkshire Council for Research on Women) at Bradford University has looked again at the problems women have when using public transport. Many of their worries could be easily overcome if efforts were made to find out their problems. For example, there is concern not just over the accessibility of public transport routes—in outlying areas that is of importance—but also over the availability and reliability of timetables. In other words, women want to know when and where buses are available so that they can plan their day accordingly. They do not want to waste time waiting for buses which do not turn up in accordance with the timetable when the weather is inclement or during dark evenings and mornings.
Women with small children appear to have most difficulties. Elderly women also have problems. Although it may not apply here, there are more elderly women in the community as a whole than elderly men. Women with young children are concerned about one-man buses. They have difficulty getting on to a bus and coping with children and shopping. Equally, elderly women have problems getting on to buses and coping with shopping, luggage, sticks and so on when there is no one to help

1547
them. That is a real problem which needs looking into. I cannot develop that theme too far because of the time factor, but I hope WYCROW's research into this neglected area will help to inform those preparing future plans of our needs in the provision of public transport.
I wish to turn now to the wider aspects of transport as part of the infrastrucure of our economy. Some two years ago your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology studied innovation in transport. The impression that the committee received was that continental countries (our partners in Europe) place much more emphasis on and give greater priority to investment in transport than we do. My experience of transport problems since that report was published over a year ago underlines that point.
In the second half of this century, the development of the motorways is equivalent to the development of the rail network in the second half of the 19th century. Motorway development has been a tremendous public investment and yet there are gaps in the network. Those gaps mainly affect the industrial areas which developed at the same time as the 19th century rail and road networks. There are many examples of such gaps in, for instance, Yorkshire. I wish to refer to some of them.
Many of the gaps are east-west gaps. I live in a village where the question of a bypass was first raised 60 years ago. The juggernaut had not then been invented, but now such vehicles charge down from the moor into our main street unaware of and unprepared for the treacherous bends that await them; and that all because north of the M.62 there is no effective east-west route until one reaches the Glasgow-Edinburgh motorway links.
From living in a state of apprehension over one's safety whenever one approaches the village main street, the village now lives in a state of apprehension lest the work on the bypass which is scheduled to take place in March next year is postponed yet again.
Yorkshire—for the purpose of the debate I leave aside Humberside—has three main industrial areas. In the south, Sheffield and in West Yorkshire, Leeds and Bradford. All three have problems. Sheffield lacks a satisfactory link with Manchester across the Pennines. Leeds lacks a satisfactory network of linking roads, especially a link between the M.1 and the A.1. Bradford has different problems. It has good links with the M.1 and the M.62. However it has a rail problem to which I shall come later. It has a problem because there is no satisfactory route through the conurbation known as the Aire Valley.
The Aire Valley route now under construction was meant to solve the problem of accessibility within that conurbation. One hopes that it will also help to open up new land for industrial development in the whole area. It is, as I say, under construction, but that construction will stop at Cottingley Bar in Bingley about two-thirds of the way down the valley. In other words, the route will end in a car park in Bingley. There will then be a link missing between that car park and Bradford City Centre.
Granted that there are environmental problems in
1548
completing that route in that originally it was scheduled to go through the industrial heritage village of Saltaire, those problems must and could be overcome if sufficient resources were made available. It is vital that the Department of Transport resolves those problems. It is already some three years since the department decided that the project would go ahead but without the link that I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication that we can have speedy progress on this route. If he can not do so in today's debate I hope that he will write to me later. If this link is not built, then of course traffic queues will build up and will move down the road as more of the route is completed. It will bring serious problems for Bradford in attracting new investment. All the transport problems in Yorkshire have important consequences for the economy of the regions, but there are particular problems in Bradford. For example, Bradford's rate of unemployment is 12·3 per cent. compared with the regional average of 11·3 per cent. and a national average of 9 per cent.
So it is important that employment opportunities are seized in the Bradford area. Unlike many other metropolitan areas in the country, Bradford's population is increasing as regards the number of people who are approaching working age. Again, this underlines the need for a good road and rail network if the district's economic future is to be developed.
I said that there was also a rail problem. In the mid-1970s, Bradford had six return through rail services to and from London daily. From May this year, the service will be reduced to one. Naturally there are complaints from many business people travelling to and from Bradford that it takes two hours on the train to do the 180 miles to Wakefield and another hour for the rest of the 15 miles to Bradford.
The image and perception of a city is that it needs to be on the Intercity network and have a good, fast service to London, if it is to develop new industries in the high-tech area, as Bradford is attempting to do, and the new industries in tourism. It seems that the real answer to this problem is the electrification of the line between Leeds and Bradford. I am afraid that at the moment that does not appear to fit into the Government's stringent financial targets for British Rail. However it seems that it would make a very good investment in terms of the economic development of the Bradford district and the region as a whole.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it falls to my lot to start the wind-up below the line in this debate. Like everybody else, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for having given us an opportunity, which has been seized by a much larger number of people than we normally hear speaking in transport debates in this House. There are normally three on this side of the House and two on the other. It is very good to see that there are many other people joining in today.
We have had a very wide range of different interests. I thought at one stage that the House was going to divide itself into those people who were

1549
talking about London and its Underground and those who might be described as friends of Heaton Park, a place which is about a mile from where I was born and about three-quarters of a mile from where my grandaughter was born. It is an area which I should not like to see turned into a car park.
We are all agreed (are we not?) that the relationship between congestion and public transport is a very clear one and that it is only by developing our public transport system that we stand any chance at all of reducing or even containing the congestion both on our roads and on the other methods of transport. It would of course be nice to have fewer cars, that would be one way of solving it. But the truth is that that will not happen, for the very good and sufficient reason that the motor car is a great liberating force for those people who have one. As a number of people have pointed out, many do not have them. Even if families have one, as the noble Baroness has just said, it is very often the male member of the family who uses the motor car to go to work. His wife and children have to use public transport.
I remember when I was a child and we went to the seaside. Before we had a car, we always used to send our luggage in advance on the railway. How much easier it is to throw everything into the back seat of the car and drive off when one feels like it. For those reasons, among many others, cars will increase, and if we are not careful congestion will get worse and worse. The other way to reduce congestion is to have more and better, cleaner, more efficient and more attractive public transport. The third way is better traffic management, which falls into two categories: first, more roads, and, secondly, the advent of new technology, new systems to help manage better the traffic that we have.
A number of people have mentioned traffic forecasts. There is no question but that the national road traffic forecasts always appear to be seriously underestimated. The 1984 forecast, which I think is the most recent, assumed an increase of between 23 per cent. and 49 per cent. from 1982 to the year 2000. However, it now appears that an increase of something like 50 per cent. between this year and the end of the century is much more likely. Motorway traffic has risen enormously; 13 per cent. in 1984; 8 per cent. in 1985; 14 per cent. in 1986 and 13 per cent. last year.
The best way of discouraging cars from coming into uban areas, which is one of the major problems about which we have been talking today, is better parking. There is a lot of room for improvement in the park-and-ride systems, as has already been mentioned. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has rejoined us, I repeat that I hope he does not turn Heaton Park into a car park as it is where my granddaughter plays. I am sure that he will not. We are told that 60 per cent. of the parking in London is illegal. Again, a number of people, including the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, have said that regulations are simply not enforced either in terms of parking offences or moving into traffic boxes. People feel that they can get away with dropping their cars anywhere.
It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how far he feels that the use of wheel-clamps in London has had an effect on parking in Greater London. I
1550
detect that a number of people are being slightly deterred through both the cost and the disruption to their daily lives caused by being wheel-clamped. However, it would be interesting to have some idea of what the Government's view is. It has been suggested that only something like one in 2,000 people who are alleged to have committed offences are ever taken to court. There is surely something to be said, as the AMA suggests, for some decriminalisation of minor stationary car offences being considered and local authorities being given the ability to levy charges instead.
I do not see the possibility of extra taxation schemes being introduced. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has referred, briefly considered taxation schemes. On the whole it was felt that it was unlikely that we would get around to introducing those for Greater London or other large conurbations. They have been tried in a number of parts of the world and they have had only a limited amount of success.
Therefore much the better way, as I think we have all concluded today, is to improve the standard of public transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, one of the most important factors—I think it is the most important factor—is increased frequency of public transport, followed by reliability. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester gave us a delightful introduction to life in Manchester today. He made a most useful and excellent contribution to our debate and I hope that he joins in transport debates more often.
As a result of deregulation people are uncertain about when their buses will run. I do not live in Manchester myself now but I see the Little Gems and Bee Line Buzzes as we have to call them. That is one of the worst puns in living memory, but it is understood better in Oldham than it would be here. On the face of it they seem to be producing more frequent services. But from what I read and hear, people in some housing areas where perhaps there is not the volume of traffic that commerce dictates are becoming increasingly worried that services are fluctuating and being taken off. Even in some cases there is one bus which runs fairly infrequently.
Unless people feel that they can go to their bus stop and get a bus within 20 minutes—that seems to be the crucial time—then frankly they will get the car out if they have one and add to the congestion on the roads.
Today we have heard a considerable amount of talk about integrated transport as we did during the discussion on the buses Bill. It is an awful temptation to say to the Government, "We told you so". I say that at this stage of the debate having heard the message come from all round the House. It has come from the Labour Party, from our Benches, from the Conservative Back Benches, from the Bishops and from the Cross-Benches. The story is the same everywhere; people are worried about the lack of integration, and good systems such as the one in Tyne and Wear, which we all hoped would set a pattern for the future, are slowly disintegrating before our eyes.
Where services are adequate and acceptable people will use them. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said about the Underground—and he is absolutely

1551
right to worry about the conditions on the Underground—some things have improved there. One such improvement is the way in which technology is coming into effect to provide more information to passengers. It is so much better if one can stand on the platform or go down on to the platform and see that there will not be a train for 20 minutes. At least one can get out a book and read it or go and catch a bus. But it is annoying to sit there for 20 minutes without knowing whether one will have to wait for another 20 minutes or whether the next train will come in two minutes. So in that respect technology is coming into use on the Underground.
The same kind of technology could very easily be brought into use on the buses. The technology is there and again your Lordships' Select Committee looked at a number of schemes with that purpose in mind. The technology is available but it will not be brought into operation while we have this disintegrated transport system. No single bus operator will go to the length of installing expensive equipment to allow his competitor to use the same equipment. That is one of the things we have lost by having a deregulated bus system.
It is still not too late to introduce this technology on the London buses but we fear that the Government will go further down the road of fragmenting the transport system in London. I hope that is not true and that they will take heed of the lessons learnt from deregulation in rural areas.
Much has been said about the deregulation of buses and I shall not go any further down that road except just to mention the question of through ticketing. Again in relation to London there was a Question in another place the other day to which the Minister Mr. David Mitchell replied in connection with the effect of the introduction of Travelcard and Capitalcard. The Minister said that no reliable estimates were available but Travelcard and Capitalcard were believed to have been significant in increasing the use of public transport in London and could be expected to have released capacity on the road network.
Why in that case is there not more effort on the part of the Government to see that these kind of schemes can be introduced in more and more places whereas the pressure is all in the other direction? These kind of through ticketing arrangements do make a tremendous difference to peoples' willingness to go on public transport rather than get the car out of the garage.
On the question of better traffic management, we must first have more roads. But there is a kind of Parkinsonian equation here. That is: cars expand to fill the roads available for them. Getting the balance right between having the kind of congestion that we have on some roads today particularly on motorways but also on trunk roads and going to the other extreme of actually helping to create more traffic on the roads by building more roads is very difficult. Nevertheless in spite of the 54 per cent. increase in motorway traffic between 1980 and 1986 funding has fallen far behind and we now have an expenditure of only 2 per cent. in cash terms for 1989–90 and
1552
1990–91. That is a fall in real terms of 2 per cent. at current inflation rates.
In 1988 not a single mile of new motorway will be built. Traffic will be forced on to trunk roads where the situation is not much better. As has already been said, local authorities are so constrained by cash limits of one kind or another that they are allowing the roads for which they are responsible to fall apart and potholes are becoming much more a way of daily life than they were 10 years ago.
Better traffic management has not been helped by the break-up of the metropolitan counties. Those of us on the Select Committee who saw some of the things that were being done in West Yorkshire can only regret that while some of that may continue the chances of those kind of schemes being extended have certainly been restricted by the break-up of the metropolitan counties.
On the whole the remarks about British Rail have been favourable and rightly so. British Rail has pulled its socks up, certainly as regards Intercity trains. However it still has many, many problems with its commuter trains in shifting the kind of volume of traffic that occurs in and out of our major urban centres in a very short period of time in the morning and taking it home again during a very short period of time at night. That is a very difficult problem to contend with if the Government keep British Rail short of funds. Several noble Lords have said that we must recognise that transport cannot be simply a matter of moving people in a way that is commercially viable; there must be a social content. While the Government maintain their insistence on market forces controlling such things I believe that the outlook is extremely gloomy and that our quality of life is likely to suffer as a result.
Finally I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to a comment that was made in the Select Committee's report Innovation in Surface Transport. On page 29 of that report it states:
"The Committee therefore recommend that the Secretary of State develop and publish, perhaps as a White Paper, a strategy for transport. They suggest that this statement might contain: a broad outline of all transport needs which the Government believe will have to be provided for at the start of the 21st century; priorities for innovation to meet these needs (including a reference to those areas where the Government do not see a need for innovation); and an indication of their views on the responsibilities of central and local government, and of industry, for carrying out the necessary research, development, and application of new technology".
I believe that that recommendation goes to the very heart of the problem. I regret to say that so far I have seen no sign of the Government picking up that recommendation. I hope that as a result of this debate they will be encouraged to do so.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Underhill for initiating the debate, and all those taking part in it. We all bring our own experiences to these debates. Since most of us tend to disperse throughout the country at the weekend, I believe that we can collectively give a good overall impression of the state of public transport as we find in our own areas. By the very nature of being in this House, we also have a knowledge of what is happening in London transport.

1553
There was a timely reminder by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, concerning the dependence of women and children on public transport. That is something which we tend to take for granted or do not think about at all. That ties in with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, concerning the different people who are taking part in the transport debate initiated by my noble friend. I do not remember that any noble Baroness took an active part in previous transport debates and I think that it is extremely good that we have had a contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I hope that she will be involved in our transport debates in the future.
The debate seems to have included three basic topics, although there are no true borders between them. They are a bit like a map of the Balkans; they keep spilling over into one another. The first topic is public transport, which includes British Rail, buses and coaches. The second topic running through the Bill is roads. The third topic is London transport, because we all know a bit about it and because some of the solutions suggested for London would surely be transferable to Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and other conurbations.
As regards the problems with buses and coaches, although the Minister will undoubtedly say that deregulation has not yet settled in, there is grave dissatisfaction with the results that we have had so far. There has been instability of service and constant change. My noble friend Lord Underhill gave a figure for West Yorkshire of over 1,000 changes. In my own area of Strathclyde, there were over 2,000 changes and they are still coming in at a rate of 15 changes or alterations of service per day. That is no way to run a public transport service.
It is suggested that the important matters in public transport are frequency, regularity and price. I would say that regularity and reliability are absolutely important. They are even more important than frequency, which takes third place. As long as those matters are well looked after, people will pay the price for a decent service.
Because of deregulation, there has been cost cutting and in many areas we have seen the cutting of corners. We all know about low wages. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester gave some wage figures. Undoubtedly low wages lead to low morale among staff, which leads to staff changes and a higher turnover. Once again, those matters contribute to unreliability and instability in service. It has been pointed out that the reduction in bus services fluctuates between 7 per cent. and 27 per cent., depending on whether a rural or urban area is served. I agree with the right reverend Prelate when he says that integration is vital for any area planning and that it was lost with the deregulation Act.
I hope that too much harm has not been done and that we shall be able to see the solutions to some of our problems. I hope that one of the lessons we learn will be that even this Government must not decide to break up London as they have broken up the rest of the country. As regards British Rail, I think we all agree with my noble friend who has said that he does
1554
not believe that British Rail is actually getting there. He suggested that British Rail lost faith in itself during the Beeching era. I believe that there is a great deal of truth in that.
Perhaps because I had an involvement in it, I think that there was a genuine attempt to look at transport and particularly at public transport as a whole at the time of the 1968 Act. We have moved on since then. However, the basic idea of looking at the whole of transport was worthwhile. I do not think that any serious attempt has been made to do that since then. Despite all the excellent reports we get from our own Select Committees, from those of another place and from private investigations, it is only when we come to put the recommendations into an Act of Parliament for which the Government will have some responsibility that we begin to see the difficulties and the problems which have to be overcome. There were many problems which were not properly overcome by the 1968 Act. However, it was a very good shot at trying to get a reasonable transport system for this country.
I am slightly annoyed when there is too much criticism of British Rail. Of course I have my own criticisms. However, when people go abroad and come back and say, "Aren't the Swiss railways wonderful? Aren't the German railways wonderful?", they never mention the fact that the subsidies to those railways are quite gigantic compared to ours. Perhaps I sound like a broken record. However, I always think of the comparison between the French high-speed train and the APT.
I believe that in purely engineering and technical terms the APT was an incredibly advanced piece of work. However, the attitude of all the governments which we have had in this country towards technology has needed adjustment. We put £45 million into the APT. The French high-speed train—I have been on it and I have sat in the driver's cabin; it is very nice—cost over £850 million. It is therefore not fair to draw such comparisons, and I get annoyed with much of the criticism of British Rail. We must also remember that much of our railway system was built at such an early date that some of our track will not allow the speeds which can be achieved by the new equipment.
Turning to the question of roads, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke about his journey to London. I seldom come to London by road. However, I came down just before Easter, partly because I occasionally use the long motorways and go into the service areas to see what is happening. To get from London to just the other side of Birmingham—a journey of 125 miles—on the Friday before Easter took five hours. I normally expect to be near Lancaster by that time, yet there I was, struggling along. There were no repairs to the road; it was due to sheer traffic. I agree that one cannot build roads just for the high peak periods because the traffic is not normally anything like as bad as that.
The lesson I think that we should learn from that—and which I think has been well put to the Government by others and by the press generally—is that we should look carefully at the idea of two-lane motorways. That was three-lane motorway all the

1555
way yet the journey took five hours. Had the Luton stretch still been two-lane motorway I should probably still be working my way towards Glasgow. So I hope that the Government will look very seriously at not having any more two-lane motorways.
I wonder what the saving is between two and three-lane motorways. Although this is not a good comparison—and it may be ridiculous in terms of motorways—I remember that many years ago I put a series of questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the Highland single-track roads. I was staggered to discover that the difference between a single-track road of 11 ft., allowing for passing places, and an 18 or 20 ft. double-track road was about 15 per cent. I wonder whether there is any similar comparison. Believe it or not, we were still building single-track roads in the Highlands in the 1960s. I should like to know the saving between a two-lane and three-lane motorway.
Everyone has said that we love our cars. I think that that is quite true of those of us who have them. My car is one of the last things that I should want to get rid of. But it has been pointed out that everyone does not have a car or can drive one. Therefore public transport is vital for very large numbers of people and always will be. At all times some people will need public transport and I think that all of us at some time will need public transport.
The last point to which I want to refer briefly concerns London. Perhaps if we can find a solution for London, we can find solutions for other parts of the country, although on a different scale. It is terrifying that car ownership will increase greatly and that the increase will probably be greater in London than in any other part of the country. Someone said that a co-ordinated approach to a solution for London was essential. To be really political, I say why do we not bring back the GLC? We may then have the possibility of a co-ordinated transport system in London.
I do not think that some of the solutions which have been suggested would be feasible. Road pricing was talked about a long time ago. It failed very badly because, first, I think that there would be a very great—and quite correct—moral objection to people being able to price their way into some parts of the city while others could not. One of the other obvious difficulties is that it would be quite ludicrous for everyone in Britain to have some kind of meter in their car when they used it only very infrequently, if ever, to visit London. If they did not use it and there was some dispensation, the number of people who would suddenly be using the car of an uncle who lived in a place where it was not necessary to have a meter would be quite high. I think also that any supplementary licence would come into the same category. I do not believe that is a solution to the problem.
Coaches cause great congestion. I have been to Victoria and seen the congestion around the coach station. However, we should consider that if we replace the coaches by cars carrying the same number of people the result would be horrendous.
1556
Very little can be done, although I agree that something can be done in terms of minor civil engineering works to squeeze a little more out of the roads, as one noble Lord put it. That is a possibility. One could get a little more out of the roads. However, I think that whichever government are in power need the political courage to spend money on public transport. In London and other parts of the country there are plans awaiting under which little railway junctions could be used to set up railway networks for quite a number of conurbations at not too great a cost. I hope that some government would have the courage. The pressure could perhaps come from such debates as this and from motoring and railway organisations for the Government to spend a lot of money now, even though we are not likely to see a noticeable return for a number of years. Otherwise I believe that the prospects are appalling. We need to do something long before the end of the century.
I think that we have not dealt fully with the most important point in terms of the problems of London, which in many ways differ from those anywhere else. That is the question of congestion and growth in the South-East of England. I am not trying to jump on the bandwagon of the right honourable Member for Henley. I am merely reiterating something that many of us have been arguing for a long time. He said—and we said 20 years ago—that the build-up of the Civil Service, the Armed Forces and research, all in the South-East is inefficient in terms of the rest of the country.
I think that it would be interesting if the Government were to look again, for instance, at the pass marks in the Civil Service exam. It is all tied up with transport and the congestion in the South-East. If we go on like that the rest of the country will be denuded and all the civil servants will be down here. If you wanted a job in Glasgow, the pass mark in the Civil Service exam used to be about 67 per cent.; if you wanted a job in Newcastle it was 58 per cent.; and if you wanted a job in London it was 50 per cent. That is for clerical grades. In fact, for a period they were taking people with lower marks. That is a problem which all governments have shirked. If we continue to allow the build-up in the South-East, no amount of manoeuvring with public transport can solve the problem.
I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. I have certainly learnt a great deal; I am sure that all of us have.
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, like other noble Lords I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for providing the House with this opportunity for a debate which has touched on most aspects of this broad and important subject. A nation's prosperity depends on the efficiency and effectiveness of its transport system. Britain now leads Europe in its economic growth. This success is in no small part attributable to the revolution—yes it is indeed a revolution—in transport since 1979. I pay tribute to everyone in the transport field who over the last eight years has helped build a transport system for the United

1557
Kingdom which is more responsive to the needs of the transport users, more efficient in the use of resources, and is more conscious of its impact on the environment and the quality of all our lives.
I shall follow the order of the Motion and look at developments in public transport before looking at the road system.
I say unequivocally that public transport is one of this Government's successes. Public transport in the United Kingdom has improved, is improving and will continue to improve. This results from our policies of high investment, value for tax and ratepayers money, and increased competition.
As far as concerns British Rail, over £3 billion in today's prices has been invested since 1979 and Ministers have not turned down any project put to them. Twenty-three major investment projects have been approved by the Government since objectives were first set in 1983. BR itself has approved many smaller projects. These investments include several significant electrification projects and substantial amounts of new rolling stock. British Rail is embarked upon the largest programme of modernisation since the change from steam to diesel in the 1950s. It is planning to invest a further £3 billion (at today's prices) over the next five years.
At the same time as this massive programme of investment, improvement in efficiency has enabled BR to more than meet the financial targets that it was set and allowed taxpayer support for BR to be reduced by over a quarter in three years. This has happened at the same time as the massive investment programme—an impressive response, particularly since this has not been achieved by excessive fares. In terms of fares paid per mile, rail fares are no higher than they were in 1980.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred particularly to rail freight. Successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, have accepted that freight transport must be fully commercial. It does not pay British Rail and probably has never paid it to move small part wagonloads by train. It is better for British Rail to do the job that it can do best, which is moving bulk trainloads over long distances. I am sure that the opportunities which the opening of the Channel Tunnel will bring to British Rail will further increase the amount of freight that is carried by the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, other noble Lords, and the Government too, put equal stress on improving service to the rail user. That is why we have set challenging quality of service targets: for punctuality, overcrowding and cleanliness. It is simply not true, as some noble Lords suggest, that the quality of service on British Rail has worsened. In fact, I think that the majority of speakers in the debate this afternoon have been very complimentary of British Rail and the service that it gives.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on Network South-East found that punctuality and reliability on the network had improved significantly during the 1980s. However we and British Rail management are the first to recognise that more remains to be done. Performance
1558
is being closely monitored against the tough standards agreed with British Rail last July.
The Government recognise that there is overcrowding on some passenger services, in particular on Network South East. British Rail has been a victim of its own success. Demand has increased by 15 per cent. in the past three years alone. Action is in hand to deal with overcrowding and we have approved a number of schemes to help relieve it. The problems will not disappear overnight but the action taken means that overcrowding is now no worse than last year despite a 5 per cent. increase in traffic. We are always ready to approve worthwhile investments, and indeed in the past few days two further projects have been approved: on Friday we approved the purchase of new rolling stock for Waterloo surburban services at a cost of £20 million; and only today we have given the go-ahead for electrifying the Portsmouth-Southampton and Portsmouth-Eastleigh lines at a cost of £16.4 million.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords to NERA's Better Rail Campaign Report. The report does indeed contain much detail which will require careful study, and we shall want to hear British Rail's reaction to the realism of the NERA's proposals. We welcome all positive contributions to thinking on improvements to the rail system and Ministers attach particular importance to the quality of service and agreed new objectives with the chairman in July 1987.
On Intercity services, rolling stock which was to have been replaced will be retained in order to help meet increased passenger demand and timetables will be adjusted in May to match supply more closely to demand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred in particular to the rail services in the Bradford area. I have to say that the provision for through services between London and Bradford is entirely a matter for British Rail's commercial judgment. It is also for British Rail and not the Government to decide whether electrification between Leeds and Bradford is worth bringing forward.
I turn now to London Regional Transport. High investment and value for money are also characteristics of the achievements of London Regional Transport since its establishment in 1984. Revenue support required was some £45 million in the last financial year compared with the target set LRT by the Government of £95 million and the £190 million planned by the GLC for 1984. This reduction in the need for revenue support has been largely due to increased efficiency and more passengers. It has not come from large fare increases or service cuts. Fares overall are still cheaper in real terms than in 1980 and service levels have been broadly maintained or indeed increased. A reduced need for revenue support has released funds for a massive increase in investment while the burden on the taxpayer and ratepayer has been reduced.
LRT's total investment this year will be some £365 million—£1 million a day. On the underground, investment, at a record level of £214 million, will be 50 per cent. higher this year in real terms than in 1984–85. Some £5 million is spent annually on specific safety measures over and above safety measures

1559
incorporated in major investment to renew infrastructure—signalling, track, lifts, escalators etc. Following the appalling disaster at King's Cross, the Government will consider as a matter of priority any recommendations for improving safety which may emerge from the formal investigation or indeed in the meantime.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said in his speech, the Underground is having to cope with huge increases in patronage—up by 80 per cent. since 1982. Much of the investment is planned to modernise the system and make it more attractive to passengers.
£75 million of investment has been authorised in the past 18 months specifically to help relieve overcrowding, including 16 new trains, and more is in prospect. It is also intended to increase station capacity at various stations on the system. Major proposals are being prepared for re-equipment including new Tube trains which would provide increased capacity. But we recognise that congestion on the London rail network is severe in some places, and will worsen with the continued growth in demand predicted for the future. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced an urgent strategic review of the capacity of London's rail network, with special emphasis on the central area. Unless sufficient capacity can be provided there, higher traffic by rail on the radial routes into the capital will be constrained. The scope for improvements to London's radial routes remains very limited. The central London rail study involves representatives from British Rail, London Regional Transport, London Underground and the Department of Transport, and aims to produce its initial results in July.
I doubt that noble Lords will have had time to read the Government's response to the Transport Select Committee's report on the financing of rail services, which was published earlier today. The response sets out clearly our view on why and in what circumstances rail passenger services should be grant aided. In particular it points out that the relief of road congestion is a valid reason for the provision of rail subsidy. It accepts that rail investment should go ahead on that basis; for example, the successful Bedford-St. Pancras electrification. The Government believe that rail subsidy is appropriate where the benefits, in terms of specific measurable objectives, are sufficient to justify the costs. They do not believe in providing subsidy simply to provide immeasurable benefits to rail users which properly should be paid for in fares.
In Docklands last year we saw the opening of the entirely new light railway system, which is playing a major role in the development of the area. This railway is innovative not only in its technology but in its financing. £68 million of the £150 million cost of the extension to Bank station now being built is being met not by public funds but by the developers of Canary Wharf. The whole of the cost of the planned extension eastwards to Beckton, £140 million at 1986 prices, will be met from increases in land values resulting from the building of the railway. This is good news for the taxpayer and ratepayer, as well as the travelling public.
1560
There are excellent prospects that the benefits of this or other forms of public/private sector co-operation can be reflected in a successful outcome to proposals for light rail systems in our provincial cities. Noble Lords have referred to the proposal in Manchester where the lines from the north and south of the city feed into separate stations. The proposed £50 million light rapid transit system will link the lines from Bury and Altrincham with new rail running on streets through the city centre. Bids will shortly be invited from the private sector to tender for our innovative combined build and operate contract for the system. The successful bidder will receive a public sector grant to cover part of the initial capital costs. A number of companies have already expressed an interest. The private sector will bring major benefits to the project: competitive prices, rapid construction and efficient operation. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked me a specific question on the subject. I shall have to write to him on that point as I see he is not in his place at the moment. There are also other light rail proposals which are being actively developed in Sheffield, Bristol and the West Midlands.
I turn now to bus deregulation which has featured to a great extent in this afternoon's debate. In 1980 we deregulated long-distance coach services. Seven hundred new services were started, fares were reduced by up to 40 per cent. in real terms and the quality of service and passenger comfort increased dramatically. As a result, carryings have increased by 50 per cent. I was pleased to hear that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester took advantage of one of the deregulated long-distance coach services on his journey down this morning. I am disappointed that he does not yet see the advantages of the deregulation of local bus services; but I am sure that that will come before long. It is now nearly 18 months since we deregulated local bus services outside London following on the success of the deregulation of long-distance services. I am very pleased to report that the network of bus services has remained at about the same level as before with up to 85 per cent. of all services run on a commercial basis free from subsidy. Bus mileage has increased across the country as a whole, and many new operators have taken advantage of deregulation to enter the local bus market for the first time. Their share of the market has, as a consequence, increased from 8 per cent. to 13 per cent. Minibuses now operate in over 250 towns and cities providing fast and frequent services often to areas previously without buses, and there is competition in over 100 places. The sale of the National Bus Company's 70 subsidiaries, which was necessary to stimulate competition, has been achieved nine months before the statutory deadline of January 1989.
Across the country as a whole rural services have been broadly maintained and in some cases improved. Local authorities are able to provide tendered services in rural areas. If they decide not to do so that is their decision. It is not because of the lack of resources. An initial fall in patronage, mainly in the metropolitan areas, has taken place but there have been a number of factors at play other than deregulation, such as increases in fares from

1561
previously very low levels and restructuring of services. It will be some time before the full effects can be known.
In London, bus route restructuring and competitive tendering is producing improvements, including the high frequency minibus services. Many of the new routes have increased patronage. At the same time there is a net saving from tendering which LRT estimate at 15 per cent. London Buses Limited itself has introduced 30 new high frequency minibus routes, which are proving very popular with passengers. The Government have recently invited LRT to make early proposals for restructuring London Buses into smaller units better suited to competition. In the longer term we expect to see that Londoners in the 1990s have the benefits of deregulation.
How have we improved public transport? I believe we have increased investment, improved efficiency and increased competition. All of these work to the great benefit of the transport user. We believe these measures to improve public transport provide part of the solution to road congestion. I turn now to our policies specifically aimed at reducing road congestion.
We recognise the problems that road congestion can bring. It is a modern problem, but not a new one, as my noble friend Lord Teviot said. Congestion has increased partly as a result of more selfish attitudes to parking discipline and partly from the increase in vehicles resulting from sustained economic growth. The Government are determined to resolve these problems. There is a lot that we can and are doing to improve matters. It is essential to maintain a road network which enables people and goods to move about the country as economically and safely as possible.
We are giving top priority to improving our motorways and trunk roads. Our aim is to improve and extend the network so it can meet future traffic needs and flows. To help us achieve better value for money we have introduced new tendering procedures to produce faster road completion. We have also introduced new design standards. These will reduce the need for maintenance work and avoid the costly delays it causes.
The highest priority is also given to schemes to relieve congestion. To give two concrete examples from London, we have just completed the new A.406 South Woodford to Barking relief road and the Rochester Way relief road. Work has also begun on the most congested sector of the M.25 and today my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a new study of the M.25. Indeed some 160—almost half—of 350 schemes in the national road programme are in fact bypasses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned one particular bypass and various other road schemes in the Bradford area. I shall have to write to her with the details of the progress of those schemes, if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the subject of motorways. I am pleased to assure the noble Lord that motorway developments continue to form a key
1562
element of the national road programme. They are large, discrete projects and the progress of starts and completions is not necessarily a regular flow. However, 60 miles of motorway are currently under construction at a cost of around £300 million; and 170 miles further are in preparation at a cost of about £900 million. So it is certainly not a subject which we neglect.
The M.40 was refered to by my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and in a roundabout way by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The section of the M.40 between Waterstock and Wendlebury has always been planned as a dual two-lane motorway as it is predicted to carry much less traffic than adjoining sections. This was fuly discussed in the public inquiry on this section which has recently ended. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will fully consider the inspector's report when he receives it later this year. I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, a figure as to the difference in cost between two and three-lane motorways. It may be possible for me to produce such a figure and write to the noble Lord. I suspect that it would also vary as to where in the country the roads were.
As with British Rail and London Regional Transport, investment in roads has increased significantly since 1979. Capital spending is now over 30 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978/79. This has enabled us to add some 750 miles to the national road network. The total works value of the present programme is about £5 billion.
However, we are not just concerned with public sector investment. We are keen to encourage cost-effective private sector initiatives to improve our national road infrastructure. The new Dartford Bridge project, which will relieve the congestion on the M.25 has shown one way to do this. Similar interest has been expressed in the proposed Second Severn Crossing, and some interesting proposals have been aired for major projects to relieve congestion around London. We have written to a number of prominent firms in the construction and finance sectors welcoming ideas of that kind and offering discussions.
Turning to maintenance, we all recognise that the road network must be maintained in top condition. We have expanded the road maintenance programme dramatically in order to overcome the backlog of work from the 1970s. This is the explanation of the contraflows that cause us all so much aggravation and which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. They are in fact a manifestation of the Government's determination to maintain the network. Only last month we announced the largest ever highway maintenance programme costing £164 million in total. We are on course to meet the objective of eliminating the maintenance backlogs built up in the 1970s by 1992. It is unfortunate, as has been referred to by noble Lords, that local authorities are not spending what they should on the maintenance of their roads.
There are other methods for reducing congestion, particularly in cities; and in London computer-controlled traffic lights, which can reduce delays at I individual junctions by 30 per cent., have been

1563
installed in many of our towns and cities. One hundred and twenty sets have been installed in London, where we are accelerating their introduction to a rate of 60 more every four months.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to Autoguide. The Government are equally keen to look at radical new solutions to relieve congestion. Only last week we announced the next stage of Autoguide which we believe will make a major contribution towards reducing traffic congestion and improving the quality of road travel.
Parking is an important subject, referred to by numerous speakers. Illegal parking is one of the main causes of congestion in urban areas. It is a major problem in London and in other towns and cities. Selfish motorists who put their own convenience before the needs of others and who park where they should not create safety hazards, congestion, delays and difficulties for the rest of us. They cause especial problems for buses which have to travel along defined routes and cannot vary their journeys to avoid congestion. LRT estimate that congestion costs them an additional £50 million a year, not to mention the fact that their customers receive a poorer service.
A number of measures have been introduced in recent years to combat illegal parking and relieve congestion, notably wheel clamping. I am pleased to assure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that without doubt this is the most effective of the measures. It was introduced in 1983 and has since been extended. It reduced illegal parking on yellow lines by 40 per cent. when it was introduced. In its first year journey times were cut by between 8 per cent. and 14 per cent. The Metropolitan Police has now contracted out wheel clamping enabling an increase from 600 clampings a week to over 2,000. LRT has said recently—this should please my noble friend Lord Teviot—that its evidence suggests that wheel clamping, coupled with vehicle removal, has proved the most effective deterrent to illegal parking in central London.
Noble Lords have referred to enforcement; we are certainly not complacent about it. We are considering whether any further changes in enforcement are needed. A working party with government, local authority and police representatives is currently considering this, and hopes to report later this year.
I am conscious that I am running out of time. There are various important points that have been raised that I should like to cover briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to coaches in London and in particular coach stations. Coaches form a relatively small proportion of traffic in central London. Although they can contribute to congestion, serious problems arise only in a few places. We are encouraging operators and drivers to comply with the Bus and Coach Councils code of practice for operating and parking tourist coaches in London.
With regard to coach stations, the government proposal to transfer Victoria coach station from the National Bus Company to LRT is designed to ensure that no options for coach station provision in London are closed off by the dissolution of NBC. Future provision of coach terminal facilities in
1564
London is to be considered at a wide-ranging public inquiry into LRT's proposals for a new coach station at Paddington. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further before that inquiry.
A number of noble Lords—notably the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked about the Government's proposals on precept control and billing and the government amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill being debated today in another place. I was asked whether this would encourage districts to secede from PTAs. There is no reason to suppose that public transport provision will be threatened by the proposed new arrangements. The power for a district to secede from a PTA already exists under the 1985 Local Government Act. For an application to be approved, the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the continuation of essential countrywide services. But the proposal is not a backdoor attempt to break up the PTAs. The purpose of the change is to increase accountability. It is not so necessary for the fire and police services which are subject to Home Office supervision.
I was asked to confirm that the assurance, given during the passage of the Local Government Act 1985 by my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker, stood. My right honourable friend said:
"We accepted from the beginning the need to co-ordinate certain aspects of public transport especially support for rail, decisions about subsidy or unprofitable services in different areas and concessionary fares. None of that is under threat".
None of that is under threat now.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked me in particular about Parliament Square and what progress was being made in this immediate area. We recognise the severe problems. We support Westminster City Council's plan for improvements in the next few years. Legislation will be needed because Crown land is involved. We wish to be sure of the feasibility of the compatible longer-term solution to follow on before considering legislation and further consultancies being let by Westminster council with support from the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked me about progress on the Heathrow surface access study. We hope to make an announcement next month on how improvements to surface access can be taken forward. Proposals have been made, including rail, light rail, Underground and people-mover systems. Our consultants are currently considering their economic and technical viability.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux asked me when we intended to legislate on the Horne Report. I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend a firm answer. However, we are looking for an early opportunity to do so.
During the debate different speakers have emphasised different aspects of what needs to be done so that we can continue to develop a transport system which meets our social and economic needs. Some have laid stress on developing public transport; others on the need for better roads; and others on traffic management.

1565
I hope that this brief review of the Government's policy will help to reassure noble Lords of the Government's commitment to sustained effort in each area. We have provided, and shall continue to provide, record levels of public investment and we shall continue to encourage innovative private sector investment in transport. Through the rigorous pursuit of value for money in the public sector and through competition, we shall seek to ensure that these resources progressively build a transport system that responds to the needs of the traveller and contributes to the country's continuing economic success.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he assure the House that he has listened to the very considerable volume of evidence and criticism of the way in which deregulation of buses has been working, or not working, especially as this affects some of the poorest members in our society? I detected a note of complacency about what had been said.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I am quite out of time to answer that question.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister states that he is out of time. I believe that the debate could have continued for five hours—not that I am asking him to speak for another hour! As noble Lords have observed, it is very encouraging that 15 noble Lords should take part in a debate on transport. We have had a very useful discussion and I am grateful to all those who have taken part. I am also grateful to the Minister for his replies. However, I hope that the Minister and his department will take note of the useful information given and the experiences cited. I hope that serious consideration will also be given to the constructive and impartial assessments being carried out by the AMA and the PTA group to which the Minister has not referred. Ministers have stated that these are important and well balanced documents. I believe that the Minister has shown a certain complacency in his replies on deregulation. Those assessments ought to be considered carefully.
I note what the Minister has said on the amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill being debated tonight in the other place. He has certainly not satisfied me on what might be the possible results. However, we shall consider carefully what he has said. If the other place is foolish enough to pass those amendments, I give notice to the Minister that he will not only have those four questions put to him again, but many others. We are very concerned about the future. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has said, it is a very important matter to many people.
Once again I thank all Members who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Protection of Official Information (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so I speak in part out of a certain sense of self-preservation, since for some years I have been engaged in composing works of contemporary history. They consist to a great extent of unauthorised disclosures of information which, I have to confess, are violations of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. In writing a book about secret operations in Albania in 1948, for instance, I used quotations put to me by various former intelligence officers. I am satisfied that no harm accrued to the national interest as a result of the publication of these disclosures. It is at the back of my mind that, if the Bill becomes law, it will result in a very welcome retroactive decriminalisation of some years of historical work.
Likewise, in contact with members of the Civil Service I have, in declaring my own interest, to make it clear that, like other noble Lords, I have received many unauthorised disclosures of information. Indeed, it is difficult to have a conversation with a member of the Civil Service without receiving information in an unauthorised way. The odd phone call, the social occasion, the dinner or the lunch is steeped in the possibility of violation of the law. I think that it is high time, therefore, that something was done to change Section 2 and to replace it with a provision that is a little more sensible.
Your Lordships will probably agree unanimously that Section 2 must be removed. For many years there has been no significant argument on that point on either side of the House or in another place. However, there has been considerable argument about the way in which it should be done, and many painful attempts to carry out reform have come to grief. However, it seems that this Government have now decided firmly and clearly that they will embark upon the path of reform. That is why I think that your Lordships should have a chance to debate the matter, whether it is this Bill that is to go forward or another Bill to be introduced by the Government on some future occasion.
Section 2 brings the law into disrepute. It is a sledgehammer or a nuclear deterrent so unwieldy and full of nasty political fall-out that it no longer commands credibility. It is very difficult to enforce, given the unwillingness of juries to convict on the basis of some discredited statute. It was the noble Lord, Lord Franks, who said on the subject:
"It catches all official documents and information. It makes no distinctions of kind, and no distinctions of degree".
Later he observed:
"A blanket is thrown over everything; nothing escapes".
We must therefore look not for a blunderbuss but an Armalite rifle, not a butcher's cleaver but a surgeon's scalpel.
To venture from the area of unanimity to that of controversy, I believe there is too much secrecy in the Executive at present. There is among many in our

1567
Administration an assumption that people, whether in or out of Parliament, do not have the right to know and that information made available is a concession rather than a right. There is of course in this sense an area of natural rivalry between Parliament and the Administration since information confers influence, power, on those who possess it. I suggest therefore that there will be continuous rivalry between Parliament and the Executive over how much information is to be made available and where the line is to be drawn.
One has to accept that the overriding consideration in all these matters must be sound government and the safety of the nation, but it is up to those who make the law to ensure that the area which is kept secret, which cannot be made available to the public, is kept to the minimum consistent with sound government.
Our curiosity in Parliament extends in particular to what measures are being introduced or discussed now in order to make this reform. If there is secrecy over plans and discussions the aim of which is to do away with excessive secrecy, it creates something of a vicious circle. It is why on a previous date there has been something of a furore over the question. I suggest that there is now a certain measure of agreement that the matter will be pushed forward. I wish to congratulate those Members of another place who played a part in bringing about the Government's decision to move faster than they otherwise would have done, and we look forward to everything that they will do. Today we have the chance to speak to minds that are not yet made up. This, I think, is a valuable occasion.
This Bill owes a great deal to the Franks Report and to the Bill that was discussed in your Lordships' House in 1979. I draw to your Lordships' attention in particular Clause 1(1)(a). This is the crux of the Bill. As a matter of principle it would say that it is no longer a criminal offence to reveal unauthorisedly any information to the public but it remains a criminal offence to disclose information that would be likely to cause serious injury to the interests of the nation or endanger the safety of a British citizen.
It goes on to categorise one or two other areas where unauthorised disclosure of information is to be illegal. I suggest that 90 per cent. of the Bill is encapsulated in that paragraph. It will remain a serious criminal offence under the Bill to disclose information likely to cause serious injury to the nation. Later in the Bill there will be certain defences against unauthorised disclosure—defences, I suggest, that are very hard to put and that limit to a very significant extent the right to disclose such information in an authorised fashion.
Clause 2 points out that it is not only information that may be disclosed or handed over in an unauthorised fashion but things, objects, as well. At one level, one could think of the fuse for a missile and, at another level, of a tape or a video. It will emerge from Clause 2 that the unauthorised disclosure of any article of information will be a criminal offence.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 categorise those people who may be found guilty of that offence. They include Crown servants, government contractors or any other person intentionally or recklessly disclosing such
1568
information, other than to a Crown servant for the purpose of his functions, or in accordance with official authorisation. Clause 5 makes it clear that any reckless retention of information by a Crown servant or any other person is a criminal offence. Clause 6 brings us to the area where there is a possible defence against such disclosure.
The first possible defence is that of prior publication. It is at the heart of the Bill and the intent of those who sponsored and supported it. It provides that such disclosure must be shown to have caused actual harm to the nation if a prosecution is to be justified. It is not enough to say that someone else has caused harm and that someone else, although not actually causing harm, has repeated that disclosure and therefore that person should also be prosecuted. The person who closes the stable door after the horse has bolted does not undo the harm done by the person who first opened the door. Therefore Clause 6 makes prior publication a valid defence against an offence committed under Clauses 1 or 2.
Clause 7 deals with the most complicated defence against unauthorised disclosure. It is the defence of public interest. It envisages a situation where a person in possession of information may feel so strongly that that information should be made public, although it is likely to cause injury, that he must do so out of patriotic duty. As noble Lords will see from Clause 7(2), it envisages that such a person has taken every possible measure to comply with the internal procedures of his department. He should have tried to have the matter corrected by seeing his Minister, for example, or the head of his department or even the Prime Minister but without success. Further, he should have reason to believe that crime, fraud, abuse of authority or the neglect in the performance of official duty has taken place. Therefore, in the last resort, he is driven to disclose information. It would be up to him, as is made clear in the clause, to prove that the disclosure is in the public interest.
I suggest to the House that it is difficult for any person to prove such a thing. However, we have rightly concluded that it should be difficult because the unauthorised disclosure of information likely to cause serious injury to the state is so inexcusable as to be almost impossible to justify. However, Clause 7 suggests a possible defence which I hope noble Lords will agree is justifiable. If the clause commends itself to your Lordships it will answer the proposal put forward of a possible lifelong duty of confidentiality. Surely it is impossible to envisage an obligation that should be put on a servant, however secret the work in which he has been engaged, which would oblige him in all circumstances to remain silent, even though he believes that great wrongdoing has taken place and even though he has done his best by going to his superiors to have the matter put right.
I should like to emphasise that we are not thinking in particular of what may take place under this Government or of what has taken place under previous governments in recent memory. We are thinking of what could take place under a government which were less democratically inclined or were embarking on a path leading towards a dictatorial state.

1569
Clause 8 deals with the question of proper classification of information. It is the only slight Americanism that I can detect in the Bill. I am glad that it has been introduced because I believe it to be high time that our Civil Service was made aware of the need for proper classification of documents. It should also be made aware of the need to be brought to account if it should over-classify documents. As will be seen in Clauses 8 and 9, it will be open to a defendant to challenge the certificate issued by the Minister (the Minister claiming that a violation of the law had taken place under Clause 1) by suggesting that the information disclosed was not likely to cause serious injury.
Under previous proposals for legislation that challenge is not available to a defendant. The certificate of the Minister is the end of the matter; the Minister determines what is likely to cause serious injury to the nation. The person who discloses that information has no defence if he has done so. However, the Bill proposes that the defendant should have the right to say, "What I disclosed was not likely to cause serious injury, even though the Minister believes or claims that it does. Therefore I claim my right to go to arbitration on this point".
The arbiter which the Bill puts forward is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It usually consists of five noble and learned Lords who, I suggest, are uniquely qualified to deal with such a challenge for several reasons. First, they are learned in the law. Secondly, they are beyond reproach and can be trusted with all the details of the disclosure about which there is a dispute. Thirdly, because certain commonwealth countries no longer trouble the committee with appeals it may have a little more time on its hands and could be expected to undertake the extra duty. Therefore I commend that provision to the House as a safeguard for people charged with unauthorised disclosure and who believe that what they have revealed is not dangerous. The Minister would no longer be judge and jury in the whole matter. There would be an independent arbiter and I believe that greater justice would be done as a result.
Clause 11 indicates the penalties which are appropriate to violations of this Act. They range from six months on summary conviction to two years on indictment. Clause 12 deals with the question of the duty of the Minister for the Civil Service to properly classify documents which are in the charge of the Civil Service and to report to Parliament once a year that that has been properly done.
Perhaps I may interject a personal note. I know from my own researches into the Palestine question and various aspects of the Second World War that over the years there has been gross over-classification of official documents. Whole groups of documents have been over-classified and kept away from the public, even after the expiry of the 30-year period, because they were labelled as secret when there was no reason for that. I have no reason to believe that such over-classification does not occur today because it is so much easier to do that. The results of an error are very much less if one over-classifies than if one under-classifies. The civil servant will believe that it is better to be safe than sorry. That is fair enough, but
1570
he will be tempted to over-classify in a capricious manner. This Bill begins to discourage that.
There are various sundry consequences which are spelt out in Clauses 14 to 17 of the Bill. However, I should like to summarise it for your Lordships without distortion. The proposal is that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act be replaced by a measure which makes it illegal only to disclose in an unauthorised fashion such information as is likely to cause grievous harm to the nation.
There are three ways in which a defence may be put forward if it is shown that such disclosure has been made: first, by pointing out that there has been prior publication and that the real offender is another person; secondly, by suggesting that the item was improperly classified as dangerous and that therefore no injury has accrued to the state in spite of the Minister's certificate to that effect; thirdly, there is the public interest defence that in spite of the risk of damage to the national interest it was essential to make it public, that every recourse had been taken, that nothing had been done and therefore the whistle had to be blown.
Those three defences are the only ones that would count under this proposal, which draws on a lot of the experience of friendly Commonwealth countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, which have gone much further than ourselves in moving towards more open government. The proposal draws only a little on the experience of the United States, which has gone down paths towards freedom of information which is not the purpose of this proposal today because we believe that Parliament and the Government are not yet ready for a full freedom of information Act on the American model. I personally believe that we shall arrive there in due course.
The Bill is an attempt to limit and make acceptable to public opinion, including juries, the areas where criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to the leak of information. That is not to say that other leaks whose effects are not so dangerous are encouraged, because we do not encourage leaks by passing this legislation. We are told that there was a leak of an important nature only a day or two ago and I have no doubt that disciplinary action will be taken if the miscreant is found. However, under this Bill, such a person would not be prosecuted for revealing information about the proposed community charge because I doubt whether it could be shown that such disclosure is likely to cause severe damage to the national interest.
However, the threat of internal discipline, damage to one's career and—in a serious case—the loss of one's post in the Civil Service and loss of pension are very serious penalties. I doubt whether such a person, if found guilty by internal procedures, would find his future very agreeable in terms of obtaining another job. The threat of internal procedures against those who leak information which is not the dangerous sort suggested in Clause 1 of this Bill is very severe indeed.
Therefore, it makes sense to have a Bill which suggests that only the very dangerous unauthorised disclosure should be covered by the threat of criminal proceedings. I think your Lordships will conclude that Mr. Peter Wright would be prosecuted under

1571
this Bill if it were law. It seems to me that what he did was calculated to cause serious damage and that he could not claim any of the three defences outlined in the Bill with any chance of success. That is my surmise.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a step towards a more democratic form of government. It removes the catch-all Section 2 and the get-out excuse which is sometimes used by those who wish to conceal information from the general public when they have no need to do so—a provision which has hung like a black cloud over our administration for more than 70 years and has long been condemned as unnecessary and not conducive to good government. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I cannot predict whether or not it will become law but I suggest that it contains sufficient in terms of checks and balances for it to be very seriously considered by your Lordships and by the Government.
I particularly look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers says about these proposals and about other proposals which are germinating in his department and in other departments at the moment. Perhaps he may be able to tell us something about the White Paper which we expect to be issued before the recess. I look forward to the speeches of noble Lords and in particular to hearing the maiden speeches of our two superstars who will both be speaking against a background of considerable knowledge on this question.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in the course of his very lucid exposition of this Bill he raised the question of whether this Bill would proceed or whether there would be a Government Bill; and at the end he said that he could not predict whether this Bill would become law. Perhaps he can tell the House, in view of certain rumours which are about, whether or not it is intended that in the automatic way this Bill will have a Committee stage and other stages if Second Reading is passed, or whether it is the intention of the noble Lord or of others to ensure that this Bill is withdrawn even if it receives a Second Reading. Perhaps the noble Lord will be frank with the House.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I shall certainly be frank. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Bill will eventually pass. The noble Lord will perhaps know better than I about the time constraints that bind us in all parties and about the priorities put forward by the Whips on both sides of the House. Of course, I remain open to persuasion on that point. However, I should have thought it extremely unlikely that we shall be able to find time between now and the end of this Session to take the Bill through all its stages. I cannot say definitely but, having made all the research possible, I think it most unlikely. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bethell.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for bringing the Bill before the House and explaining what is essentially a most complex and difficult measure so patiently and so lucidly. He and I are of different political persuasions but we were once innocently engaged as journalists and MEPs in giving our professional advice to the European Parliament on how to publicise its first democratic elections. Today we are again side by side.
I should also like to welcome the maiden speakers and we look forward to their speeches, which, in an essentially non-controversial way, will tell us about their experiences in administrating or submitting to the Official Secrets Act.
I wish the Bill had a future in the House, that it could go into Committee and that the vast experience of former Ministers and civil servants on the protection of official information and the arcane byways of security and intelligence could be brought into consideration of its proposals.
The noble Lord has produced a good Bill; it is not a perfect Bill but it points to the type of Bill that is needed. A detailed discussion in Committee in either House might have assisted, or might yet assist, the Home Secretary in the preparation of the final stages of the White Paper that he is to present in June. However, he said nothing at all about it in the other place. As the policeman said to the importunate crook, he had neither the time nor the inclination.
Some Members of this House are hoping that we shall see the Government's Bill, following the White Paper, in the next Session of Parliament. It has one thing which specially commends it: its implementation is unlikely to cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer any money. Indeed, he could save money if the Bill ensures that it will no longer be possible for anyone in the Government to argue that it is necessary to go to the courts so often—particularly the courts of Australia.
The discussion on a Private Member's Bill in Parliament would have been useful because this is such a difficult subject. The reform of the 1911 Act has been on the stocks for as long as I can remember. I seem to have been denouncing it for the whole of my journalistic life. It has been held up by the prejudices of politicians and fortified by those of civil servants.
Even when the Government managed to produce a Bill in 1979 it ran into trouble quite early because it was too rigorous and had to be withdrawn. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, part of the problem is that we live in a most secretive society. That is perhaps because we did not have a popular revolution in the late 18th or the mid-19th century. There are many public servants, not only in Whitehall but also in the town halls of this country, who are too anxious to conceal facts from the public as if they were the annointed custodians of a royal prerogative extending over all official information from the Palace to the parish pump.
The Act has been a great assistance to governments. It encouraged them to keep many matters dark while distributing information to suit their convenience, build up their egos and insulate

1573
them from criticism. It is what the Americans have named news management, or news manipulation. If we have a decent Bill to reform the 1911 Act—a Bill like this one—and it becomes law, it will ease the lot of journalists and make newspapers a little more interesting. But that is merely a by-product of the reform. If helping the media were the central purpose of the Bill, it would not stand an earthly! Today the press, largely because of the conduct of one or two popular newspapers, stands low in the esteem of public and Parliament; it can hope for few favours.
However, what we are concerned about is the basic democratic right of members of the public, the electors, to have access to the information which they need if they are to make a proper judgment of their government; that need is inadequately fulfilled. As Lord Franks pointed out in his famous report of 1972, knowledge is power and the issue of open government is about that; about its redistribution and about a shift in power. There could be no greater beneficiary of more open government than Her Majesty's Opposition, which explains why the enthusiasm which Opposition parties have for open government so frequently fades away once they are re-elected and they are the masters now.
We are of course not only concerned with reforming the law of official secrets but also with the positive side, the supply side, which is called "freedom of information". James Cornford, chairman of the Council of the Freedom of Information Campaign, said in a recent lecture that the question is whether the power granted to the executive is something we want to preserve; or,
"whether, given the extent of prerogative powers derived from the Crown, the effective control of the procedures of Parliament, the mastery of the civil service and the ability to manipulate and bully the media, there needs to be some countervailing measures to shift the balance towards Parliament and the public. If that involves constitutional change, so be it. Whatever the historical origins of the constitution are, the legitimacy of today's governments must rest on the informed consent of the people".
However, I believe it is for rather different reasons that the Government have decided at last to legislate. Section 2 of the Act, which protects everything, has become less and less effective. The Government have lost too many prosecutions and judges, and juries have criticised the law in both words and deeds. Today the Government simply do not have the reliable statutory backing needed for the duty of confidentiality of public servants, and reform has become urgent.
The Bill shows what a liberal Home Secretary might do inspired, as it seems to be, by the Franks Report and the 1979 Bill. However, the Government had Mr. Shepherd's Bill thrown out of the other place. But, as I said, the Home Secretary did not say what he had in mind in Parliament. Yet he showed, in a broadcast which took place a fortnight after the debate in an interview with the redoubtable Hennessy—that great Whitehall warrior—that he had at least learnt the beginnings of wisdom, perhaps only the beginnings. He seems to have isolated security and defence information from other matters—though how you can define that information has yet to be revealed. Indeed, that could be most difficult. He appears to have followed Mr. Shepherd's proposals
1574
by suggesting that criminal sanctions are needed only for the protection of information about security and defence. He named, without defining them, two other categories of information which would require no protection or which could be protected by disciplinary action. Moreover, he accepted that there may be issues on which officers of the security services might have need to go to a counsellor outside the organisation. Of course, some of us would like the Minister to go much further and provide a defence for an unauthorised disclosure of acting in the national interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has described, by bringing to light some crime, fraud, abuse of authority or neglect of official duty. But it could not be used as a defence simply because a civil servant disagrees with the policy of the Government and therefore he thinks that it is against the public interest and he should be immune. That kind of immunity could never be given.
Will the Minister go so far, as the Bill today suggests, in removing private and public companies from the legally-protected categories? Surely there is no need for statutory protection of these because there are other ways of protecting them through the civil courts. Will the Minister avoid the absurdity which has categorised the Spycatcher affair of newspapers being prevented from publishing material of high public interest which has been published widely in other parts of the world?
I do not believe that this is really the time to examine the Bill in detail. We shall serve a useful purpose today if we make it clear to the Government that the interest in this House in the projected reform is as great as that in the other place and that we are expecting a liberal and a radical measure which will give priority to the right to know and the right to speak.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick—whom I follow with, as usual, great pleasure and agreement—in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on the Bill which he has brought before your Lordships' House, thereby rendering a public service. I am not quite clear as to his intentions, but I take it that he wants the Bill to receive a Second Reading. Certainly, that is my view. I believe that the Government will benefit greatly from a discussion on the proposals of the Bill in Committee. I hope that we shall have that opportunity.
I look forward to the two maiden speeches to be made on this occasion by two distinguished Members, one of whom is noble and learned. I look forward with anticipation to listening to what they have to say.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has said, the debate covers well-trodden ground and it started long before my noble friend Lord Franks wrote his famous report. It is derived from a Bill introduced in 1911 by the then Liberal Government—a Bill which I deeply regret. No-one denies the manifest nonsense in part of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and I do not propose to discuss that weakness.

1575
In another place Mr. Shepherd's Bill had wide cross-party support. I hope very much that noble Lords in this House will show that they share that support and reinforce it. It seems to me unfortunate that the Secretary of State, in his speech in another place, revealed nothing of what was in the Government's mind. He gave no indication of how they were moving except that they were moving extremely slowly. He expressed a simple conviction which he stated rather than argued, that this topic was unsuitable for a Private Member's Bill.
I could not understand the reasons that lay behind that statement. Perhaps when the noble Earl replies he can explain why a matter of this wide public importance that touches upon the very heart of democratic government, should be regarded as unsuitable for Members of Parliament to introduce. As the Government will not tell us what they are thinking, and as the noble Earl—unfortunately—is speaking very late in the debate so that we cannot tell what he is thinking until we have no opportunity to comment on it, the only course is for noble Lords to tell the noble Earl what they are thinking and hope that he will listen to it.
In the debate in another place the Home Secretary feigned surprise that there were suspicions on the part of people whom he described as "dotty" that the Government intended to introduce some tyrannical measure tightening up the Act. Silence on intentions combined with the Government's record on this matter do little to dispel those suspicions. Neither the 1979 Bill which was described by the Spectator as a "deplorable Bill", by the Daily Telegraph as "truly appalling" and by the Sunday Express as "disastrous", nor the Government's use of Section 2, their behaviour over Spycatcher, their use of various legal devices to avoid Section 2 and juries, their opposition to Mr. Shepherd's Bill, nor their failure to argue that opposition, give much ground for confidence in the laborious pregnancy of their new White Paper which is unlikely to produce a healthy or a self-restrained baby when it finally emerges. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will note certain principles which underlie Lord Bethell's Bill and which distinguish it from the Official Secrets Act 1911 and also from the 1979 Bill.
I start from a rather simple proposition that the protection of official information and freedom of information are in fact two sides of the same coin. Without freedom of information democracy cannot work very effectively. Therefore, the protection of official information is a very delicate matter which lies near to the heart of the accountability of government to Parliament and to the people.
I support another very simple proposition that all information should be freely available unless the release of that information can be shown to be against the public interest or an invasion of individual privacy. That is the point from which we start and hence the importance of distinguishing between various types of information which is done in Clause 1 of the Bill. The test of
"serious injury to the interests of the nation"
must be applied to information concerning not only defence and international affairs but also security and intelligence. The latter two were excluded in the test
1576
in the 1979 Bill but they were included in the recommendations of Lord Frank's report of 1972.
The principle involved in this change and in this clause is simply that the source of unauthorised information is not the most important matter; it is the consequences of disclosing that information that should concern us. Secondly, I urge the Minister to note the importance of Clauses 8 and 9 to which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred. Clause 8 requires the issue of a Ministerial certificate before any prosecution can be brought. But unlike the 1979 Bill such a certificate would have to indicate that the information had been properly classified and that can be challenged in the fashion set forth in Clause 9. Clause 9 would allow the defendant to argue that the Minister might have been misinformed which, after all, is possible. The Minister might be acting on outdated information, which might be possible. He might even be acting in an arbitrary manner which is also possible. This seems to me to be an entirely sensible and constructive clause.
Thirdly, I draw the noble Earl's attention to Clause 6 which makes it a defence to show that the information involved had become publicly known and available before the time of the alleged offence in the United Kingdom, or elsewhere. This the Government should truly welcome because it would avoid the Spycatcher booby-trap into which they fell so heavily again and again. It seems to me self-evident that what the Russians, the Irish, the Canadians and the Americans know should be allowed to be known by British citizens. I cannot see how anyone can possibly suppose that anything else is true. In another Bill the noble Earl was anxious to avoid anomalies. It is surely anomalous that foreigners should have information that is not available to the citizens of this country.
Finally, I draw the noble Earl's attention to Clause 7 whereby it is a defence for a civil servant to disclose information in the public interest. This is a matter of real importance. We are not suggesting that civil servants should disclose information on the ground that they disagree with the policy the Government are pursuing. All we are arguing in this Bill is that the information they disclose must, if they are to disclose it, disclose maleficence, crime, misuse of authority or something of that kind. I understand—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that this principle has been endorsed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Wilberforce, in judgments which they have made.
The whole trouble about this problem, which has been discussed so endlessly and which has become acute of recent years under the present Government, is that the Government, in their corporate capacity, in dealing with leaks and disclosures have shown no sense of proportion. To put that sentence another way, they have shown no sense of the ridiculous and of how ridiculous they have made themselves appear to the public not only here but elsewhere. They made themselves totally ridiculous by pursuing policies which were disproportionate to the ends they were seeking to achieve, by going on banging on doors of empty stables, by spending £2 million or more of public money on prosecutions that failed, by humiliating a distinguished civil servant and by

1577
making a had book into a bestseller. That is a list of follies which I should have thought the Government would like to avoid. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the Bill as a way of saving themselves from committing those follies in the future.
What I hope to hear from the noble Earl when he answers—for we shall not hear from him until the end—is how the Government's mind is moving in this matter. I rather doubt that we shall get much on that score, but that will be a disappointment. If we cannot hear how the Government's mind is moving, perhaps the noble Earl will answer certain simple questions. What are his objections to the Bill? What are his objections to Clause 1, to Clauses 8 and 9 and to Clauses 6 and 7? Why does he oppose them? What dangers do they bring to the public life of this country? Do they not improve the existing position? If the Government will not tell us what they think, and if their thoughts on secrecy are secret, they might be so good as to tell us this evening before the debate ends why they disagree with the modest, sensible and constructive Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, this evening I find myself in what is I think a somewhat unusual, although I am certain not a unique, situation. I rise to address this House ostensibly for the first time. In fact I first addressed this House on 9th December 1948. It is true that I addressed it from the Bar; nevertheless it was this House meeting in this Chamber. I advert to that experience tonight because it illustrated to me for the first time the great kindness, indulgence and consideration that is shown by this House to maiden speakers of either kind who are in difficulties. I was in difficulties.
What had happened was this. An appeal had been heard by your Lordships' House. It involved a Scottish shipping company, the Monarch Steamship Company. The company had wisely instructed Scottish barristers to represent it. At the end of the arguments Scottish counsel disappeared back to Scotland and I was instructed to take judgment, a formal task involving getting up and sitting down at the appropriate times and bowing when in doubt. It was never suggested that I should actually have to say anything. But alas, the night before, I was approached by my opponent who said, "I am going to make an application for a special order as to costs against your client." I did not know what to do. I was thoroughly inexperienced. I had not a clue what the appeal was about and I had to address your Lordships' House.
What I said noble Lords will find reported at page 239 of 1949 Appeal Cases. Roughly translated it is as I have already rendered it. I remarked, "I do not know what this appeal is about. It is most unfair that I should be expected to deal with this matter. Why was it not raised when Scottish counsel were here who did understand it?" I am happy to say that Lord Du Parcq, who was sitting, at once came to my rescue. He said, "Mr. Donaldson, if the Monarch Steamship Company had had the good sense to brief you for the appeal you would have known all about it and you would in those circumstances have put forward the
1578
following arguments in defence of your client." I gratefully agreed. I am happy to report that the Bar was cleared and their Lordships sitting on the appeal spent at least 10 minutes before they rejected Lord Du Parcq's argument.
So much for my very happy previous experiences of your Lordships' House. The point I want to make tonight on this Bill is simple but, I venture to think, important. It is that Section 2 of the 1911 Act is so widely drawn as to undermine the administration of justice and the rule of law. Perhaps I may illustrate this with an entirely hypothetical example concerning my secretary. I have to underline the fact that it is hypothetical; otherwise she will give notice and I shall have to find another secretary. However, let us take this hypothetical example.
I dictate two letters, one to the manager of my laundry disputing the amount of his bill and another, a mildly confidential one, to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. My secretary types those letters and brings them back. I sign them and she takes them away to put them in envelopes. She puts the one to the Lord Chancellor into the envelope addressed to the laundry and vice versa.
Let us just test the results against Section 2 of the 1911 Act. In her case it would read, and I omit immaterial words:
"If any person"—
that is my secretary—
"having in her possession or control any … document"—
the letter to the Lord Chancellor—
"which has been entrusted in confidence to her by any person holding office under Her Majesty"—
that is me—
"fails to take reasonable care of the … document … that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour".
In other words, my unfortunate secretary, by an unimaginable slip, has committed a criminal offence and if prosecuted would have absolutely no defence.
It is of course an extreme case and I should be more astonished than I can say if the Director of Public Prosecutions authorised a prosecution. However, there are other cases, not so extreme, where opinions differ as to whether the director should authorise a prosecution. In those cases, like that of my secretary, the accused has no defence. The real issue is whether the prosecution should have been brought at all in the public interest. That starts to be discussed in the media and in other places. The jury is well aware of it. What it really means is that in that situation, whatever the motives, we have an attempt to procure that the jury acquit in defiance of their oath to try the case purely on the evidence and in accordance with the law. That I regard as a most unhealthy situation. It undermines society's faith and confidence in the rule of law which is the foundation of parliamentary democracy as we know it.
I shall say nothing whatever about the content of the Bill. Anything I said, for or against it, would inevitably be highly controversial. I conclude by merely expressing the hope that the fact that the Bill has been brought forward and is being debated in the House will speed up the time when an acceptable alternative to Section 2 comes to be enacted.
8 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is both a pleasure and an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, after his maiden speech. I have long wanted to meet the noble and learned Lord because I recall that he passed through a troublesome time following the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who was in his place a few moments ago, has left.
Noble Lords: He has come back.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord, Lord Carr, has come back just in time to hear me say that he should be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for steering a rudderless ship of justice through the choppy seas of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. It was a mad time.
The noble and learned Lord was given the task of finding his way through this new code of industrial and criminal law. I admired him greatly during that time. I am happy to congratulate him, on behalf of the whole House, on a most agreeable and discreet maiden speech. We hope that we can hear from him in all sorts of ways in the future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I am sure that he would wish me to point out that that Act of Parliament did not deal with the criminal law; it applied civil sanctions.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful for that information.
I wish to turn now to the Bill and the Official Secrets Act, which is really what is under discussion. I am glad that the Bill is called the Protection of Official Information Bill and not a freedom of information Bill, because that is more realistic and more to the point. It is better that we should try to define what is protected information rather than to describe what is information that can be freely given away. To that extent at least, I am in agreement with the title.
We all agree that the Official Secrets Act 1911 is long out of date. Nearly everything done in 1911 was flawed and has proved irrelevant to modern times. I refer to the Parliament Act 1911, which will come under close scrutiny in the coming weeks and months when we deal with the community charge and the Act's relevance to the powers of the House of Lords.
The year 1911 was a bad one for the Liberal Government. The King had died the year before. The general election had left them more unstable than previously. There was a national railway strike. The insurance scheme had only just begun, and they had been hijacked by a group of Irish nationalists who extracted a pledge of support for home rule for Ireland and were given carte blanche to do what they liked with the vote of the Irish nationalists in return. That is why 1911 was a bad year for the Liberal Government. However, we all agree that the Official Secrets Act, or at any rate Section 2, is out of date. The question is: what is to replace it?
1580
My experience in that field goes back a long way. I suppose that I have a long but undistinguished track record on secrets, secrecy, public administration, Civil Service conditions and Cabinet government. I served on the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, which was largely to do with corruption and secrecy, especially in the Inland Revenue, and so on. I was on a committee dealing with the custody of Cabinet documents, which is relevant to what we are talking about today. More recently, I have become chairman of an education trust which is pursuing an academic study into the law and freedom of information, which is a fascinating subject.
My experience of Cabinet government was that there were numerous leaks at the time. All efforts to track them down proved fruitless. The Prime Minister cast his eye around the Cabinet from time to time and said, "It must be somebody in this room", but the passive countenances of my colleagues did not reveal a flicker of guilt, and no one knew where the information had come from, although we began to suspect that what was given away by the Prime Minister on an unattributable basis was called a briefing and what was given away by other Ministers on an unattributable basis was called a leak. A combination of the two kept the press pretty well informed. I drafted the White Paper on the parliamentary commissioner in 1966, and that became law in 1967. So altogether I have had fairly wide experience of the problem.
The first oath of secrecy that I swore—I swore then—was when I entered the Inland Revenue in 1915. I had to see a commissioner of taxes who was chairman and managing director of a colliery near Mansfield where I was appointed. When I went to take the oath before the commissioner in his office I was on the surface taking an oath of secrecy, and underground hewing the coal beneath me was my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield who was an 18 year-old underground worker in the same pit. We have joined forces since when discussing the relative merits of being a surface or an underground worker.
I have one or two criticisms of the Bill. My attention has been drawn to Clause 1(1)(c). Paragraphs (a) and (b) are largely conventional. Paragraph (c) provides that the information must have been supplied by an individual, in confidence, under a statutory requirement or in connection with an application under a statutory provision. That is narrowly drawn. I see that when it comes to a defence under Clause 7, in the case of a Crown servant or government contractor the defence is available only if he had previously taken reasonable steps to comply with any established procedures for drawing such matters to the attention of the appropriate authorities without effect.
There is considerable doubt in many quarters as to what the established procedures are in drawing the attention of the appropriate authorities to matters which might disturb the civil servant or contractor concerned regarding the possibility of fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct.
At the same time I believe that no civil servant should take it upon himself to decide what he believes

1581
to be in the public interest, justifying disclosure on that ground and taking responsibility for it. I do not think he should have that responsibility. He should yield it up to higher authority and when that fails to give results then he can consider his own position. That is why I did not agree with the case of the civil servant. Mr. Ponting, who disclosed information to a Member of Parliament and claimed that he was acting in the public interest. I think that there should have been recourse to higher authority, that authority taking the responsibility.
A very strict code of the Inland Revenue is that if a local official discovers fraud in connection with tax affairs, it is not for him to go the police. It is not for him to make any disclosure. Anything untoward of that kind it is his duty to report to higher authority. In the end the board of the Inland Revenue will take the statutory responsibility because it is charged with the care and management of the income tax Acts. Cases have occurred where, when they have been reported to the Inland Revenue, no action was taken for reasons which seemed good and sufficient to that authority.
However, I think we cannot have inspectors of taxes generally disclosing information or going to the police. This matter led to very serious disagreement on the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life where there were other views than my own as to where responsibility actually lay for disclosing information of suspected fraud. I think it is not for the individual civil servant to decide whether in taking a certain action he is discharging his public duty. It is for others, if he is in a difficulty. When he has yielded up his own responsibility, it passes elsewhere. That is how I feel about the matter.
The Bill, on the face of it, requires a clearer understanding on the part of civil servants of what their undertaking is. That may lead to considerations of binding contract. Of course, the secrecy of the Inland Revenue is not covered by the Official Secrets Act, it comes under the income tax Acts. Therefore the Inland Revenue civil servants are under the obligations laid upon them by the income tax Act which they positively accept on appointment before they are even allowed into a tax office to have a look around. But that is not the case with civil servants in many other departments.
It is on confidentiality that I think we shall have the greatest difficulty, especially now that the Government tend to shelter behind the law of confidentiality when the law of the Official Secrets Act has broken in their hands. More recently, the Government have gone for action on grounds of breach of confidentiality rather than breach of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
I believe it will be a very difficult subject when we come to it, as in due course we shall have to come to it. What are the obligations of a serving public servant or of a person under a contract with the Government? What are the statutory obligations or understandings or whatever is binding upon them for the protection of official information which is classified as protected information?
1582
I wish to safeguard not so much factual information relating to the secrets of the citizen. Those secrets can be protected more easily by definition. But what about documents passing in the course of administration, in the course of government? We have excluded from the purview of the so-called ombudsman the Cabinet Office, for example. However there are all sorts of problems about the handling of Cabinet papers. On getting closer to it, as we did on the committee, we wondered how slack the handling of Cabinet documents could be.
Civil servants and Ministers must be protected from the exchange of documents which are not themselves effective documents of government but are discussion documents for schemes and plans which may be under consideration by the government department concerned. However, when an envelope containing exchanges of view on what should be done about a particular form of social security are planted on the doorstep of a magazine which feels that it is free to publish them, I think serious mischief may occur. It certainly did on one occasion; I know that for a fact. Matters which were under consideration had to be dropped because publicity was given to them before they passed into the realm of prospective legislation. Officials must be protected from that.
When one considers the Crichel Down inquiry, everything was turned over by the learned counsel who undertook the inquiry in looking at the minutes which passed between civil servants. There were some cynical ones. The case concerned a piece of land requisitioned during the war which should have been handed back to the owners. However, the Ministry of Agriculture wanted to find every possible use for it except returning it to the owners. Some very questionable minutes were passed. Later, the feeling in the Civil Service was, "We must not put it on paper: we must now do it by word of mouth, on the telephone, rather than have items in documents which can be turned over and used against us".
There are reasonable grounds, I believe, for wanting to protect the confidentiality of processes of administration and government which are antecedent to the taking of decisions which should obviously be made public. That is my main approach to this question. The noble Lord moved the Second Reading of the Bill admirably, if I may say so, although he has admitted that we are now engaged in a kind of seminar, not in plenary session. Nevertheless, I think that this discussion, short as it may be, is of value.
I believe that protected information is the clue to this. It is not covered by subsection (1)(a) and (b) of Clause I but is narrowly defined as being given in confidence under the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(c). I think that would have to be widened. The other clause is Clause 7. I think there ought to be a kind of referee or the three wise men used in the Civil Service for deciding security cases and security risks to whom reference may be made by a civil servant troubled in his conscience by something he has seen or discovered which he thinks ought to be passed somewhere else.
That brings me to the conclusion of what I have to say. We shall no doubt see the White Paper in due

1583
course. I hope that the Minister who replies will be able to tell us more about its present state. Are we getting on? Are we near to hearing more about it? There will presumably be a White Paper, and so on. Anyhow, this will be one of the most important matters we shall have to decide, affecting the integrity of public servants and the security and health of public administrations.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, it is a challenging experience to make a maiden speech in any company, but when it falls to be delivered in your Lordships' House by someone who has spent his working life, as I have, subject to a statutory provision requiring him on pain of dismissal to take no active part in politics, the matter becomes even more daunting. I am not helped either by the knowledge that I am, I believe, the first retired police officer to find himself in this honoured position. Therefore, I have no direct precedent to which I can look for advice or example.
I am very conscious too of your Lordships' convention that maiden speeches should not be controversial. When I reflect on the history of the debates on this issue I must say that I feel I am on the edge of a veritable minefield. On the other hand, I am comforted by the knowledge that your Lordships traditionally extend a kindness and courtesy to every maiden speaker and I therefore seek your Lordships' indulgence should my amateur status become too apparent this evening.
I was encouraged to speak in this debate when I learnt that one of the incidents, among others, which annoyed the government of the day and which led them to introduce Section 2 of the 1911 Act was the unauthorised and premature leakage to the press in 1901 of the Home Secretary's decision to authorise an increase in the pay of the Metropolitan Police. With 197 separate police forces and police authorities as there were at that time, each responsible for conducting its own negotiations on conditions of service, perhaps that was embarrassing. But nearly a century later, with 43 police forces and a national negotiating body, circumstances are quite obviously very different. There is clearly a need for change in the law. That is apparent, I believe, to everyone who considers the matter, and I should not wish to repeat the many arguments that have been formulated both here and in another place on so many occasions.
What I have found surprising about these debates is the lack of reference—almost none at all, I believe—to the part of the police in this matter. It is to them of course that falls the responsibility for investigating apprehended breaches of Section 2, and with the Crown Prosecution Service and the consent of the Attorney eventually to launch any prosecutions which may be considered appropriate.
It is clear from the police evidence to the Franks Committee that they also regard Section 2 as being anomalous, uncertain, unfair and defective in its present form and in need of amendment. I am sure they would welcome the fact that if this Bill were to go through and be accepted the duty of investigating these matters, other than on occasions when the national interest was affected, would fall to be
1584
handled by senior officers of the Civil Service, so avoiding the use of scarce police manpower and resources to deal with what is really a management problem. At the same time there are vital secrets which must be protected, and this must be recognised in any legislation.
In general, therefore, I support the changes which this Bill proposes, but there is a much wider context into which I believe it should be set. I refer to the effect on the police organisation itself and on its operations if the proposed changes go through. This, again, appears to have been quite unnoticed. No doubt that is because the Act does not refer specifically to the police in any of its sections. But since 1938 police officers have been held to be persons who hold office under Her Majesty and therefore they are subject to the provisions of the Act to exactly the same extent as are civil servants.
Indeed, since 1938—this is perhaps unknown but it is a fact—the colour of the chief constable's office carpet has been protected to exactly the same extent as has the now legendary teabag of the Home Secretary. So how does Section 2 work in practice as regards the police organisation? There are two objectives behind Section 2. One is to deter officers from disclosing information without authority and the second is to control those citizens who have come into possession of the kind of information that we have in mind from further publishing it.
As to the former, the police have relied very little on the statute to deter their officers. They have relied much more on their own internal discipline code to maintain the ethical and professional standards which are required. I believe that ethical standards are of the essence in this debate. Such prosecutions as they have taken against their own officers have been confined to the release of that kind of information which is now covered by Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) in the proposed Bill. In other words, they have prosecuted on occasions when prosecution would continue in the future and not on others. In other cases they have, as I say, referred much more to their discipline code.
It is interesting too that in the past two or three years when prosecutions have been taken they have been taken much more under other Acts of Parliament—for example, under the Data Protection Act—rather than under Section 2 because of the way in which it has become discredited.
As regards the second objective—that is, the control of the information which has been disclosed without authority to others—here again no prosecutions to my knowledge have ever been taken and neither has any threat of prosecution been made in these circumstances. Again, therefore, a reform of this kind would not be likely to cause any problems to the police.
Before I conclude I wish to make particular reference to Clause 1(1) of the Bill. I am worried at the way in which in Clause 1(1)(a) information relating to security or intelligence,
"the unauthorised disclosure of which would … endanger the safety of a British citizen",
is distinguished from information in Clause 1(1)(b),
"which is likely to be useful in the … prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders".

1585
The information which falls under Clause 1(1)(a), such as vital secrets of the nation, will be handled under the Minister's certificate and will he protected. However, as regards the information under Clause 1(1)(b), the police or the prosecution would apparently have to prove on each occasion that the information that had been unlawfully disclosed came within that definition.
The point I wish to make is that with the spread of international terrorism and more particularly with the activities of the IRA it is not possible to discriminate so clearly. Increasingly the information which is developed about the activities of international terrorists falls much more under Clause 1(1)(a) than under Clause 1(1)(b). I am sure that noble Lords would agree that in this area it is vital that police and security services work in close co-operation. If that he so, the information they are separately developing but which covers the same areas must be protected in exactly the same way.
I thank noble Lords for their welcome to this House and for the way they have received me this evening.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Knights, on the interesting and extremely well-informed speech that he has contributed to our discussions. I am sure that I express the opinion of the whole House when I say that.
It is one of the boasts of this House that there is scarcely any department of human knowledge on which we cannot produce an expert from somewhere on these Benches. But I must admit that if there was one topic on which we were not particularly well equipped, it was matters affecting the police. Despite the fact that so much of the legislation we pass deals with the duties and powers of the police, we have not had, so far as I know, anyone who could speak with quite the same authority about what it is like to be a policeman. That is one of the reasons why we are very glad to have the noble Lord, Lord Knights, with us. We shall listen to his future contributions to our debates with very great interest.
I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading. It is probably a bit vexatious for the Government, which is possibly one reason why one wishes to give it a Second Reading. When the Government say that if it can be agreed not to press such a matter now they will attend to it later on, sometimes it works out like that and sometimes it does not. We shall see.
The Bill deserves the close attention of the House and of the public. It tackles one of the most important defects of the notorious 1911 Act. In that Act, the definiton of an official secret was so fantastically wide that anything whatever was an official secret unless, presumably, special care was taken to say that it was not. Now we are to have an arrangement where the decision as to what is or is not an official secret will—if I follow the clauses in the Bill correctly—lie in the last resort with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The appropriate Minister, who will be in most cases the Foreign
1586
Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister, can make a classification. That can be questioned by a defendant in a case and the matter can then go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, when he said that Ministers have had a habit of overclassifying documents which come before them. I remember looking at a number of documents during the last war which had been prepared by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs. They were very good documents. They set out in a simple but not feeble form a number of pieces of information about how the government of this country works and the great political issues at stake in the war. Those documents were intended for use by officers who were going to conduct political discussions with soldiers under their command. Of course someone supposed that since the War Office had prepared the documents, there must be some degree of official secrecy about them. I remember seeing written on the cover of one document the words:
"What we are fighting for. The information in this pamphlet must not be revealed to any unauthorised person".
The second sentence had been added through sheer habit.
We have an attempt in the Bill to make a more sensible arrangement as to what should or should not be regarded as a secret. The one matter that worries me is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a highly respected body but it does not, in the last resort, carry the responsibility for the defence of the country that lies on the members of the Cabinet and in particular on the Ministers for Defence, Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Is it entirely satisfactory that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which does not carry that responsibility, should be the body finally to decide whether or not something should be treated as an official secret? I am not sure. However, happily, we need not try to answer that question now. That is one of the matters which we can consider at the Committee stage.
While I am in general very much in favour of the Bill, there are one or two matters of detail, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby found, with which one might disagree. However, I agree with Clause 6, which provides that it is not an offence to spread information with which everyone is already acquainted. The fantastic absurdity of that matter in recent cases has not been to the credit of the Government or the country.
I am a little worried about Clause 7. We have the spectacle, as it was drawn for us by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, of the individual civil servant, not perhaps in a very exalted position, who is convinced that something very wrong is being done. He must first make every effort to get the matter attended to through the proper channels. The noble Lord suggested that he might even go to see the Prime Minister. However, if he chooses to say in the last resort that he thinks he ought to disclose that matter, that is to be a defence.
Oddly enough, although your Lordships may not immediately follow the connection, that reminded me

1587
of Bernard Shaw's play about Saint Joan and the arguments that plagued the people who were endeavouring to try her.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am not sure that I made myself clear to the House. I hope that I pointed out that it would be the obligation of the civil servant who put forward the public interest defence to prove that what he had disclosed was in the public interest. That would be a very severe gravamen upon him. Merely to have gone through the official channels would not be sufficient. He would have to prove to a jury that what he had done was in the public interest.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, yes, and he would have to prove it to a jury who might be faced with arguments from other sources, such as the Prime Minister or other people whom he had seen, who took the view that he was wrong. That is why I drew the analogy with Saint Joan. The people who were trying her were saying to themselves: "Is it really true that a comparatively uneducated girl knows more about theology than bishops and archbishops and rather more about strategy and tactics in the use of artillery than generals and field marshals? If that sort of thing is to happen, how on earth are ordinary chaps to be able to run the business of the world?". That matter will worry juries and everyone else involved with the defence of public interest. I see the case for a clause of that kind. I am not at all sure how it will work in practice. That will be one of the interesting matters which we shall be able to pursue if the Bill gets a Second Reading.
The only other point I wish to make is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on putting Clauses 14, 15 and 16 into the Bill. Having defined an official secret elsewhere in the Bill and given the Government the necessary powers to protect secrets affecting the national defence, there is imposed on the Government in those clauses a duty to disclose to the general public such things as the principles on which governments work when they try to carry out rules affecting the right to benefit. I think that that is a most useful idea. Perhaps it is a little paradoxical. It was possibly included to provide balance by giving the Government the power of secrecy where needed in matters of defence and putting the onus of openness on the Government in social matters where such openness is particularly desirable. I do not know what the Government will make of that. It seems to me to be a happy idea on which I congratulate the noble Lord, as I congratulate him on the Bill as a whole. I hope that with some modifications it will reach the statute book.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, all of us who have campaigned over the past three decades for the repeal of Section 2 must surely give an unreserved welcome to the Bill. Before turning to it I must make reference to the two maiden speakers. I know both of them personally I have appeared before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on occasion, and always with admiration and respect. I have also known him for many years as a most admirable
1588
colleague and as a Bencher of my Inn. As a distinguished yachtsman, it is characteristic of him to have chosen to launch his parliamentary dinghy on the rough seas of the Official Secrets Act. However, I noticed that as a circumspect navigator he was very careful to stay in the calmest of waters.
I had the privilege of serving with the noble Lord, Lord Knights, for over two years on the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, looking into matters of identification. There I was, as an advocate who spent a great deal of my life disputing the evidence of policemen, and there was he as a police officer, but during the whole of those two and a half years we never differed on any matter of principle. I welcome him—as we all do—to this House. Speaking for myself, I have never come across a more distinguished or fair-minded police officer during my entire career.
This Bill seems to me to be excellently drafted, limited in its aims and clear as to its content. On 3rd February 1971 I heard the learned judge in the Sunday Telegraph case use these words:
"On August 22 this Act achieves its 60th birthday. This case if it does nothing else may alert those who govern us at least to consider if they have the time whether or not Section 2 has reached retirement age and should he pensioned off".
That was 17 years ago. Time seems to have been in short supply.
The Bill seems to do exactly what the learned judge was suggesting should be done. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead has described the Government as the most secretive in the world, one whose stock in trade is leaks from above and prosecutions below. It would appear that we had a fine example of in-house secrecy within the Government served to us in this House. When Mr. Shepherd introduced the Bill, Mr. Hurd told the other place that it was in April 1987 that Ministers and officials began working on a thorough review of the reform of Section 2. Yet when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was asked in this House on 14th July 1987 whether the Government had any plans for reforming Section 2, he told the House that there was no point in putting forward proposals for reform until there was more consensus. He said:
"If any noble Lord has an idea how this could be done that would satisfy Parliament we would be most anxious to hear it".—[Official Report, 14/7/87; col. 928.]
That looks now to have been a somewhat ingenuous observation. I say to the Minister that here is what his noble predecessor specifically asked for: ideas in a legislative form already commanding, I suggest, a wide area of agreement.
Section 2 has been described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as:
"a legal ban to freedom of information: that freedom being a citizen's right to know the information necessary to make his own choices and decisions in public and private matters, to express his own informed opinion and to be able to act to correct injustice".
As has already been mentioned, Section 2 has spawned excessively bureaucratic and secretive central and local government. Those involved know that each day they could fall foul of the 2,000-odd criminal offences to which this section may give rise. Even the laundry list of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls comes within its scope, as we have heard.

1589
Classification has often been over-used and abused, often to protect the interests of government or party rather than those of the state. I welcome very much the requirement for certification contained in Clause 8.
Governments have manipulated the amount and the nature of the information available to the media and to the public by self-authorised or anonymous inspired leaks, mainly through the lobby system. Section 2 has led directly to a spate of what Ministers refer to as Civil Service leaks, or as we must now apparently call them: larcenies. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, has said, the Bill does not enlarge the area of leaks. I suggest that it goes a very long way to stopping leaks in the future because it gets to the very core of the leaks, so many of which have occurred recently.
The Bill goes a very long way to removing all the abuses to which I have referred. It defines clearly what should be protected information. It spells out with equal clarity what acts in relation to protected information can be regarded as criminal. It recognises that no government shall hereafter be both sole judge and jury as to what may seriously injure the national interest, which was the fatal flaw in the Government's 1979 Bill. It does not recognise any automatic or unchallengeable lifelong duty of confidentiality. Further, as has already been emphasised, it provides two crucial defences to any prosecution both placed squarely on the shoulders of the defence to prove that matters are already in the public domain and that disclosure would be in the public interest.
It seems to me that those matters covered by Clause 7 are eminently matters which could be tried by a jury. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—who I see is not in his place at the moment—that in making a parallel with the Inland Revenue, he was talking about fraud by the taxpayer whereas this provision relates to fraud by the Inspector of Taxes, which of course is an entirely different matter.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that Clause 7(1) is quite strictly drafted. The only justification would have to fall with proof of crime, fraud, abuse of authority or neglect in the performance of official duty. It does not go beyond that to much broader measures.
In a famous case in which I appeared after a lot of people had sat down on an aerodrome in Essex and tried to stop aeroplanes armed with nuclear bombs from taking off, we called the late Lord Russell to the witness box to try to prove to the jury that it would in fact be a benefit to the nation not to have aeroplanes taking off from an aerodrome with bombs. That caused the learned judge a certain amount of difficulty; but in the end he managed to get over that particular hurdle and was just—but only just—upheld in the Judicial Committee of this House. However, that clause would not allow any doubts on such matters because it is very closely drawn.
Finally, under Part II of the Bill for the first time the citizen would have a legal right to know. I suggest
1590
that that would be a first step towards a freedom of information Bill such as the United States and many Commonwealth countries already enjoy.
So this Bill would appear to strike an admirable balance between freedom of information on the one hand, and the demands of national security on the other. It fully reflects Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights. At present that balance has to be struck by the courts without any guidelines from Parliament, and so the courts are drawn inevitably into the political arena. In the Spycatcher saga I suggest that the Government have misused the private law that protects confidential information by seeking injunctions against the media as a way of avoiding the adjudication of juries under the criminal law. In doing so, they have made themselves subject to the civil courts' decisions.
Mr. Justice Scott's historic judgment—upheld by the Court of Appeal, which was presided over, as we all know, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson —in the Spycatcher case contains the unequivocal observation that a claim for absolute secrecy for the security service is one that could only be successful behind the Iron Curtain, He found that the basis of the Government's case was not in truth national security, but an attempt to uphold the reputation of the security service. He made it clear that a balance must always be struck between the duty of a free press to report iniquity and the breach of a duty of confidence, and in that case it was the former that prevailed.
We are to understand that the Government will seek to kill this Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will have the courtesy to spell out which parts of the Bill are acceptable to the Government. I second everything that was so well said in that respect by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. Mr. Hurd has had a welcome conversion to reform. He told the other place that reform has now become crucial for the proper functioning of modern democratic government in Britain. I know that your Lordships will savour the adverb in that expression.
The Government intend to produce a White Paper. My sincere hope is that it will be one that commands a real consensus across this House. If that is the Government's genuine desire also, as expressed by the noble Earl's predecessor on 14th July last, a clear and considered critique of this Bill would be, I should have thought, an essential and obvious first step. Ponting, Massiter, Zircon, Wright, Cavendish, Westland—the rash of injunctions culminating in the parliamentary equivalent of a three-line Whip against this Bill—such a catalogue of suppression hardly inspires confidence that a government Bill is likely to extend to the public's right to know. Indeed, it lends weight to the suspicion, already referred to by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, that in truth the Government's intentions are to produce more restrictive legislation that will reflect their increasingly authoritarian stance.
I ask the Minister why there is so much secrecy about the Government's intentions. Why not state openly the Government's thinking before the White Paper is published? Perhaps the noble Earl will bear in mind the words of a famous American Justice of

1591
the Supreme Court: "Sunlight is said to be best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman".
8.55 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for having introduced this Bill on such an important subject. We must also be extremely grateful to the two maiden speakers who have pointed out to us with great clarity and authority the problems that face those who administer the present law and who would have to administer whatever law may take its place.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I have found myself in difficulties with the Official Secrets Act when compiling contemporary history; and not only personally but as a trustee of the Institute of Contemporary British History I have a considerable interest in the subject. Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act not only brings the law into disrepute, it brings into disrepute the whole idea and need for security—and there is a real need for security. That is because that section has been widely used and is still widely used to suppress things which are no real threat at all to national security. It is often used merely to avoid embarrassment to Ministers or civil servants, and it is openly and widely disregarded, particularly by Ministers or ex-Ministers—and not only Ministers—when they are writing their memoirs.
The catch-all characteristic of Section 2 is very similar to a catch-all section of what used to be called the Army Act: Section 40—conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. When, as a senior officer I was inspecting a unit and looking at its administration and discipline, it was to me a sure sign that things were not as they should be when there was a very large number of charges against soldiers under that section, and there was nothing specific about an offence that had been committed under any other section of the Army Act. This Bill would make it much more important to be specific about the nature of the threat to national security.
I was threatened with court martial 40 years ago for having written a slightly critical review of a book by Monty. I had said that it was a rather high price to pay for a book of only 160 pages which had been largely written by his staff and had already been printed by the Army printing and stationery service so that he was involved in no expense in producing it. As was the fashion in those days, I had assumed that the book review would be anonymous, but the silly editor put my initials at the bottom of it and Monty was not pleased. He asked why it had not been submitted and I was told that I had committed a clear offence. That particular Major-General in the War Office asked the CIGS if he wished him to proceed with my court martial. Monty sensibly relented and instructed the then director of the Royal Armoured Corps: "To tell Lieutenant-Colonel Carver", whose real rank he believed was that of captain (but he was wrong because I was a major) "that he should not criticise the head of the Army, but say to him that as soon as he or I retire he can say what he likes". He then added, "I intend myself to write a good deal".
1592
He was wrong, because under the Official Secrets Act neither he nor I could write exactly what we liked. Monty did not have the slightest intention of observing that restriction, as he made clear to no less a person than the Prime Minister on a subsequent occasion. He was summoned by an angry Winston Churchill, because when he was Deputy Supreme Commander in Europe Monty suddenly reversed his public position over the European army. Having poured scorn on it for years, he suddenly announced to a visiting parliamentary delegation that it was a good thing and that the whole situation was being obstructed by the British Government. Winston sent for him and said that he must not say those sorts of things to embarrass the British Government, to which the noble and gallant Viscount (as he was then) replied that he was an international soldier and not a British soldier. The Prime Minister said, "We pay you, and we can sack you", and Monty said, "In that case, I shall write my memoirs and say a good deal about you".
I have probably already breached the Official Secrets Act by telling your Lordships all that! If my informant was correct he was undoubtedly breaching the Official Secrets Act. The Prime Minister then rang up the Secretary of State for Defence, Field Marshal Lord Alexander, and asked "Which would be worse, to let Monty write his memoirs or to sack him?" He said "It would be undoubtedly worse to let him write his memoirs".
Forgive me for that anecdote, my Lords; but it illustrates the nonsensical aspect of the Official Secrets Act. There is a need for secrecy. There is a need for protection of official information. There is a need to protect military secrets which could be to the advantage of a potential enemy. All sorts of things are classified as military secrets which would not be of any advantage to the enemy, but there are military secrets which must be defended.
It is very important, when a government are negotiating with a foreign government or negotiating with a commercial firm, or even indulging in what I call internal political negotiations, that their hand is not undermined by information being given away. They have a right to demand confidentiality from Crown servants and not to have the situation that has prevailed by which Crown servants, because they have a personal political opinion which is different, convey to the political opposition matters which should be kept confidential.
All those safeguards are necessary and are fully and adequately covered by the Bill. I join other noble Lords in asking why the Government object. They never really made clear what were their objections to the almost similar Bill put forward in the other place, other than the fact that it had not been put forward by themselves and had not been compiled by a lot of civil servants.
My own experience in public life is that if a decision needs to be concealed and if the reasons for it need to be concealed one needs to look at it again. The best decisions are those which one is not afraid to make and for which one is not afraid to explain the reasons. On more than one occasion I have been pressed to make decisions which I would not have been prepared to defend in public or to defend the reasons

1593
for those decisions, and I have refused to do so. That is one very good reason why I feel that this Bill should be supported. I very much hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, I too think that this Bill has considerable merit. I am sorry that it appears destined not to go any further here than did a similar measure in another place. The issues that it raises could have generated more discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, expressed apprehensions about the Government's view which it is easy to share. It is worth stating that the Bill embodies some principles which should be in any proposed legislation to replace Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Other noble Lords have said that we should be clear that our intention is to have more information published rather than less. No one is suggesting that there is not information which should not be published; but the fact is that far more information could be made available.
I was made aware of how secretive our system is when, as a young reporter, I moved from covering Whitehall to covering Washington. The problem in Whitehall was to get any information at all. The problem in Washington, in the White House and the State Department, was to assimilate all the information that was available.
I believe that legislation of this kind should be placed in the context of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which recognises the right to freedom of expression, to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference, subject to some legal restraints on the way that it is operated. As I have said, everyone accepts that there is some information which cannot be published.
I am the honorary secretary of a body called the Association of British Editors. It has among its members editors from the national press, the BBC, independent television and radio companies, the regional press and periodicals. We have recently been in discussion with other newspaper and broadcasting bodies on this subject. I believe that a consensus is developing that there are at least four principles which should be in any legislation brought forward to replace Section 2.
The first is that matters affecting national security, as distinct from matters affecting the interests of the government of the day, should be defined as precisely and exactly as possible, with clear distinctions of degree so that they can receive the consensus of approval, referred to by other noble Lords, which any law must have if it is to survive in a democratic society.
As we have heard, Section 2 has been seen to lack that credibility. Although there are many in the media who may prefer to live with a discredited Act even if it were from time to time capriciously invoked, if it is to be replaced by more tightly-drawn legislation we believe that great efforts will have to be made to distinguish genuine matters of national security from disclosures that may be politically embarrassing to the government of the day, bearing
1594
in mind that we are dealing here with criminal offences. There should be other ways of dealing with civil servants who wish to embarrass their Ministers.
Secondly, I think that any legislation should include a principle that if a system of classification is to be brought in provisions must be made for an independent appeal against that classification. That need not be in open court if a public hearing were seen to be injurious to national security. It seems that most thinking about reform of Section 2 produces arrangements of one kind or another by which a Minister has power to decide what is classified. I do not believe that a Minister in that position can be left as his own judge and jury. I do not believe that the public would have confidence in such an arrangement. There must therefore be some kind of higher court. I do not know what it should be; the suggestion in this Bill is worthy of consideration. But some body of that kind is essential.
The third principle, to which reference has been made already, is the defence of prior publication whether in the UK or elsewhere. It should be possible for anyone charged under this Act to show that the information was already in the public domain. I am aware that there is an argument that someone wishing to publish something in a widely read, heard or seen medium might arrange to have it published in an obscure journal first in order to legitimise the later publication. But we have recently observed the absurdity of trying to maintain the alternative approach.
The fourth principle—which, I believe, is embodied importantly in this Bill and should be in any measure that is brought forward—is that publication in the public interest should be a defence if, on the balance of the argument, the accused person can show that reasonable suspicion of the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, or other misconduct, outweighed constraints on publication. It seems to me necessary to secure a position in which an editor or a civil servant who has decided to publish something which he knows to be injurious to national security can at least seek to defend himself on the grounds that a greater good is achieved by publication than by non-publication. It may be that a public interest defence cannot be made absolute. However, it cannot be right to deny an individual that defence absolutely.
The Bill addresses itself constructively to the principles that I have mentioned. It would be nice to think that it would have a Second Reading. If it does not, I certainly hope that these pillars are present in whatever edifice the Government confront us with later in the year.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall begin by making a point that I believe will receive the endorsement of all in the Chamber. We have had two exceptionally interesting and stimulating maiden speeches today. The first was by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. he made us all aware, in a delightful speech, how fortunate the Monarch Shipping Company was in having him as its counsel in 1948, deserted as he was, unhappily, by members of the Scottish Bar. The second was by my

1595
old friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Knights. As he said, he is the first chief officer of police to be a Member of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, it is astonishing that we have not had a retired chief officer of police in this House before. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, today made us realise what we had missed as a result.
We have returned today to official secrets legislation. We have had many debates on this matter and many of us—I speak certainly for myself but possibly for others—are beginning to become a little weary of our speeches, admirable though they always are! I doubt if any piece of legislation in this century has attracted quite such a high level of criticism as Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. No one can be found to say a kind word for it. We can be quite sure that the Minister will not do so when he rises to speak this evening.
That being so, the Government's position is a little odd. When the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I and others spoke in the last debate on this matter in 1985, I reminded noble Lords that the then Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, speaking in opposition in 1978, said this:
"Section 2 is simply indefensible, yet it is still there. Why is that? It is there is spite of the Government's assurances, because they have not had the courage to fight and overcome the strenuous rearguard action of Whitehall".
Ten years have passed and, despite those decisive words, matters do not appear to have changed a great deal. All that has happened recently is that this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. The Government decided to use a three-line Whip and the whole resources of the payroll vote to vote it down. This was a Bill introduced by one of their own Back-Benchers, Mr. Shepherd, who was demonstrating just that courage that Mr. Brittan had called for in 1978. In these circumstances, I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has introduced a similar Bill in the House today although I did not wholly follow the answer he gave to the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Before I turn to Clause 1 of the Bill, which I regard as of decisive importance—this matter was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, in particular—I wish to make a few remarks by way of introduction. First, this country does of course have a number of secrets to protect; but, as it is a country possessing far less power than it had in 1911, those secrets are now limited in scope and number. They cover such important matters as our own nuclear capability, our defence plans, the details of counterterrorist operations—an important point dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Knights—and of course the secrets of our United States allies that we hold in trust.
There can therefore be no question of simply dropping Section 2 and replacing it with nothing. Perhaps I can give one illustration of what might occur if that were to be done. The House may recall a particularly effective KGB operation in which it arranged, through a CIA man who had been turned, the publication of names of CIA officers in posts abroad. One of those men was murdered soon
1596
afterwards and great damage was done to the American intelligence community, which of course was the object of the operation. We could not possibly tolerate a situation of that kind. That issue I concede to be of critical importance, and it cannot possibly be dodged.
That having been said, the present situation is really astonishing. What is clear is that the greater the breach of security, the less likely the person concerned is to be prosecuted. We have had the case of Miss Tisdall (which we discussed in 1985), a very junior officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She leaked to the Guardian information providing details of the timing of the arrival of cruise missiles at Greenham Common. No question of national security was involved—the Crown made that quite clear. She went to prison for six months.
Then there was Mr. Ponting—his case has been dealt with already by a number of speakers in the debate—an assistant secretary at the Ministry of Defence. He leaked information about the "Belgrano". He was prosecuted. Again the Crown conceded that no question of national security was involved. Despite an exceptionally hostile summing up by the trial judge, the jury acquitted him.
Contrast these decisions of the Attorney-General with the very different treatment in the case of Miss Massiter, the former MI5 officer, and another of her colleagues—particularly relevant because of the revision of Clause 7 of the Bill. Both made allegations of the gravest character in a Channel 4 programme called "MI5's Official Secrets". Miss Massiter alleged that the definition of subversive conduct, given by me in this House on behalf of the Government of which I was a member, and which had been accepted by the present Government, was deliberately manipulated to enable telephone intercepts to be used against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and this despite the fact that the Home Secretary at the time had said that the organisation was not a subversive organisation.
Next Miss Massiter alleged that, in clear breach of the Maxwell Fyfe guidelines, Ministry of Defence officials obtained information from MI5 about the political beliefs of the executive committee of the CND for use by Mr. Heseltine and his colleagues for party political purposes. In fact, she claimed that she made representations to her authority and they were ignored.
At first the IBA was not prepared to transmit these allegations because it feared that it would be prosecuted under Section 2. Then the Attorney-General announced that he was not going to prosecute, and the programme went ahead. I have no means of knowing the truth or otherwise of what Miss Massiter said; all I can say is that some of us thought that she was a rather plausible witness. In any event, how can it possibly be right to prosecute where national security is not involved (and it is conceded that it is not involved) and not to prosecute when it clearly is?
The silliness of the present situation is demonstrated again by the case of Mr. Stalker. Mr. Stalker, in the midst of his inquiry into alleged malpractice by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in

1597
Northern Ireland, chose to disclose details of his investigation to the editor of the Manchester Evening News, a man not particularly well known to him, as the editor concerned makes clear. Subsequently he wrote a book which has reputedly earned him a very substantial sum of money. I consider Mr. Stalker's behaviour to have been contemptible, but it does not follow that because behaviour is contemptible it can in any circumstances justify criminal proceedings.
The same argument applies to leaks from government departments. I do not know how many leak inquiries are taking place at present. I assume that it is a pretty formidable number. However, as a result of announcements from 10 Downing Street we know of the Prime Minister's indignation about the frequent disclosure of letters from her private office to Ministers.
This week we have heard of the leak of minutes of a Prime Ministerial meeting concerning the poll tax. To put it as politely as possible, it showed that Ministers had been less than frank with the House of Commons. We have also heard of the leak of the letter from the Prime Minister's office to the Education Secretary and of the leak from the Prime Minister's office to the Scottish Secretary. All that has occurred within a period of six weeks and now officers of MI5 are trying to discover the identity of the leaker.
Leaks of this character are hardly unprecedented. At the end of 1858 Mr. Gladstone, then briefly out of office, was asked by the then Colonial Secretary, Sir Edmund Bulmer Lytton, to go to the Ionian Islands as Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary—a formidable title. There was a strong movement in the islands for union with Greece and Mr. Gladstone was asked to assess the situation and report the facts to Ministers. Unhappily, within weeks a dispatch from the British representative on the island was leaked from the Colonial Office and did immense damage to Mr. Gladstone's mission. Indeed, it made it almost an absurdity. Was it done by a Minister or by an official? No one knows, and I suspect that no one will discover who is responsible for some of the leaks which have received so much media attention over the past few weeks.
I do not believe that it is right to be too pompous about all leaks. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said at the beginning of the debate, some of them are simply part of routine news management and a great deal of it comes from the Prime Minister's office. Many of the leaks are arranged by one Minister to score off another. Others are arranged by the press officers of Prime Ministers in order to damage an unloved colleague. Mr. Heseltine springs to mind as regards the present Government and Mr. Wedgwood-Benn as regards the Labour Government. In all circumstances the victim demands a leak inquiry and everyone else joins in for fear that any lack of enthusiasm for investigation should be interpreted as a sign of guilt.
However, I do not suggest that all leaks are of negligible importance. I suggest only that we should discuss them in a more balanced fashion and not use terms such as theft, as my noble friend Lord Hutchinson said a few moments ago. I do not consider that it is right for a civil servant who disapproves of the policy of the government of the
1598
day to photostat a minute or a letter, put it in a brown envelope and send it to a friendly newspaper or politician. People who do that are not admirable men and women who deserve to be treated as public heroes. They are behaving dishonestly and if discovered they deserve to be sacked, just as Mr. Ponting and Miss Tisdall deserved to be sacked: that is, sacked and not prosecuted.
The Government have been slow to recognise the fact that their refusal to take action on Section 2 for almost nine years—except for the folly of their Protection of Information Bill in 1979, which, if enacted, would have made it impossible for the press to report the Blunt scandal—has made that section little more than a had joke. It is now hard to believe that if an official was caught leaking the Prime Minister's letters he would be proceeded against under Section 2 because the official concerned would endeavour to use the Ponting defence; that is, that he had acted as a result of a high sense of public duty because Ministers had attempted to mislead Parliament. That being so, it is most unlikely that an Attorney-General would be so ill-advised as to institute Section 2 proceedings. That is on the assumption that the leaked letters, with which the Prime Minister is so much concerned, were not leaked by Ministers.
We know from the recent past that Ministers are unlikely to find themselves at the Old Bailey whatever they do. We have only to remember the circumstances of the Westland affair when Mr. Britian, then Trade and Industry Secretary, ordered his officials to leak the Solicitor-General's letter concerning Mr. Heseltine to the press. As the House may recall, there was some dispute as to the precise culpability of officials at 10 Downing Street to recognise that rules which officials are rightly expected to honour can be broken with apparent impunity by Ministers.
The only other matter I propose to touch on briefly is Clause 7, referred to by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. That clause provides a defence that disclosure of the information concerned was in the public interest in so far as the person concerned had reason to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority and so on. I believe that it is right to have a provision of that sort in the Bill. When the Government produce their White Paper we shall look most carefully to see whether this precise provision is contained within it. It is the only defence for an official who has made a single-minded attempt to get authority to take seriously a series of scandalous events. If he is blocked, I believe it is in the public interest to have such a provision.
The value of this debate is that it takes place only a few weeks before the Government propose to publish their White Paper. I hope that in that White Paper there will be no return to the approach of the 1979 Bill which would ensure not only a protracted and difficult Committee stage in this House and another place but a continuing lack of certainty as to whether juries would convict. I hope that the Government will heed the advice that they have received from so many quarters in the House today.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this may be a debate on a subject spoken of often in your Lordships' House but it has still been quite entrancing. There have been two very notable speeches—and I say that from the Benches that I represent—one being from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He mentioned the much respected name of Lord du Parcq. I am long enough in the profession to which I joyfully belong to remember, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that Mr. Justice du Parcq was founder and creator of a new procedure. I believe that he would have been delighted to have heard the young counsel who appeared before him, now as the Master of the Rolls and a Member of your Lordships' House, advocating a new procedure to take the place of the Official Secrets Act.
It was also a delight to hear the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who, as has been said and I shall not repeat it other than by mere mention, brings a fresh experience and fresh expertise to this House with a modesty which is absolutely, I suppose, unprecedented for a chief constable of police. His speech was welcome and we hope to hear from him again.
I shall try to put some courage into the heart and mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who introduced with such lucidity and care the Second Reading of this Bill. However, before I try to do that and give him my reasons, perhaps I can summarise the dilemma before anyone who seeks to deal with an Official Secrets Act or a Bill called the Protection of Official Information Bill. It was summarised at the outset of the well known Franks Report as follows:
"Those concerned with the mass media of communications in Britain have felt the need not just for more openness in government but for a loosening of control of information at all levels in the machinery of government. Only thus, they have argued, could they play a developing part in the operation of a modern democracy. We are faced, therefore, with an increased area in which considerations of secrecy may arise, and at the same time with an increased need for the diffusion of information together with the technical capacity to supply this need".
Therefore, the difficulty one faces when dealing solely with the prevention of information coming out is the need to see that as much information as properly can come out does so from government. That is why other speakers in this debate have talked in terms of a parallel freedom of information enactment as an enactment dealing with the prevention of a leakage or circulation of information. Both thoughts should be kept in mind by a parliament which protects democracy.
Having said that, I revert to the theme put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and what I, from these Benches, would like to see him do. His colleague in another place had the courage to go ahead with the Second Reading of a Bill which he regarded as extremely important, as indeed it was. It was upon the same lines as the Bill now in your Lordships' House. His handling of a situation where he felt it was the right of Parliament and ordinary Members of Parliament to deal with matters of importance to the nation won him the admiration of Members of all sides of another place, whether or not they agreed with the measure. He carried that debate, which lasted for five hours, to a Division. If I remember
1600
correctly and my note is correct, the Government received a majority of merely 37 votes; the figures being 271 against 234 in support of Second Reading.
If he had succeeded he would have seen to it that the following stages of the Bill took place in the other place. I especially asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, what his intentions were in regard to the normal practice of a Second Reading being passed in this House and the automatic Committee stage and other stages of the Bill which would follow. I hope that the rumour that I frankly disclosed to the House is incorrect. I gave him the opportunity to deny it. I have asked that if the House agrees to a Second Reading as I believe it will—he sees to it that the remaining stages follow as they should. I further say from these Benches that I hope that he will not allow anything, whether an official secret or otherwise, or an official secret handling of his Bill or otherwise, to deter him from his efforts to see that further stages of the Bill take place.
I have said that against a background about which I wish to be frank. This Government have done many meritorious things—one tries awfully hard to be objective in one's judgment however politically difficult that is at times—but they have not been eminent in the way in which they have tried to deal openly with various matters or policies which appear to be contrary to the wishes of the Executive.
We had a very recent experience of that in the Local Government Finance Bill. An attempt is being made by the Executive even to silence your Lordships' House from dealing with the question of the poll tax in that Bill. I was delighted, as I am sure were many Members who uphold the dignity of this House and who support its duties in Parliament, as one of the two great institutions of Parliament, to read in The Times this morning first of all what appears to be a statement from the authorities of this House, namely, that,
"The Lords' Public Bill Office will therefore accept any amendments tabled to the Local Government Finance Bill, subject to their falling within the normal rules of amendments to be tabled in the House of Lords".
I also noted with great pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who was described, I am sure perfectly properly, as a constitutional expert, is quoted as having told The Times last night:
"I think Peers can reject the whole idea of the poll tax quite easily because it is certainly not a Money Bill".
That statement from the saintly and noble Lord was made ex-cathedra, which is an expression that he will immediately recognise.
It is not only upon such matters that this House and the nation have experienced the fact that this Government are not to be trusted when it comes to the question of dealing with information that ought to be given to the public. As I have tried to point out, neither has their record been especially good when it comes to a question of allowing those who wish to put a view as has been put in this Bill and by the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in another place. If the noble Lord lacks the courage—I hope that he certainly does not—
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord not to use the word "courage" again.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, did not think that I would ever wish to be offensive to him. In this instance the question of courage was only meant as an inducement to him and not in any way to spoil the record which he has in this House by way of the speeches that he makes here and the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I ask him to continue in the same way.
What are the issues that are before us in regard to this Bill? The first is whether Section 2 should remain. I do not believe that at this stage in the debate anyone would wish to hear me advance reasons as to why Section 2 has passed into our history as one of the measures that not only has produced a lack of respect for law and order but has been an absolute failure because of its width.
Section 2 obviously has to go. What, my Lords, does one put in its place? I want at once to congratulate the noble Lord on putting before the House in this Bill measures which sensibly take the place of Section 2. He has classified the very type of offences which everyone would agree ought to be made criminal acts and has taken out other breaches of official secrets which do not deserve criminal action. The fact that criminal action is necessary is again contained in the Bill and I believe would have the support, as against that classification, of all sides of the House.
The next question to be considered concerns defence, international relations and intelligence being matters upon which the charge can be brought provided that danger to the nation or indeed danger to any British subject is envisaged. The speeches which have preceded mine show that, without doubt again, the measure giving the right to challenge a classification is a wise and proper one. The only doubt one would have—and that is where the question of the Committee stage comes in—is whether or not the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the appropriate body to deal with classification, a matter upon which our judges, whatever else may be their merit and experience, have no real experience. Although it can be dealt with at later stages of the Bill, I should have thought that an existing organization—the Security Commission—would obviously have experience of these matters and is the one to which it would be sensible to refer them.
I conclude by warmly congratulating the noble Lord on the introduction of this Bill. I wish it a proper procedural passage through this House.
9.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have had a particularly interesting debate this evening on the matter of my noble friend's Bill. It is always a great pleasure to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He has a happy knack, which he did not display this evening, of firing off a cannon ball just before he sits down which traverses the Table, lands in my lap and requires an immediate answer. I was wondering what he was going to do this evening; but I am glad to say
1602
that he changed his ways. I have always had a remarkable respect and affection for the noble Lord and for his ability. That was extended even further this evening because I was surprised when with all his ability he succeeded in introducing the subject of the poll tax on a Bill to do with official secrets. My admiration for his ability merely increased substantially this evening.
The debate has been remarkable for the two maiden speeches. I wondered how two maidens, talking about secrets, could succeed in being uncontroversial. They both succeeded in doing so in a most satisfactory and instructive way.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, explained how he had had his experience in the police force. We look forward to hearing his contributions not just on the police force but on many other matters. He repeated and highlighted the fact that vital secrets must be protected. He was right to say that, and I find it agreeable that that was repeated by one who is a maiden speaker. We all enjoyed the noble Lord's speech.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, showed of course no fear of making a maiden speech. I am not certain whether it was a maiden speech, because he said that it must be almost unique to make a maiden speech for the second time in your Lordships' House. His contributions on all these matters carry enormous weight as do his contributions on matters outside the Chamber. When he referred to the time when he addressed your Lordships' House in 1948—I am bound to say that I had only just left school—he said that he addressed the House from the Bar. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will, in future, address your Lordships not only in the House but in the bar as well!
I liked the philosophy of the noble and learned Lord, when he said that he was not going to refer to the Bill's content because whatever he said, for or against it, would be highly controversial. I too take that as my text, looking up as I do to the noble and learned Lord and his judgment.
Whatever is said by Ministers about the Bill is bound to be seen as inferring one thing or the other. My noble friend Lord Bethell will not be greatly surprised if I tell him that I did not particularly welcome the Bill. I do not disguise the fact that it puts me in some considerable embarrassment, mainly because I fear that I shall not be as much help to your Lordships as my noble friend and your Lordships would wish.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained on Second Reading in another place, on an almost identical measure, why he did not consider that a Private Member's Bill of this nature is either timely or a sensible way to effect a reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. I shall inevitably be bound to cover much of the same ground today.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that he thought the Bill was exactly what was wanted and that there was agreement here. That might be pushing things a little far. I do not blame my noble friend Lord Bethell and others for trying to get as much information out of the Government as they reasonably can.

1603
My noble friend Lord Bethell also said that there was agreement. He said that he was looking forward to hearing my reactions to the Bill and the Government's thoughts, and what views are germinating, about the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, also asked whether we would remove private and public companies from the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he was surprised that the Minister should speak so late in the debate; and that it would have been much easier if I had spoken earlier for then he would have known what the Government's view was. I have a great deal of sympathy with that idea. I should have preferred to have spoken rather earlier in the debate; but one of the conventions is that on a Private Member's Bill the Minister always speaks at the end.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked why the House could not know the Government's views He hoped that we would listen. Of course I have listened. What has been said during the debate will be carefully considered.
It is fair enough for my noble friend and other noble Lords to tweak the Government over that. My noble friend implied that he hoped for a dialogue and did not wish the Government to be a mere listening post during the debate. I am bound to say that there is nothing of substance which I can add to what my right honourable friend said in the debate in another place. The reason for this is not that the Government wish to be obdurate or obstinate; it is not that the Government consider they have a monopoly of virtue or of wisdom. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his noble friends would probably be the first to say that this was not the case. I am bound to say that on this occasion I am happy to agree with him, had the noble Lord said that.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place that he hoped to lay before Parliament in June the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for the reform of Section 2 which he would announce before Christmas. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said: "Why can't we know it now?" I think, with the greatest of respect, that the noble Lord must either himself be politically naive or he must think that I am politically naive, if I were to say what was going to be in the Government's White Paper before the Government had produced the White Paper and before the Government had made up their mind. The position remains like that. I cannot therefore today announce or discuss the Government's proposals, and I am afraid that it follows that I shall not be able to comment on the details of my noble friend's Bill.
The difficulty is that my noble friend's Bill seeks to prompt the Government to give their views when their views are not yet crystallised; to which my noble friend says in effect, "Well, that's exactly the point". That is what he wished to do by producing the Bill this evening in order to enable your Lordships to have the opportunity of giving your views before the Government make up their mind. My noble friend has done that very successfully, and this debate has provided a very useful occasion for taking stock of the opinion in your Lordships' House.
1604
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said that he wanted to give this Bill a Second Reading in order to be vexatious to the Government. I believe that was his expression. He is entitled to do that; he can be a gadfly to the Government, and that is probably a very good thing too. However, there has been very little support in the debate this evening for Section 2 in its present form.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the noble Earl will permit me to say so, that is another argument.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was going to say that the noble Lord, Lord Knights, showed the absurdity of it, referring to the colour of the carpet. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, also described the absurdity of it in an entertaining speech when he said that he was very nearly court-martialled. The fact that one who was very nearly court-martialled ended up by being a field-marshal will give great encouragement to all the miscreants or potential miscreants inside and outside the army.
It is unanimously agreed that Section 2 is far too wide. It offers the same protection to trivial information as to information which affects the safety of the nation. That is quite clearly wrong. Section 2 is not fully effective in protecting the information which the criminal law ought to protect. These defects have long been recognised and the problem has been how to achieve agreement on how they should be remedied. The debate on how to replace Section 2 has been going on now for some 20 years. The Government indicated their desire to reform Section 2 by bringing a Bill before your Lordships in the first Session after they took office, way back in 1979. That Bill, whose title my noble friend has copied, was based on the recommendations of the Committee which was chaired, as my noble friend said, by Lord Franks. It reported in 1972.
That Bill followed closely the proposals which were set out in the previous Labour Government's White Paper on the reform of Section 2, which was laid before Parliament in 1978. Although the Bill was given a Second Reading by your Lordships, it was clear that certain aspects of it did not commend themselves to noble Lords and the Bill was unlikely to make progress. So it was withdrawn.
Since then the Government have not put proposals before Parliament for the reform of Section 2; but we have always recognised that at some point we should need to return to that section. So, in the spring of last year my right honourable friend set in hand an examination by Ministers and officials in order to see whether we could find an effective, an enforceable and a reasonable alternative to Section 2.
Let us be quite clear that if we change Section 2 what it is changed to must be effective, enforceable and reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, referred to the authoritarian stance of the Government. I really do not believe that is fair and I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean to be unfair. But when we are going into this matter in the

1605
greatest possible detail in order to find a way which will be acceptable to Parliament and to the people as a whole, to say that that is being authoritarian is not correct.
When this investigation was started, the Government did not make any announcement at the time. To do so might have stimulated expectations which we were not certain at that time we could fulfil. And on a subject of such importance as this it seemed to us that a thorough and a conscientious review was essential.
I make no apology, therefore, for the fact that by the time Mr. Shepherd introduced his Bill into another place the Government had not decided their position on the many and, let us remember, highly complex issues which reform of Section 2 involves. Nor would it be right for me to make any apology for the fact that the Government have still not made final decisions on these issues. We are seeking proposals which would result in legislation which is clearly expressed, which is easy to enforce and which will be widely accepted as reasonable legislation that will last. It is right that we should give the matter as much consideration as it requires.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. Are there consultations going on? Is there anything happening or is this file being kicked around in the Home Office? I am sure that the noble Earl wants to tell us something and we are staying anxiously to hear it. Are the Government getting on with the job, and when do they expect to finish it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is very anxious. I do not blame him, but he will have to wait a little longer. He knows perfectly well that he will have to wait longer because my right honourable friend said that he would have to wait until June when the Government's proposals come out.
I explained right at the beginning that I was put into some embarrassment because of course my right honourable friend wants to know the answers as does the noble Lord. But if the answers were available the Government would have produced a White Paper. So I am bound to tell the noble Lord that it is not a question of a file kicking around in the Home Office, as he so delightfully and graphically puts it. The fact is that considerable consideration is being given to this matter to ensure that when the proposals eventually come forth they should be at least reasonable ones.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be courteous enough to give way again. He is putting up a magnificent defensive fight and I think that we all admire it. I think that even the noble and gallant Lord would admire the battle that is being put up by the Minister.
However, I remind the Minister that at col. 583 of the Official Report of the proceedings in another
1606
place on the Protection of Official Information (No. 1) Bill on 15th January the Home Secretary said:
"since April 1987 a major effort has been under way. I suppose that we are about two thirds of the way through that effort".
If from April 1987 to January 1988 one had got through two-thirds of the effort, is it not reasonable to assume that by April 1988 one would have got through the whole of the effort?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government are remarkably expeditious in the way in which they deal with matters. Whether that speed is as quick as the noble Lord would wish or whether it is greater than the noble Lord had anticipated, all I shall tell him—I am grateful for his very courteous and generous remarks—is that with the greatest of respect he will have to wait a little longer before the fruit is ripe.
When the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Shepherd, introduced a Bill to reform Section 2, the Government had a choice. Either they could rush their consideration of the issues so that they could seek to amend the Bill, if necessary, or at least to explain such views as they had, which were neither formulated nor firm, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament; or they could ask Parliament to wait a little longer until it could consider the Government's own proposals for reform.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked why the Government would not accept the Bill. What my noble friend has done is to reintroduce much the same Bill as that which was introduced in anotner place. He expects, curiously, a different answer. He will not get it. I am bound to give him the same answer, which is that a White Paper will be produced. We thought that the course of waiting for considered proposals was the correct one. I still believe that that course is correct and that it would not have been sensible to take hasty decisions on vital issues simply in order to fit in with the timetable of an unforeseen Private Member's Bill, nor to attempt a major reform of such important legislation within the scope of and subject to the restricted procedures which apply to a Private Member's Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked what was so special about this matter. Official secrets are what they say: they are the secrets of the realm; they are the secrets of the government of the day. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to protect those secrets. The Government can only operate within the confines which Parliament has set for them. The subject of the debate, which is the subject of a national debate as well as a debate in your Lordships' House, is what the confines are and where they may be correctly drawn.
We remain of the view that the correct way in which to reform Section 2 is for the Government, whose responsibility the official secrets are, to set out their proposals in order to receive views on them from throughout the country, from those who may be affected by them, from those who have to operate them, from those who bear the responsibility and from Members of both Houses of Parliament as expressed in debates before the Summer Recess. After that full consideration, further consideration

1607
will be given to the views expressed. The Government can then put legislation before Parliament for its decision. The legislation will then be subject to consideration and amendment. How the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, can find that to be an authoritarian stance escapes my comprehension.
That is the path which we intend to follow. Those points apply to my noble friend's Bill in just the same way as they applied to Mr. Shepherd's Bill—and indeed with even greater force. I understand my noble friend's wish to give the House an opportunity to express views on the nature of the reform of Section 2. The debates which we shall have in the summer will be on the basis of definite proposals from the Government and I believe that they will be the better for that.
Any Bill which goes through Parliament, and especially a Bill of this nature, will be subjected to a whole host of amendments of infinite variety and detail. The Government will be expected to give their views and reactions to each one. I do not believe that it is reasonable that the Government should do that when their views have not been formulated. My right honourable friend has set out on other occasions the issues which the Government are considering and the role which they see for the legislation which will replace Section 2.
It might be helpful if I were to repeat the explanation which my right honourable friend has offered, lest anyone should think that the Government were plotting some heinous or ungenuine measures. The central purpose of the Government's reform, indeed any reform of Section 2, is to narrow the scope of the criminal law so that it protects only that small proportion of official information which, in the public interest, should not be disclosed.
The first question which has to be answered is what that information is. Clearly it is not just security or intelligence information. It must at least include certain information relating to defence. There are also other areas where disclosure can do serious harm to the public interest; for example, by assisting the commission of crime or by disrupting relations with another government and thereby endangering the property and possibly even the lives of British citizens who are resident abroad.
Once that first question is answered, there follow a number of others of equal complexity and sensitivity: should the disclosure of any information in the categories which are covered by new legislation be an offence?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is a filibuster. The noble Earl is telling us nothing. He has been speaking for 23 minutes and we know no more than when he began.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I have been speaking for 23 minutes at least four of those have been because the noble Lord and his friends have interrupted what I was trying to say. Since the noble Lord and his noble friends want to know what the position is, when I try to explain to your Lordships what the position is I really think it is slightly unfair if the
1608
noble Lord says that that is a filibuster. If he does not want to know, then I am quite happy to sit down; but if your Lordships would prefer to know the position, I shall tell the House.
What I was trying to ask was: should the disclosure of any information in the categories which are covered by new legislation be an offence, or should it be an offence only if the disclosure would be likely to result in harm? If there is to be a test of the harm which is likely to be caused, should there be one test, or different tests for different categories? What should the test or tests be?
Who should decide whether the tests have been met in a particular case—a Minister, as the Government proposed in their 1979 Bill, or the courts or some other body, as my noble friend's Bill proposes in effect?
Should there be any difference in the liability of Crown servants and others? What defences should there be? What penalty is right for this offence?
All of those questions are difficult. The Government have approached them in the light of their experience in 1979 and of the discussions which have taken place since then both inside and outside Parliament.
There would be no point in the Government making proposals which there was every reason to believe that Parliament would find unacceptable. What the Government want is to put the question of reform of Section 2 to rest. We know that we can do this only if the new measure is seen to be reasonable. And we know that it is only worth doing if the new measure is going to be effective.
It must protect, and protect adequately, that information—and only that information—which cannot be disclosed without the risk of harm to the public interest. Only such information can properly be given the protection of the criminal law. Other information, which the Government do not want to disclose, must be protected by other means, such as disciplinary measures or the civil law. Much information, which at present is covered by Section 2—at least in theory—requires no protection at all.
That is the way in which we are approaching reform of Section 2; and if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not like it or considers that it is a filibuster, I am bound to tell him that that is what the Government are doing.
We have approached the issues with an open mind. We shall receive comments on our proposals with a similarly open mind. If people approach those issues from prepared and entrenched positions, and with assumptions about the Government's motives, then we shall lose the opportunity for proper and effective reform.
We all want to see the Official Secrets Act put right and to see it respected. We all know that there are certain matters which have to be secret; we all know that there are certain matters which need not be secret; and we all know that there are other matters which many people think should not be secret. We have lived with Section 2 for 77 years. It is time to replace it with better legislation but we must get the new legislation right.

1609
The Government intend to issue a White Paper and that will thereafter be open to public debate and criticism and to debate and criticism within Parliament. I believe that that is the right way. I have tried to explain the Government's position to your Lordships. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, does not like it, I am sorry but that is the position as the Government see it.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have spoken in this debate and in particular the two maiden speakers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Knights, both of whom gave extremely urbane and interesting speeches. My only regret is the fact that because these interventions were their first in your Lordships' House they were unable to go too far into the merits or otherwise of the Bill. However, I feel confident that as both have shown an interest in this matter they will be able to participate in a full and frank way when it again comes before your Lordships' House after publication of the White Paper, which I trust will be before the end of June this year.
I believe that my purpose in introducing this Bill has been satisfied. I hoped not to tilt at windmills or to score party points but to give noble Lords the opportunity of acquainting the Government with their views on this important subject which is now being discussed, as it has been discussed in the past, and on which in future weeks a conclusion will be reached in the most important areas where power is exercised and decisions are made. It seemed to me to be wrong for the Government's ideas to have been crystallised without the advice of your Lordships. I am very glad that so many noble Lords who have expertise in this matter took the opportunity and gave the Minister their advice. I have no doubt that it will be very carefully taken into consideration.
Perhaps I may say that I was a little disappointed that so many party political interventions were made. Since that happened, I should like to say that it is not just the present Government which, if one likes, have been a little slow in tackling the question of the reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who for some years held the position of Minister of State in the Home Office.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord is absolutely right.
Lord Bethell: Thank you. I am disarmed by the noble Lord's frank admission of that fact. When noble Lords opposite were in office this question could have been tackled. In my file I have, for instance, a particularly illiberal document on the matter signed by that great libertarian, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who made what I regard as very unenlightened decisions on the question of the protection of information. However, I do not think we need go too deeply into even the
1610
recent past and certainly we do not need to drag in the community charge, Mr. Ponting or Miss Massiter. I hope that we shall now be able to leave this House confident in the fact that the Government have taken our advice on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pressed me perhaps a little harshly—
Lord Bonham-Carter: Will the noble Lord give one reason why we should be confident that the Government will take our advice? They have not told us anything at all. Not one reason has been given saying why they object to this Bill. Nor have they given one indication of the way their mind is moving.
Lord Bethell: I can think of several reasons. This Government is the first government to have given an absolute undertaking with a time limit that they will bring forward proposals for legislation. That is more than the Liberal Party, which introduced the Official Secrets Act in 1911, has done or the Labour Party has done. At least under this Conservative Government, we shall, I am sure, get a Bill within a year, and that is more than noble Lords opposite have ever been able to say.
I was asked a little harshly, I thought, by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, what were my intentions as to the future progress of this Bill and I shall try to explain. Certainly, I should have liked to carry this matter forward and to see it have a Committee stage and pass through your Lordships' House. But I had to take into account the feeling in the House. The feeling in the debate today was largely supportive of the ideas I have put forward, but I ask your Lordships to look at the speakers' list. Of the 11 noble Lords who put down their names to speak, every one was from Benches opposite.
My own conversations and efforts in this matter have convinced me that there is a strong body of feeling on the Government Benches and among some noble Lords opposite that while many may see some merit in the Bill and many may think it a good idea that the matters have been aired—even my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that this did at least give the chance to noble Lords to contribute to the discussion—it would be otiose and time-wasting now, towards the end of April, for us to press on with a Bill which has not a snowball's chance in hell of reaching the statute book. For what reason? I understand that noble Lords opposite will say that it is in order to embarrass the Government, in order to bring out all the matters such as those the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, Lord Harris and Lord Mishcon have raised repeatedly, including Miss Massiter and Mr. Ponting, and a great and glorious time would be had by all. But that would not achieve the central aim of what I have been trying to do, which is to get a reform of the Official Secrets Act and to get a good law on the statute book. In my modest way I hope that this debate has contributed towards that end. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

British Waterways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.

  COMMON LAND: CONSULTATION PAPER
  COMMON LAND: CONSULTATION PAPER
  FARM WOODLAND SCHEME
  FARM WOODLAND SCHEME
  SECURE PLACES FOR OFFENDERS
  SECURE PLACES FOR OFFENDERS
  VHF: BROADCASTING SERVICES FEASIBILITY STUDY
  VHF: BROADCASTING SERVICES FEASIBILITY STUDY