Sitting of 25 April 1988

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

    Cefn Coed Hospital (Forensic Unit)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the establishment of a medium secure forensic unit at Cefn Coed hospital, Swansea; and whether he expects it to open on target in 1990.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The Department's initial suggestion that the medium secure psychiatric unit for south-west Wales might be located at Cefn Coed hospital is being reviewed in consultation with the health authorities most concerned. When all the responses have been received and considered a final decision will be made.
    Mr. Wardell: The Minister will know that the Welsh Office had agreed that the three units would be located at Cefn Coed hospital, Swansea, Bridgend and Cardiff. Why will the 750,000 people residing in south Wales presumably now be denied the response that the unit can go ahead in 1990? Is it not time that such a Cinderella service was not accepted by the Government, and that the unit was set up urgently at Cefn Coed?
    Mr. Grist: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that the programme was long overdue and that the Government should take credit for putting it in action at all. The fact that there is disagreement over the positioning at Cefn Coed was mentioned at the time of the original announcement. It is on medical and social grounds that the discussions have been taking place. We have had our report from West Glamorgan health authority and we expect the reports from the other two health authorities very shortly.

    Factory Units
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many factory units have been built by the Welsh Development Agency since its inception.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Since its inception the agency has built 1,466 factory units. That figure does not include the 186 factories purchased from Cwbran development corporation.
    Mr. Knox: How many factory units have been built each year, on average, since the present Government came into power, and how does that compare with the figure under the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Walker: As a rough approximation, under the present Government the annual rate has been more than double that under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Foot: I welcome the increase in the number of factories that have been coming into Gwent, for example. over recent months, and I see that the Secretary of State has been eager to give some publicity to that event. Will he take account of the fact that the increase in applications is partly because many of the industrialists think that the terms that they are being offered now are better than those that they will get later? Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that if after an interval of, say, three months—I am sure that that will be long enough—he finds that the figure is not being sustained, he will revert to the present system?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in terms of factory applications and factory building by the WDA, the programme for the next three years, including in his constituency, shows a substantial increase.
    Mr. Raffan: While there has been a warm welcome in north Wales for the massive increase in the WDA property programme, made possible by the Government, will my right hon. Friend take note of the need for a better balance in the number of factories between south-east Clwyd and north-east and coastal Clwyd? South-east Clwyd seems to be benefiting far more than the north-east and coastal parts of the county.
    Mr. Walker: I can only say that I am anxious that factories should be built and workshops provided wherever the need is. The WDA is endeavouring to do that throughout the Principality.

    British Coal
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met the deputy chairman of British Coal on 21 January. We discussed a range of issues relating to the south Wales coal industry. I also had talks with the chairman on 19 March.
    Mr. Griffiths: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he raise with him the callous disregard that British Coal is showing for five householders on the edge of the Margam deep mine site? Because British Coal continually denies that it is going ahead with that proposal, those householders' homes have been blighted and one householder has had to refuse a 90 per cent. grant because British Coal has refused to pay for the house once it has been improved, if it finally decides to go ahead with the mine.
    Mr. Walker: I shall be happy to convey to the chairman the detailed problems that the hon. Gentleman relates. I can only say that I hope there will be a quick decision on whether Margam is to go ahead.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: As my right hon. Friend is aware, whether the mine at Margam goes ahead depends very much on the attitude of the National Union of Mineworkers in south Wales. Has he heard anything from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about whether the Labour party is encouraging the NUM to agree to the proposal?
    Mr. Walker: Since the challenge by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the recent debate there has not been a word from the Labour party about its attitude towards Margam. I hope that there will be.
    Mr. Livsey: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he ensure that there is a proper balance between opencast mining and deep mining in south Wales? Will he also ensure that British Coal does not have plans to work deep-mine sites by opencast workings, thereby blighting the communities in the areas concerned?
    Mr. Walker: All applications for opencast mining must be accompanied by proper planning procedures, and I am sure that that practice will be followed.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When does the Secretary of State believe that the result of the public inquiry into opencast mining at Cheapside in my constituency will be made known? Is he aware of the widespread opposition to the proposal, and does he know that people in east Clwyd fear that they are to be subject to the increasing intentions and activities of the Opencast Executive? Will he examine these matters?
    Mr. Walker: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman when I can find any sign of when the decision will be made.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Margam project is being dangled before the people of Wales as if it were a puppet on a string? Is this not in line with the right hon. Gentleman's record as Secretary of State for Energy from 11 June 1983 to 12 June 1987, when he closed no fewer than 17 pits with a loss of 12,287 jobs—55 per cent. of the work force? In the past week south Wales has been reduced to a peripheral area. Does it mean that in taking up the position of Secretary of State for Wales the right hon. Gentleman has been appointed to finish the job of closing a great traditional Welsh industry?
    Mr. Walker: As Secretary of State for Energy, I did not close anywhere near as many mines in South Wales as the number closed by the previous Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman measures performance by the closure of mines, the Labour Government had a terrific triumph. Once more there has been an opportunity for the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench to give their enthusiastic support for Margam. May we please have a word from them? Are they in favour of Margam, or are they not?

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest hospital in-patient waiting list figures for (a) urgent and (b) non-urgent patients for (i) Clwyd and (ii) Wales.
    Mr. Grist: The number of people waiting for urgent in-patient treatment in Clwyd at 30 September 1987 was 383 and in Wales 3,596. The numbers waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment were 4,491 and 36,262 respectively.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister will no doubt remember his bungled pledge that by the spring no one in Wales should have to wait for more than one month for an urgent operation and not more than one year for a non-urgent operation? Will he renew the promise?
    Mr. Grist: Certainly that remains our target. It is being achieved. Opposition Members might like to learn that of 225 major in-patient lists in Wales, 85 per cent. are meeting the target waiting time of one month for urgent in-patient treatment and 73 per cent. are meeting the target waiting time of one year for non-urgent treatment.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not almost inevitable that with further advances in medical science new operations will become possible; and that the categories of urgent and non-urgent will become completely different?
    Mr. Grist: I cannot gainsay what my hon. Friend has said. Practice changes as improvements are made, and

    5
    patients do not necessarily have to stay in hospital for the periods that applied in the past, or at all, and unfortunately the cost of the various drugs and items of equipment continues to increase.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give his response to the criticisms that have been made by doctors who took part in the perinatal mortality initiative that was set up by the Secretary of State's predecessor in 1985? Nothing has been done to execute the recommendations that followed the initiative—22 months after they were submitted to the Welsh Office. It was reported in the Western Mail last week that Dr. Sandy Cavanagh, who was a member of the initiative, said that he found the delay of 22 months both amazing and actionable. What is the Minister's response to these comments?
    Mr. Grist: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has much to do with Clwyd or waiting lists. I can tell him that perinatal mortality figures in Wales have been reduced from above those for England to below those for England during this Government's term of office.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had messages of appreciation from constituents who have benefited from the Welsh Office's extra spending to reduce waiting lists, which resulted in South Glamorgan buying in heart operations from outside hospitals? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to achieve the Welsh Office's target of an increased number of heart operations?
    Mr. Grist: Yes. Of course, my hon. Friend will be aware that we are waiting for a final report from the Royal College of Physicians on cardiac provision in south Wales.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Has the Minister seen the recent report that, with 41 million days sickness recorded, Wales has the highest sickness rates in the whole of Britain—three times as high as the rate in England? Does he consider that at least one result—I do not say that it will be the sole or major result—will be longer waiting lists? Wales has a lower proportion of hospital beds than even Northern Ireland and Scotland. As a DHSS spokesman has said that he has no theory to explain the higher Welsh figures, and in view of the importance of the figures, will the Welsh Office take an initiative and establish an urgent top-level inquiry to determine what special factors are at work in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: The major step that the Welsh Office would claim to have taken in the recent past is the establishment of the Welsh Health Promotion Authority. Unfortunately, our lifestyle in Wales contributes to the sorts of death rates and some of the diseases from which we suffer rather too much.

    Rating Reform
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the financing of community councils in Wales after the introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has received several representations from and on behalf of community councils.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that councils, which are the elected bodies closest to the electorate, have a valuable role to fulfil, provided that they stick to the job for which they were elected? Does he agree that, in view of the changeover to the community charge, there is anxiety about the future of their financing arrangements?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are the local councils. They will be absolutely free to continue the role that they are currently undertaking. which is the provision of services for people in their localities. We expect that they will continue to do so, and that they will have no trouble in carrying out that task.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that 60 per cent. of the finance of community councils in my constituency comes from non-domestic rates? Does he agree also that, to help community councils in Wales, which he applauds —we all agree with him—it is necessary for them to have not only grant but part of the non-domestic rate income?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is following up a mistake that I thought had been corrected in Committee and in a letter to him on the difference between Wales and England in that respect. It is worth pointing out that community council spending per head of adult population in Wales is only £3·50. Of course, in many areas there is no community spending at all. At present levels, most community council charges would be under £10.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to announce a decision on his plans for new Welsh language legislation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I are now considering measures to promote and protect the Welsh language, details of which will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister tell the House why, following their consultation, which concluded on 31 March 1987, on the draft Bill that was proposed by Lord Prys-Davies in another place, and by myself here, the Government have still not published the detailed representations that they received? They have not even shown the balance of opinion in favour or against the new legislation. As they have held the consultations, is it not high time that the results of those consultations were made public?
    Mr. Roberts: We have made known the results of that consultation. They were inconclusive, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is why my right hon. Friend set up a group under my chairmanship. It has met three times and has given constructive thought to the problem. My right hon. Friend has also met representatives of various Welsh language bodies. We shall publish the representations that were made during the consultation. We shall certainly make them available after we have finished working with them.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Those of us who support the view that the Welsh language and culture should be encouraged in every way are worried about the

    7
    law-breaking activities of some members of the Welsh Language Society. Does my hon. Friend agree that they do nothing to help the advancement of Welsh in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: Law-breaking activities by members of the Welsh Language Society, or any other body, are counter-productive., Law-breaking activities only create antipathy and diminish the goodwill that exists in Wales towards the language.
    Mr. Heffer: As somebody who studied the Welsh language during the evening at the Liverpool university extra-mural classes and as a member of the Welsh Labour History Society, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what efforts are being made to encourage the study of the Welsh language in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in England?
    Mr. Roberts: We certainly encourage people from England to visit Wales. We extend a warm croeso to them when they visit Wales. It is a fact that among the most ardent Welsh learners these days are people from England who have come to settle in Wales.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether among the proposals that he is considering there is a suggestion that parents should have a statutory right to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh, should they so choose?
    Mr. Roberts: I am not prepared to comment on the details of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are considering. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the new place given to the Welsh language in the national curriculum and of the steps that we are taking by the establishment of a Welsh language subject group. We announced the name of the chairman last week and we shall be announcing the membership shortly. There will also be a curriculum council for Wales. Welsh will be a foundation subject, which means that it will be available to all children in all parts of Wales, except where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State grants an exception.
    Mr. Flynn: The survival of the Welsh language is a continuing miracle. It is a great treasure that we all hold in trust. It is also the most dangerously divisive and explosive issue in Wales. The window of opportunity for legislation is now wide open. This year, for the first time this century, the National Eisteddfod is coming to the most Anglicised part of Wales—Newport. This would have been inconceivable 21 years ago, which was the last time that the House legislated on the language. We must now seize the opportunity which is provided by the evidence of goodwill towards the language from all parties and areas of Wales. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not delay until they are pressured into action, as they were on the fourth channel? They should build now on the burgeoning, but perhaps fragile, goodwill towards the language by acting swiftly to secure the health and survival of yr hen iqith.
    Mr. Roberts: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench, and I welcome also his tour de force in favour of the Welsh language. He referred to legislation and, of course, it is easy to cry for a Welsh language Act. It is not so easy to say what might or should go into it. As the hon. Gentleman appears to be committing the Labour party to legislating—I hasten to
    8
    add that there is no commitment on the Government side —perhaps he will let us know what the content of any Bill might be.

    Personal Debt
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to tackle the problem of personal debt in Wales and to ensure that adequate services of money management, advice and debt counselling are available to families and individuals in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently made clear to the hon. Gentleman, a great deal of advice and help on debt problems are already provided free of charge by citizens advice bureaux and other organisations. Funding from my Department is provided under the urban programme to a number of organisations of this kind.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Secretary of State accept that the question that he has not answered is what steps he intends to take to tackle the problem, in view of the greater intensity that will hit us as a result of the Government's legislation on social security? Will he accept that the replies to similar questions that have been given by the Secretary of State for Social Services and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has a responsibility for trade and industry, have been woefully light and inadequate? The only remaining possibility of help for people in Wales on this desperately serious problem is for the Secretary of State to take some positive action. Will he answer more affirmatively about what he will do on this matter?
    Mr. Walker: As I mentioned, one of the main sources of advice are the citizens advice bureaux. I am delighted that Government funding of those organisations has more than quadrupled during the period that we have been in power.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does the Secretary of State support the advice of his other Ministers that elderly people in communities such as mine should go further into debt either to pay for their hip operations or to cover the losses in benefit and rate rebate that the Government are now imposing?
    Mr. Walker: I do not believe that any such advice was given.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Secretary of State proud to be a loyal, long-serving, unprotesting member of a Cabinet which, to save £13 million in Wales, has told the poorest people in our second poorest region that they must go without necessities, take loans from the Department of Health and Social Security, beg from charities or throw themselves on the mercy of loans sharks? Will he give his view on a piece of advice that was given? Does he echo the Prime Minister's advice to a 73-year-old Welsh woman that she should take out a bank loan?
    Mr. Walker: I am delighted to support a Government who, unlike the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a junior Minister, are spending 42 per cent. more in real terms on the National Health Service and doing far more for education and for pensioners. I find the right hon. Gentleman's hypocrisy staggering.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the Secretary of State to withdraw the word "hypocrisy" which he levelled against the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Walker: I withdraw the word "hypocrisy" and substitute "surprising".

    Gwynedd Health Authority
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Gwynedd health authority; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Gwynedd health authority on 8 March this year. The authority's financial position and the formula used in determining resource allocations in Wales were discussed.
    Dr. Thomas: The Minister has suggested that the meeting did take place. Is he aware that today that health authority is due to come to a crucial decision about the future of hospital services in five hospitals in the county of Gwynedd, one of which directly affects the Nant Conwy area, my own constituency and that of his hon. Friend the Minister of State? Will the Minister tell the House whether, when the decision is taken by the health authority, the Welsh Office will ensure that the views of the local population, strongly expressed during the consultation process against any reduction in hospital services, will be considered fully by the Government? I appreciate that the Minister cannot state that he will oppose these closure proposals, but if he can say that those views will be taken into account, that will be appreciated by the communities affected.
    Mr. Grist: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that if there is disagreement on any decision made by the health authority on the programme that it is facing it will, of course, come to the Welsh Office for one month, during which time we shall be open to any representations.

    Rogerstone Power Station
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the likely effect on jobs and the environment of the reopening of Rogerstone power station.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I understand that negotiations between the Central Electricity Generating Board and a private power company are at an advanced stage. Employment at the power station will be a matter for the prospective purchaser, who will, of course, also have to adhere strictly to the environmental regulations and controls that apply to power stations.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware that hundreds of fine local homes are now in the front line for pollution from gases, carcinogens, wind-blown dust and 24-hour noise? Does he not agree that reopening Rogerstone could destroy more jobs than it creates and blight the Newport jobs build-up? New high-tech jobs are coming to Newport in great numbers because it is a good place to work and live. High-tech firms do not sit comfortably as neighbours with mucky, old, heavy industry. Will the Secretary of State promise to bring his
    10
    influence to bear to stop the reopening of Rogerstone, which could be a planning atrocity and an act of industrial vandalism, the like of which we have not seen for decades?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will not be taken as an attack on coal-fired power stations, because if they are the National Union of Mineworkers will be interested in his observations. Of course, any power station would have to adhere strictly to the environmental regulations and controls that apply to all power stations. Most of the power stations in this country are coal-fired and I am surprised at the sort of attack that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Would my right hon. Friend use the word he used earlier to describe as surprising one of his Front-Bench colleagues if he were to come forward with a policy of attacking job opportunities in his constituency? Is that appropriate for a Front Bench spokesman? Should we not approach all job opportunity proposals positively, in the interests of further reviving the economy of Wales?
    Mr. Walker: All job opportunities must be considered in terms of their total impact. Obviously, for a power station, environmental regulations and controls are of considerable importance, and they will be imposed.

    Home Improvement Loans
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Welsh housing of the proposed removal of tax relief on house improvement loans.
    Mr. Grist: A married man on average earnings will be paying nearly £5 less per week in income tax as a result of the changes announced in the Budget. This will more than offset the tax relief attracted by the average home improvement loan in Wales. I do not believe that the removal of this support will have a significant impact on repair and renovation.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister not ashamed that there are now a record 20,000 homeless families in Wales, that the housing conditions in the Cynon Valley are among the worst in the United Kingdom and that the removal of tax relief is regarded by all building societies as a major disincentive to people wishing to improve their homes? What evidence has he that there is widespread abuse, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged in his Budget speech, and that home improvement loans are being used in Wales to buy cars and second holidays?
    Mr. Grist: I was not aware that the hon. Lady thought that there was any great difference between Wales and England in these matters, but if she has any evidence of that, obviously we shall be interested to see it. She mentioned a whole raft of matters in her statement. It is interesting to note that the Cynon Valley home improvement agency is being established rather late in the day by her council with a considerable degree of help from the Welsh Office, which has been molly-coddling and helping her council for some time, as she knows.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not astonishing of the Minister to assert in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that there is no difference in this matter between Wales and England? He quoted the average earnings for the United Kingdom. Our earnings

    11
    are substantially lower. He, more than anyone else, should be aware of the quality of Welsh housing compared with English housing and, therefore, of our greater need. Was that not an astonishingly complacent and ignorant reply?
    Mr. Grist: The whole reason why the Government have quadrupled the amount of home improvement in Wales is that we recognised those faults, which, apparently, were overlooked by the Labour party.

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital beds there were in (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd in May 1979; and what is the current number.
    Mr. Grist: The average daily number of beds available in 1979 was 3,052 in Clwyd and 23,456 in Wales. The number available in 1986 was 2,769 and 21,686 respectively. The numbers of patients treated, however, was 47,741 in Clwyd and 349,695 in Wales in 1979, compared with 57,519 in Clwyd and 433,870 in Wales in 1986.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister ensure ugent and decisive action regarding the need of patients in Clwyd to journey to England for radiotherapy and other cancer treatments? Does he understand the distress and worry for families as well as patients who must undertake these journeys? May I tell him of an elderly constituent who finds the journey costly and distressing, and who would like to be treated in his native Deeside? Will the Minister take urgent action?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Welsh Office is indeed looking into the whole provision of cancer treatment in north Wales, for the reasons that he mentioned. We are aware of them.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister explain how, in making a speech in Builth Wells in my constituency last Friday, he said that the National Health Service did not require any more public funding, when in the same week Powys health authority announced the closure of 26 beds in St. David's hospital? Has that something to do with the formula associated with the number of private beds?
    Mr. Grist: I think that it is worth pointing out that Powys health authority in-patient throughputs, both urgent and non-urgent, meet Welsh Office targets. That is a matter for congratulations. What I said was that it was not necessary to throw more money around to achieve better efficiency. We must get more efficiency out of the money that we already spend.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that hospitals throughout Wales will be greatly helped by the most generous increase in nurses' pay that was announced last week? That increase contrasts with a cut in the real take-home pay of nurses under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Grist: Indeed. The pay award means that expenditure in real terms on the Health Service in Wales under this Government has increased by more than 42 per cent. Nurses were not the only people to suffer under the previous Labour Government. Administrators, clerical grades, doctors and dentists also suffered cuts in real pay.

    Health Authorities
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities; and what matters he hopes to discuss.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I will be meeting the Welsh health authorities' chairmen's committee on 14 June. An agenda for our meeting has not yet been fixed.
    Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Government have stated, time and time again, that they are committed to the principle of community care, but they have never made the resources available to match that commitment. When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities, will he discuss with them the implications of the Griffiths report in England, which calls for greater partnership between social services dept and health authorities?
    Mr. Walker: We have been discussing community service health board chairmen, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: When the Secretary of State meets the chairmen of the health athorities, will he raise with them the problems of the delays in cervical smear testing and the reporting of the results? I have received a letter from a nurse in Whitland in my constituency. She expresses the concern and anxiety of many people at the three-month delay at the local hospital between carrying out the tests and reporting the results. The nurse points out that that delay can be the difference between life and death.
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman would care to send me the correspondence that he has had from the nurse, I shall certainly look into the matter.
    Mr. Raffan: Although I warmly welcome the nurses' pay rise and the Government's decision to fund it in full, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of medical laboratory scientific officers, whose pay increased by 5·6 per cent. less than the rate of inflation between 1 April 1979 and 1 April 1986? Will the Government reconsider the possibility of including them in the pay review body?
    Mr. Walker: Nurses were specifically included in the pay review body primarily because of their agreement that they would not be involved in strike action. I am pleased to say that as a result of that, and the actions of the review body, a staff nurse today is receiving 110 per cent. more in salary than when we came into office.

    Forestry
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what acreage of land he proposes to approve for afforestation during the current year.
    Mr. Peter Walker: There is no fixed programme of new planting in Wales. The level of planting will depend on a number of factors.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that Wales is making more than its fair contribution to British forestry policy? Will he confirm that there are some 10,000 hectares of land that have been cleared for afforestation in Wales, but have not yet been planted? In

    13
    the light of those figures, how can he possibly justify refusing to extend to the areas of high environmental value in the uplands of Wales the same measure of protection as his counterpart in England has given to the English uplands?
    Mr. Walker: It is not a question of the same measure of protection. In reality there is a considerable difference. There is little conifer planting in England, and it is a different scene from Wales. A number of hon. Members are aware of the requirements of the substantial paper industry in Wales and of the importance of ensuring that a future supply of conifers in Wales. Every decision will he taken after fully considering the environmental interest.
    Mr. Chapman: I recognise my right hon. Friend's great interest in arboricultural matters. Will he confirm that there is a need in the Principality, as there is in England, for sensible lowland broadleaved woodland planting schemes as well as the coniferous upland afforestation?
    Mr. Walker: I welcome the new grants that have been provided, as I believe that they will provide a number of opportunities in the lowland areas of Wales for better planting of broadleaved trees.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an inherent conflict in his role as national parks and agriculture Minister and that of forestry Minister? Therefore, does he accept that it is high time that afforestation in the national parks were subject to planning consent in the normal way?
    Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the environmental and forestry considerations in the balance that I must strike. I know of no great criticisms. We wish to retain the beauty of the national parks and to have a successful forestry and paper industry in Wales. I think that both can be achieved.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions he has met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the future of rail services in the Principality.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met Sir Robert Reid on 5 February 1988.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State agree that major issues such as the Channel tunnel and electrification of the south Wales line are not just operational matters for British Rail but could have major implications for Wales? Will he intervene with British Rail, first, to ensure that the opportunities presented by the Channel tunnel are fully grasped and, secondly, to press for the electrification of the south Wales line?
    Mr. Walker: Sir Robert Reid is enthusiastic about the prospects of British Rail in Wales, and I am delighted to say that he is entering into specific consultations on how we will benefit from the Channel tunnel, how it will be handled, the improvement of passenger services and the improvement of surburban services from the valleys. Many actions are being taken, and British Rail is taking a positive view.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Thomas Cranmer (Anniversary)
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Commissioners are taking to support celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Cranmer.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Commissioners have at present no plans regarding such celebrations.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind that Thomas Cranmer was the architect of the Prayer Book, and that the Prayer Book is the birthright of the reformed Church of England and the bedrock of its doctrine, will my right hon. Friend encourage those responsible to ensure that the anniversary is observed? Does he agree that the refusal of the Post Office to issue a commemorative stamp is hardly an auspicious start?
    Mr. Alison: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that plans are afoot, through Lambeth palace, to mark this important anniversary.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Commissioner make representations to the Post Office to get it to reverse its decision? Given some of the events that the Post Office commemorates with stamp issues, should not this rank high on the list?
    Mr. Alison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do my best to make effective representations through the proper channels.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Although I believe that Cranmer came down on the wrong side of the fence—or perhaps I should say stake—would it not be as well, in this anniversary year if his splendid prayers and collects were studied by the Anglo-Americans, who shamefully mistranslated the Latin rites into banal English, and by those to whom will fall the task of revising them?
    Mr. Alison: I shall weigh carefully what my hon. Friend has said on a sensitive area of possible division. He will recall that Cranmer coined the phrase "the Church militant"—before the word "militant" took on a more political connotation. I am confident that the Church militant will prove to be the Church triumphant, unlike the Militant Tendency.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am all for commemorating Archbishop Cranmer's birth, but what about Bishops Hooper, Ridley and Latimer——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Thomas Cranmer.
    Mr. Banks: My point is that they all suffered similar fates. Indeed, if they had burnt a few more Ridleys, we might not have had the poll tax Bill. The Bishop of Durham should be grateful for the fact that the Prime Minister does not have the powers that Queen Mary had in 1555. If she had, the pungent smell of roast cleric might be wafting up our nostrils now.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to show that the Church Commissioners are not 100 per cent. supporters and admirers of Thomas Cranmer. The hon.

    15
    Gentleman will recall that during his primacy he presided over the redistribution of the Church's assets after the dissolution of the monasteries. The Church Commissioners at least would have been much better off today had it not been for that royal diffusion.

    "Faith in the City"
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much will be spent by the Church Commissioners on the Synod project related to "Faith in the City"; what proportion of the total expenditure this represents; to what areas of lay and spiritual activity the money will be allocated; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The Measure enabling the Church Commissioners to make grants to the Church urban fund was approved by this House on 12 April and will be considered in another place tomorrow. If the Measure receives Royal Assent, the Commissioners will make a grant of £1 million from their surplus income in 1987 and will consider repeating that in 1988 and subsequent years —£1 million represents 0·6 per cent. of their expenditure in 1987. The money will be used by the trustees of the fund to support the Church's work in urban priority areas.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need for a massive Church effort in rural areas, where vicars sometimes have to look after as many as 10 or even 15 parishes on their own? They feel that their efforts and their parishes are funding the "Faith in the City" effort. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that a special effort is made to get more clergy into the countryside as well as into the towns, and that rural clergymen are given their share of concern?
    Mr. Alison: I assure my hon. Friend that the Church Commissioners do. indeed, contribute to other deprived areas, including rural deprived areas, through other sources and by other means than contributions to the Church urban fund. That substantial contribution to other areas, including rural areas, will continue.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Sitting Times (Costs)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the cost in overtime, other payments and overheads of sittings of the House beyond 10 o'clock for each year from 1958 for which records exist.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The responsibility for overtime worked by House of Commons staff lies with Heads of Departments. Authorised submissions to the Fees Office for payment of overtime, while specifying the duration of the extra work, do not indicate the time covered. The information is, therefore, not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Member answering for the House of Commons Commission go away and try to get some accurate information? He will be aware, as will you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1945 only two sittings of the House went beyond 12 o'clock at night, whereas the average is
    16
    now two a week. That not only entails massive costs but, reflects upon the Government's ability to get their business through—not just this Government, but others. Will the hon. Gentleman make recommendations on behalf of the House of Commons Commission to the Procedure Committee, when it is established, to ensure that proper overtime payments are made, that the costs to the House are reduced and that hon. Members can get on with their job at a seemly hour?
    Mr. Beith: Having served on Procedure Committees that have made recommendations on this matter, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but the job of the Commission is to ensure that the decisions that the House itself makes to sit late are implemented with satisfactory staff support, for which proper overtime payments are made.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the hon. Gentleman get the statistics for the costs of keeping open the many bars in and around the Houses of Parliament, particularly the Press Bar? Does that involve a cost on the House? Is the taxpayer having to subsidise it to keep the journalists here after hours? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could address himself in particular to the Smoking Room, where most of the Tory Members do their boozing, and check on journalists, many of whom used to inhabit such places but for some reason do not any more, who write articles about it.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting matters, but his questions about the profitability of the various bars will have to be addressed to the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether I am right in saying that considerable extra cost is incurred after 11 pm in providing transport for all the staff, who then go home by taxi, no matter how far away they live? If that is, indeed, the case, may we have the figures showing the additional transport costs for sittings that continue after 11 pm?
    Mr. Beith: I wondered whether my hon. Friend was going to offer lifts in his taxi. Provision is, indeed, made for late-night transport for staff who have to work beyond the times at which public transport is available. Whether or not the House sits late, some of that transport has to be used by staff whose work for the Official Report and on other duties continues after the House has risen. Additional costs are, of course, incurred when the House sits late.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Tree-planting Schemes
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to replace trees recently lost on their lands and to contribute to broad-leaved woodland planting schemes.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): In the areas affected by the October hurricane the Church Commissioners propose to undertake replanting mainly in the 1988–89 season. It is the Commissioners' policy to maintain and enhance the plantations on their agricultural

    17
    estates. They are considering the scope for establishing new broadleaved plantations in accordance with current EC and Government grant schemes and initiatives.
    Mr. Chapman: As most of the damage to Church property during the October hurricane was caused to trees on land owned by the Church Commissioners, my right hon. Friend's answer will be widely welcomed. May I commend to him that the Church plays an even more active part this year in National Tree Week, which is to be organised by the Tree Council in November, by going ahead with its replanting schemes on a massive scale during that month?
    Mr. Alison: I note with appreciation my hon. Friend's comments. He may like to know that the Church Commissioners planted over 10,000 trees in 1987. Because of the damage caused by the hurricane, we expect to plant a great many more.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Procedure Committee
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recommendations of the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament have not been brought before the House for decision.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Four reports of the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament have not so far been debated or implemented. They are on the allocation of time to Government Bills in Standing Committee; short speeches, a parliamentary calendar, and on the use of time on the Floor of the House. A Government motion relating to the report on short speeches is at present on the Order Paper, and I hope that this can be decided upon by the House in the near future.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Lord President aware that in addition to the report on the ten-minute speech rule there are a number of other items, such as the parliamentary calendar, drawn from outstanding reports and including such matters as the timetabling of Bills, which many hon. Members think it is important to debate? When will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on those and other outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee, and what is his projected date for the establishment of the new Procedure Committee so that new Members in particular may make clear how they regard the rules of this club?
    Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, as I said on Thursday, I hope to be able later this week to table a motion setting up the new Procedure Committee. The hon. Gentleman asked about the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee. I am having discussions with hon. Members in all parts of the House about the best way forward. The Procedure Committee concluded, and I agree, that it would not be practicable or right to recommend radical changes that would be opposed by a large body of opinion in the House. Therefore, I am trying to get as much support as possible for change. I hope to arrange a debate in the near future.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Procedure Committee whether it would have agreed with
    18
    the Leader of the Opposition when he excused the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) who was thrown out of this House for interrupting Prayers, and when he said that he understood the hooligan antics of his hon. Friend when they disrupted the proceedings during the Budget which caused the sitting to be suspended? It seems that the Leader of the Opposition has changed his mind recently about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) although his Whips, of course, two of whom abstained, did not do so. In the past, of course, the Leader of the Opposition has supported many of these antics.
    Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the Procedure Committee will be set up with general terms of reference. It will be open to the Committee to choose the subjects that it wishes to discuss, and it will be open to any hon. Member, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or my hon. Friend, to give evidence to the Committee if he wishes to do so.
    Mr. Heffer: In relation to the timetabling of Bills, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many hon. Members, when they first come to the House, are full of enthusiasm for getting home at midnight, if not earlier? When they have been here some time they understand that. on occasions, time is the only thing that the Opposition have if they are to hold up and properly debate Government Bills. That goes for all Governments. Before rushing into the timetabling of Bills, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that some of us believe that the Opposition have to oppose Bills when they think that those Bills are wrong? If that means that sometimes hon. Members, and especially younger hon. Members, have to go through the night, that is what ought to be done, rather than tying it up with the Government and letting them get away with things.
    Mr. Wakeham: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that he is not accusing my or any other Conservative Member of trying to rush into changing the procedures of the House. I agree that proper discussion is necessary before we make radical changes to the procedures of the House.

    Visitors (Facilities)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received about facilities available to visitors to the House.
    Mr. Wakeham: In addition to two parliamentary questions, one from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and one from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I have recently received representations from two hon. Members concerning unrelated aspects of the provision of facilities for visitors to the House.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider improving arrangements for visitors queuing to get into the Strangers Gallery? If we are to have television cameras in the House, will he consider making available closed-circuit television in Westminster Hall for those who are unable to get into the Gallery?
    Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, we could consider that suggestion. However, first of all we must proceed with

    19
    setting up the experiment for televising the House, and the Select Committee is working on that at the moment. I think that my hon. Friend's suggestion could be examined, but it probably will have to wait until we have gone through the other processes.
    Mr. Cryer: Could not facilities for visitors be improved? People come from all over the country, they are often tired and hungry, yet the only facilities available are the Strangers' Cafeteria and the Members' Cafeteria, where hon. Members are limited to three people per Member——
    Mr. Skinner: It is two now.
    Mr. Cryer: I understand that it is now two visitors per Member. Can we make some useful innovations, such as turning the Royal Gallery into a lounge for visitors—the people who pay for this place—and provide cafeteria facilities there, instead of allowing their Lordships a handful of lounges in which to lounge around, and ensure that the public, instead of the geriatric wing down the corridor, get the facilities?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have a feeling that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to improve the facilities for visitors in the House he has not suggested the most easy and practical way to make progress. In a recent written answer I told him that the existing facilities of the Palace of Westminster are already full to capacity and that no other suitable accommodation is readily available. The situation is unlikely to change until after extra catering accommodation becomes available in the new building. At that time the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee may wish to give the matter further consideration.

    Terrace (Catering Facilities)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the catering facilities on the Terrace of the House; at what cost to public funds; what the subsequent availability and capacity of this facility will be; what functions are expected to be held there; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission have approved in principle the provision in 1989 of a replacement tented pavilion of approximately the same dimensions as the existing facility. The relevant Services Sub-Committees will continue to monitor plans for this redevelopment and no final decision will be taken until a detailed and fully-costed feasibility study is available for consideration.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great pressure from the House and from the public for the facilities on the Terrace? Will he seek to make available all-year-round catering facilities to hon. Members, to which members of the public can come if invited?
    Mr. Wakeham: At this stage we are awaiting detailed proposals from the Catering Sub-Committee. It is aware of the pressure on the services that it provides, and no doubt will put forward relevant and interesting proposals for the Services Committee to consider.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House must be aware that we treat our visitors abysmally in terms of the
    20
    facilities that are available, because they are not able to take advantage of the few facilities that we have. Will the right hon. Gentleman look very carefully at a number of proposals that have been made to him, particularly the suggestion that Westminster Hall should be used during the summer? Westminster Hall is a huge, empty space and it is scandalous that it should be so under-used. Perhaps during the summer visitors could go there to get some refreshment.
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that to some people that might be an improvement in the situation, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that although the use of Westminster Hall might improve matters, it would also present practical problems. I am sure that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee could consider that suggestion.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Would not one way of improving the catering facilities and the general well-being of hon. Members be to increase the variety of bottled water available to hon. Members, particularly since before Easter we were told on the Floor of the House that, in addition to English, Scottish and French waters, we would also have Welsh water? Where is the Welsh water?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Lady. I like to drink Welsh water whenever I can. I do not know the answer to the question, but if she and I together make representations in the right quarter, we might he successful.

    Business Questions (Early-Day Motions)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he takes when early-day motions are brought to his attention at business questions.
    Mr. Wakeham: These are referred to the Minister with responsibility for the issue raised and any action that seems appropriate is taken.
    Mr. Dalyell: To which Minister did the Lord President refer early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273 and 286? As he was intimately involved, according to Mr. Peter Jenkins in his book, in all the crucial meetings concerned with how to deal with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on Westland, does he refer to himself—that would be a problem—or does he refer to the Prime Minister? If he refers to the Prime Minister, what is he going to do about her organised mendacity on the subject?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that phrase making an allegation against an individual Member of the House, to wit the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Dalyell: Then it must be a shameless lack of candour.
    Mr. Wakeham: It may be a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, but when he asks supplementary questions these days, what he says does not come as a great surprise to the Minister at the Dispatch Box. Thus, most Ministers come, like myself, prepared to answer his supplementary question with the phrase, "I have nothing further to add."

European Fighter Aircraft
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the European fighter aircraft.
In the summer of 1985, we agreed with the German, Italian and Spanish Governments on the essential characteristics of a European fighter aircraft, or EFA, and on arrangements for a phase of project definition to explore the technical content and cost of a programme to develop such an aircraft. Project definition has been completed successfully, and the four nations have now to decide whether to embark on full development of the aircraft. I am very pleased to say that the Government for their part have decided to do so, subject of course to similar affirmative decisions by our three partners, which I understand should be made shortly, and subject also to final negotiation of acceptable contractual terms and conditions.
EFA is needed by the Royal Air Force to replace its air defence Phantoms and ground attack Jaguars at the end of their lives and to complement the Tornado F3 air defence aircraft. The Warsaw pact is well equipped with modern high performance fighters, and an agile aircraft with the characteristics of EFA is essential to maintain effective air defences beyond the late 1990s. EFA will also have a secondary ground attack capability.
The specification for EFA which has emerged from project definition has been rigorously and realistically examined in comparison with a number of possible alternatives. After an exhaustive investigation, I am in no doubt that EFA is the best and most cost-effective option to fulfil this essential military role. The prime contractors will be the Eurofighter consortium for the aircraft as a whole and the Eurojet consortium for the EJ200 engine. British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce respectively will play key roles in these consortia, drawing on invaluable experience gained during the experimental aircraft programme and the XG40 engine demonstrator programme, both of which have been partly funded from the defence budget. Overall the United Kingdom will have a 33 per cent. work share in the development of the aircraft. This will open up major opportunities for British industry, and I estimate that the development task alone will give direct long-term employment to between 3,000 and 4,000 people in the United Kingdom.
The cost to the United Kingdom of full development will he some £1·7 billion. This will be accommodated within the planned defence expenditure totals published last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The EFA programme is of vital importance to the United Kingdom aerospace industry. Although the technology involved is highly advanced, it is based on concepts proven during project definition and by the various demonstrator programmes to which I have referred. We have insisted that the prime contractors accept a very tight commercial package and the contracts that we are drawing up will place the technical and financial risks firmly where they should be, on the industrial consortia rather than on the Governments. All subcontracts for the aircraft's equipment will be subject to competition.
22
EFA will fulfil a vital defence need in the best and most cost-effective way. It will continue the trend of successful European collaboration in aerospace. It will ensure that our industry remains in the forefront of this technology to the end of the century and beyond, while ensuring the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. I commend the Government's decision to the House.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's statement, after all the doubts and delays of the past, will be greeted with some relief within the Royal Air Force and in Britain's aerospace and defence industries. There will also be relief that on this occasion at least the Government have been forced to support British and European industry and technology as they did not do in the case of Nimrod and Westland. What will be the total cost to Her Majesty's Government of the whole project? take it that the £1·7 billion will not be the project's total cost. What will be the unit cost per aircraft to the United Kingdom?
Will the Royal Air Force get the 250 aircraft that it needs? Will the Secretary of State give the House that assurance? How many aircraft will be ordered by our European partners? We need to know that, because it affects the budget and unit costs. As the defence budget is under so much pressure, what projects will be cancelled and what commitments dropped to pay for the costs of this aircraft? Clearly, in view of the Government's nuclear obsession, no nuclear project will be dropped or cancelled.
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable public concern as to whether he and his Department are capable of managing such a complex project in view of the appalling record of successive Tory Defence Ministers on early-warning aircraft, radars, torpedoes and missiles and including the appalling record of the Secretaries of State for Defence since 1979? Will he now satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the House that he has the will on this matter to put his own house in order and not waste even more taxpayers' money?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for this decision. I agree that it is good to feel that the project is coming under way. The total cost has still to be defined absolutely, but I would expect it to be of the order of £6 billion to £7 billion when it is completed. There is no change in the United Kingdom's declared production offtake, which remains 250 aircraft. It is too early in the project to forecast with certainty the eventual size of the United Kingdom purchase, or indeed, other partners' purchases of EFA.
It is inevitable when anything is spent on defence that something else must make way for it in the programme. However, after exhaustive discussion, I am certain that this project is affordable within the defence budget. As a matter of interest, it is likely to be considerably cheaper than the Tornado programme, which we are already accomplishing successfully.
The right hon. Gentleman shows some courage in raising the management of those projects. As he knows, we have followed a policy over the past few years of a major change in the procurement process under the leadership of Mr. Peter Levene and the Procurement Executive. In the type of project that we are drawing up nowadays—EFA, is a typical example—the responsibility is placed firmly on the main contractor. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to my mentioning that all the cases that he

23
has cited of things that have gone wrong involved, in almost every case, contracts placed and drawn up under the previous Labour Administration which we have had to put right.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend extract more amusement or derision from the spectacle of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the Labour party Front-Bench spokesman, trying to disagree with a decision with which he really wants to agree?
Secondly, would my right hon. Friend not agree——
Mr. Bob Cryer: How much is the right hon. Gentleman going to receive from British Aerospace?
Mr. Tebbit: Nothing is the answer to that—nothing.
Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that on this occasion the British Government are taking their decisions on a major international project in a timely fashion, which enables us to lead rather than be dragged along behind?
Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I was somewhat relieved to find that the right hon. Gentleman supported this project, as he has not supported any of the others that have come forward recently. As for timeliness, I also agree with my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that, having made our decision, we should make that fact clear, as I am sure our partners will greatly appreciate Britain's leadership in this important European undertaking.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The progress being made with the project is good news for European defence and European co-operation. When does the Minister hope to have affirmative decisions from the other countries involved?
Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Having been in touch with all the other partners, I am confident that they will be making their decisions within the next week or two and that we may therefore expect firm decisions from them all in the near future.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. friend agree that this decision will be particularly welcome to British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, in that he has today announced that they are expected to be in the lead in respect of two essential aspects of the aeroplane? Does he further agree that his announcement brings to an end a period of uncertainty to which a material contribution was made by the constant poor-mouthing we heard from the Opposition Front Bench time and time again, when they seemed to be the only people willing to oppose the project?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. So much gloomy speculation is made in advance of the facts of such matters that it can discourage people. I pay tribute to the way in which British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce not only kept themselves working hard on the project but put a considerable measure of their own resources into it; they will feel very pleased with today's decision.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the French still have any interest in this aircraft and whether, if they decide to renew that interest, he will ensure that they will not receive quite the bargain they seemed to be pursuing a year ago?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not exclude the possibility of other countries joining or rejoining the project. I am bound to say that its form is clearly defined and I would not wish to interrupt its progress by any such negotiations. As for France, we are in close touch with the French in respect of many procurement matters. If at any point we can usefully collaborate with them, I should certainly be prepared to discuss that possibility.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the international procurement machinery which produced the Tornado was widely regarded as unnecessarily large and bureaucratic? What action will he take to prevent that being true in respect of the new project?
Mr. Younger: I have heard such views expressed at times, and I know that my right hon. Friend knows a great deal about that matter. We will try to avoid any features of the Tornado organisation that were unduly bureaucrat-ic. However, it is worth recording that the Tornado project was outstandingly successful and has produced an aircraft which, almost without doubt, is the best of its kind in the world.
Mr. Brynmor John: The Minister will know that the unit cost will depend upon each country taking the number of aircraft in which it declares an interest. Any comparison with the Tornado and its unit costs must also depend on the numbers being taken up. What contractual provision is there for tying each country firmly to taking the number of aircraft that they say they want?
Mr. Younger: There is no procedure in existence to tie any of the countries to a future decision at the time of the next stages. This is not the stage at which we decide precisely how many individual aircraft each country will order; it is the stage at which we decide together to go forward, on the basis of the numbers already declared, to the full development stage. When the next stage is reached, each country will make its own decision, in the same way that we will.
Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the importance of promoting successful European co-operat-ion, can the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about the cost effectiveness of the EFA project? Will he confirm that, if research and development costs are taken into account, the unit cost of the project will be in the region of £36 million? How does that compare with the likely cost of the alternatives?
Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman will, I think, appreciate, we would never discuss unit costs of an aircraft of this sort publicly, for obvious reasons. I can tell him, however, that the greatest possible care and effort has been made to compare all the possibilities, including any aircraft which are available elsewhere and which could play a comparable role. I am absolutely satisfied that the proposed EFA is the most cost-effective way of meeting the threat that we are likely to face.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this project and on the 33 per cent. share, which will be welcomed by the hundreds of British Aerospace workers in the military aircraft division in Lancashire. Following his comments, I hope that he can confirm that we shall now see an end to the speculation from the Opposition that is sowing doubts in people's minds. Can he also confirm that this finally means the end of any involvement of the French as a major partner in the project?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that all those concerned in the various British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and many other factories in British industry will take this as a very encouraging development. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that those who have seen fit to cast doubts on the likelihood of the project's proceeding will now feel that they were wrong.
As for the work share, I believe that, together with subcontracting and business for many firms of all sizes, the project will employ many thousands before it is finished. In answer to my hon. Friend's question about French participation, we would always be willing to collaborate with France in any parts of such a project, but I do not think that at this stage we will wish to interrupt the progress of the four-nation plan to bring in another partner.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State recognise the potential importance of the project to Ferranti? Does he also acknowledge that, if we maximise the direct and indirect benefits of the work to British industry, it is vital that the high-technology contracts go to indigenous European consortia, rather than to foreign-based multinationals?
Mr. Younger: That point is certainly very much in our minds as these matters are decided. Contracting for the EFA, for all sorts of reasons, will clearly be on a basis of the best bid being accepted, but I am glad to say that British companies are well represented in all the alternatives.
Mr. Michael Jack: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will receive grateful thanks for his warmly welcomed announcement by my constituents who work at the military aircraft division headquarters of British Aerospace at Warton, in my constituency. Will he tell us whether he will now urge the other partner countries and the United Kingdom Government to pursue every export opportunity for the European fighter aircraft?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has played a prominent role in pressing for the aircraft. I am sure that he feels very glad about the decision.
As for export opportunities, we certainly hope—all the partners hope—that by the mid to late 1990s there will be a considerable market for this type of aircraft. We also hope that the EFA will be very well placed for overseas sales.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The costs per unit will ultimately depend on the market. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell what market assumptions are made about purchases by our partners and, indeed, by third parties?
Mr. Younger: That will be a very relevant consideration when we come to the necessary decision about production
26
investment. So far, we have concentrated on ensuring that the staff requirement for the EFA suits our own needs, and we believe that it will also suit export needs.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend's welcome announcement is an endorsement of industry in Britain, and a commitment to the defences of Britain and of NATO. The Jaguar and Phantom aircraft will require replacement in about the mid-1990s. Is the EFA project on line and on time for that?
Mr. Younger: Yes, I can confirm that we aim for EFA to come into service in the late 1990s, which should be just about the right time. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that it is because we have extremely capable industries in Europe, which can without any difficulty or doubt embark on such a complicated project, that we are able to make progress of this sort. I think that it is very important from the point of view of Eurospace industry that the project should be successful and I am sure that it will be.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the definition of the plane include evading radar, in which case, would it not be cheaper to buy single-engined Cessnas of the type that flew into Red square in Moscow and to put the investment into civilian aircraft, in which this country is lagging behind, to the extent that British Airways is almost totally dependent upon Boeing? Why are those huge sums so readily available for such a project when the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards committee had the greatest difficulty in applying their technology, for example, to kidney machines? Why cannot the National Health Service, education and social services have that sort of money put into them to create jobs?
Mr. Younger: I am sure that people in British industry who are hoping and expecting to get a lot of work for many years out of the project will note that the hon. Gentleman is pretty hostile to the whole idea. With regard to spending the money on other things, I do not see a great benefit in having the most marvellous kidney machines or whatever in this country if the country is unable to defend itself when it needs to.
Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will greatly reassure many of us in the north-west. Will he outline the mechanism for work sharing that will be used on the project to reflect the number of aircraft that each nation decides to buy, when it decides to buy them and, more specifically, to reflect the occasions when a country such as ours finds exports on its own? That country may find that, if there is a set percentage from the outset, a lot of the work is carried out by other member countries.
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about work share. At present, we are talking about the work share in the full development phase. That is based on the declared numbers now, which gives the United Kingdom a 33 per cent. share of the work in that full development stage. In future, when we come to decisions on production investment and the production stage, the work share will be defined on the basis of the aircraft ordered. One of the great benefits of such a collaborative effort is that, in the overseas sales, all the partners benefit from the production of the aircraft. That is why costs are containable in this high-technology project. It means that

27
everybody benefits from the export sales made, although the country that does the exporting has a greater benefit than any other.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind the fact that subsequent business today is under a guillotine. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4 o'clock and then move on.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept the key importance of the project for the regional economy in Britain, in the areas that are dependent upon the aerospace industry? In designing the project, has he had an opportunity to study the regional implications throughout Europe of such public procurement decisions, which will be important for job opportunities in many European regions? Will he address himself to the question raised by the official Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), about the defence role of the aircraft and confirm that the aircraft is to be involved in conventional, non-nuclear activity?
Mr. Younger: On the regional implications, we expect each member country to have its own policies on those matters. As far as we are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the British aerospace industry is fairly well spread throughout the country, and various policies have been followed to try to spread it more widely. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the contracting of the project will be spread throughout the European industry. I think that that is the main reassurance that he needs.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Does my right hon. Friend remember that only a few months ago both the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) went to Bristol and one or two other aerospace constituencies in an attempt to frighten constituents into voting Labour, on the basis that the project would be cancelled? The lie has now been given to their rumourmongering and attempt to frighten.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the EJ200 will be available for the first production unit of EFA, or will an interim engine be used in the meantime?
Mr. Younger: I note my hon. Friend's initial remarks. It does not surprise me in the least to find that scare stories that are not based on fact can be dealt with easily by him. It is clear that those concerned listened not to the other advice but to his advice, which is right.
I understand that good progress is being made on the EJ200 engine. A decision will be made fairly soon on how long the interim engine solution will last before the main proper engines can be introduced.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State gracefully admit that the Opposition have always seen the need for this role and that every Labour Member representing a constituency in the east of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), in whose constituency Ferranti is, have approached management and Ministers about the project? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by
28
"best bid", which is the phrase that he used in answer to my hon. Friend the Member the Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)? Will this take into account the real needs and overheads of research and development, since Ferranti has been a world leader in this area of technology?
Mr. Younger: We take into account the bids that are submitted in the round. We do not necessarily consider only price. We take into account what is put into the bid, the technology and the reputation of the firm that lies behind the bid. Having said that, we look also for the best bid that we can get.
It is fair to say that Opposition Members have frequently advocated projects such as the EFA, and have done so genuinely. The trouble is that they seem to forget that when voting for huge reductions in the defence budget and advocating the abolition of the Defence Sales Organisation. What they say to constituents is sometimes not compatible with what they say in Parliament.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public generally and those in the Royal Air Force especially will see the EFA as another example of the Government giving the RAF the aircraft that it needs to carry out the tasks that it has been assigned? Many of the comments coming from other quarters will be seen for what they are—scaremongering and nothing to do with reality. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the RAF will be delighted that the prime contractors will be responsible for the jobs as assigned?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that the RAF is unanimous in the view that the EFA is the right aircraft to meet the threat that it, the RAF, will be required to meet. That is an important factor in considering whether it is right to spend the sums that will be involved on the project.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is considerable doubt among the public generally and those who are knowledgeable about the defence industry about the competence of the Ministry of Defence to manage projects such as the EFA? To plead in aid one individual—Peter Levene—does little to allay this fear. It will continue unless there is a clear sign that the Ministry is to be strengthened.
May we have some assurances about the response of the Secretary of State and representatives of other Governments who are involved in the project to overtures that are likely to come from the United States that it should be a partner in the project?
Mr. Younger: As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), we do not exclude the possibility of other nations participating in this programme. We shall be prepared to discuss that if any proper proposals are made to the partners on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the contracting problems of the Ministry of Defence. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who knows more than most about this subject, that any observer will know that a number of serious things have gone wrong with contracting in this areas in recent years. Any serious observer will agree, however, that major steps have been and are being taken to put matters right, and that the new forms of contract, of which the EFA is a clear example, do not have in them the bad features of the old contracts which led to cost

29
overruns. It is my determination to try to ensure that in contracting practice from now on there will be much less likelihood of any overruns of the sort that we have had in the past.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this project above all it is essential to ensure that the radar equipment and all the electronics are supplied by British and other European contractors and not from across the Atlantic?
Mr. Younger: I hope that all these major items will be supplied with the maximum participation of British firms. I cannot give a blanket guarantee that, whatever the bids that are put in, British firms will have preference over all others. Above all, we are looking for value for money and the best hid, taking all factors into account. I am sure that that is the right way in which to proceed and to avoid cost overruns of the sort that have occurred in the past.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the statement, but was my right hon. Friend surprised to hear the Opposition refer to difficulties with torpedo programmes? Will he confirm that, when the Government took office, they brought the Sting Ray torpedo programme under control——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made a statement on the European fighter aircraft.
Mr. Brazier: —and ensured that it would be the best of its kind in the world?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps I tended to be rather too kind to Opposition Members by not rubbing in too much the fact that most of the sad failures in procurement policy were contracts engaged in during their time in government. But I do not make too much of that.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister take this opportunity to refute the untrue allegations made by
30
Conservative Members that we have opposed the project? If any confusion has been caused, it is because of the Government's procrastination in making up their minds. That is why we welcome the fact that the programme is going ahead.
In his statement and in answer to questions, the Secretary of State said that the plane will come into operation in the late 1990s. On 8 December and 26 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that the plane would go into service in the mid-1990s. Are we to understand that there has been a five-year slippage since January, or is the plane due to go into service in the mid to late 1990s?
Will the Secretary of State be a little firmer on the radar issue? When will the suite for the aircraft be ordered? Will we be in the ridiculous situation that we were in with the Tornado and type 23 frigates? There was a first-class vehicle with no radar, no combat capability, and no command and control system, because of the Government's appalling mismanagement of our defence economy.
Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that his voice is the real one from the Opposition about welcoming the project. He should have a word with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who appears to he deeply hostile to the project. Perhaps I could leave it to them to sort it out between themselves. [Interruption.] No problem.
As regards the date, I said the mid to late 1990s. Perhaps I was being unduly cautious. I hope that it will be ready for service about the mid-1990s.
As I said earlier, when the Government decide which consortium is to produce the radar, responsibility will be firmly placed on one main contractor. It will be required to provide the radar to specification and on time before it gets paid. That is the incentive contract, which is our real security for procurement decisions from now on.

Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: May I raise a point of order that arises out of Question Time, Mr. Speaker? I understand that you called the Secretary of State for Wales to order because he used the word "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite". Of course, all efforts to raise the standard of language that is used by Ministers of the Crown are highly commendable; we understand what an arduous task you must have in that respect. But is your ruling unduly restrictive?
I recall a famous occasion—it was a bit before my time, but it happened in the House—when Mr. Lloyd George was dealing with the leader of the Social Democrats of the day, who crossed the Floor and assisted the Conservatives at the time. Lloyd George said that he objected not so much to his crossing the Floor but to the "slime of hypocrisy" that he left behind.
Ruling that out of order is a restrictive method of reply and use of language. There are many occasions, particularly when dealing with this Administration, when we must use the word "hypocrisy" to be accurate.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with the matter. I thought that I heard the right hon. Gentleman accuse another hon. Member of hypocrisy. That is unparliamen-tary. To use the word in a general sense would not be unparliamentary.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the matter of parliamentary language, it will be within your knowledge that, at 10 o'clock this morning, I asked the learned Clerk why, on Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to use the words "organised mendacity", why I was equally allowed to do so on Wednesday, and why, by Friday, the term had become unacceptable. Will you explain?
Mr. Speaker: I was not present at that time on Friday, but I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was in the Chair at the time, took the right decision in the matter.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a different point of order arising out of Question Time, Sir. In answer to question No. 3 today relating to the coal industry, the Secretary of State for Wales said that not a word had been heard from the Opposition Front Bench since certain comments made by the Minister of State in the Welsh day debate. My clear recollection is that, the day after that debate, in an attempt to divert attention from the humiliation that the Secretary of State suffered in the debate, he issued through Conservative Central Office a statement——
Mr. Speaker: There must be a point of order to me. The right hon. Gentleman must not seek to continue——
Mr. Williams rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not seek to continue Question Time.
Mr. Williams: This is a legitimate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Misleading the House, even inadvertently, is and always has been subject to a point of order. I have given you, Sir——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the right hon. Member that he is attempting a continuation of Question Time.
Mr. Williams: I am not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We had a long run on question No. 3. The final hon. Member to be called was from the Opposition Front Bench. If there was any misunderstanding or disagreement with what the Secretary of State said, he should have disagreed with it then and not now. I cannot hear a point of order on the matter. This is a continuation of Question Time. I call Mr. Madden.
Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. It is an attempt to continue Question Time.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that, on Friday, I raised with you an article that appeared in The Guardian that morning concerning the Economic League. At column 1100 of Hansard, you said that you would consider the article over the weekend. I thought that I should report to you and to the House that I contacted the Economic League this morning. It confirmed that it holds information about me——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman has written to me, asking me to look at it as a matter of privilege. He knows that he cannot now raise it on the Floor of the House. I shall consider carefully what the hon. Member has said in this letter that I have in my hand.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to the point of order that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), Mr. Speaker. I once wrongly said in the House that a Conservative Member was a "bloody hypocrite". I was quite rightly instructed by the Speaker to withdraw. I withdrew the word "bloody". I never withdrew the word "hypocrite". Why is it right for me to get away with the word "hypocrite" but not right for other hon. Members to say that somebody is a hypocrite?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the whole House will agree that we need to ensure that we do not allege any dishonourable motive of any kind on the part of an hon. Member. In answer to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I stated that it was perfectly in order to use the word "hypocrisy" in a general sense, but not of each other.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have received a letter asking whether privilege is involved in the Economic League's activities. Since Friday, the Economic League has been making further statements about hon. Members and the files that it keeps on them. The matter is important and urgent. It is clearly a serious attack on democracy in this country.

33
When do you expect to be able to report to the House on your deliberations on what appears to be a breach of privilege of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I received the letter just before I came into the Chamber. I have not yet had time to consider it.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you come to examine the article in The Guardian about the Economic League's blacklist, will you bear in mind that to appear on the Economic League's blacklist—I am mentioned in the article as being on the blacklist because I went to Chile —s for some of us a badge of honour? Will you bear in mind also the separation between hon. Members, who cannot be harmed, and others who are not able to reply and whose job prospects may be adversely affected by that sort of conclusion?
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about "organised mendacity", Mr. Speaker, you said that the matter was dealt with on Friday by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I heard my hon. Friend, and I think that hon. Members should know, if they have not already read Hansard, exactly what he said, because it is important.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the matter was dealt with entirely correctly by the occupant of the Chair at that time. It is not for me to pass judgment on what he said on that occasion.
Mr. Skinner rose——
Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman on a matter that happened on Friday. He should have raised the matter then.
Mr. Skinner: But——
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance Bill
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 104

  POWER TO DESIGNATE AUTHORITIES
  4.10 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 57, line 10, leave out clause 104.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 158, in page 57, line 10, at beginning insert 'After 1st April 1995'.
  No. 159, page 57, line 11, leave out 'in his opinion' and insert
  "following a report under subsection (1A) below, he believes that—".
  No. 160, in page 57, line 16, at end insert—
  "(1A) Before designating an authority under this part the Secretary of State shall produce a report showing the extent to which the accountability of that authority to its electorate has been affected by the provisions of Part I of this Act.".
  No. 161, page 57, line 12, after second 'the', insert 'preceding financial'.
  No. 162, in page 57, line 19, after the second 'the', insert 'preceding financial'.
  No. 163, in page 57, line 33, leave out from 'and' to end of line 38, and insert—

  "(a) these principles shall be the same for all authorities;

  (b) these principles shall be notified to authorities by October in the preceding year.'.

  Dr. Cunningham: As the Bill stands, part VIII is entitled "Limitation of Charges Etc" and clause 104, the first clause in that part of the Bill, sets out the arrangements under which the Secretary of State for the Environment will have powers retrospectively to control, cap or reduce the poll tax of every local authority in England. Later on there is an exemption for authorities with budgets of less than £15 million a year. However, that is a sweeping. general central power given to Ministers under these proposals. Again, we see exploded the Government's claim that poll tax is a tool to make local government accountable to the electorate. Here we have the Government taking powers to ensure that, whichever way the electorate votes or whatever it decides about the local authority decisions in its area, the Government can countermand those decisions.
  Under these proposals, the Secretary of State will have the power to order councils to reduce the level of poll tax. even after they have started to collect it and have implemented a budget based upon it. That will not only add to the financial and administrative burdens placed upon local authorities, but will throw budget strategies into chaos and further increase the powers of central Government over those communities. The implementation of these powers will cause huge disruption, whenever and wherever they are used.

  35
  What is clear in this part of the Bill is that the poll tax is not about local accountability. It is about cutting the spending, the services and, above all, reducing the independence of local government yet again. We suspect that it is especially aimed at elected Labour authorities. Implicit, too, in those proposals is the idea that accountability is all right and will be satisfactory for authorities with small budgets of under £15 million. However, different parameters apply to authorities with budgets in excess of that arbitrary figure.
  The inclusion of these powers gives the game away. Repeatedly, the Secretary of State has said that the poll tax will improve accountability and the responsibility of voters. He has argued that more people will vote as a result of the poll tax. I hope that he is right at least in that aim. I want more people to vote in local elections. However, what is the point? The point is totally undermined by the fact that, however those people may decide to vote on the level of their budget or services, the Secretary of State is reserving the right to himself to change the implications of their vote, and he is doing so on arguments which, frankly, do not bear scrutiny.
  As the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has pointed out, community charges, which are to replace domestic rates, will change rapidly from year to year and will bear little relation to local spending. That has been pointed out to Ministers in Committee over and over again. Changes in grants and changes in the national business tax made by Ministers could, and almost certainly will, have serious repercussions on the level of poll tax. Again, we may see fluctuations and major changes which do not result from decisions taken at local level. Therefore, the ability of local authorities to adjust their income to take account of such changes is threatened by those proposals.
  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy also pointed out,
  "that community charges"
  —that is the poll tax—
  "will be heavily dependent on variations in population and changes in the Government's assessment of a Council's need. This will considerably weaken the link between charges and council spending."
  It has been pointed out previously that changes in spending, up or down, in local authorities can be affected by a variety of factors. They do not necessarily have anything to do with either competence, or, for that matter, incompetence, profligacy or efficiency. Changes in expenditure, up or down, are determined by a variety of often very complex factors and decisions.
  Let us examine the implications of all this in a little more detail. Councils normally begin working on their budgets in the autumn. They come to their budget-making meeting in the early part of the year. They announce their budget and they fix a poll tax by 1 April, which is now the legal requirement. Election campaigns then begin. Elections take place in the first week in May. After these elections, after an authority has set and announced its budget, fixed its poll tax, and fought and won an election —in other words, it has gained the approval of the voters —the Secretary of State decides that he will overturn the whole procedure. He decides to designate the authority under the provisions of clause 8 of the Bill. The whole thing becomes a farce. The determination of the budget,
  36
  the setting of the poll tax, the putting of all the arguments to the local electorate are all a farce, because Ministers can then overturn and undermine the whole procedure, which includes the decision of the electors themselves. That is done by enforcing a retrospective change in the poll tax and, therefore, in the budget and the programme of the authority. First, this is done in the name of accountability and, secondly, of improving efficiency.
  It beggars belief that these proposals can be put forward in that way, because they will do exactly the opposite. They will undermine accountability and they will cause disruption, inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the administration, not just of finances but, more importantly. of important local services. That was wonderfully summed up by the Minister for Local Government in Committee who, when talking about those powers, stated:
  "As I have already described, such procedures will enable us to use our charge capping powers to bring rapid relief to hard-pressed charge payers faced with excessive demands from authorities which, for some reason, seem quite irrationally to have no regard for the interests of their electors." [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 March 1988; c. 1484.]
  It is difficult to find a better example of doublespeak.
  The decision of the electors as recorded in the ballot box—presumably a decision that displeases the Minister and makes him decide to invoke his powers—is described by the Minister as
  "irrationally to have no regard for the interests of … electors."
  What if the electors have chosen an authority of their persuasion and a council programme to their liking? That can hardly be described as irrational. Voting for a council of their choice is the conscious decision of people in a democratic society—but not a bit of it under this Government because that choice can and no doubt will be cynically set aside by central controls as it has been under the rate-capping proposals. At bottom, the proposals are yet another major central power for Ministers over democratically elected local government. They give Ministers the power to act in defiance of decisions of the local electors and against their express wishes as recorded in a secret ballot.
  The Labour party is unwilling to accept such proposals or that such powers should be given to Ministers. That is why we have tabled the amendment to delete the whole miserable clause from the Bill.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Like the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I too am sorry that these provisions are in the Bill, but, unlike Opposition Members, that is not because I regard the provision as wrong, but simply because the antics of the lunatic few on the Left have made the clause necessary. We should focus on that. We should be sorry for the fact that the clause is here, but we should consider why it is necessary and, if the clause is ever to be deleted, we should focus attention on the fact that local government must try to put its house in order. If local government goes on making community charge capping necessary, that is real proof that we have weak local government in this country because, by definition, local government which does not co-operate with the Government of the day is weak. [Interruption.] I shall explain exactly what I mean in a moment.
  If one is to have a successful democracy in any country, one needs strong local government. I am not against strong local government but, because of the way in which it is behaving at the moment, I do not believe that it is

  37
  strong. The evidence about why the community charge-capping clauses are necessary is overwhelming. At the moment, at least 10 councils are overspending by more than £100 per head. Indeed, two are overspending by over £200 per head and one by the gross amount of over £300 per head. If such sums of money are charged over and above the average community charge in future, any responsible Government, of whatever political colour, is duty bound to act on behalf of the country as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) suggested that the clause may be aimed at Labour authorities. I hope that it is because that list of 10 councils which are high-spending are Labour authorities which must be called to account.
  Mr. Tony Banks: When is the hon. Gentleman going to get it through his thick head that one reason—the major reason—why Labour local authorities, such as the 10 that he is talking about are such high spenders is that they have the greatest concentration of need within their areas? Until he recognises that, I am surprised that he even gets up to make a speech.
  Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but when I examine the record and detail of those and other authorities, what I discover is gross inefficiency, gross mismanagement, and gross over-staffing. When such authorities put all those things in order, I will listen to the hon. Gentleman's pleas about money. In all these debates, and especially in this debate, the comments of Opposition Members are predictable.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to recognise that the Opposition are predictable. That is because we believe in people having the right to an unfettered democratic choice in local elections to elect the council they choose as being in their best interests without such draconian powers which, if the hon. Gentleman were describing them in eastern Europe, he would call Soviet.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am coming to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I am grateful to him for raising it so that we can talk about it in a minute. However, before I come to that point, I want to mention something else that the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks —that the clause gives the game away. Indeed it does, but the game that it gives away is that the Labour party has not the slightest intention of learning the lessons of the past; nor does it seem to have the slightest intention of co-operating. That underlines the fact that this clause is absolutely necessary because Opposition Members have given the game away about their future intentions.
  The opposition to the clause is predictable. It starts by saying that the provisions are a restriction of local freedom. They are not, and I shall explain in a moment why I take that view. It suggests that the clauses are not necessary if local accountability works properly. Earlier in the Report stage, I made the point that exemptions and rebates were not the avenue down which we should go. I believe that community charge capping is the quid pro quo for exemptions and rebates because it is they that undermine local accountability.
  The Opposition are revealing that they have a totally flawed view of the role of local government and an even more flawed view of local government's relationship with central Government. They are also revealing that, despite
  38
  harping on certain minorities, they intend to do their level best to ignore the need to protect the minority of voters in a Left-wing Labour authority. Such a minority needs thought and protection as much as any other minority.
  If one thinks through the real role of local government, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that community charge capping is absolutely inevitable. If one thinks about local government and how it arises, one realises that it comes from two different things. It comes first from a feeling of "localness"—I shall say something about that later—but also from the need to organise national services on a local basis. The first of those roles—the expression of a local view—is the truly local role of local government. with which no Government should seek to interfere. It is the second of the roles in which central Government becomes involved—the need to deliver national services on a local basis. Central Government must oversee that and can dictate its standards to local government.
  That point enables me to answer the point that the hon. Member for Copeland raised. Local government's form. powers and finances all derive from here in Parliament. If Government can define those things, Government can limit them; that makes community charge capping inevitable. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I should say that no party in this country believes that local government can be absolutely free of obligation. We in Parliament insist that local government must empty dustbins and provide free education for every child over the age of five.
  Would the hon. Member for Copeland defend the ballot box locally if a group of local electors voted in a county council that was pledged not to provide education until children were six? Would the Opposition argue that that is a matter for the ballot box locally, or would they, like me——
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: If a group of councillors fought a county council election on the promise that they would provide nursery education for the under-fives and that resulted in a higher poll tax, I would defend it. That is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to stop today, but that is where there should he free choice. If people want to vote for free school education outside the statutory system, they should be able to vote for it. if they are prepared to pay for it. Yet that is what the hon. Gentleman will not allow.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Wilshire: That is a fascinating smokescreen. The hon. Gentleman's silence on my point proves exactly what I was saying, which is that the Labour party, like us, believes, properly, that there are certain things that Parliament can force local authorities to do, such as educate everybody over the age of five. That is absolutely right. All parties believe that there are some things that local government must do. Equally—this is the other point behind the smokescreen—every party has several things which it believes local government should or should not do, with which other parties disagree.
  Instead of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) lecturing me on education and the under-fives, let us consider grammar schools or parents and children being able to opt out. If I understand Opposition Members, they would compulsorily require local government to get rid of grammar schools and they would prevent parents from opting out of the state system.

  39
  That is the Labour party, properly, choosing its policies. But equally it must be absolutely right for the Conservative party to decide what it believes is a priority, and it wishes local government to behave responsibly on finance. Faced with the evidence of local authorities not behaving responsibly, this party believes that it must act.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: My local authority has never been rate capped in the nine years of this Government. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that its decision to expand nursery education in the past eight years is wrong?
  Mr. Wilshire: I cannot think how the hon. Gentleman reaches that conclusion from what I said. That is not the point. If, while acting in a financially responsible way, a local authority wishes to exercise discretion and go beyond its statutory obligations, that is a matter for it. I am merely arguing that there will come a point beyond which a local authority cannot go.
  The Conservative party is saying that financial responsibility is a key element in strong local government. That is why, at the beginning of my comments, I said that at present we have a financially irresponsible group of councils which are therefore democratically weak. If we can establish strong finances, it then lies with the Government to provide limits, and those limits will be enforced through capping. That is proper and inevitable.
  The limits are set in four ways. Central Government have no choice but to take into account the national economy. When 27 per cent. of public expenditure is spent by local government, no central Government in Whitehall can ignore it. If several local authorities intend to flout the interests of the national economy, capping becomes absolutely inevitable and is absolutely right. The same is true for the local economy.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked me about local discretion on nursery education. That is all very well, but the spending power of the local community must be taken into account and the council must not take more than the community can afford to give. One must accept that if a borough has a vastly high community charge, it will drive people out selectively.
  Mr. Barron: Is that not a matter for the community that elects people to local councils, and not for the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Wilshire: No. As I said earlier, there is the question of a minority. The Labour party is for ever lecturing us about its views on minorities. In return, I must point out that, if a Left-wing militant council is trying to soak the local community, there comes a point when somebody must stand up for the minority who are being asked to pay vastly excessive charges.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my local authority, Calderdale, which has not been controlled by Labour since 1974, two years ago had the second highest rate rise of 41 per cent. when it was run by the Conservative party? That was because the rate support grant had been cut from 85 per cent. in 1979 to 54 per cent. now and it had absolutely nothing to do with a Left-wing Labour council.
  Mr. Wilshire: There are authorities and authorities. I am delighted to say that my borough council this year has reduced its rate by 73 per cent. and is providing better services than ever before. But if we bandy about the figures of small authorities, where will it get us?
  Opposition Members will be relieved to hear that this may be the last speech that I make on Report, but I shall not stick to that intention if they bait me much further.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have been following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully and if I understand it rightly, having found it, the hon. Gentleman believes that the mandate given to central Government is stronger than that given to local government, so central Government have the right to overrule local government in the interests of the people of that area. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the other side of that logic—that if central Government of a different colour decide that a local authority is not maintaining services to a required standard, they can direct local government to spend more on those services by virtue of the same sort of mandate?
  Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman follows the argument through, he will find that if it is right for Parliament to decree the dustbins shall be emptied and that the over-fives shall be educated, then it is proper for Parliament to decide that the over-fives shall be educated. Naturally—that is the role of central Government. As I said earlier, local government arises from two wholly separate areas: the local feeling of differentness and separateness, which cannot be fettered, and the national provision of services on a local basis. A Government must involve themselves in that latter area.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do to protect minorities who vote Labour in areas where mean-minded, miserly, Tory councils are elected which do not provide adequate social services and many other services? Will he also protect the rights of those minorities?
  Mr. Wilshire: One of the best ways to protect any minority in a local community is to have a well-run Conservative council.
  I suspect that this will be my last speech on Report, if I reach the end of it.
  Mr. Jerry Steinberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year the highest rate increases are in Tory-controlled authorities? For example, in Gillingham in Kent the rate rise was 42 per cent., in Melton in Leicestershire it was 41·2 per cent., in Suffolk Coastal it was 39·1 per cent., in West Wiltshire it was 41·4 per cent. and in Brentwood in Essex expenditure over target was 282 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that those local authorities should be rate capped?
  Mr. Wilshire: It occurs to me that perhaps an adjournment would be in order so that the Labour party can present one script. On the one hand we are being told that Parliament should increase the base services that must be provided and on the other that we should not spend money to provide them. That is a fascinating argument against itself.
  Mr. Richard Holt: When considering the point that the percentage increases may have been large, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that my constituents in

  41
  Middlesbrough pay the highest rate poundage in the whole country—282p in the pound? Although this year's rate rise in percentage terms is small, it is penal.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is why authorities with small budgets arc exempted from these clauses. The real risks to local and national economies come from the huge spending authorities which spend vast sums rather than from the small ones, many of which were on that list.
  We are debating this clause for one reason only, and that is the antics of the militant few. Without them this clause would not have been necessary. The Labour party has made the whole Bill necessary and has made community charge capping necessary. Sadly, I see no chance or intention of the Labour party changing what it has done in the past. If its current campaign of misinformation and calls to defy the law are anything to go by, the Labour party has no desire to help, and no chance of helping anyone. All it will do is harm services both locally and nationally. All it will do is damage local government and make it weaker than it is at the moment. Worst of all, if it persists in this manner, the Labour party will undermine democracy in this country.
  Mr. David Bluakett: If anyone is undermining democracy it is those who have contempt for the electorate. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has spelt out—as have Ministers in Committee and in the House—the way in which he believes that choice should be available only if it conforms with his opinion. Nothing but contempt is displayed by using words such as irresponsible, irrational and excessive when talking about the right of people to vote to choose the level and quality of service that they wish to have.
  The Bill and clause 104 illustrate admirably the duplicity that exists in the thinking and attitude towards the poll tax. Only a week ago in this House—one can read this in Hansard—the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "Everyone should have the right, through the ballot box, to influence the level of service that is provided and the price that they must pay through their taxes. That is the essence of accountability and of responsible democratic control of the services provided by local authorities"—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol.131, c. 582.]
  I cannot think of anything that undermines the principle laid down by the Secretary of State more than the idea of the icy fingers of poll tax capping.
  The notion that people can choose what they want so long as they are not able to vote to spend the money to provide for their choice is not only duplicity, but runs extremely close to absolute contempt for the representative democratic system of our country. The Government, having taken control of the unified business rate, having changed the proposals in the Bill—as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said—regarding the distribution and organisation of the grant system so that equalisation between communities and the way in which we can protect those that have a low resource base is destroyed, and having lifted central control to 75 per cent. of all local government spending, now propose to lift it to 100 per cent.
  When the Rates Act 1984 was debated, statements were made that were similar to those made today by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The Government spoke about minorities being oppressed by the majority. They talked about people who lived in the high-rated areas of particular authorities having to pay for services voted for
  42
  by those who did not pay or, according to them, did not pay sufficient into the coffers. They talked about people needing to feel the pain of expenditure on the services that they received. They devised a tax that they claimed, in its early stages, met the criteria that everyone would pay something and that people would feel that they were paying towards the expenditure on the services that they received. The Government went further and called that tax a charge that would be levied on the services delivered to the people who had voted for them.
  Today, as at other times, we have reflected on the Prime Minister's decision, announced in October—it was not in the manifesto—that the Government would not allow people to vote for what they believed to be right and that they would not allow them to raise money to spend on services, but that the Government would do a double somersault—described by the current Secretary of State for Education and Science as intellectually unjustifiable —and bring in poll tax capping.
  The last vestige of justification in terms of making people pay for what they vote for has now been stripped away. The poll tax capping reveals the Bill for what it is —an attempt to undermine and dismember the whole concept of public services. People will be told that they have one choice only—the choice of the market economy. People can do what they like, say what they like, think what they like, but in the end they will get what the Conservative Government believe is right for them.
  Imagine if someone went into a supermarket and chose from the shelves the long-lasting, high-quality, value-for-money goods that they are willing to buy rather than cheaper goods that they saw on the shelves below. Just as they reach the check-out counter, however they hear over the Tannoy the voice of the matron or the sneer of the bully who suddenly steps forward and says, "I'm afraid you may have decided that that is the produce you want, but we have decided otherwise. In this supermarket you buy only the discredited and low-quality goods that we have decided are good for you."
  4.45 pm
  What sort of society would we be faced with if, instead of announcing that one could not buy the goods that one wanted in that supermarket, there was an announcement over the Tannoy that it was a BUPA market where one could have only the quality of health care that one could buy through private insurance in the private market? Imagine if it was announced over the Tannoy that people had to have private schooling, that people had to have private old people's homes and that the only choice was the private choice of private privilege. That is what is offered in the Bill.
  The Bill represents a major dupe of the concept of citizenship and the concept of people choosing freely what they will and are willing to pay for the services that they want for their children, parents or themselves.
  We should be concerned not simply with exposing the fact that the poll tax is unfair, unjust and unequal—the House has debated that at length and many Conservative Members have voted with us. We should also expose, once and for all, the idea that the Government believe in diversity and in freedom of choice. We should expose the idea that the Government believe that people have the right to determine for themselves the quality, extent and quantity of goods and services that they wish. That principle has gone out of the window once and for all.

  43
  As the debate is being reported I hope that we can get over to people outside that others have been called irrational, excessive and irresponsible for wishing to vote for decent education, decent care of the old and the disabled. That is the biggest insult that the Government could ever give to the electorate. The electorate will give its answer on 5 May and at the general election.
  Poll tax capping should be the final nail that scuppers the flagship and exposes the bilges to the tide of public opinion. That public opinion will sweep us forward to victory and it will demonstrate that the nation rejects the concept and the principle behind the Bill.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Perhaps I could continue the parable told by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Say a customer goes into a shop and over the Tannoy to which the hon. Gentleman referred he is promised a certain type of goods. Let us say that the manager of that shop then changed the goods without notice and the customer walked out of the shop with totally different goods. That would be an extraordinary state of affairs and one would have thought that, in those circumstances, the customer should be protected.
  Let me illustrate what happened in my career. I was a member of the Greater London council and I fought an election in May 1981 against Lord McIntosh. He put forward certain policies and was billed to the electorate of London as a moderate leader. Within 24 hours of his party being elected to power at the GLC, he was booted out by his party and within a year the electorate of London were faced with a 90 per cent. rate rise. Was that fair?
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Allan Roberts rose——
  Mr. Leigh: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
  Mr. Roberts: If the Prime Minister resigned during this Parliament, would the hon. Gentleman expect there to be a general election rather than for the Conservative party to choose a new leader?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lord McIntosh was booted out.
  Mr. Roberts: Well, what if the Prime Minister were booted out?
  Mr. Leigh: That would be completely different. In May 1981, the leader of the opposition on the GLC fought the election on a moderate programme and within 24 hours —not one, two or three years—he was booted out.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak in a moment and to put his gloss on the circumstances.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Leigh: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for old time's sake, if for no other reason. He knows that Lord McIntosh, as leader of the Labour party
  44
  in London, fought on an election manifesto that was inherited by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), when he took over as leader of the GLC. There was no argument about policies. It was simply a question of personnel. Let us get it straight. In this case, we are talking about policies, not personnel.
  Mr. Leigh: I am very fond of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but he knows perfectly well that the present hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) went round deselecting all of Lord McIntosh's friends. There was internecine war in the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman should ask Lord McIntosh what really happened when the moderates were kicked out of the GLC.
  If Opposition Members do not accept that argument, let me put it this way. When I was a member of the GLC, it was under Conservative control and Sir Horace Cutler often had to deal with a Labour Government. The Labour Government at the time insisted that they were the masters of macroeconomic policy. I remember Sir Horace telling a Conservative group meeting that he had just been to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—for something and had been told that he could not spend the money. Sir Horace abided by the decision because he accepted, as local government has traditionally accepted, that we live in a unitary, not a federal, state and that central Government have the right to lay down macroeconomic targets by which local government must abide.
  Although the Bill will ensure that, over time, local authorities will be more accountable to public opinion because of the new, more sensible rate support grant, because of the introduction of the community charge, which many more people will pay, and because of the introduction of the new business rate, we must legislate against a recurrence of what happened with the GLC in May 1981. That is especially true of the transitional period, during which an authority may use the transitional arrangements to impose excessive demands on community charge payers before it becomes truly accountable under the system. The capping power is a reserve power that will be used only rarely, but it is an essential safeguard that the Government must leave in the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: One can always tell when the Government are short of support: the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) come to their aid. I am never sure whether it advances their cause. Many members of the Government will be horrified to read what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said today. I wrote down this sentence: "Non-co-operation with central Government is in my view the sign of weak local government." He believes that local government must be the lackey, whereas our tradition is that local government is a separate——
  Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. That is what the hon. Gentleman said and I wrote it down as he said it.
  Mr. Wilshire: I did not use the word "lackey".
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should read Hansard. I have quoted what he said.

  45
  The amendment shows the hollowness of the Government's argument. Amendments Nos. 157, 158, 159 and 160 deserve our support, and when it comes to the Division in half an hour I and my colleagues will vote for them. I am not so sure about amendments Nos. 161 and 162. They provide that, under poll tax capping, we would retain the system of rate capping, which means that authorities would be capped after the event. I see some logic in intervening in the relevant year rather than the subsequent year. To give an obvious example, my colleagues in Tower Hamlets thought that it was unfair that their rates were capped as a result of decisions taken by the previous Labour administration, which was entirely different politically. I accept the argument for that system being changed.
  Instead of listening to the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Gainsborough and Horncastle I would rather listen to experts whose views on local government are objective, not subjective. When the Minister announced poll tax capping in the autumn, the lead article in the Local Government Chronicle said this:
  "Poll tax capping an illogical humbug.
  Local Government Minister Michael Howard has finally destroyed the Government's argument in favour of community charge. Since the proposal surfaced … assorted secretaries of state and ministers have been declaiming whatever technical and financial problems it posed, the community charge had one over-riding merit—it would ensure the accountability of councils by giving every voter a direct stake in financial decisions."
  Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. Other hon. Members wish to speak and we have only half an hour left.
  The system which the Government believe would make local government accountable has been proved to be defective. They must know that in their heart of hearts. The article in the Local Government Chronicle concluded:
  "To cap community charge smacks of dishonesty and selective vengeance."
  That is reminiscent of the debate in 1984 on rate capping, when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said:
  "I do not believe that these powers should be given to the Minister."—[Official Report, 17 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 188.]
  The former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Lord Rippon, said that the Bill which introduced rate capping was "deplorable", raised "major constitutional issues" and was a classic example of "elective dictatorship". When we reach the Division, I guess that it will be the fifth vote during the Report stage of this Bill when some Conservative Members will have the courage of their convictions and will vote against the Government's policy.
  The Minister made his case in Committee on 17 March —this deals with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle—when he said:
  "Over time, the system"—
  that is the poll tax—
  "will curb even a council which, ignoring the ultimate electoral consequences, irrationally embarks on a policy of excessive spending to the clear detriment of those whom it claims to serve. But the new system of local finance will not guarantee instantaneous relief from an outbreak of irrational behaviour where, perhaps to prove some kind of distorted political point, an authority decides on excessive spending policies contrary to all reason and to the interests of its electors. In such a situation the public will expect—quite
  46
  reasonably—that the Government should take some rapid action."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 March 1988; c. 1472–3.]
  That summarises the Government's patronising, derogatory and nannying attitude to local government. They believe that Whitehall always knows best. The Government realise that they are in trouble because of arguments similar to the one advanced by the Minister that day.
  I rephrase the Minister's remarks in this way. Over time, the system of poll tax will curb even a Government who, ignoring the ultimate electoral consequences, irrationally embark on a policy of excessive unfairness to the clear detriment of many of those whom they claim to be helping. The old electoral system does not guarantee instantaneous relief from an outbreak of irrational behaviour where, perhaps to prove some distorted political point, the Government decide upon an absurdly unfair taxation policy contrary to all reason and to the interests of all but their wealthy electors. In such a situation, the public—that is where the debate will go after today—will expect that anyone who can, including Opposition, Government Back-Bench Members and the House of Lords, should take rapid action. We have no doubt that they will. If only we had legislation to cap the Government when they embark upon Irrational, excessive policies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Decapitation."] Decapitation is an option, but it is slightly less likely to be produced.
  5 pm
  There are many other ways forward. The Government's folly is that they have not hearkened to advice from elsewhere. Instead of introducing masses of ever more complex legislation year after year in the search for a system that can be made to work, the Government should perhaps face up to what the Mail on Sunday recommended only yesterday and other papers have recommended before. The way to make councils accountable is to change the electoral system and have proportional representation for local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members say "Oh," because it would work, and they know that it would work; the only trouble is that such a system would not necessarily put as many of them into power as the present system. They are concerned not about local government working but about taking local government over.
  No doubt the Minister will have seen the Mail on Sunday editorial early yesterday morning. As he knows, that paper does not always come out on our side; on the contrary, it often comes out on his. On this occasion, it said:
  "The best solution for the Government is to cut its losses and plump, albeit through gritted teeth, for a progressive tax based as much on ability to pay as on demand for services. And if the Government is serious about making local government properly accountable to its electors, it should stop fiddling about with taxes and bring in proportional representation for council elections. Radical, brave politician though she is, has Mrs. Thatcher the courage to do either or, preferably, both?"
  We now know that if the poll tax comes in—it is a very big "if"—the Secretary of State will ensure that every poll tax payer receives an at-a-glance guide to council efficiency on the back of his poll tax return to show him how his council compares to councils around the country. What it will not show is what independent studies say will happen under the poll tax. As the Minister knows, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has

  47
  calculated that if the community charge had been in operation between 1986 and 1988 not one authority in the whole of England would have been able to claim that changes in its spending per adult had been met by comparable changes in its community charge. For 29 authorities, variations in grant in that period would have meant that, even where they had cut their spending, the community charge would have increased. For 21 councils, community charge would have gone down when spending went up. For 228 councils, the community charge would have increased when spending increased, but faster. There will be no direct accountability anywhere. There will be no direct match between what councils spend and the poll tax that they levy. Nevertheless, we are to have capping—on a blanket basis involving the application of uniform principles. That will ensure that, in the end, whatever council is elected and no matter how many electors vote —it could be 100 per cent.—the Government could still say, "We know best."
  The poll tax is meant to make local authorities accountable. We should ask, "Accountable for what and accountable to whom?" The Government have made their answer clear. The local authorities will be accountable not to their electors for carrying out the policies for which they have been elected but to central Government for administering central Government policies. If they do not do what central Government want them to do, they will be capped and given directions. For any democrat, the case against poll tax is overwhelming. Sadly, we do not have a Government of democrats.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I note that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has again stated his objection to rebates and to some of the exemptions included in the Bill. I would not accept any part of his analysis of the Bill, but no doubt he, as an honourable person, will be giving serious consideration to voting against Third Reading, as the Bill includes measures that he interprets as contrary to the principles of accountability.
  Given all the pressures and devices in the Bill to force authorities to act within given parameters, it seems strange that we should then have capping. The majority of people may have decided—perhaps very firmly—on a policy that favours services. Under this provision, however, the Government can insist that such a policy is not followed. My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) were here earlier. In their constituencies, there is vast support among working people for the provision of services. Even if 75 or 80 per cent. of the electorate vote in local government elections in favour of spending their own money collectively to provide services and do things that they could not do individually, they will be stopped by diktat of a Government who can claim only 42 per cent. of the votes. That is an obscenity.
  Some Conservative Members argue in favour of the Bill for the one simple reason that the proposal was included in their manifesto and that they must therefore stick with it solidly. I do not accept that argument. I ask them to consider what the manifesto said about the poll tax:
  "We will reform local government finance to strengthen local democracy and accountability."
  48
  The accountability argument has already gone out of the window over the question of joint and several liability. It goes out of the window entirely in the light of the poll tax capping provisions. Whatever local authorities decide to spend to provide services, they will be prevented from doing so. A local authority cannot be made accountable by being made to spend more money but only by being made to spend less.
  The manifesto continues:
  "Local electors must be able to decide the level of service they want and how much they are prepared to pay for it."
  The poll tax capping runs contrary to the manifesto commitment, which says that the local electorate must determine what services it wants and how much it is prepared to pay. I hope that those Conservative Members who stick with the rather simple notion that because the proposal appeared in the manifesto they must go along with it will take that on board, because we may then have some chance to do something about this obnoxious provision.
  Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wrote down what I said and then twisted it. I have written down what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said about manifestos, and I am anxious to check that I got it right. Was he saying that he does not go along with the idea of sticking with a manifesto?
  Mr. Barnes: What is a manifesto? A manifesto commitment means something if it has been fully and fearlessly discussed by the electorate—if it has been put in front of them so that they can make a solid decision about it. In the last election, that did not happen with the poll tax, except in Scotland, where the proposal was solidly rejected. I accept that, all other things being equal, hon. Members are committed to their manifesto proposals, but all other things are not equal in this case. The poll tax was not a major subject of discussion at the last election and other issues and values are at stake. Democracy depends not just on a document on which people have voted but on feelings, understandings, pressures and democratic pluralism in society.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman will not commit himself to what is, I suppose, in his manifesto, would he commit himself to Labour party conference resolutions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We must not stray into manifestos. The hon. Gentleman is getting somewhat wide of the amendment. I am sure that he will address himself to the amendment.
  Mr. Barnes: I shall return to the main attack.
  On Thursday we discussed contingency funding and grant provisions, and from the debate it was quite clear that the contingency fund provisions are not adequate. Problems have emerged about emergency expenditure and Parliament recently applied the Bellwin rules to expenditure on gale damage. That type of expenditure still requires local government money. The legislation will increasingly require the full amount to be met out of the poll tax provision rather than out of the unified business rate or from the grant provided by central Government.
  That situation will be made excessively worse by the introduction of poll tax capping. When an emergency arises, an authority will have to spend money out of the

  49
  poll tax provisions to meet it, but will then be capped. The only way in which it will be able to meet its commitments in an emergency will be by further cutting the services and provisions in its area. The Minister needs to answer that point.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I support the amendment. It is quite clear that this part of the Bill exposes the total hypocrisy of the Government. They have introduced the poll tax because they say that they want to make services more closely accountable to the electorate; then they come up with the proposal about poll tax capping.
  The Government want to set up a system of local government finance that creates maximum pressure for the reduction of local council services, and they have done that in three stages. First, they have created a penal and unfair tax system that puts caring councils in the difficult position of having to impose the tax or cut services. Secondly, the tax gives a financial incentive to people in need of local services to vote against them. Thirdly, via poll tax capping, the Government give themselves the power to impose service cuts on councils and electorates that have not been bullied into making cuts themselves.
  It is clear from the Government's proposed poll tax capping that they want to leave nothing to chance. The Government are not interested in local democracy because, ultimately, they do not trust the local electorate, believing that their judgments are preferable to those of local people elected to take the decisions. The Secretary of State has already given us his vision of what local authorities will be. He has said that they should meet once a year and should sit down and discuss the way that all the contracts for services are to be given to private companies.
  Then, in the words of the Secretary of State, the councils will retire and have a good long lunch. The Secretary of State knows all about good long lunches. I notice from the latest figures that the Department of the Environment spent £66,000 on official hospitality last year. Perhaps that is what the Secretary of State thinks local authorities should do.
  As I have said, this part of the Bill exposes the total hypocrisy of the Government. It will make the already difficult task of local authority treasurers in drawing up their budgets that much more difficult.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall be brief. I think that it is generally accepted that central Government are responsible for macroeconomic policy. However, there may be disputes in central Government about the efficacy of some aspects of macroeconomic policy. We have heard of a dispute between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the exchange rate. In the light of difficult decisions, that is perfectly understandable. It should not be in dispute that, if the Government are producing a poll tax in order to advance accountability, hon. Members and the electorate should be entitled to take them at their word.
  In a speech on 19 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment uttered some graphic words. He said:
  "One Labour pressure group described the Community Charge as 'a straightforward attempt to create conditions for taxpayers'revolts against council spending plans.'"
  I have no doubt that some Conservative Members would say, "Hear, hear" to that. The Secretary of State went on:
  "They've got it in one! Councils who are efficient and frugal have nothing to fear. But with Community Charge
  50
  figures in some areas of £500–£600, of course local people will rebel. They will rebel against profligacy and inefficiency and throw the guilty councillors out.
  The weapon of democratic accountability is a very powerful one for us Conservatives: use it. The message is: if you want a lower Community Charge—vote for it, and vote Conservative."
  What happens if people do not obey the Secretary of State? The answer is that the Government will need back-up powers. Such powers are in the Bill and in the Scottish Act because the Government are fearful of democratic choice. They ought to come clean about that. Accountability is not written in concrete. It will vary. People may have a different view of the need over a five-year Parliament.
  Mr. Martin Flannery rose——
  Mr. Douglas: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I intend to be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) wants to wind up.
  If the Government alone are to decide, then let us have all the elections on one day and have the matter determined for 10 years so that the Prime Minister can continue to make her way through the parliamentary and economic process. Flexibility and democratic choice mean that people will have differing views of what is needed in different areas. We must have regard to other areas of power and of feeling within the system. That is truly what the Tories fear.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): The debate on these powers has largely been a re-run of the debate in Standing Committee. There have been one or two changes in the cast, but on the whole we have heard similar arguments. We are delighted to see back with us after his illness the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Quite clearly his illness has done nothing to dull his appetite for controversy. I think that he was the only speaker to advance the arguments beyond those that were put in Committee. He introduced to the debate the metaphor of the supermarket which, as far as I can recall, played no part in the previous proceedings on the Bill. I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman make use of that metaphor because it shows that all that we have been saying about the importance of value for money in the provision of local government services is at last getting home to the Opposition.
  I do not think that the analogy was quite as compelling as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was. Of course, the relationship between the customer in the supermarket and the supermarket owner is not quite as unbridled as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. Transactions in the supermarket are always subject to the intervention of the trading standards officer, although I have to concede that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State probably does not often think of himself as a glorified trading standards officer.
  Mr. Blunkett: Does the Minister accept that if we have poll tax capping it is unlikely that the trading standards officer will any longer exist?
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept that anything of the kind is likely to happen.
  One of the newcomers to the debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), raised a

  51
  point on the basis of some of the calculations by CIPFA. The hon. Gentleman should know that those calculations are based on a projection of the existing grants system and include, among other features of the existing grants system, the penalty system, which, of course, will not be part of the new regime. If such calculations are based on the existing grants system, it is not surprising that the results lead to anomalies.
  We recognise that the existing grants system has instabilities that would lead to such results. That is one of the reasons why we think it important not to have that feature in the new grants system, but to have in its place a much more stable grants system that will enable people to assess to a greater and more effective extent the performance of their local authorities.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister cannot confirm to the House that there is any certainty or objective agreement that the new system will produce for each local authority in England a commensurate rise in poll tax with a rise in spending and a decrease in the poll tax with a decrease in spending. There is no guarantee that that would follow from this legislation.
  Mr. Howard: We are certainly objective. We intend to produce a given figure for a standard level of service, which will provide a ready reckoner on the basis of which people will be able to understand whether they are getting value for money.
  We have made it clear on more than one occasion that we see the capping power introduced in the clause as a reserve measure. It is not a measure to be used as a matter of course or in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). The people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose. Because of the greater accountability which the new system will introduce, all the people of the area will be paying towards the cost of the spending of that authority and no doubt they will take that into account.
  Nevertheless, there is a need for a reserve power to deal with the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). There is a particular need for a reserve power during the transitional period in those areas where there will be a dual system running, with a combination of the rating system and the community charge and where accountability will not be as clear as we should like it to be when the system is fully in force. It is important that there should be such a reserve power—rarely, if ever used we hope—to protect the charge payers of an area against extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible local authorities.
  All the evidence shows that, when the Government have intervened to extend such protection to ratepayers under the existing system, that protection has been welcomed by the people who live in the local authority areas concerned. We saw some of the results of that protection to the residents of Ealing during the election last year.
  Mr. Blunkett: How would the Minister respond to the fact that within three months of rate capping being levied in the city of Sheffield the Conservatives lost two seats in an area that they had previously held for 60 years? Is he aware that such a swing would ensure that if the hon.
  52
  Member of Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) were standing for election on 5 May he would lose his seat on Sheffield city council?
  Mr. Howard: We have to consider all the evidence. I do not suggest that it applies universally in all cases, but the evidence of the way in which people voted at the general election, when they had to decide between a Government who were prepared to extend that protection and a Government such as that who would be provided by the Labour party, which would abdicate all responsibility in those matters, shows that people have tended to vote, when they have had a real choice in those matters, for the party that would extend that protection.
  The Labour party promised in its manifesto that it would no longer afford such protection and that it would let local authorities spend to their hearts' content. That is an extremely irresponsible attitude and an abdication of responsibility in an important area in which central Government have a role and should continue to have a role. Because we recognise the responsibilities of central Government to extend protection in those extreme circumstances in which it is necessary to intervene on behalf of local people we wish to keep a capping power in the legislation.
  Mr. Rooker: The one thing which the clause reveals is the Government's total lack of confidence in their own legislation. I have faced incredulity when I have explained to people as honestly as I can—I have never been accused of not telling the truth about the Government's legislation —that twice as many people would be involved in direct payment, and that the Government's reason is that those people have the vote and that more people will be forced to vote because they will get a bill. Part of the theory is that people will have to pay for the consequences of the vote.
  I have explained all that, and I have then reminded people that when they have voted, knowing what the poll tax will be because the budget will be fixed before the election, and the party which wins has a higher poll tax perhaps because it wanted to spend more on nursery education—or, in county council areas, on introducing concessionary bus passes for old age pensioners—once the election is out of the way the Government can say, "Hang on. You have won the election and you were honest about the poll tax, but we do not like your poll tax and we are ging to use section 104 of the poll tax legislation to change it retrospectively." People just do not believe me when I tell them that, because it contradicts all that Minister have said about accountability and democracy. The arguments about universal accountability go straight out of the window.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No. The hon. Gentleman voted for the guillotine. We are to have a vote shortly.
  The clause shows the Government's lack of confidence in their own legislation. If they were to replace the clause, they could get around the problem that they do not trust the electorate. In London and in the shires councils are elected for four years and they do not have to face their electorates annually. The answer is to replace the clause with annual elections. We would vote for that. There would not need to be a vote, as no hon. Member would

  53
  oppose such a measure. The Government could have on the nod a Bill for annual local elections all over the country.
  That is Labour party policy. We have demanded it in the House and in Committee and we have published Bills, yet the Government are scared stiff to promote legislation for annual local elections. They would not even come to the House to force annual elections in metropolitan districts of the great cities such as Sheffield and Birmingham where in 1988–89 there is a gap because of the abolition of the metropolitan councils. We want that gap closed and we want annual elections in those areas and for every local authority. That is the way to bring about accountability and democracy in local government, instead of undermining those on both sides of the political divide who go into public life to serve their fellow citizens.
  What self-respecting person will go into local government knowing that all his decisions will affect only one quarter of local government expenditure after the Bill instead of one half before the Bill? Why should they bother when they know that, even for a quarter of local government spending, even if they fight an election and win, the Government can say, "We don't like your budget. Here is a new budget." They can do that not only in May or June after the election but in any month during the financial year. They can even come back the following January and retrospectively change the local authority budget for that year.
  That is absolutely outrageous. It has nothing to do with democracy or accountability. It has everything to do with Whitehall Ministers saying that they know best and absolutely nothing to do with the arguments that they put forward. It is against that background that we are opposing this clause root and branch.
  Local authorities are not, in the words of the Minister, spending any old money that they can get their hands on. They are spending money that they have raised, not Whitehall money. They put their budgets before the electorates and they won their elections on that basis. The Minister's argument that they have freedom to spend what they like is incorrect. Each one has to raise the money in advance of the elections, with a budget. That is honest and democratic. It is what accountability is about.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 314.

  Division No. 273]

  [5.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boyes, Roland

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Buckley, George J.

  Ashton, Joe

  Caborn, Richard

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cartwright, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clay, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blair, Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  54

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cox, Tom

  McAllion, John

  Crowther, Stan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McFall, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKelvey, William

  Darling, Alistair

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  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

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Fisher, Mark

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flynn, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foster, Derek

  Morley, Elliott

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mullin, Chris

  Galloway, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  George, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gordon, Mildred

  Parry, Robert

  Gould, Bryan

  Patchett, Terry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hardy, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Randall, Stuart

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Redmond, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Richardson, Jo

  Holland, Stuart

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Howells, Geraint

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ingram, Adam

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Janner, Greville

  Skinner, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Snape, Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Soley, Clive

  Kennedy, Charles

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lambie, David

  Stott, Roger

  Lamond, James

  Strang, Gavin

  Leighton, Ron

  Straw, Jack

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Litherland, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Livsey, Richard

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  55

  Turner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Wall, Pat

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mrs. Llyn Golding and

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Allason, Rupert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amos, Alan

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Tony

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Franks, Cecil

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gardiner, George

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Gow, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Gregory, Conal

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

  Grist, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Chris

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayward, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Howard, Michael

  Couchman, James

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

  Cran, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  56

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Irving, Charles

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jessel, Toby

  Portillo, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Redwood, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Renton, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knapman, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lang, Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lord, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Speed, Keith

  Madel, David

  Speller, Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maples, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stokes, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sumberg, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mellor, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miller, Hal

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thorne, Neil

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tredinnick, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trippier, David

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Walters, Dennis

  57

  Ward, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wood, Timothy

  Watts, John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Wheeler, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY 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 114.
  Amendments made: No. 28, in page 57, line 29, at end insert 'and'.
  No. 29, in page 57, line 30, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 31.
  No. 30, in page 58, line 2, at end insert 'and'.
  No. 31, in page 58, line 3, leave out from 'authorities' to end of line 4.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 117

  QUALIFICATIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
  Amendments made: No. 70, in page 65, line 19, at end insert—
  `(ee) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, and'.
  No. 71, in page 65, line 22, leave out from 'section' to end of line 23.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 122

  STATUTORY REFERENCES TO RATING
  Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 223, in page 68, line 18, at end insert—
  `( )In subsection 4 of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, for the words from "the product of a rate of 2p in the pound" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words—

  "(a) £4 per inhabitant of the area, except those mentioned in subsections (b) and (c) below;

  (b) £8 per inhabitant in the metropolitan counties;

  (c) such a sum, not less than £8, as the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe for Greater London; or

  (d) such other higher amounts as the Secretary of State may by order provide.".'.

  Under the constraints of the guillotine, it is the agreed intention to spend only a few minutes on amendment No. 223 before we move to the major item under the guillotine relating to the Scottish business.
  Amendment No. 223 is a further probe in respect of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Effectively, that means discussing the issue of what we all understand to be the product of a penny rate. Local authorities can use the product of a penny rate for a variety of matters outside the normal remit of the legislation.
  Obviously the product of a penny rate will have no significance once rateable values have disappeared and the poll tax is introduced. Therefore, amendment No. 223 refers to pounds per inhabitant of an area, whether they be in the metropolitan counties or the Greater London area. We really only want to press the Minister to discover whether the Government have given the matter any more
  58
  thought. In Committee the Government implied that they did not intend to abolish the concept completely, but obviously the product of the rate poundage would have no significance in future.
  The issue is essentially important because local government uses section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 in three ways. First, it is used for job creation. I understand that about 75 per cent. of section 137 money is used for economic development issues of various kinds. I do not have the time to go into that in detail.
  Secondly, section 137 money is used to fund and assist the voluntary sector. That includes grants to citizens' advice bureaux, law centres and other bodies not covered by mainstream funding. That includes voluntary groups working on issues not related directly to the responsibility of local authorities, for example, local voluntary groups opposing projects—although I have never heard of a local voluntary group "proposing" such projects—such as the siting of a new airport or nuclear power station. Those groups may want to put a case at a public inquiry or lead a campaign.
  Airport construction and nuclear power generation are not local government issues. However, it is possible for local authorities to assist voluntary groups in work related to those issues which are of crucial importance to the local communities.
  5.45 pm
  Thirdly, section 137 money is used valuably where one tier of local authority funds a voluntary group related to another tier of local government. I refer to the examples given in Committee in which a district council would fund work relating to social services or education projects. A district council in the shire areas would not deal with those matters because that would be a county council function.
  Section 137 money is not a great deal of money in terms of local government expenditure. However, it gives discretion and a degree of flexibility. It enables parts of local government to help and cope with the unexpected. It assists innovation and variety at local government level. I sincerely hope that the Government will not try to impose a complete block on those aspects of local government. I hope that the Government will consider or accept amendment No. 223—if they do accept it, I would probably fall through the floor—because it would meet the thrust of the arguments. Indeed, both sides of the Committee shared an understanding of the arguments on these points.
  I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government will leave this matter to another place. If Ministers are to be believed about the other place, the other place will not be able to touch the Bill as it relates to money. Therefore, the other place will not be able to cope with the replacement of section 137 effectively. Therefore, we must deal with section 137 in this House.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment and the arguments put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I remember the old days when we debated this matter in other Committees, on other Bills, in years past. The issue is the same. I have read what the Minister said in Committee.
  The issue remains that local authorities should he given a greater amount of discretionary power within a small limit to raise the spend on things that they regard to he important locally. The hon. Member for Perry Barr

  59
  referred to citizens' advice bureaux. I visited Warwickshire a year or so ago. Warwickshire county was very keen to fund the increasingly important network of citizens' advice bureaux. It is the voluntary sector and voluntary services which most need the expansion of the tuppenny rate, as it is coloquially called.
  The argument across the Floor of the House has concerned how much discretion local authorities should have. The Minister will know that some local authorities have reached their ceiling and are already committed. There are some good voluntary sector agencies whose requests have been turned down because there is no capacity to grant-fund them. The Minister will know also that the argument that extra money will be used only to fund lunatic and fringe activities is not supported by any evidence and that 67 per cent. of the total of section 137 money has been used for promoting economic development and employment. A substantial percentage was for legal, advisory and other welfare services.
  All the indications are that one of the key areas that will need help if poll tax is to be enacted is that of money advice. With the increasing amount of debt that there is and the growing volume of difficulties into which people get, the services of the voluntary sector in particular will be needed in respect of consumer advice and financial counselling. Those are just examples of where discretionary powers will be necessary in local government.
  The Minister has said that the Government will answer questions on that aspect when they know the result of the Widdicombe report. That report was promised early this year and is now overdue, and I should like to know when we shall be receiving it. If we had that information, I would be half happy. If we had that information plus a commitment either to accept this amendment or something similar, for one brief moment during the passage of this Bill there might even be some smiles on the Opposition Benches. I hope that the Minister will take this rare opportunity to find favour at a time when it seems that he and his colleagues on the Front Bench are increasingly unpopular and isolated, even among their own supporters.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): This amendment is unnecessary. It is not necessary to pass an amendment either in this House or in another place because the present basis of section 137 limits can continue until the introduction of the community charge. Following upon that, clause 122 will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the reference in section 137 to the product of 2p in the pound to some other factor, as appropriate.
  I have nothing to add to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend about the future of section 137 when we discussed the matter in Committee. He said then that the Government would announce their views in the light of the Widdicombe proposals and recommendations. I hope that it will not be too long before those announcements are made. When they are, we can discuss alongside section 137 powers the specific issue of local authority development activity and the other pertinent points raised during this short debate. I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. William Cash: I would rather speak when my hon. Friend has finished.
  Mr. Chope: In that case, it might be better if I conclude my remarks at this point and ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Cash: This amendment deals with a clause in the Bill that refers to statutory references to rating. It raises an important question relating to my own constituency of Stafford, with particular reference to an area named Knighton, which is governed by an Act of Parliament passed in 1660, when Charles II was on the throne.
  The significance of that provision, in referring the application of section 137 in the context of clause 122, is this. Under the terms of the 1660 Act, residents of Knighton are not liable to rates, taxes, assessments or charges, whether passed by Acts of Parliament or otherwise. Furthermore, that provision was granted in good faith in 1660, in recognition of services rendered by the local inhabitants to Charles II.
  It so happens that in 1927 Gnosall rural district council itself continued that exemption under the then Rating and Valuation Act 1925. Furthermore, and with specific reference to the General Rate Act 1967, to which reference is made in the statute in question, section 117 further continues the exemption for those constituents of mine. They comprise 31 occupiers, a pub, and a smithy. The pub is known as the Haberdasher's Arms. There is also a factory, together with——
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that name?
  Mr. Cash: The pub is known as the Haberdasher's Arms, in the parish of Knighton.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman —I must make a visit there.
  Mr. Cash: Since 1660, its inhabitants have been under no obligation to pay rates. I appreciate that we are under the guillotine, so I shall bring my remarks to a swift conclusion. It would be most unfortunate if the Henry VIII clause, normally used to revoke, amend or repeal an Act, should be used in this instance to remove an exemption that was granted in such express terms in 1660. I look to the Minister to continue the exemption for my constituents on the grounds that it was made in good faith and has been continued on numerous subsequent occasions. I ask my hon. Friend, when he replies, to give the assurance that I seek.
  Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, we accept the Minister's reply as far as it goes, but I recommend that all right hon. and hon. Members find time to read amendment No. 237, which relates to the speech that we have just heard and to the bunch of free-loaders in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who do not pay any rates. How do they benefit from the product of the tuppenny rate anyway, under section 137, if they are not paying rates? There is a point to be made here about accountability and democracy, but I shall not make it now —otherwise I shall have my hon. Friends from Scotland down on me like a ton of bricks. I take it as being implicit in the Minister's reply that the same amount of money will be available under some equivalent form of procedure

  61
  when the poll tax is introduced as currently exists under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That being the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123
  RATE SUPPORT GRANT: ABOLITION
  Amendment made: No. 46, in page 68, line 41, leave out 'as a simple contract debt'.—[Mr. Lang.]
Clause 127

  RATES LEVIED FOR CERTAIN YEARS
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 70, line 15, after second 'by', insert
  'or determined in accordance with'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 79, 80, 75, 91 to 95, 95A, 96, 97, 76 and 77.
  Mr. Lang: Most of the amendments in this group relate to registration issues, and, like the other Scottish amendments to the Bill, they fall into three broad categories. Some bring provisions in the Scottish Act into line with the equivalent provisions for England and Wales; some make minor and technical changes to the 1987 Act; and a few introduce new provisions.
  Of the amendments in this group, two fall into the first category; that is, they bring the Scottish provisions into line with the equivalent English provisions. Amendment No. 95A gives registration officers power to make inquiries of individuals who are, have been or are about to be resident in their area.
  6 pm
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister talked about bringing the Scottish provision into line with the English provision. Can he explain why he is still persisting with the requirement to include the date of birth in registration? A number of people have objected to it recently, for a variety of reasons, and I can find no explanation for its inclusion. Why is the date of birth needed in Scotland but not in England? This is causing considerable offence, not least to my mother.
  Mr. Lang: I am sorry about the circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's mother. However, I think that if I were to argue that all the Scottish provisions should shadow the English provisions exactly, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be the first to complain.
  The provision about dates of birth was pressed on the Government by local government practitioners in Scotland to enable them the better to identify——
  Mr. Douglas: Name one.
  Mr. Lang: I can name one: the Rating and Valuation Association pressed it on the Government very strongly. It was thought to be a better way of identifying people, and after considering the matter the Government decided to agree.
  Mr. Foulkes: Why is that greater means of identification necessary in Scotland, but not in England? Are there more people with the same name in Scotland? I
  62
  would have thought that it might be more important to apply the provision in Wales, in view of all the EvanJoneses and others of the same name. So far, the Minister has failed to explain that.
  Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my responsibilities in the context of the amendments relate to the Scottish provisions. I can only assume that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent English constituencies and who are Ministers at the Department of the Environment have not come under the same pressure from local government practitioners.
  Amendment No. 95A gives registration officers power to make inquiries of individuals who are, have been or are about to be resident in their area. At present, the basic source of information for registration officers is the canvass of responsible persons. It is clear, however, that at a certain stage in the canvass process, registration officers may wish to seek information direct from individuals—for example, those who claim to be students or to be exempt —and the amendment gives them power to do so. As the power will relate to identifiable individuals, it will not supplant the general canvass process but will be a useful supplement to it. A similar power is contained in paragraph 10 of schedule 2 as respects England and Wales.
  Amendment No. 96 also falls—or at least partly falls —into this category. Among the amendments it makes to section 20 of the 1987 Act is an amendment to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe other persons who will he entitled to inspect the register. This power will be used to allow auditors to inspect the register in line with the equivalent provision for England and Wales. Amendment No. 96 also amends the part of section 20 which requires regional and islands councils to sell copies of the public part of the register.
  A number of interests have objected to this requirement and have suggested that, if it is retained, provision should be made to allow individuals to request the removal of their name. Amendment No. 96 therefore replaces the relevant part of section 20 with a provision empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations providing whether, and on what terms. the public part of the register may be sold. It brings section 20 into line with the corresponding provision for England and Wales in paragraph 18 of schedule 2 to the Bill.
  Three of the amendments in the group introduce what are effectively new provisions. Amendment No. 91 amends section 13 of the 1987 Act to make it clear that the register should not be divided into three parts, relating to the personal, standard and collective community charges respectively. If the register were organised in this way it would, at least arguably, feed through into the public part of the register and would thus completely negate our intention that it should not be possible to identify second homes from the register. A separate part would also make it easier to identify women's refuges, undermining the anonymity that we intend to achieve for them.
  Amendment No. 93 amends section 15 of the 1987 Act to overcome difficulties which might otherwise arise in the case of deaths. As that section stands, registration officers are required to notify persons whose register entry is changed or deleted using a form prescribed for that purpose. The form addresses the registered person in the second person singular, and it would clearly he unfortunate if such forms were sent out bearing the names

  63
  of people who have died. Amendment No. 93 therefore amends section 15 to provide that in such circumstances the notification should be sent to the deceased's executors.
  The last amendment in this category is amendment No. 95. It inserts into section 18 of the 1987 Act a new subsection, which provides that when a person dies his executors must notify the registration officer of the date of the death within one month. This will help to ensure that the register is kept up to date.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Minister estimate how many registration forms have been sent out to deceased people in Scotland over the past month, naming them as responsible people?
  Mr. Lang: No; I am sorry. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the registration process has just started. Although in some regions it is quite well advanced and is proceeding smoothly, in others some of the information is not yet available.
  Amendment No. 95 is unlikely to impose any additional burden on executors, as they will no doubt wish in any case to seek confirmation that there is no outstanding liability for the community charge in respect of the deceased.
  Mr. Douglas: Do the Government intend to introduce any penalties for failure to inform the registration officer that a person is deceased?
  Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 1987 Act already makes provision for a civil penalty of £50 in the first instance and £200 in the second.
  The other amendments in the group are all essentially minor and technical, and raise no issues of substance.
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that we have a truncated debate, and I do not wish to detain any hon. Member who wishes to take part, but the Government have tabled a plethora of amendments. Surely it is an insult to the House to guillotine the debate. Does the Minister intend to say anything about Government amendment No. 84 which introduces substantial changes to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite understood. We are discussing the group of amendments being taken with Government amendment No. 78. Government amendment No. 84 will come later, if there is time. It cannot be discussed with this group of amendments.
  Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Substantial changes are being made under a guillotine. I shall respect your ruling. However, the thrust of the amendments relates not to the 1987 Act but to the 1973 Act. Is the Minister not going to say anything in defence of his amendment?
  Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has made a very good point. This is a very short debate to cover many Government amendments that are both technical and important. I think that it would have been more sensible if the Minister had taken some time at least to say a word or two about the other amendments—as we
  64
  must finish the debate by 7.30 pm—or even for the amendments all to have been grouped together, so that we could have talked about all of them. Some of the others are also important, but there will be no time to debate them all.
  I intend to keep my remarks relatively brief, because I am well aware of the shortness of time, and we want to get through as much as possible. I do not know about the Minister, but I spent considerable time during the past weeks canvassing in my constituency. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) never does that, but I do. I have found, on doorstep after doorstep, people who voted Tory even as late as June last year saying, "I shall never vote for that woman again." The major cause of that is, of course, the poll tax. Our canvass returns in Cathcart show Labour support 6 per cent. higher than it was in June last year, when the majority was increased from 4,000 to 11,000. That is why the Government are doing so badly. I say to English Conservative Members loud and clear: if they want to experience the same thing as their Scottish colleagues did in June last year, let them continue to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the Galloway Gazette and Stranraer-News?
  Mr. Maxton: I should be delighted to read it, if my hon. Friend lets me have a copy.
  The Minister and I both spoke at the rating and valuation conference in Dunblane last Friday. He did not impress the experts, the people who must put the system into practice, by arriving at 11.30, speaking for 20 minutes and leaving to do a press conference. He did not answer a single question that the experts wanted to ask. Those experts said loud and clear to me that they will keep all their valuation rolls for domestic properties because their view is that the tax will collapse in a matter of years and the Government will have to return to the rating system.
  Mr. Salmond: Did any one of those experts suggest to the hon. Gentleman in those discussions that the information on the date of birth was necessary for the community charge register?
  Mr. Maxton: None of them did. Equally, every single one was opposed to the concept of a non-payment campaign.
  One thing which the Minister said, which is important in regard to the amendments, was:
  "It is our clear intention that no change made to the Bill should prejudice the timetable for the introduction of the new system in Scotland."
  When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the press later, he said:
  "Our legislation is through. It would not upset the timetable for Scotland. The driving force is to abolish the discredited and grossly unfair rating system and we are determined to bring early relief to domestic ratepayers in Scotland. That is what the change is all about."
  That is a major shift in Scottish Office thinking. Until now, the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that if there are any major changes in the English legislation, inevitably it will mean the holding back or withdrawal and repeal of the Scottish legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. That is what the Secretary of State has said time and again.
  Mr. Lang: To help the hon. Gentleman along, the question was not about change; it was about delay.
  Mr. Maxton: That is not what the Minister is quoted as saying. He said:
  "It is our clear intention that no change made to the Bill should prejudice the timetable".
  That is astonishing. Are they saying that if the Bill is defeated on Third Reading tonight—it may be a remote possibility, but it is not impossible—the Scottish Act will go ahead? If the other place amends the Bill, as the House came close to doing on Monday last week, will the Government say that they will still press ahead with the Scottish legislation, despite such a major change in the English Bill? If so, that is a direct contradiction and a major shift in the view of the Scottish Office and its Ministers.
  The amendments are about registration. As the registration process is taking place in Scotland, chaos is developing. Repressive measures are having to be used —I say that advisedly—by registration officers to try to get the information. Jack Woods, the registration officer for Strathclyde, made it clear that he had to use postcards giving people three days to return the information because, if he did not, it would have been impossible to obtain the information in time to complete the register by October this year. He is having to use means which, if legal, are not strictly within the spirit of how the process should be carried out.
  The amendments try to tighten up further the registration procedure, to try to make sure, if at all possible, that nobody dodges the tax.
  Mr. Bill Walker indicated assent.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman nods. Every time that is done, the expense increases and the return decreases because every time one pushes up the expense of registration one gets a smaller return.
  Many people in Strathclyde are returning their forms, not just because we are asking them to and saying that that is what they should do. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the date of birth. Many people ask why on earth they should give that information and why they should provide information that is not required under the English Bill. What absolute guarantee can the Minister give that the information of the date of birth will be kept secret and not be made available to a much wider public? We must deal with the registration procedure.
  The amendments are bizarre and threatening. For example, amendment No. 95 deals with what happens when someone dies. That is right. It is amazing that when we went through the Committee on the Scottish Bill Ministers forgot that people died. Ministers did not remember that and did nothing about it.
  Mr. Lang: Did the hon. Gentleman raise the matter?
  Mr. Maxton: It was not my responsibility to ensure that the Bill was correct. It was the hon. Gentleman's responsibility. [NON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, I take that back. Of course, it was not the Minister's direct responsibility; it was the responsibility of one Michael Ancram, who pushed the Bill through. We all know what happened to him.
  66
  It is important to know whether there will be penalties if the executor does not inform the registration officer that someone has died. In my constituency, for example. a husband who has been unemployed for the past 20 years may die. The couple may have no property except the contents of the House. An executor will not be appointed. The widow is left with the responsibility to ensure that arrangements are made—an executor will not do it. It is she who has to arrange the funeral and go through all the procedures; she will be the executor in fact, if not in law. Will she have to return the forms and make sure that she sends back the information within a month? If she does not, will she suffer a £50 fine, on top of all the other things that she is suffering? That would be absurd.
  Through the amendments, the Government are seeking further information. It is not clear from the amendments whether this is the case, but the Minister said at Dunblane that under the new system DHSS payments are now subject to court orders and local authorities will be able to seek deductions from DHSS payments. The Minister also said that the DHSS will be able to provide information to registration officers. If someone seeks income support, he will be given a form to claim a rebate on his poll tax, but he will be informed that if he does not send in the form the DHSS will inform the registration officer accordingly. That is a breach of the commitment given by Michael Ancram in the Committee on the Scottish Bill, that DHSS records would not be available for the registration process. He said that time and again in Committee. We have yet another breach of the rules as Ministers realise that they are having more problems with the tax and that they are in difficulties.
  Visiting service men are now to be exempt. I do not know what that will mean in Argyll. I do not know how much American service men living in Dunoon pay in rates on houses that they rent or own. If they rent or own their houses, presumably they pay rates. Now they are to be exempt. I assume that if the service man is married to a Scots girl she will be exempt too. As I understand it, a spouse will be exempt as well. That makes some sense, but there is something obscence about well-paid American service men and well-paid diplomats living in Scotland —I do not know whether the consuls are in the same position—being exempt from the poll tax when the Government intend to impose the tax upon the mildly mentally handicapped, the severely physically handicapped, the old, the unemployed, the ill and the sick.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my hon. Friend recall the notorious Mr. Michael Ancram seeking to rebut the suggestion that in reality the community charge would be a poll tax by arguing that those not entitled to vote would not have to pay tax? We now see the Government seeking to exempt a large group of foreigners who are not able to vote but should have to pay the tax.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are making nonsense of the argument that the tax is about ensuring that anyone who makes use of local services should pay something towards them. An American service man living in Dunoon will make use of local services, perhaps the full range of such services. However, he will not have to pay the poll tax. The Government are in a considerable mess.

  67
  I shall quote what the Secretary of State for the Environment said about the unified business rate on Thursday of last week. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised the matter in the same debate. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Scotland will move towards a unified business rate at the English rate poundage after rateable values have been harmonised. No changes to the Bill are proposed, because it is unclear how fast harmonisation can proceed."—[Official Report, 21 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 1026.]
  As I understand it, we do not have any legislation for the introduction of a uniform business rate in Scotland. Perhaps some of the technical amendments before us will make the necessary legislative provision. I should think that separate legislation will be required. Is the Secretary of State for the Environment telling us something that we in Scotland do not know, or is he just plain ignorant?
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend is making a valuable point, but what the Secretary of State said to me was much more specific:
  "The idea is that the rateable value bases of the two countries should be brought entirely in line as soon as possible so that there is no distortion between arrangements in England and Scotland."—[Official Report, 21 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 1025.]
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend reinforces my argument. I do not think that the Scottish Office is aware of the problem. If it is, it is clearly abrogating its responsibility to deal with Scottish legislation and Scottish local government. It seems that it is happy to hand over its responsibilities to the Department of the Environment.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman in a small way. There may be other changes that will require legislation but that will not be necessary when it comes to valuation practice. The hon. Gentleman may not realise that the Inland Revenue has different practices for the decapitalisation rate for different types of hereditament. It is that area in which harmonisation is required, where valuation opinion is involved. That would be likely to benefit Scotland.
  Mr. Maxton: Now that the hon. Gentleman has resumed his place, I shall inform him of his ignorance. Valuations in Scotland are not carried out by the Inland Revenue. Separate legislation would be required to make properties in Scotland liable to valuation by the Inland Revenue. We need to know from the Minister exactly what is going on.
  The poll tax is obscene and it is not wanted in Scotland. The time has come for the Government to withdraw their proposals, even for their own political good. If they fail to withdraw the legislation that will apply in Scotland, there will be no Conservative Members representing seats in Scotland after the next general election.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about the anomalies in the valuations of non-domestic properties in Scotland are interesting and astonishing. He must know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have introduced private Members' Bills to eradicate anomalies between the Scottish and English valuation systems. Caravans and reed beds, for example, may ring some bells for the hon. Gentleman. The bringing into line of the two rating and
  68
  valuation systems is long overdue. The distortions have worked substantially to Scotland's disadvantage, and that is something we should never forget.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart talked about visiting service men and I expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take up his remarks. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was referring to visiting service men who take up rented accommodation. The owners of such properties will have to register them under the legislation. That applies also to second homes, for example. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that visiting service men should not broaden our elections. I hope also that he will agree that service men should make their contribution, as they have in the past. Military bases have had their own system for ensuring that that happens.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart told us that he has been canvassing in his constituency. It will come as no surprise to him that he is not the only one who has chosen to go out knocking on doors. He is not the only one who has been canvassing.
  Mr. Foulkes: That explains why the hon. Gentleman is wearing dark glasses.
  Mr. Maxton: What happened?
  Mr. Walker: I happened to suffer some injuries to my eyes over the weekend. I find that the more sensitive hon. Members are sympathetic to anyone with such problems. The less sympathetic and understanding usually find it amusing when someone suffers such injuries. I leave Labour Members to decide which cap fits them.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart has told us that he has done some canvassing. As I have said, I have been canvassing in my constituency. Over the weekend, I spoke to Health Service managers in Edinburgh and to the Association of School Meals Organisers at its annual conference on Saturday. I went through the community charge proposals in some detail with both bodies because I knew that they were interested in them. The hon. Member for Cathcart will be surprised to hear that in the main they were responsive to the Government's position and attitude. Indeed, they were constructively helpful and responsive. The gentleman who replied to my speech and thanked me at the conference of the Association of School Meals Organisers said that he was one of the converts. I found that interesting.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart has said that his constituents are saying that they will never again vote for the Conservative party. I did not expect to be received favourably at the association's conference. Indeed, I expected to have to defend the Government's policy on these matters, including the amendments that we are discussing. I was pleasantly surprised when there was a warm response and a positive reaction to what I had to say in going into detail on the community charge. It is the misinformation about the Bill that is causing the public to be concerned. When one deals with facts, one should present them as they are.
  This morning, I received a letter from some individuals who said that they had never voted Conservative, but, having had the opportunity to hear me speak and to study in detail the booklet that the Government sent out, they now believe that the Conservative party is the only party bringing forward sensible proposals in respect of local

  69
  government finance. That is why the amendments, particularly those in respect of registration and other matters that require tightening up, are before the House.
  Of course, there were problems with deceased individuals being notified. Whoever the dependants may be, they have other sensitive matters to deal with. As everyone knows, a bereaved person has many difficult and sensitive matters to deal with. In most instances bereaved people are assisted by relatives and others. It normally falls to someone else to carry out such activities. That will become the norm in respect of many things that must be done. We all know that, at some time or other, our parents will be deceased, and we must deal with the matters that must be dealt with. It is nonsense to suggest that, somehow, there is something different about this matter.
  I welcome the amendments. They will help to tidy the Bill and will make it easier for people such as myself, who have been out positively canvassing the benefits, also to explain what will happen.
  6.30 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, regret that we are faced with all these amendments and, once again, are not allowed sufficient time properly to debate them. Some amendments, such as No. 95A, refer to obtaining information. As we know, preparation for the poll tax has been under way in Scotland for some time. Forms are dropping through people's doors throughout the country. I should have thought that the alarm and, indeed, the chaos that seem to be threatening would be a warning to England and Wales.
  What I could most usefully do is to read a letter that I recently received. It is one of many such letters to registration offices from various people in my constituency. One gentleman states:
  "Firstly I have never signed to promise money without knowing the figure involved. I appreciate that you cannot know the exact figure but an estimate to the nearest £20 would suffice."
  That gentleman strongly objects to putting his signature to a hit of paper, promising money when he does not know how much will be involved. He went on:
  "Secondly, although I may be a responsible person under the terms of the the Act, one can only be responsible for oneself. I cannot be responsible for any information regarding names and dates of birth of any additional occupants of the above address."
  An awful lot of people are objecting on such grounds. That gentleman objects also on the ground of fairness. As hon. Members will probably realise, that constituent lives on an island. He does not see why he should pay the same as a resident in a town,
  "when I have neither street lighting nor a footpath in front of my house, have no access to recreation and leisure facilities and suffer the obvious penalties of living on an island."
  [Interruption.] He was not forced to live on that island —he was born and brought up there. His parents before him and his grandparents before them lived there. I shall never accept the argument that, if one does not want to take on the penalties of living on an island, one should get out or not go there in the first place.
  It was interesting to see the registration form that was delivered to my house at the weekend. At the top, it states:
  "A responsible person can be required to provide information, but being a responsible person does not make that person liable to pay a community charge on behalf of any other person."
  70
  That is misleading. Often, those who are designated as responsible are husbands or wives. Most often, it is the husband, because, in the past, they have been the ratepayers. The form does not make it clear that a husband could be responsible for his wife's poll tax if she is not an earner. Registration officers must examine and solve that problem.
  Going back to amendment No. 95A relating to obtaining information, an article on the fairness of the poll tax in this week's editon of The Observer was particularly instructive. It stated that, when canvassers tried to obtain information from council estates, they were sent packing. In fact, the only welcoming ports of call for poll tax canvassers were those that had BMWs in their drives or, perhaps, had double-glazed windows.
  I hope that the Minister will examine, albeit briefly, amendment No. 81, which refers to visiting forces. It is causing some concern, particularly to my council in Argyll and Bute. I hope that he will be able to tell us what the consequences will be for visiting forces and their wives. Clause 128 refers to people who have relevant associations with members of visiting forces. Who are such persons? Does it mean that the wives of men in visiting forces are not to pay the poll tax? If so, all the girls in Dunoon may rush off to marry United States naval chaps.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Surely they have better taste.
  Mrs. Michie: Many of them have married United States naval men.
  What will happen if a United States naval officer is posted back to the United States and his wife and children must stay in Dunoon? Will they continue not to pay the poll tax? I am not clear about the consequences, and I shall be glad if the Minister will say a word on the matter.
  Unfortunately, nothing in the amendments does anything to ease the additional burden that has been heaped on church and crofting communities. Because of the inequity of the poll tax, the Government have lost the argument. That inequity will never be forgotten—certainly in Scotland.
  Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the amendments, just as the House should welcome them. They refine and improve the legislation. Anything that does that to any measure going through the House of Commons should be welcomed in the interests of the people in this country. I advise the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the explanatory notes on the form that I received clearly show what the figure will be —£210. I am surprised that her local authority has not given her constituent the same valuable information. Some Opposition Members have been shouting about £300 and £400 in my part of the world. That shows just how they have gone out of their way to mislead the population about the community charge. As has been said, it is most unfair and unreasonable of Members of Parliament, and candidates in the election, to cause alarm and despondency by quoting figures which are way out of proportion to what they will be in a year's time.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Name one example.
  Sir Hector Monro: I have just given the hon. Lady the average figure in Dumfries and Galloway, as quoted by the regional council and the local government information leaflet published last week. That was £210 for Dumfries

  71
  and Galloway and for the districts therein. That is as accurate as can be ascertained at present. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady laughs about that, she had better stick to her own district and not interfere with other people's.
  I believe that the wishful thinking of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that this important Bill might be in jeopardy at Third Reading, is totally without any foundation. He will discover that shortly. If that is so, then the legislation will proceed in any event in Scotland. I am glad that the regional authorities are making such important steps towards collecting the information as required by the Act, and proceeding with all pace to carry out the procedure satisfactorily. I wonder what the policies of the various parties opposite—including the Scottish National party, the Labour party and every Tom, Dick and Harry—are to the implementation of the community charge. Some hon. Members say, "Take illegal action"; others say, "Take legal action."
  The general public is thoroughly muddled by the deliberate attempt by Opposition Members to make life as difficult as possible for the people of Scotland, when they should be assisting them to introduce a scheme that is much fairer to all the people in Scotland. They certainly believe that in Scotland.
  It is fascinating that, when I have been knocking on doors, in which I suspect I have been more effective than the hon. Member for Cathcart, I have found a very different response. Hon. Members opposite also fail to explain during their tours of their constituencies the very effective rebate system which is so important to the community charge. Once people understand that rebates operate on a sliding scale, going up to 80 per cent., and perhaps beyond for those on very low incomes, they will begin to realise that the rebate system is a valuable and important one
  Mr. Maxton: Second to the anger that people are expressing about the poll tax is the large number of people who are bitter, bitter, bitter about losing their housing benefit and social security payments as a result of this Government's legislation.
  Sir Hector Monro: They also say how delighted they are that the Government have increased nurses' salaries so substantially. If the hon. Member for Cathcart wishes to move away from the Bill, he can have that answer.
  The amendmends tabled by the Government are certainly advantageous. It is right that the Minister should take the opportunity to put them in this Bill, so that they can be included in the work going ahead on the community charge in Scotland. I have every intention of supporting the Government tonight.
  Mr. Salmond: I hope that the four English Conservative Back Benchers who have stayed to listen to this debate, and who, perhaps, are "beginning to understand" the full implications of this legislation, will find the Scottish debate instructive.
  We have reached a fine pitch in the poll tax debate as it applies to Scotland—a fine pitch of argument and also a fine pitch of absurdity, which is reflected in some of the amendments that the Government are proposing.
  Amendment No. 92, for example, substitutes "registered person" for the phrase
  "person whose name is entered in the register".
  72
  In amendment No. 97, "registered person" is defined as someone
  "who is registered in the register".
  That was an amendment crying out to be tabled!
  The Minister has already given us an insight into the only two certainties of life, which are death and taxes. Amendment No. 95 contains what must be the Government's major and generous concession in the Scottish legislation. The Minister releases dead people from the responsibility of telling the registration officer that they have died. That responsibility is placed on the executors. If the Minister is concerned about the feelings of the relatives of the deceased, will he say how many deceased people have received, as responsible people, a registration form, because of the use of the electoral roll? If the Minister is so concerned with the feelings of relatives, perhaps he will try to estimate how many such forms have been distributed and what the Government propose to do about it.
  6.45 pm
  There are a number of other serious matters in these amendments. Amendment No. 95A, for example, extends the list of people to whom the registration officer can elicit information to anyone
  "whom he reasonably believes is, has been or is about to be resident in the registration area."
  How can a registration officer know who is "about to be" registered in his area? The only source of information is other registration officers in Scotland, who have supplied him with the names of people who are leaving their registration areas. We have to square that with the question on page 10 of this multi-coloured brochure "You and the Community Charge" from the "Ministry of Truth":
  "Will it be a national register?"
  The answer was
  "No."
  There will not be a national register for the poll tax only —in the same way as there was not a national police force during the miners' strike. There will certainly be shared information and the exchange of information between registration officers. That is clearly implied within the amendments.
  In amendment No. 96, we see another breach of civil liberties in the legislation. That extends the list of people who can seek information from the register:
  "any such other person as may be prescribed shall be entitled to inspect the register to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed".
  In other words, an extension of those who are allowed to inspect the full poll tax register.
  The original legislation detailed that the assessor and the electoral registration officer would have that entitlement. This amendment is a major extension of those who are going to be allowed to look at the full register. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked the Minister why date of birth information was required in the Scottish legislation. We have the answer in this amendment. It is that, within a fairly short period, the poll tax number, including the date of birth information, will be the "passport", without which a member of the public will not receive, or be able to receive, access to any entitlement of right of any state service. The lie to the Government's position on the matter is given in that amendment, with the extension of those who can look at the full poll tax register.

  73
  We are debating the Scottish amendments at the fag end of the English legislation. As several hon. Members have said, it will mean that many important amendments receive no discussion at all this evening. I doubt very seriously whether the 38 officers and gentlemen who revolted last Monday night are going to revolt on these Scottish amendments. Of those 38 hon. Members, no fewer than 30 voted for the Scottish poll tax in the last Parliament. Indeed, two other hon. Members were not in the Parliament. These amendments will not be decided by Scottish Members, 63 of whom are now opposed to the poll tax. These amendments will be decided by the English Members who are not even present in this Chamber to hear the arguments. The revolt of the officers and gentlemen makes it clear that English Members of Parliament vote blind on Scottish legislation. We are seeing yet another example of that this evening.
  The anger in Scotland, I should tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), is expressed not just in terms of opposition to the poll tax but takes in no less than 71 per cent. of the supporters of the Labour party who wish to go further. According to an opinion poll last month, 71 per cent. wanted a campaign of non-payment, in line with 78 per cent. of the supporters of my party, a majority of the supporters of the Democrats and even 20 per cent. of the supporters of the Conservative party. They all wanted a campaign of non-payment.
  Mr. Bill Walker: If the Scottish National party is so keen on a campaign of non-payment, why is Angus district council assuming a policy that payment and registration should be carried out? Will the hon. Gentleman also say why it is necessary for Scottish National party activists to send letters to the local papers in my constituency asking questions that were never asked of me at public meetings and giving answers that I have not given? The answer is that they have to rely on distortions about the facts, on misinformation and downright lies. That is how desperate they are.
  Mr. Salmond: Many things are said about the hon. Gentleman. My view is that most are understatements rather than overstatements. The position of the Scottish National party is that a mass campaign of non-payment is necessary and justified given the circumstances in which the Scottish legislation was passed.
  Mr. Maxton: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not congratulated the Government on the changes that they have introduced to allow direct access to DHSS payments by the courts and finance officers. That was requested of the Government by Grampian regional council, of which the SNP is part of the ruling group which voted for the proposal.
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman was following closely—he should have been, as he attended some Committee meetings at which I explained at some length the SNP proposal for the mass campaign of non-payment —he will know that it is precisely those who are in a position to pay, those who can pay but who will not pay, whom we are trying to recruit for a mass campaign of non-payment. They will stand shoulder to shoulder with many people in Scotland who cannot and will not pay. That is the point behind the mass campaign of non-payment.
  74
  In conclusion, when English Conservative Members do not even attend Scottish debates, vote blind on Scottish legislation and ram issues such as the poll tax down the throats of the Scottish people against the wishes of the vast majority of Scottish Members, it is little wonder that there is the level of resentment and anger in Scotland that will sustain a mass campaign of non-payment. There can be no more eloquent testimony to the need for a Scottish parliament than the circumstances and the decision of this evening's vote.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) might reflect that many of the Labour Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill were from Scotland. We commented on that at the time. Indeed, we welcomed the interest that they were taking in what is predominantly an English Bill, which affects Scotland only peripherally. It is a little disappointing that only one of the Scottish Labour Members who served on the Standing Committee is participating in this debate. Perhaps that reflects the interest of Scottish Labour Members in the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) chastised me when I intervened to say that I am ignorant of Scottish affairs. I assumed that valuations in Scotland were carried out by the Inland Revenue, whereas, as he correctly pointed out, they are carried out by the local government valuers. However, the principle of what I was saying—that valuation practice does not require legislation—is absolutely correct. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect that properties that are valued according to the contractors' test, such as extractive industries and large-scale petrochemical industries—many of which are important to Scottish industry—operate at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in England, which have a decapitalisation rate that is a good deal more favourable.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he thinks that that is an anomaly which should be corrected and that he is considering how best it should be corrected. He has suggested that we might have an automatic mechanism for adjusting the decapitalisation rate which might require an amendment. I would have thought that that should be welcomed by Opposition Members. It is something of which the hon. Member for Cathcart would have been aware if he had taken the trouble to read the Hansard of the Committee proceedings.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is absent is simple. He is serving on a Committee. I do not know the reason for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), but, knowing his strong commitment to getting a lot done in this place, I can only assume that it is a good reason. It was unreasonable of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) to assume that there is an inadequate reason for their absence.
  I shall raise two points briefly, as other hon. Members wish to speak. We heard earlier from the Minister that people in Scotland are required to give their date of birth to the poll tax canvasser because the Government received representations on that in Scotland. When pressed on that point, we were told that the local government body that called for that was the Rating and Valuation Association. The people of Scotland will be amazed to learn that, in

  75
  spite of their strength of feeling and their vehement opposition to the measure requiring their birth date, they are getting it because of the wishes of a body of which the vast majority have probably never heard. I should add that the Rating and Valuation Association has conducted itself in a most responsible fashion by explaining clearly to people all along what the legislation is about and why it should not be brought into force. It is incredible—it will certainly be noticed with anger in Scotland—that that is the best reason that the Government can produce for enforcing the date of birth requirement on the Scottish population.
  The main reason why I wish to speak is that only this weekend I discovered that in my constituency a poll tax canvasser had knocked on the door of a mentally handicapped person on Friday night. That man has lived all his life until recently in institutions and has managed to live alone and independently only recently, in a small flat in my constituency. He can do so only with the support of local social workers who give him advice on his budget. He lives in a block of flats in which other people are similarly placed. Many cannot read or write with any fluency, yet the poll tax canvasser went round on Friday night, handed over the poll tax form and said that she would be back on Monday. When the man, who was alert enough to have been taking in information from the television, said that he knew that he had 21 days in which to return the form, he got the reply that he had better return the poll tax form on Monday or he would be liable to be fined.
  I should add that that man is able to work at a relatively undemanding job, with low pay of about £67 per week. He is on housing benefit, which is about to be cut heavily. At the moment it is uncertain what housing benefit he will end up with. However, it seems pretty certain that he will be liable to pay the full poll tax, considering that last week we learned that a single man with a take-home pay as low as £53 per week would be liable to pay the poll tax.
  Since this sort of thing is happening in Strathclyde, we must assume that it could be happening elsewhere in Scotland right now and that there are dangers of its happening throughout England and Wales when registration begins there. As the Secretary of State has evidently not yet taken any steps to ensure that poll tax canvassing is carried out with some sensitivity, is it not reasonable to say that before people go around knocking on doors, they should at least find out in advance where people such as I have described are living, so that they can be approached far more sensitively than has been described? What training does the Minister propose shall be given to poll tax canvassers? What information will he ensure that they are given? People are being misinformed about their rights in the most aggressive manner. It is important that the Minister takes up this issue without any further delay.
  7 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I support the amendments.
  It is important to deal with the allegation made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the Government have changed their position. He did not produce any exact quotations of my right hon. and learned
  76
  Friend the Secretary of State to back up that allegation. As I understand it, the Government's position has been clear and unchanged throughout. It has been that, obviously, there might need to be detailed changes in this Bill to apply to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 because of changes that have been agreed to the legislation south of the border, but that that would not change the timetable. The Government have always made it clear that detailed changes such as the amendments entail might have to be introduced without changing the timetable.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) once again used the opportunity to tell the House about the SNP's great campaign of non-payment.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) ducked completely the question whether Angus district council, which is run by the SNP now but will not be after 5 May, would co-operate with Tayside region in the registration process?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only did the hon. Gentleman duck that, but he ducked the question from the hon. Member for Cathcart about Grampion region, and whether he and his few hon. Friends would be the first over the barricades.
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for an answer to whether I shall pay my poll tax, it is that I shall not pay it.
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that SNP Members of this Parliament will under no circumstances pay the community charge, so they will subject themselves to the inevitable penalties of the law. We shall see in due course. In the past, that question has been ducked by SNP leaders.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised an important point which my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on if he is successful in catching your eye at the end of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have found a continuing confusion about the difference between the responsibility for filling in the form and the responsibility for paying the community charge. All hon. Members know what the position is, because we have been following the legislation. but it is important that people know what their joint and several liability is in relation to their spouse, and that their liability does not extend to other members of the household. A man came to my surgery, critical of the community charge, but when I explained that he did not have to pay for all his teenage children over 18, he was immediately transformed into a supporter. He left with the words, "That will get them out of the house a bit quicker."
  The hon. Lady also said that people did not know what their community charge would be. Obviously, it is not known what the precise community charge will be, but I would have thought that we do know what it will be within £20, as she asked. The figure for Eastwood on the latest calculations is £264.
  A disinformation campaign is continuing in significant parts of Scotland, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not underestimate it. People who are not necessarily heavily involved and do not necessarily have

  77
  sources of advice easily available are particularly vulnerable to the disinformation which is being supported implicitly and explicitly by some hon. Members.
  Mr. Foulkes: I never thought that I would find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), but he is absolutely right: there is a disinformation campaign, but it is coming from new St. Andrew's House. What is more, it is being carried out at the expense of taxpayers, and the Comptroller and Auditor General might do well to look into that.
  I have not spoken in many of these debates——
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Why not?
  Mr. Foulkes: I have been happy to sit and listen to my hon. Friends make powerful and persuasive arguments against all aspects of the Bill. But I am glad to have an opportunity to speak now, because last Thursday I was speaking at a public meeting in Cumnock town hall, where every seat was taken. It was a packed meeting, the like of which I have not seen since the miners' strike. Almost unanimously, those present wanted us to oppose and obstruct the process of registration by every legal means. They objected strongly to, and rejected SNP suggestions of, non-payment. In particular, one person remembered being pushed into a rent strike by SNP personnel and that the people who had been pushing had paid their rents, leaving the rest high and dry.
  Mr. Salmond rose——
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. At the meeting, the people wondered whether, if they followed the advice of the nationalists, they would again be left high and dry, or whether the SNP would bail them out in their hour of need.
  Mr. Salmond: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the System Three poll showed that 71 per cent. of Labour voters wanted such a campaign? The real division on this issue is not between the Labour party and the SNP, but between the Labour leadership and Labour supporters.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is about time that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues started attacking the real enemy, the Tories, instead of spending hour upon hour attacking the Labour party. I was saying that the SNP was leading people down a path when it knows that it cannot support those whom it encourages down that path.
  The other point that became clear at the meeting was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). In several areas registration officers are intimidating, threatening and harassing all sorts of people to return the forms within three days, and it is implied that if they do not a £50 penalty will come into force.
  Mr. William McKelvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency I have just discovered that those who are dishing out poll tax forms are not only eagerly and zealously collecting them—it is 10p to hand one out and 40p to bring back a completed form—but are insisting that elderly people should fill in the forms, and even filling in the forms and signing them on those people's behalf? That must be illegal and I am certainly having that investigated in Kilmarnock.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend from the Ayrshire mafia. My hon. Friend rightly describes the unfortunate activities of those who are becoming known as bounty hunters in certain parts of Scotland.
  The Minister should be careful and he should have a wee word with Mr. John Brewis about what it is like to be the ex-hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Protest meetings are not only taking place in places such as Cumnock town hall. Let us consider what The Galloway Gazette said on Saturday 23 April. The headline ran:
  "Larger hall needed as 200 turn out to Poll Tax 'Stop It' campaign meeting".
  That meeting took place in the Minister's constituency. Mr. Dangerfield, a Stranraer solicitor, chaired the meeting —he does not sound like a Labour supporter to me—and he is reported as saying:
  "the way Tory voters who will benefit from the Community Charge had still opposed the legislation 'makes me proud to be Scottish'".
  He quoted from the Tory Reform Group—I think that the Secretary of State used to be a member of that; Michael Ancram was. Mr. Dangerfield quoted from the Tory Reform Group pamphlet that said:
  "Poll tax is fair only in the sense that the Black Death was fair—it is indiscriminate."
  We did not say that, the Tories did. Mr. Dangerfield quoted those words in Stranraer—part of the Minister's constituency—at the packed meeting. The Galloway Gazette also reported that:
  "Rev. Thomson said that his worry about the Poll Tax was both as a parish minister and as an individual … Mr. Thomson said that people had to find 'any ways we can to help at a local level, to try to bring home to the Government our concern'."
  Mr. Maxton: The Minister will not meet such people.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right; the Minister is not prepared to meet such people and listen to their concerns. The Minister need only read the leader in The Galloway Gazette to realise that, in Galloway, the writing is on the wall for him as it was for Michael Ancram, Anna McCurley——
  Mr. Galbraith: Michael Hirst.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that timely prompt from my hon. Friend. The writing was on the wall for all those people who served on the Scottish poll tax Bill Committee and the same will be true of the Minister.
  The leader in The Galloway Gazette says:
  "Democratic accountability, the Tories argue, demands the Poll Tax, but there are many waverers now in the party who will be urging caution and now is surely the time to think again."
  If The Galloway Gazette is now calling for time to think again it must be time for the Minister to shake in his shoes.
  At the meeting held in Cumnock town hall the feeling that came through loud arid clear was that we must obstruct and oppose registration by every legal means. That is what the "Stop It" campaign has said, that is what the Labour party says and I believe that is what the Scottish Social and Liberal Democrats—what a mouthful —are saying. The Churches and trade unions in Scotland are also saying the same thing.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has, quite properly, harangued the SNF'. He should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who put some direct questions to Gordon Wilson during a programme in which he and I participated. Gordon

  79
  Wilson ducked those questions and, equally, gave no suggestion that he would be prepared to give legal advice to all those whom he is advising to break the law. Is that not typical of the SNP?
  Mr. Foulkes: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and, since that is a dangerous position to be in, I shall return to the theme of my speech.
  Over the weekend I got my poll tax registration form and I have already amassed a whole series of questions to put to the registration officer before I can even contemplate filling it out. Who is the responsible person in my household? [Interruption.] Apart from the person to whom it is addressed—myself—my wife and indeed my mother are also in the household. I have already told the Minister that that lady strongly objects to that part of the registration form where she must put her date of birth— there is no conceivable reason for that. As Members of Parliament we have a legitimate question—given that we also have to live down here—regarding which is our main residence. That is not clear on the form. I have a young son of 17 who is currently in the middle of examinations. How do I know whether or where he will be a student during the course of the next financial year? I cannot answer that question, but that is just the beginning regarding the questions that need to be answered.
  7.15 pm
  Many of the officers who have been asked to administer the registration say that it is becoming an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare. The Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that the poll tax will cost twice as much as the rates to administer—other estimates say that it will cost three times as much. The way things are going I believe that it will cost more than three times as much to raise exactly the same amount of money. Surely that is crazy.
  Mr. Home Robertson: How is my hon. Friend advising his constituents to reply to the question on the form that says:
  "If no-one is solely or mainly resident in the premises, please write 'no-one.'"?
  Mr. Foulkes: Earlier on we needed clairvoyance to predict debts, now we need spirits to complete the form. My hon. Friend, in his usual eloquent and humorous way, has illustrated one of the many, manifest ridiculous aspects of the poll tax form.
  The message that comes across loud and clear is that we must obstruct the poll tax. We are organising the obstruction campaign because we are convinced that sensible members of the House of Lords—we have already heard from Lord St. John of Fawsley—will throw out the legislation. We in Scotland must delay the implementation of the poll tax until it is defeated, if not in this Chamber, in the other place. We shall then hold the Secretary of State for Scotland to his promise, that if the legislation does not go through for England it will be scrapped for Scotland. In answer to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), that is what the Secretary of State said and that is on record.
  The poll tax is unfair and unworkable. In Scotland we shall do everything we can to obstruct it. We shall do
  80
  everything we can to obstruct it for England in the House of Commons. We shall do everything we can to make sure that it never sees the light of day.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have sat through almost all of the five days of consideration of the English Bill. It is curious that here, in the Scottish debate, it is as though the seasons are rather more advanced than they are south of the border. The English have got as far as the early spring; we are approaching high summer because we know more about the proposals.
  The tragedy of all this is that the House of Commons is not being allowed to do its proper job because we are under the guillotine. If we were not under the guillotine the Bill would have what Enoch Powell, on another memorable occasion, called "the smell of death" about it. It would have been half way to destruction because of the kind of ribaldry to which it has been subjected by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). My hon. Friend has, quite properly, made a joke of many things, but they are serious points. They are creepy crawly things that are coming out from under the stones.
  The trouble is that it was very difficult to interest the Scots in the first place. It was even more difficult to interest the English. During the last election campaign—I hope that I am forgiven one personal reminiscence—I was in the Hyndburn constituency visiting proud Accrington. I was rebuked by the Labour candidate for spending 10 minutes of my speech on the poll tax. We have come some way since then.
  As is my wont during English debates, I wish to ask some questions. The first was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). What has been said to those people who will receive 40p for each completed form? There is far more than anecdotal evidence that some of them are behaving roughly, and notices going up saying "Judas" are very unpleasant. We must ask whether it is worth the candle. Under what instructions and guidelines are they operating and what have they been told by the Government? Some of us believe that they may be exceeding what they have been told to do.
  Secondly, in the debate late last Wednesday on joint liability, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill and other colleagues participated, we heard that even in England, which is a year behind us, people are deciding not to ask their grandmothers, their great aunts and others to live in the family home but are deciding that they should go elsewhere. All of us will have heard personal cases from our constituents. I do not wish to exaggerate the position because I do not believe that there has been much chucking-out of people, but in some cases the decision has been made not to take them in.
  What have the Government done about that? I want the Minister to tell us whether the Scottish Office is monitoring the position. There is no evidence that it is taking into account matters such as the variation in need.
  If the Bill goes ahead, many worthwhile people of all parties, not least the Conservative party, who would have gone into local government will have second thoughts. It may not be worth the candle to become a councillor. It is an honourable profession now, but in the future it may be rather different, and our country will be the poorer.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), as ever solicitous of my welfare, urged me to speak to the former Member of Parliament for Galloway, Mr. John Brewis, to find out what it was like to be defeated. Of course, he was never defeated as the Conservative Member for Galloway. He retired after a long and distinguished career. If I had to find a defeated Member, I would have to go to the Scottish National party and talk to Mr. George Thompson, who was defeated in 1979 and 1983.
  Mr. Foulkes: As I recall. I asked the Minister to find out what it was like to be the former Member for Galloway.
  Mr. Lang: Whether the hon. Gentleman said that or whether he used the word "defeated", his purpose was clear from his reference to my former colleague in the House.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that he had wanted to debate several other amendments. I should have been happy to debate them, and we have managed to debate some of the points in those other amendments. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred to the use of postcards by Strathclyde community charge registration officer. The hon. Lady mentioned the alleged intimidation of a mentally handicapped person in her constituency. She will appreciate that I cannot comment on the case without knowing all the details, but I can say that intimidation has no part in the procedure.
  The procedures adopted by the Strathclyde community charge registration officer were examined carefully in a recent court case brought by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). He was turned down on all four counts, and the sheriff found that the procedures being used were "convenient, sensible and practical". The postcard in question makes it clear that if there is a difficulty with the form, the canvasser will help in its completion.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked about the penalty on executors who fail to notify a death. The civil penalties in the 1987 Act do not apply to this provision. There is no provision for a penalty in the case of non-notification by the executors. The sanction on them is that until the deceased is deleted from the register, he and his estate will continue to be liable to pay the personal community charge. Therefore, it will be part of the executor's duties to the deceased's estate to ensure that notice is given to the community charge registration officer. When the officer is notified by the executor, he can amend the register retrospectively to the date of death. Any excess community charge that may have been paid will be repayable.
  Moving from death to birth, the hon. Member for Cathcart asked me whether the date of birth would be kept private. I assure him that the date of birth will not be part of the section of the register that is available for public inspection. For the internal purposes of a local authority, the system may generate reference numbers from the date of birth for each individual, but they will not be numbers which a person is required to memorise or quote when he moves from one authority to another. Nor, as has been suggested in some quarters, will identity cards be issued.
  82
  During the passage of the Scottish Act, strong representations were made by local authority practitioners, including the Rating and Valuation Association, that an identifier was necessary to distinguish between people of the same name living at a single address or to allow the checking of the identifying numbers of individuals who move from one registration area to another. The need for that was subsequently underlined by Cipfa Services Limited in its report on the operational aspects of the community charge system.
  The hon. Members for Cathcart and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked about exemptions For visiting forces. The spouses of members of visiting forces who are citizens of the United Kingdom are not exempt. The exemption for members of visiting forces is an exemption from the personal community charge. If a member of such a force buys a second home in the United Kingdom, he may be liable for the standard community charge. I appreciate that that is important in the hon. Lady's constituency, since such a person is currently liable for rates.
  Local authorities will not lose out financially, nor will their community charge payers, because of the community charge exemption for visiting forces. The rateable value of property occupied by visiting forces is determined by the Rating of Government Property Department in consultation with the local assessor. The department pays the rates for the property direct to the local authority and recovers a proportion, known as the beneficial proportion, from the visiting force. The beneficial proportion reflects the extent to which rates are payable for property services rather than personal services and is paid by the visiting forces by international agreement. The proportion is negotiated with the Governments concerned. The Government will be considering with those other Governments what similar arrangements may apply under the community charge system. Those arrangements will be designed to ensure that authorities need not bear an unreasonable burden as a result of the exemption for members of visiting forces who live in their areas.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart asked me about the uniform business rate. We have always made it clear that legislation is likely to be needed to complete the harmonisation process. Legislation to introduce a uniform business rate will be needed after the harmonisation processes are complete, and it is premature to consider that now. In the meantime, we have made arrangements to freeze and index-link poundages.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that amendment No. 96, which relates to inspection of the register, would mean that community charge registration would become a requirement for obtaining local authority services. That is the worst sort of scaremongering. The terms on which inspection of the register will be allowed have been made clear. They are limited to purposes connected with the administration of the community charge. The hon. Gentleman asked how a community charge registration officer would know that someone was about to be resident. An example would be when a house is sold and the seller's lawyer informs the registration officer of the name of the buyer well before he moves in.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked me to confirm that responsibility for completing the form and for paying the charge were not

  83
  one and the same. I am happy to do so. Indeed, the registration form mentions that point in three different places.
  The community charge in Scotland is now the law of the land and anyone who advocates disrupting the procedures, as we have heard from Opposition Members, must bear in mind the penalties that can be imposed upon those who fail to provide information or who provide false information when they are properly required to do so by registration officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was absolutely right to refer to the shocking distortions and misrepresentations among the Opposition parties. By their antics in opposing the community charge they have shown their carelessness not only with the truth but with the rule of law. When I accused them in a recent debate of flirting with lawlessness, I think I was being too kind; now, day after day, week after week, in this House and outside it, Opposition Members demonstrate their contempt for parliamentary democracy, and in doing so they reveal that they are unfit for Government.
  I urge hon. Members to approve the amendment as one more step towards the smooth and efficient implementation—despite the worst endeavours of the Opposition parties—of a new system of paying for local government that will abolish the discredited and unfair domestic rates system and put in its place a better, fairer system.
  It being half-past Seven o'clock. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 230.

  Division No. 274]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Atkins, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butler, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boswell, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  84

  Cope, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Irvine, Michael

  Curry, David

  Irving, Charles

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Sir Peter

  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)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  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

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hannam, John

  Mellor, David

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

  Miller, Hal

  Harris, David

  Mills, Iain

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moate, Roger

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayward, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Heddle, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hill, James

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Needham, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Holt, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  85

  Page, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Paice, James

  Stokes, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Price, Sir David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rattan, Keith

  Thorne, Neil

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Renton, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tracey, Richard

  Riddick, Graham

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Viggers, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rost, Peter

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Steen, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Alton, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Anderson, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Buckley, George J.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barron, Kevin

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Battle, John

  Cartwright, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clay, Bob

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clelland, David

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

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Coleman, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blunkett, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  Boyes, Roland

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  86

  Cox, Tom

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Crowther, Stan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  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)

  McLeish, Henry

  Dewar, Donald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  McTaggart, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Madden, Max

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flannery, Martin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Foster, Derek

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foulkes, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliott

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Galloway, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mullin, Chris

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Murphy, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Nellist, Dave

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Brien, William

  Gordon, Mildred

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Parry, Robert

  Graham, Thomas

  Patchett, Terry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Prescott, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Henderson, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hinchliffe, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Holland, Stuart

  Reid, Dr John

  Home Robertson, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Howells, Geraint

  Robertson, George

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Illsley, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Janner, Greville

  Salmond, Alex

  John, Brynmor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Short, Clare

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Lambie, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lamond, James

  Snape, Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Soley, Clive

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Litherland, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stort, Roger

  Livsey, Richard

  Strang, Gavin

  87

  Straw, Jack

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wall, Pat

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Walley, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Tony Banks and

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Adam Ingram.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 144 and new clause 14.
  Amendment made: No. 79, in page 70, leave out line 19.
  No. 80, in page 70, leave out lines 22 to 24.

Clause 128

  EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL CHARGE
  Amendment made: No. 81, in page 70, line 28, leave out from '1987' to the end of line 33 and insert
  ', section 8 (liability for personal community charge) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (8) at the end there shall be added the following paragraphs—

  "(e) persons who have a relevant association with a visiting force;

  (f) persons who are members of a headquarters and dependants of such persons."

  (3) After subsection (9) there shall be added the following subsections—
  "(10) For the purpose of paragraph (e) of subsection (8) above—

  (a) a visiting force, in relation to any particular time in a financial year, is anybody, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country to which any provision in Part I of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies at that time; and

  (b) a person has, at any particular time in a financial year, a relevant association with a visiting force if he has at that time such an association within the meaning of that Part.

  (11) For the purposes of paragraph (0 of subsection (8) above—

  (a) a headquarters, in relation to any particular time in a financial year, is a headquarters or organisation designated at that time by an Order in Council under section 1 of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964;

  (b) a person is, at any particular time in a financial year, a member of a headquarters if he is at that time such a member within the meaning of the Schedule to that Act; and

  (c) a person is, at any particular time in a financial year, a dependant of such a member if he is at that time such a dependant within the meaning of that Schedule.".'.[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 129
  COMMUNITY CHARGES: CROSS-BORDER INFORMATION
  Amendment made: No. 75, in page 71, line 31, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Lang.]
Clause 134

  SEPARATE ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES
  Amendment made: No. 108, in page 73, line 9, leave out
  'pools shall be established and maintained'
  and insert 'accounts shall be kept'.

Clause 136

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 177, in page 73, line 33, leave out '(6)' and insert '(7)'.
  No. 74, in page 73, line 38, after first 'above' insert
  `or section [Commencement: Scotland] below'.
  No. 178, in page 73, line 45, at end insert—
  `(7) The power to make an order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 below shall be exercisable as there mentioned.' —[Mr. Lang].

Clause 137
  INTERPRETATION: AUTHORITIES
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 74, leave out line 13. —[Mr. Lang.]
Clause 141

  FINANCE
  Amendment made: No. 109, in page 75, line 26, at end insert—
  '(2)' Any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 143

  EXTENT
  Amendments made: No. 121, in page 75, line 32, after
  'Sections', insert '(Social security),'.
  No. 82, in page 75, line 30, leave out 'paragraphs 1 and 8' and insert
  'section [Commencement: Scotland] above, Part II'.
  No. 76, in page 75, line 32, after '131', insert
  '136, 137(1), 138, 139(5) and (6), 140'
  No. 77, in page 75, line 34, leave out 'and section 129(6) above'—[Mr. Lang.]

Schedule 12

  TRIBUNALS
  Amendments made: No. 35, in page 110, line 38, at end insert—
  '(2) The regulations may include such provision as he sees fit in relation to membership, staff, accommodation, equipment, procedure and other matters relating to the tribunals.'.
  No. 36, in page 110, line 46, leave out 'General Rate Act 1967' and insert
  '1967 Act or any other Act'.
  No. 37, in page 111, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert—

  'Membership
  4.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1 above may include provision—

  (a) that the number of members of a tribunal is to be such as is determined by the Secretary of State;

  (b) for the appointment by a prescribed person or persons of the members of each tribunal;

  (c) that one of the members is to be president of the tribunal;

  (d) that the president is to be appointed by the members by a prescribed method, and that if one is not so appointed within a prescribed period the president is to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting such prescribed persons as he sees fit;

  (e) for the appointment by the president of a tribunal of some of its members (who may include the president) to the position of chairman;

  89

  (f)that persons are to be disqualified from becoming or continuing to be members in prescribed circumstances;

  (g) that members are to be disqualified from acting in cases falling within prescribed descriptions;

  (h) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify persons from becoming or continuing to be members;

  (i) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify members from acting;

  (j) as to the duration (subject to disqualification, termination or resignation) of any appointment as president or member or chairman;

  (k) allowing the Secretary of State to terminate an appointment as president;

  (l) requiring the person or persons who appointed a member to terminate the appointment if the Secretary of State so directs after consulting the person or persons who made the appointment;

  (m) allowing a president to terminate a person's appointment as chairman, and requiring a president to do so if the Secretary of State directs him to do so;

  (n) allowing a person appointed as president or member or chairman to resign if such notice as may be prescribed is given;

  (o) that a person who ceases to be president or member or chairman is to be eligible for re-appointment in prescribed circumstances;

  (p) that a member is to be entitled to such travelling, subsistence and other allowances as may be prescribed.

  (2) The regulations may include provision for the administration of members' allowances to be the responsibility of the clerk of the tribunal.

  Staff
  5.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1 above may include provision—

  (a) that a tribunal shall appoint a clerk of the tribunal and may appoint other employees;

  (b) that a tribunal shall pay to its employees such remuneration and allowances as the tribunal determines;

  (c) that (subject to disqualification) employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the tribunal may determine;

  (d) that an appointment shall be invalid unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State;

  (e) that a determination as to remuneration or allowances shall be valid unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the Treasury's consent;

  (f) that persons are to be disqualified from becoming or continuing to be employees in prescribed circum-stances;

  (g) that employees are to be disqualified from acting in cases falling within prescribed descriptions;

  (h) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify persons from becoming or continuing to be employees;

  (i) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify employees from acting.

  (2) The regulations may include provision—

  (a) that any function of making an appointment, or determing remuneration or allowances or other terms or conditions, may be performed on behalf of a tribunal by two or more of its members;

  (b) that one of those members must be the president.

  (3)The regulations may include provision for the administration of employees' remuneration and allowances to be the responsibility of the clerk of the tribunal.
  (4) The regulations may include provision that where a person ceases to be employed by a local valuation panel and immediately becomes employed by a valuation and community charge tribunal, for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 his period of employment by the panel shall count as a period of employment by the tribunal and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
  (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above a local valuation panel is a local valuation panel constituted under a scheme under section 88 of the 1967 Act.
  (6) Employment with a valuation and community charge tribunal shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) "a valuation and community charge tribunal" shall be inserted after "Police Complaints Authority".

  Accommodation and equipment
  5A.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1 above may include provision requiring a tribunal to—

  (a) maintain a permanent office, and

  (b) make arrangements to secure that the tribunal has such other accommodation, and such secretarial and other equipment, as is sufficient for the performance of its functions.

  (2) The regulations may include provision that any function as to accommodation or equipment may be performed on behalf of a tribunal by its clerk.

  Procedure
  5B.—(1) Regulations under paragraph I above may include—

  (a) provision for determining which tribunal is to deal with an appeal;

  (b) provision that prescribed functions of a tribunal relating to an appeal may be discharged on its behalf by its clerk or other prescribed employee;

  (c) provision that prescribed functions of a tribunal relating to an appeal may be discharged on its behalf by one of its members;

  (d) provision that prescribed functions of a tribunal relating to an appeal may be discharged on its behalf by some of its members;

  (e) provision as to the selection of a member who is to discharge functions relating to an appeal on behalf of a tribunal (which may include provision that he must be the president or a chairman);

  (f) provision as to the number and selection of members who are to discharge functions relating to an appeal on behalf of a tribunal (which may include provision that one of them must be the president or a chairman).

  (2) The regulations may include provision—

  (a) prescribing the procedure to be followed for initiating an appeal, and authorising or requiring it to be dismissed if it is not initiated within a prescribed time;

  (b) authorising an appeal to be disposed of on the basis of written representations in prescribed circumstances;

  (c) prescribing the procedure to be followed before the hearing of an appeal;

  (d) authorising an appeal to be withdrawn before the hearing in prescribed circumstances.

  (3) The regulations may include provision prescribing the procedure to be followed at the hearing of an appeal, and such provision may include provision—

  (a) requiring the hearing to take place in public except in prescribed circumstances;

  (b) as to the persons entitled to appear and to be heard on behalf of parties to the appeal;

  (c)authorising the hearing to proceed in the absence of a party or parties to the appeal in prescribed circumstances;

  (d) requiring persons to attend to give evidence and produce documents;

  (e) as to evidence generally (whether written evidence or oral evidence given under oath or affirmation) and, in particular, as to the use as evidence of information supplied under Schedule 8 or 11 above or under regulations under Schedule 2 above or under section 82 of the 1967 Act;

  (f) as to the adjournment of the hearing.

  (4) The regulations may include provision—

  (a) that where two or more members of a tribunal are acting the decision of the majority is to prevail or, if the votes are equal, the appeal is to be reheard;

  (b) requiring reasons for a decision to be given;

  (c) authorising a decision to be given orally or in writing;

  (d) authorising a decision to be reserved;

  91

  (e) authorising or requiring an order to be made in consequence of a decision;

  (f) that an order may require a register or list to be altered (prospectively or retrospectively), or an estimate to be altered, or a designation of an individual as a responsible individual to be revoked, or a penalty to be quashed or reduced, or a designation under section 5 above to be revoked;

  (g) that an order may require any ancillary matter to be attended to;

  (h) authorising or requiring a tribunal to review or set aside a decision, or to vary or revoke an order, of the tribunal in prescribed circumstances.

  (5) The regulations may include provision—

  (a) requiring decisions and orders to be recorded;

  (b) as to the proof of decisions and orders;

  (c) authorising the correction of clerical errors in records of decisions and orders;

  (d) requiring decisions, orders and corrections to be communicated to the parties to appeals.

  (6) The regulations may include provision that, subject to any other provision of the regulations, a tribunal may regulate its own procedure.
  (7) The regulations may include provision that a person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement imposed by the regulations under sub-paragraph (3)(d) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

  Orders
  5C.—(1) This paragraph applies where a tribunal orders—

  (a) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to alter the authority's community charges register,

  (b) the valuation officer for a charging authority to alter a local non-domestic rating list of the authority,

  (c) the central valuation officer to alter a central non-domestic rating list,

  (d) a charging authority to alter the valuation list maintained by the authority under section 59 above, or

  (e) a charging authority to alter its residual rating list.

  (2) If the order is recorded in accordance with any provision included in regulations under paragraph 1 above, the officer or authority ordered shall—

  (a) alter the register or list concerned accordingly, and

  (b) attend to any ancillary matter provided for in the order (such as the repayment of an amount, or the allowance of an amount by way of deduction against a sum due).

  5D.—(1) This paragraph applies where a tribunal orders—

  (a) a charging authority to alter an estimate, made for the purposes of regulations under Schedule 2 above, of the amount a person is liable to pay in respect of a community charge of the authority,

  (b) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to revoke a designation of an individual as a responsible individual under regulations under Schedule 2 above,

  (c) a charging authority to quash or reduce a penalty imposed by it under Schedule 3 above,

  (d) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to quash or reduce a penalty imposed by him under Schedule 3 above, or

  (e) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to revoke a designation under section 5 above.

  (2) If the order is recorded in accordance with any provision included in regulations under paragraph 1 above, the authority or officer ordered shall—

  (a) alter the estimate, revoke the designation or quash or reduce the penalty accordingly, and

  (b) attend to any ancillary matter provided for in the order (such as the repayment of an amount, or the allowance of an amount by way of deduction against a sum due).

  Inspection of records
  5E.—(1) This paragraph applies to records which relate to
  92
  decisions and orders of a tribunal and which are required to be made under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 1 above.
  (2) The regulations may include provision that a person may, at a reasonable time stated by or on behalf of the tribunal concerned and without making payment, inspect records to which this paragraph applies at the tribunal's permanent office.
  (3) The regulations may include provision that if without reasonable excuse a person having custody of records to which this paragraph applies intentionally obstructs a person in exercising a right under any provision included under sub-paragraph (2) above, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

  Finance
  5F. The Secretary of State shall make such payments as are necessary to meet any expenditure incurred in or in connection with the performance by tribunals of their functions (whether as regards remuneration, allowances, accommodation, equipment or otherwise).'
  No. 39, in page 111, line 27, leave out from 'amending' to end of line 28 and insert
  ', repealing or revoking any provision of or made under the 1967 Act or any other Act;
  (c) provision as to orders, which may include provision requiring the carrying out of an order made by a valuation and community charge tribunal in exercising jurisdiction conferred by the religious.

  Interpretation
  7. In this Schedule "the 1967 Act" means the General Rate Act 1967.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
Schedule 13
  Amendments made: No. 82A, in page 111, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert—
'PART I
  ENGLAND AND WALES'
  No. 38, in page 112, line 22, at end insert—
  'Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (c. 62)
  4A. In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (tribunals under direct supervision of Council on Tribunals) the following shall be inserted after paragraph 12—

  Local taxation
  12A. Valuation and community charge tribunals established by regulations under Schedule 12 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.".'.
  No. 123, in page 113, line 2, at end insert—

  'Social Security Act 1986 (c.50)
  7A.—(1) The Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 20 (income-related benefits) in subsection (11) after the definition of married couple there shall be inserted—
  ""residual rate" shall be construed in accordance with Part IV of the 1988 Act;".
  (3) In section 28 (arrangements for housing benefit)—

  (a) in subsections (l)(a) and (3)(a) for "rating" (in each place where the word occurs) there shall be substituted "charging";

  (b) in subsections (1) and (2) for "rates" (in each place where the word occurs) there shall be substituted "a residual rate".

  (4) In section 30 (housing benefit finance) in subsection (l)(a) for "rating" there shall be substituted "charging".
  (5) In section 56 (legal proceedings) in subsection (4)(a) for "rating" there shall be substituted "charging".
  (6) This paragraph shall have effect as regards housing benefit which is, or falls to be, provided in respect of a financial year beginning in or after 1990, and as regards subsidy in respect of such benefit.'
  Amendments made: No. 83, in page 113, line 2, at end insert—

'PART II
  SCOTLAND

    Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (c. 60.)
    7A. In section 6 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (ascertainment of certain values of lands and heritages) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(8A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under this subsection prescribe the principles to be applied in arriving at the net annual value of lands and heritages under subsection (8) above.
    (8B) Regulations made under subsection (8A) above—

    (a) may be made so as to apply differently to different areas or in relation to different cases or classes of case;

    (b) may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient; and

    (c) shall be made statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.

    No. 84, in page 113, line 2, at end insert—

    'Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65)
    7B. After section 110 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 there shall be inserted the following new section—

    Estimate of amount due for non-domestic district rate
    110A.—(1) In relation to each financial year a regional council shall estimate the amount due to the council of each district which falls within their region in respect of the non-domestic district rate for that year as that amount falls to be ascertained in pursuance of regulations made under section 110 of this Act.
    (2) For the purposes of making the estimate mentioned in subsection (1) above, it shall be assumed that in respect of the financial year concerned both the regional council and the district council determine the maximum non-domestic rate prescribed in relation to each of them in respect of that financial year under section 3(2) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.
    (3) The regional council shall, before such date may be prescribed in relation to each financial year, notify the council of each district in their region of the estimate made under subsection (1) above in relation to that district for that financial year.".'
    No. 85, in page 113, line 3 at end insert—
    '7D.—(l) Section 2 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (exclusion of domestic subjects from valuation roll) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) Where, after 1st April 1989 by virtue of regulations made under subsection (4) below, any lands and heritages or any parts of lands and heritages—

    (a) cease to be domestic subjects, they shall be entered in the valuation roll;

    (b) becomes domestic subjects, any entry in the valuation roll in respect of such lands and heritages shall be deleted,

    with effect from such date as may be prescribed by such regulations."
    (3) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
    "(4) The Secretary of State may vary the definition of domestic subjects in subsection (3) above by including or excluding such lands and heritages or parts thereof or class or classes of lands and heritages or parts thereof as may be prescribed.".'
    No. 255, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—
    '7A.—(l) Section 3 of that Act (non-domestic rates) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) after the word "earlier" there shall be inserted the words "or such lesser figure as may be specified in (or calculated in a manner
    94
    specified in) an order made by the Treasury in respect of the financial year in respect of which the calculation is to be made".
    (3) After subsection (10) there is be added the following subsection—
    "(11) An order made under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above shall be made by statutory instrument; but such an order amending or revoking another) shall not be effective unless it is approved by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament before—

    (a) regulations have been made under subsection (2) above prescribing a maximum non-domestic rate in relation to any local authority in respect of that financial year; and

    (b) the first order made by the Secretary of State, in respect of that year, under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4 to this Act has been approved by a resolution of that House.".'.

    No. 86, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—
    '7E.—(l) Section 5 of that Act (statutory and other references to rateable values etc.) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (3) for the words "Where in any enactment" there shall be substituted the words "subject to subsection (3A) below, where in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument)".
    (3) After the said subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(3A) Where in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument or an enactment which falls to be construed in accordance with subsection (3) above) there is a reference to a rate or rateable value or to any other factor connected with rating, the Secretary of State may make regulations providing that the reference shall instead be of some factor other than the one connected with rating.
    (3B) Regulations may provide as mentioned in subsection (3A) above—

    (a) as regards such enactment, or enactments of such description, as may be prescribed;

    (b) in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit (whether by amending enactments or other-wise)." '

    No. 87, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—
    '7F—(1) Section 8 of that Act (liability for personal community charge) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) for the words "aged 18 or over who is solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority in any financial year shall be Liable to pay" there shall be substituted the words "who is, at any time in a financial year—

    (a) aged 18 or over;

    (b) solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority; and

    (c) not exempt from liability under subsection (8) below or by virtue of section 30(2) of this Act,

    shall be liable to pay, in respect of that time,".
    (3) For subsections (2) and (3) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
    "(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, a person's liability to pay the personal community charge in respect of any time in a financial year shall subsist until the date on which the deletion of the entry in the register in respect of such liability takes effect.
    (3) Where a person is liable to pay the personal community charge in respect only of part of a financial year, the amount which he is liable to pay shall be calculated by apportionment on a daily basis.".'
    No. 88, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—
    '7G.—(1) Section 10 of that Act (liability for and calculation of standard community charge) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) For subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
    "(8) Subject to subsections (8B) and (9) below, the standard community charge shall not be payable in respect of relevant premises in respect of whichever is the shorter of—

    (a) the period for which the premises are unoccupied and unfurnished;

    95

    (b) a period of three months or such longer period as the levying authority may determine;

    and the levying authority may determine that different periods shall have effect for different premises or different classes of premises.
    (8A) For the purposes of subsection (8) above 'relevant premises' are premises to which this section applies, being premises—

    (a) which are unoccupied and unfurnished; and

    (b) as regards which notice is given to the levying authority by a person liable to pay the standard community charge in respect of the premises that they are unoccupied and unfurnished.

    (8B) Subsection (8) above shall have effect in respect of any relevant premises only once during any period (whether it fall in one or more than one financial year) in respect of which the standard community charge is, or would but for that subsection be, payable in respect of the premises.
    (8C) Before making a determination under paragraph (b) of subsection (8) above a levying authority which is a regional council shall consult the district council for the district in which the premises are situated.".
    (3) In subsection (9) of that section for the words "that subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (8A) above".
    (4) After the said subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(9A) Where a person is liable to pay the standard community charge in respect only of part of a financial year, the amount which he is liable to pay shall be calculated by apportionment on a daily basis."
    (5) In paragraph (b) of subsection (10) after the word "charge" there shall be inserted the words "which would, if the premises were for the whole of that financial year premises to which this section applies and were not, at any time in that year, relevant premises for the purposes of subsection (8) above, be".'.
    No. 89, in page 113, line 4, leave out paragraph 8 and insert the following paragraph.
    '8.—(1) Section 11 of that Act (liability for and calculation of collective community charge) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (7)—
    (a) after the words "shall be" there shall be inserted the words "the amount which is"; and
    No. 90, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '9. After section 11 of that Act there shall be inserted the following new section—

    Estimate of amount produced in districts
    11A.—(1) In relation to each financial year a regional council shall estimate the amount produced by each of the district community charges for that year in each district in their region as that amount falls to be ascertained in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
    (2) For the purposes of making the estimate mentioned in subsection (1) above, it shall he assumed that in respect of the financial year concerned both the regional council and the district council determine—

    (a) a personal community charge of £1, or such other amount as may be prescribed; and

    (b) a standard community charge multiplier of 2, or such other number as may be prescribed.

    (3) The regional council shall, before such date as may be prescribed in relation to each financial year, notify the council of each district in their region of the estimate made under subsection (1) above in relation to that district for that financial year.
    (4) In this section "district community charges" has the same meaning as in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act.".'.

    (b) such requirements as to—

    (i) publication of the effect of this subsection and subsection (4) above; and

    (ii) the right of a registered person to have an entry relating to him omitted from the extract, as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

    (c) that the regional or islands council shall make the extract available

    96

    (i) for inspection by members of the public to such extent and at such times and places; and

    (ii) for sale to such extent, in such form, on such terms and conditions and at such places, as may be prescribed.".'.

    No. 91, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '10.—(1) Section 13 of that Act (Community Charges Register) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

    "(a) the name of every person liable to pay any of the community charges in the registration area;

    (b) in the case of a person liable to pay the personal community charge, the address of his sole or main residence;

    (c) in the case of a person liable to pay the standard or collective community charge, his address and the address of the premises in the registration area in respect of which that charge is payable;

    (cc) in the case of premises in respect of which the collective community charge is payable, the collective community charge multiplier determined for the time being in respect of those premises;".

    (3) In paragraph (e) of that subsection for the word "these" there shall be substituted the word "the".'
    No. 92, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '11. In section 14(2) of that Act (notice of registration) for the words "person whose name is entered in the register" there shall be substituted the words "registered person".'.
    No. 93, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '12.—(1) Section 15 of that Act (amendment of community charges register) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (5)—

    (a) for the words "any amendment to the register which might affect that person, but" there shall be substituted the words "or amending any entry in the register which might affect that person, but, except in the case of an amendment such as is mentioned in subsection (6) below,";

    (b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

    "(a) copy of the entry or (as the case may be) the entry as amended; or

    (b) where the amendment consists of the deletion of an entry, notification of such deletion";

    (c) for paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

    "(i) the effect of the entry or (as the case may be) of the amendment to the entry in the register;".

    (3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

    "(6) Where an amendment requires to be made to an entry in the register in consequence of the death of a registered person, the registration officer shall send to the executors of the deceased notice of the fact that he has, with effect from the date of the deceased's death, deleted the entry in the register relating to the deceased.

    (7) Except where the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Act to the amendment of the register or of any entry in the register shall include a reference to the deletion of such an entry.".'.

    No. 94, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '13.—(1) Section 16 of that Act (registration appeals) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) for the words "A person who is registered in the register as being liable to pay any of the community charges" there shall be substituted the words "A registered person".
    (3) In paragraph (a) of that subsection for the words "in respect of his liability to pay any of the community charges" there shall be substituted the words "in relation to him".
    (4) In paragraph (b) of that subsection for the word "any" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the word "the".'.
    No. 95, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '14. In section 18 of that Act (obtaining of information from individuals) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

    97
    "(2A) Where a registered person dies his executors shall notify the registration officer of the date of the person's death—

    (a) in the case of executors nominate, not later than one month after that date;

    (b) in the case of executors dative, not later than one month after the date of their appointment."

    No. 95A, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '15. After the said section 18 there shall be inserted the following section—

    Obtaining of information generally
    18A. (1) The registration officer may require any person whom he reasonably believes is, has been or is about to be resident in the registration area to supply to him such information—

    (a) as the registration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the exercise of his functions under this Act; and

    (b) as is in the possession or control of such person.

    (2) A person required to supply any information in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall supply the information within such period, not being less than 21 days, as the registration officer may require.
    (3) Subsections (10) to (12) of section 17 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as they have for the purposes of that section; and for the purposes of this section any reference in those subsections—

    (a) to a responsible person shall be construed as a reference to a person required to supply information under subsection (1) above;

    (b) to the prescribed period shall be construed as a reference to the period mentioned in subsection (2) above; and

    (c) to a requirement under subsection (5) shall be construed as a reference to a requirement under subsection (1) above.".'

    No. 96, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    `16.—(1) Section 20 of that Act (inspection of register) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) for sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

    "(i) the addresses of premises in the registration area;

    (ii) the name of any person appearing in an entry relating to such premises (but not so as to enable him to ascertain whether that person resides at the address of such premises); and

    (iii) the collective community charge multiplier determined for the time being in relation to any premises (other than premises of such class or classes as may be prescribed) in respect of which a collective community charge is payable."

    (3) After paragraph (c) of that subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "(d) any such other person as may be prescribed shall be entitled to inspect the register to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed."
    (4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, the register shall be available for inspection to the extent permitted by subsections (1) and (2) above in such circumstances, subject to such restrictions and in such other places in the registration area as may be prescribed. (3B) In relation to as much of the register as is kept otherwise than in documentary form, a right of inspection conferred by this section is a right to inspect the information in the register in legible form."
    (5) for subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
    "(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require the registration officer to make such extracts of the register, disclosing the information specified in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (2)(a) above, as may be prescribed.
    (5) Regulations made under subsection (4) above may prescribe—
    (a) such date or dates in each financial year on which an extract is to be made;
    No. 97, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '17. In section 26(1) of that Act (interpretation) after the definition of "register" there shall be inserted the following—
    "`registered person' means a person who is registered in the register as being liable to pay any of the community charges, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly; ".'.
    No. 98, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    `18.—(1) Schedule 2 to that Act (Levy, collection, payment and recovery of community charges) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph 2(1) (demand notices) at the beginning there shall be inserted—
    "Subject to paragraph 2A below,".
    (3) After paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "2A. Where a person's liability to pay a community charge arises only by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability)—

    (a) the levying authority shall not issue a demand notice before the date prescribed under paragraph 2(1) above; but

    (b) they shall issue such a notice at such time as it appears to them that they will be unable to recover payment of the community charge from any other person who is liable to pay the charge.".

    (4) In paragraph 3 (appeals against demand notices) in sub-paragraph (a) after the word "against" there shall be inserted the words—

    "(i) where the liability to pay the community charge is stated to be by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability), such liability, and

    (ii) in every case,".

    (5) In paragraph 4 (payment of community charges)—

    (a) in sub-paragraph (3) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below"; and

    (b) in sub-paragraph (8) at the end there shall be added the words "or on such other day in that month as the levying authority may determine".

    (6) In paragraph 5 (arrangements with housing bodies) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—
    "(7) No document issued by a housing body in pursuance of an arrangement made under this paragraph to a person liable to pay a community charge or any instalment thereof shall contain or refer to arrangements for any payment other than the payment of such community charge or instalment."
    (7) In paragraph 6 (accounting or district community charges)—

    (a) for sub-paragraph (3) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

    "(3) The Secretary of State may prescribe what deductions are to be made in estimating and ascertaining the amount produced by each of the regional and district community charges levied by a regional council."; and

    (b) in sub-paragraph (6) of the words "'district community charges' has" there shall be substituted the words "'regional community charges' and `district community charges' have".'.

    No. 233, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    '19. In the said Schedule 2 in paragraph 4(7) for the words "rebate under or by virtue of section 24 of this Act from that amount or instalment" there shall be substituted the words "reduction in that amount or instalment in consequence of any community charge benefit under Part II of the Social Security Act 1986".'.
    No. 236, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
    `.In the said Schedule 2, in paragraph 5 (arrangements with housing bodies) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added the words "or of any of the authority's responsibilities as regards community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986.'—[Mr. Lang.]

Schedule 14

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 99, in page 115, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

  `In section 2, in subsec-tion (3), paragraph (b); and in subsection (5) the words "or part of a class" and the words "(3)(b) or".'.

  No. 100, in page 115, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

  In section 11(11), in paragraph (c) the words "under this Act".

  In section 20, in subsection (3) the words "and at such other places as may be prescribed" and the words from "and in relation" to the end.

  In Schedule 2, paragraph 4(2).'.

  No. 234, in page 115, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

  `Section [24.'—[Mr. Lang.]

New Clause 14

  COMMENCEMENT: SCOTLAND
  `.The provisions of this Act which extend only to Scotland shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes.'—[Mr. Lang.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not gladly miss any opportunity to dance another little jig on the deck of the Government's coffin ship, otherwise known as the poll tax Bill. I was very surprised to learn on returning to the Chamber that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) had cast aspersions on me by saying that I was not present in the Chamber during the debate. The only reason that I was not in the Chamber is that I was attending——
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: That is not a point of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is for the Chair to determine points of order. That is not a point of order. Attendance in the Chamber has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Wilson: Further to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West to withdraw his remarks?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not in order. As I have said, the attendance of hon. Members in the Chamber or anywhere else in this place has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
  Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find myself in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame. North (Mr. Wilson) in that I would like to be able to correct gratuitous remarks that were made in ignorance.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it clear that this matter has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?
  Mr. Butterfill: It is that, further to the points of order that have been made, may I tell the House that I did not identify either of the hon. Gentlemen who have made the points of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That has cleared the matter up nicely. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) clearly said that he regretted the absence during the debate of the other Scottish Members who served on the Standing Committee. Those Members were my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Tomorrow's Hansard will let us all know exactly what was said.

New Clause 10

  ACQUISITION OF INTERESTS LESS THAN FREEHOLD
  `After section 79 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Acquisition of leasehold etc. treated as acquisition of freehold
  79A.—(1) In any case where—

  (a) an interest in or right over land is acquired on or after 10th March 1988, and

  (b) the interest or right confers a right to possession or occupation of the land, and

  (c) the interest or right is neither the fee simple absolute in possession nor an interest or right not exceeding one year in duration, and

  (d) the acquisition is neither by gift nor by deed with no consideration other than the presumed consideration imported by the deed,

  then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the authority making the acquisition shall be treated as having acquired, for a consideration which is not in money alone, the fee simple absolute in possession in that land, subject only to the interests and rights referred to in subsection (2) below.
  (2) The interests and rights referred to in subsection (1) above are those (if any) to which the interest or right which is actually acquired is subject at the time of the acquisition, excluding any which arise by virtue of a mortgage or charge to secure the payment of money.
  (3) In subsection (1)(b) above—

  (a) `possession' has the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925, that is to say, it includes receipt of rents and profits or the right to receive the same, if any; and

  (b) 'occupation' means occupation without possession but, subject to that, includes future occupation.

  (4) Subsection (12) of section 80 below applies for the purposes of this section but where, by virtue of that subsection, an authority is taken to acquire an interest exceeding one year in duration, that interest shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above as the fee simple absolute in possession.".'—[Mr. Ridley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 11—Prescribed expenditure—Government new clause 12—Share and loan capital and guarantee payments—and Government amendment No. 42.
  Mr. Ridley: These new clauses and the consequential amendment in the title of the Bill were foreshadowed in the statement that I made on 9 March. Together with the regulations, they deal with two major defects that have become apparent in the existing legislation and regulations dealing with capital controls. The regulations, which are down for debate later, give effect to the statement about the leasing changes, lease and leaseback. They are temporary, in that they will hold the position until there have been consultations and further consideration. Amending regulations will be provided and these are merely a stopgap to hold the position until we have had time to consult.
  First, some councils were raising money by lease and leaseback deals in order to avoid the consequences of not having balanced their revenue budgets. The law does not permit local authorities to borrow to cover revenue deficits, nor does it permit them to pledge their assets as security. It was clearly necessary to prevent them from achieving the same result and avoiding these restrictions by lease and leaseback.
  Secondly, both leasing and barter were being used by more and more councils to undertake capital expenditure over and above that provided for in the Government's public expenditure plans. The measures do not prevent barter or leasing from being used, but bring such transactions within the spending limits laid down.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Would the Secretary of State like to tell the House how he makes these new capital expenditure controls consistent with the encouragement given by the Secretary of State for Wales to health authorities in Wales? He said that when they contemplate building new hospitals they should organise it in such a way that the private sector builds the hospitals and leases them back to the health authorities in Wales. That is encouraging public authorities to do sale and leaseback deals with the private sector and contradicts what the Secretary of State is saying.
  Mr. Ridley: All I am saying is that that has to be done within the system of capital controls and not as an addition to it. That does not mean to say that it cannot still be done, which is the point that I was making.
  In broad terms, the new clauses deal with three matters. First, they bring barter fully within the capital control system. Part barter transactions have always been subject to control, so this hardly represents a major change of policy. Secondly, they amend the statutory rules that determine how much prescribed expenditure is scored when assets are acquired by leasing. Thirdly, they bring within capital controls the acquisition of share or loan capital in the making of payments under the guarantees of borrowing.
  The new regulations provide that acquisition of a lease of property will be outside capital expenditure controls
  102
  only if it is for less than three years, if it is not renewable for a longer period, if it is not an extension of a previous lease or if it is not part of a larger transaction. That is a fair precis of the overall effect of these clauses.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened with care to what the Secretary of State said, and I heard him say that barter deals will be included in the regulations if they are entire barter deals as opposed to part barter deals. Why has such concern been expressed by the Association of District Councils which, as the Secretary of State will know, said in response to his announcement on 9 March that the new clauses will put many carefully negotiated good schemes in jeopardy?
  Mr. Ridley: The reason is that district councils are doing a lot of barter deals. I have something to say later which may be of comfort to the hon. Gentleman.
  I shall not go into the detail of the new clauses as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, When (Mr. Chope), will provide any information that hon. Members ask for at the end of the debate, but I should like to enlarge on the reasons for the measures. All Governments control local authority capital expenditure, which is part of public expenditure. That is not a proposition that any political party seriously opposes. I think that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) agreed with that proposition.
  A short definition of public expenditure is that it involves things that are paid for now or later out of taxation. I emphasise the words "or later". Like individuals, the Government have some scope for deferring, or advancing, the actual payments, whether by borrowing, by credit or by hire purchase, but the commitments once entered into have to be paid for eventually. It is the normal accounting convention, and has been ever since public expenditure planning was introduced in its modern form, that expenditure should be recorded when assets are acquired or when work is done and not when the payments are actually made.
  That is the basic philosophy of the local authority capital control system. When capital assets move in and out of the ownership or control of the local authority sector, the full value of those assets should be counted as public expenditure. Equally, when improvements are carried out to assets already within that sector, the full cost should be counted. The amount that is counted represents the call that is being made on the nation's resources. It does not and should not depend on the precise arrangements made to finance the expenditure.
  Similarly, when assets move out of the local authority sector, a capital receipt is recorded. Again, the amount of the receipt does not necessarily reflect the financial terms of the disposal. It measures the worth of the assets that have been released.
  The purpose of the capital control system is to secure that public expenditure and local authority capital assets, less capital receipts from the disposal of such assets, match the public expenditure provisions that have been made. We do not intend to stop barter deals, merely to bring them within the capital control system. They have been used to avoid it; why else would authorities go to the trouble of keeping the transaction off their books?
  Barter involves transfers of assets into and out of the public sector. It cannot be right that such transfers should

  103
  take place outside the system under which the acquisition of assets by local authorities is controlled. Barter often does not offer good value for money. In some cases, it involves a middleman, who takes a cut. It usually involves selling to a single bidder who might not want it for himself. That is no way for a local authority to realise the best price of its assets on behalf of its ratepayers, because it cannot test the market.
  Any scheme which takes place off the books is not necessarily the highest priority, nor subject to the same financial scrutiny that would apply if it was competing against other schemes within the capital control system. It may be claimed that barter schemes do not affect public expenditure, but I do not believe that. There is an opportunity cost involved. If a local authority sold a piece of surplus land for cash, public expenditure, and often public debt, would be reduced. If it swaps the land for a swimming pool, the opportunity for that reduction would be lost.
  Barter was taking place on such a scale that it had to be brought under the capital control system. Since 9 March, we have been able to find out much more accurately what was happening. Two things have emerged. First, many schemes of both types are in the pipeline where commitment has been made or expenditure incurred. Secondly, the prescribed proportion rules bite harshly on some barter schemes such as land swaps and property rationalisation.
  Therefore, I have two important and major relaxations to announce to the House this evening. The first concerns schemes that are in the pipeline. In my statement on 9 March, I said:
  "I and my right hon. Friends will consider issuing additional capital allocations where we are satisfied that the agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure or borrowing controls."—[Official Report. 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 327.]
  I propose to use two criteria in interpreting what one might call cases in the pipeline. The first involves the extent to which expenditure has already been incurred or other commitments entered into, whether by the local authority or by any other party. For example, sites might have been acquired, design work might have been undertaken or tenants might have been rehoused, or perhaps there is evidence of some other commitment.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ridley: In a moment.
  The second criterion is the extent to which the scheme is designed neither to increase the stock of assets over which the local authority has effective control, nor to raise money on the security of the authority's assets. If local authorities consider that schemes which were in the pipeline on 9 March meet both those criteria, they should apply to my Department for extra capital allocations.
  Mr. Heffer: Has the Minister considered which local authorities fall into one category and which fall into the other? Does it mean that by chance Conservative councils are in one category—that which he will treat sympathetic-ally—and that Labour councils are in the other category?
  Mr. Ridley: I have looked at that, and it does not mean what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Tony Speller: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the case of a small and careful local authority—the North Devon district council? The sheer scale of expenditure on harbour improvements at Ilfracombe, the building of marinas and the dredging of the docks will be far outside the capital ability of such a council. The only way that such a development can be achieved is to go to a developer—in fact, it is seeking ideas from more than one company. They involve barter between council land and developer money. If the council goes outside the normal capital expenditure controls and, although our authority is allowed to spend only some £250,000 annually, on this one occasion only it seeks to spend £2 million, and barter is essential for the finance, will this form of harbour and commercial improvement be ruled out?
  Mr. Ridley: I have no knowledge of the scheme that my hon. Friend has described. If he will send me details of it, we shall certainly consider it.
  I was coming to the second major relaxation which possibly could be of help in that case. Obviously, I cannot make a decision without having seen the details. It applies only to barter deals.
  The representations which I have received since my statement on 9 March have also persuaded me that the existing legislation and regulations are a particular constraint on what I might call "in and out" transactions. By these I mean schemes where a particular asset is acquired so that another asset, or possibly the same asset, can be disposed of and where the disposal can happen only if the acquisition happens first. The inhibiting effect of the capital control system on property rationalisations was commented on by the Audit Commission in its report on local authority property which drew attention to the massive scope for local authorities to make better use of their property holdings.
  We already have a limited back-to-back scheme under which additional allocations can be given to facilitate the acquisition of assets and their subsequent sale, as might happen when a council uses its land assembly powers to facilitate a private sector development. I propose to replace that scheme by an "in-and-out" scheme. Additional allocations will be available for three classes of transaction: first, the exchange of land for land; secondly, the replacement of existing assets held by the local authority by assets to be used for broadly similar purposes; and, thirdly, schemes in which the main intention is to facilitate investment by the private sector in assets which, when the scheme is completed, will be owned, operated and controlled by the private sector.
  Mr. Dalyell: We have had difficulties with the legal advice that the Secretary of State has received from the lawyers who advise the Department of the Environment. Is it not rather difficult in law to establish [the Secretary of State seems to depend on this—motive and intention? One can deduce things from circumstantial evidence, but in law it is difficult to prove these things.
  8 pm
  Mr. Ridley: No, because the full nature of any agreement will be submitted and it is the ultimate objective of that agreement which we shall consider. The hon.

  105
  Gentleman might prefer me to withdraw these concessions, but I do not think that I will do so, because I believe that they will be helpful.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way. It is not easy, hearing about such concessions in a debate like this, to understand specifically what the Secretary of State intends. He will be aware that two major projects in Carrick district council, within my area, have been affected, and the council has made representations to him. Would it be possible to make some effort about the problems of Carrick district council, and for somebody from the Department to meet an all-party delegation, as has been requested, to try to sort through these problems? Secondly, can he comment on the circumstances that arise in one case, where a major asset is in urgent need of renewal or replacement and the council is considering disposing of another asset to pay for that? That would be completely impossible within capital restraints, but the asset will otherwise waste away. Will that come within the terms of the Secretary of State's concessions?
  Mr. Ridley: I cannot interpret these conditions in relation to any particular scheme, whether in theory or in detail, at the Dispatch Box tonight. That is not something for the hon. Gentleman to worry about. We shall consider any scheme that his council puts forward and see any delegation that he wishes to bring. There is now to be a period of consultation with the local authorities on these proposals, and when that is concluded the Government will bring forward new regulations which will be the opportunity to comment on the final plan.
  One of the difficulties with this matter has been that, until my statement on 9 March, I did not know what was going on or how much of it was outside the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, because local authorities took good care not to tell me because they knew perfectly well it was outside the capital controls regime. Now that we know what is going on, we can make a more sensible analysis of how to deal with it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?'
  Mr. Ridley: Yes, I will give way, but this is the last occasion, because I do not want to take too much time.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I am not surprised that he made a statement without knowing the full implications of the situation. Equally, he is now asking us to understand some fairly complicated proposals without being 100 per cent. certain of what is involved. I only hope that he is more certain than he was on 9 March. The London borough of Newham is involved in a number of leaseback and barter deals, all of which are aimed at doing something about the growing homelessness problem in the area. In general terms, would such schemes be acceptable, as we are trying to address a serious problem?
  Mr. Ridley: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, a large amount of business was being transacted under both these heads, but it was carefully concealed from my Department because——
  Mr. Rooker: How did the right hon. Gentleman know?
  Mr. Ridley: We found out enough to be able to make the statement on 9 March. Now we know the full picture, we can consider it much more carefully, and I have already said that we will.
  On the second point, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) must study the particular schemes in relation to what I have said. I know that he cannot assimilate this and entirely understand it just like that and without some advice. However, there is an opportunity for consultation and representations before we come forward with the final regulations, which will be designed only after the matters have had public discussion.
  I trust that these two major relaxations will be of considerable comfort to those hon. Members who have been alarmed by particular cases which local authorities have brought to their attention. I think that they will deal with many of those that we have already seen, and they should make for a fairer transition and an easier new regime.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's important statement is a massive climbdown from his statement of 9 March, which he made, as he has admitted in his curiously disarming way, when he did riot know what was going on.
  It is a new doctrine of Government that Ministers come to Parliament and announce major changes in capital investment programmes for the length and breadth of the country when, on their own admission, they do not know what they are talking about. That is extraordinary. Tonight, we have seen just how ill-considered arid downright wrong that politically motivated statement was. It was motivated not by any common sense, evidence or investigation into the circumstances. It was a political response, partly, I regret to say, engendered by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and others. The irony of it was that the project that the hon. Member for Acton complained of was, on the admission of the Secretary of State, lawful and in order and it went ahead.
  The Secretary of State should have said this in his announcement but I invite him to say it now. He should withdraw the regulations that he is asking the House to approve after 10 o'clock tonight. We knew before his statement, but it is even clearer now, that those regulations are simply a stopgap measure. Why is the Secretary of State so unclear about all this when his own Green Paper, published in 1986, asserted that the Government had had these matters under consideration since 1984? Here we are in 1988 and the Government still do not have a clear idea of what they are seeking to do and why.
  The reality is that the Secretary of State has been forced to make this announcement not least because of the massive protest from his own colleagues in local government. When he made his statement on 9 March, he implied that the statement was necessary because of the activities of a handful of mainly Labour-controlled local authorities. We knew that it was not true then, and we certainly have the evidence to demonstrate that it is not true now. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State has backed off.
  The Secretary of State has manoeuvred oddly throughout this whole business. On 9 March, certain members of the press were provided with a background briefing by officials of the Department of the Environment. That information was never presented to Parliament or published formally. It named certain projects in certain

  107
  local authorities. It emerged that much of it was based on anecdotal hearsay evidence, as the Secretary of State was subsequently forced to admit.
  When I asked, through my office, for a copy of the information, my private secretary received a letter from the Secretary of State's private secretary dated 10 March, which said:
  "I attach a copy of a note which I gather our press officers gave to some members of the Press who asked for examples of the kind of local authority schemes which might be affected by the terms of the Secretary of State's announcement. This was not a note prepared with formal distribution in mind. You will see that it is a list of examples of some of the schemes that the Department has heard about from various sources, primarily MPs, councillors and press reports. It is not in any sense intended as a definitive list of such schemes."
  It is outrageous that the Secretary of State should make statements of such importance based on hearsay, gossip and innuendo. That is what the note confesses to. When the Secretary of State——
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, of course I will give way in a moment when I have finished my point. The hon. Gentleman should learn about all the correspondence before he intervenes.
  When the Secretary of State was challenged on these points by councillor Jack Layden, the leader of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, he said in his reply dated 29 March:
  "The list was a list of examples of large proposed leasing schemes. It was not intended as a full summary of available evidence and neither was it prepared for publication."
  However, it was given to the press. It was not prepared for publication, but it was given to the press, not Parliament.
  Mr. Butterfill: As the hon. Gentleman might conceivably assent that some local authorities have deliberately tried to conceal what was going on in this area, does he suggest that the Government should employ an army of snoopers, as no doubt he would call them, to root out the details or is it not easier to proceed as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proceeded, and force a situation in which the details become apparent?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that authorities were trying to conceal what was happening. Of course these things would have to be matters for the record for members of the authority. As the hon. Gentleman is talking about concealment——
  Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
  As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is talking about concealment, I want to stress that there is far more concealment in central Government under this Prime Minister than there is in local government under the control of parties of any political persuasion. Local government is far more open than central Government ever has been and it remains so.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the schemes appear to have been assigned and pushed through without opposition party councillors even being told? If councils will not tell their own councillors, does the hon. Gentleman believe that they will tell me?
  Dr. Cunningham: We are quite familiar with these unsubstantiated allegations, unsupported by any definitive statements or evidence. We are aware of the general smear on local government. If the Secretary of State has evidence, why does he not name the authorities involved? He has made a very serious allegation. Which authority is he talking about? Will he name one, two, three or four authorities?
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and the Secretary of State have referred to concealment. They must think that we have very short memories. Have they forgotten about the leak of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Environment's office and the Prime Minister's office which occurred a few days ago? There can be no better example of concealment and deception in recent political history than that. Secret memos were sent back and forth aimed at misleading not the Opposition, but Conservative Members of Parliament. If I were a Conservative Member, I would keep pretty damned quiet about concealment at the moment.
  The Secretary of State said in his statement:
  "I have to inform the House that, once again, a minority of local authorities are employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them under the existing capital control system. Only a minority of authorities are involved".
  That certainly was not true then and the right hon. Gentleman knew that. All the evidence on the record now shows that that was not true. It was an attempt to mislead public opinion about those decisions in local government.
  I challenged the Secretary of State later on in his statement. I asked:
  "Will he confirm, for example, that his proposals will affect large and small local authorities right across the country, under Tory as well as Labour control? Will he confirm that the proposals will affect the capital programmes of many of those authorities, including house-building programmes, redevelopment programmes and capital expenditure on leisure centres?"—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 326–29.]
  The Secretary of State sought to imply that all that was not true.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Dalyell: May I refer my hon. Friend to column 1170 of the Official Report of 22 April 1988 in respect of the leaks between the Department of the Environment and the Prime Minister which are being thoroughly investigated? If they are being thoroughly investigated, could we at some stage be told something about them?
  Dr. Cunningham: As ever, my hon. Friend has made an important point. It is perhaps worth asking the Secretary of State whether his ministerial colleagues are being questioned along with the civil servants. As we know from the recent past that a number of these alleged leaks have not been leaks at all, but deliberate acts authorised by no less a person than the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Of course we know that. Sir Crawley should observe the normal behaviour of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and be seen and not heard.
  To reinforce my point about authorities under the control of different political parties, I want to list a few examples almost at random. The Association of District Councils has claimed that 150 of its members had schemes affected by the announcement. Nearly 150 local authority projects worth more than £350 million may be abandoned because of the Government's clampdown on leaseback

  109
  and barter deals. Those are overwhelmingly Tory-controlled authorities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is shaking her head. I will cite one or two examples. The first relates to Spelthorne. Where is the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) now? That authority is Tory controlled. It has a scheme for a town centre redevelopment, involving the disposal of a council-owned site to provide leisure facilities. Tory-controlled Tamworth has a scheme for the modernisation of a housing estate. Tory-controlled Vale of White Horse in Oxfordshire has a scheme for major renovation works to a block of flats and the provision of new dwellings. Tory-controlled Wyre in Lancashire has a scheme for the renovation of a windmill——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way at the moment. I can assure the hon. Lady that I will give way, but not at the moment. I heard the hon. Member for Lancaster say, "No, no, no" from a sedentary position when I referred to Tory-controlled authorities. Presumably at that point she did not realise that I was going to refer to one rather close to home.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I suggest that it is rather more sensible to do up a windmill, which has lasted since the 13th century, than to lease back parking meters or sell Labour-controlled town halls as some Labour-controlled councils are doing? That cannot conceivably be described as right.
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with the hon. Lady's first point. The windmill renovation is a sensible project. However, it is a pity that the hon. Lady did not make those comments on 9 March when she almost certainly supported her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  As there is apparently some dispute or lack of knowledge about Tory-controlled local authorities, what about Tory-controlled St. Albans? It has a scheme for the exchange of land with North West Hertfordshire health authority to enable hospital expansion. Can we accept that Basingstoke is Tory-controlled? Will the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West accept that Bournemouth is Tory-controlled? Bournemouth has a redevelopment scheme for a major entertainments complex and car parking. Tory-controlled North Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire have schemes——
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He may have noticed on that list, a copy of which I have received, Lancaster district council, which has no one party in overall control, has a scheme for housing improvement which has been caught by the system. Was the hon. Lady aware that that scheme was caught? if so, is she happy that housing in her constituency will not be improved?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for finally springing the trap on the hon. Lady.
  The reality is that the Secretary of State, as is often his wont, dived into the situation without the slightest idea of where he was going—without a scintilla of evidence to
  110
  support his actions. He has been lambasted by Tory-controlled local authorities up and down the country and he is backing off fast. As is usual with his decisions, that is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, we shall have to read much of the small print of what he has said, because we are still not convinced that the criteria he seeks to employ are as fair and as objective as he has implied tonight.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am deeply concerned about the contents of the new clauses. I do not consider myself bound to support them in the Lobbies tonight. They are new clauses tabled towards the end of debates on an important Bill. I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of District Councils, and I have received much of the briefing material to which Opposition Members have referred. I have also had a lengthy meeting with my own Macclesfield borough council, which is one of the few in the north-west having overall Conservative control. Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) could not be there, but he has been subsequently fully briefed. The new clauses will adversely affect a well-managed authority in the north-west of England, which is Tory-controlled and which, over the past 10 years, has achieved the lowest rate precept rise in the whole of Cheshire. It is often accused of penny pinching, and yet some of the most necessary and vital projects currently being planned by that authority are being jeopardised as a result of the new clauses.
  My right hon. Friend has received a letter from me, and he has paid me the courtesy of responding personally because his Department has not had time to prepare a detailed reply. I shall listen to the Front Bench response to this short debate before deciding what I shall do in the Division Lobbies. However, I must tell my right hon. Friend that, as matters currently stand, I shall be voting against the new clauses. I believe that they will be very damaging to many responsible, well-managed authorities. I say to my right hon. Friend that there are also some well-managed Labour authorities. One or two of them are close to my constituency in Cheshire, in the Greater Manchester area, and it is wrong that authorities which have shown themselves to be responsible should be treated in that way.
  The technicalities of the proposed changes and my right hon. Friend's concessions are complex—but, in short, they will bring further types of transactions within what I can only describe as already restricted control, whereas they were previously considered a legitimate supplement to the use of capital receipts. The need for such a supplement is illustrated by the extent of the permissible borrowing approval allowed by the Government to the Macclesfield borough council. For all non-housing projects—such as car parks, pedestrianisation, public lavatories and pavilions—the council's allocation is in the region of £387,000, to which may be added a percentage—£30 per cent., as my right hon. Friend knows—of capital receipts. That latter aspect adds a further sum, averaging £500,000, to the amont of money that my borough council can spend.
  The council's current allocation for its housing improvement programme of £1·4 million is reducing and, even with capital receipts, that programme—which is much needed, much in demand and well planned—must be constantly rephased, with the result that projects are delayed. I shall quickly spell out several of those projects, though as a result of the relaxations my right hon. Friend

  111
  has made tonight, one or two of them may be allowed to proceed. First, Macclesfield borough council has an ambition to create centralised headquarters. The benefits deriving from increased efficiency, better communication and avoidance of duplication are widely recognised—as I hope they will be by my right hon. Friend's Department.
  In addition, a number of the council's existing offices in various parts of the town are in poor condition and require considerable capital expenditure if they are to be put into a reasonable state. Work on that scheme has proceeded for more than 12 months and we are within a week or two of the final submission of offers from the private sector. The scheme involves a commercial element, the value of which would be offset against the cost of offices. That value will now score under the proposed restrictions.
  I turn to another important matter that relates also to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. Our area has tremendous potential for economic growth and there is great pressure for new car parking, if that potential is to be fully exploited. In Macclesfield, the council has already agreed a lease and leaseback transaction to provide funding in due course for the Jordan Gate scheme. It is unlikely to be funded in the foreseeable future in any other way.
  In Wilmslow, in the Tatton constituency, the Church street scheme is a proposed barter deal, where the freehold of the land for development will be exchanged for a decked car park, providing an additional 100 spaces in Wilmslow town centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and I know the area very well, and that development is vital if the area is to react to the demands placed upon it and to exploit fully its potential.
  In Macclesfield, again, there is a proposal for the Churchill way scheme, containing a mixture of lease and leaseback, together with barter, which would provide much-needed parking spaces in the town centre. I say to any right hon. or hon. Member who does not know Macclesfield—and there may be many of them—that it is currently choking to death with cars, particularly at weekends, because there are inadequate parking facilities. With the growth of commercial development, there is demand for it. The Duke street scheme would provide 800 parking spaces under a leaseback arrangement.
  It was intended to achieve a much-needed opening up of land in East Titherington by a development agreement with the private sector, encouraged by my right hon. Friend; again, there would be an element of barter and exchange for provision of costly infrastructure. That scheme is now in jeopardy.
  I turn to another vital area, and it is one that my right hon. Friend may admit falls within the concessions that he made. It concerns a serious problem that arises in relation to Airey houses in the Macclesfield borough council. It is a matter with which both my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and myself are concerned. Last year, we received numerous inquiries from tenants of those houses asking about their future. I have many Airey properties in my constituency, in the villages of Bosley, Poynton, Adlington, Lyme Green, Rainow, Lower Withington and Nether Alderley. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has such houses in Tabley.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am utterly convinced by the case which the hon. Gentleman is making, but did he actually explain it to the Minister prior to his announcement on 9 March, or did he do so afterwards?
  Mr. Winterton: I must tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that, initially, I was totally unaware that my council would be caught in that way. Indeed, I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister was also unaware, but he has been fair enough to say so from the Dispatch Box. Subsequently, I have naturally taken a deep interest in the matter, having served in local government for a number of years.
  If I may return to the subject of Airey houses, after much tenant consultation, the council proposes, subject to planning difficulties and considerations, to demolish the Airey houses. It will do so in an interesting way, replacing them with other houses under a partnership arrangement with builders in the private sector, using private finance for the initial construction.
  Tenants wishing to do so will be able to acquire their new houses at the discounted rate subject to the cost-floor provision. Those unable or not wishing to buy will continue to live in a property of their choice as secure tenants of Macclesfield borough council. Thus, the council will have to buy the properties at cost from the developer. Any remaining properties in the various locations will be sold on the open market.
  8.30 pm
  The proposals prior to my right hon. Friend's announcement would have enabled the council to set off 100 per cent. of sales income against the cost of acquiring properties for continued renting. That would minimise the impact on the council's housing improvement payment allocation of just £1·4 million for 1988–89. The understanding of the new arrangement requires the cost of providing the accommodation for renting to score as prescribed expenditure. This will be between £2 million and £3 million, depending on how many tenants exercise the right to buy. I am sure that I do not need to explain further to my right hon. Friend or the House how the measures in the new clauses and amendment that we are debating will adversely affect the very sound and prudent policy being implemented by my local authority.
  I sometimes find it difficult to understand the Treasury when it is seeking to limit the expenditure of capital receipts. The Treasury says that it will be bad for the PSBR if that is not done, but we no longer have any problem with the PSBR, because the position is currently negative. If my right hon. Friend believes in local government, as I certainly do, he should say so, but if the Government do not believe in it any longer, they should say that it is no longer wanted. However, if we want well-managed local authorities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, they should be encouraged and not kicked in the shins for managing not only their assets, but the local government functions for all those who live in the district.
  I hope that the concessions made tonight will allow many of the proposals that I have outlined, if not all, to go forward, because they have been properly planned and properly financed. My local authority is not trying to bridge a short-term revenue problem by selling capital assets; it is trying to provide better facilities and a better

  113
  infrastructure for all the people in the Macclesfield borough area, the vast majority of whom are Conservative supporters.
  Mr. Terry Davis: As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the new clauses have come forward very late in our proceedings. It is particularly unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to scrutinise them in Committee.
  I shall ask a specific question, which I hope will be answered by the Minister who winds up the debate. In view of the new clauses and the announcement made by the Secretary of State, I should like to know how a council will be affected if an agreement was concluded before 9 March. What I want to raise, and would have raised in Committee had it been possible, is the effect on schemes in the pipeline. There are different stages in the progress on an agreement. I appreciate that, as the Secretary of State explained, there will be some concessions; that he will look at particular schemes, and perhaps exempt them from the constraints of the new clauses. Nevertheless, I should like to know the answer to my question.
  Let us suppose that a council concluded an agreement before 9 March, and it was signed, sealed but not delivered —in the sense that it had not taken effect, so that the land had not been transferred, although the agreement to do so had been made. The council, of course, would have done that in the confident belief that it was acting according to the law, as it existed before 9 March. It would have received no indication that the Secretary of State intended to change the law. Would the council be able to proceed without the scheme having been scored against its capital expenditure?
  Mr. Ridley: The answer is yes. If any commitment had been undertaken, any money had been expended or any design work had been done, as I said in my speech, the scheme would clearly be in the pipeline.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) deliberately misled the House. I have now ascertained——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady did not intend to say that an hon. Member had deliberately misled the House. Will she please withdraw her remark and rephrase it?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall say that the hon. Gentleman accidentally misled the House. The Marsh mill at Thornton is not, and never has been, on a leaseback system. It is in the capital programme, and has in no way been impeded by the action of the Government. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will get his facts rather straighter when discussing my borough council.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate, not a point of order.
  Mr. Davis: As I was saying before that intervention, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his assurance. I shall therefore conclude my remarks. I see no point in taking up debating time in pursuing it further. The Secretary of State has given us a wide assurance in telling us that schemes that were only in the design stage, as opposed to the agreement stage, would be exempt from the restrictions, and I am grateful for that assurance.
  Mr. Speller: I shall not detain the House for long. I was grateful for a helpful comment from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and wish to develop only two points, which may affect not only my area but other areas in the more rural parts of the west country.
  First, let me say that there is dismay and consternation among good local authorities which see perfectly well the reasons to stop what might be called less intelligent councils from seeking ways around logical Government control on excessive capital expenditure. Councils such as mine—the North Devon and Mid-Devon district councils —accept that entirely, and are in no way against the principle. Nor, indeed, am I.
  The danger comes when the relatively low-spending and low-resource authorities without a large ratepaying base seek a substantial development that involves occasional major expenditure, perhaps once or twice in 10 years. It is then that they are scared of being—as they would put it—capped.
  My other point goes beyond that. We need to extend the harbour and build at Ilfra.combe, and the only way that we can finance that development is by using a developer's cash on our council land. I hope that there is no problem here. It is a one-off, and we hope for exemption from control on such capital expenditure. However, on the hills behind Ilfracombe we have a hydro plant and what we hope will be a large wind farm to produce for the generating board. We shall have problems there if we are not permitted to reduce rates and exchange land for development. It will involve a big development and big expenditure.
  I merely ask my right hon. Friend to think kindly of authorities that have no intention of excessive spending, but which occasionally have to engage in work for which their rate-borne income could never provide. I ask my right hon. Friend to treat those authorities well. They are not trying to swap or to cheat. They are merely seeking to use their assets in a sensible, logical manner, for the economic benefit of their communities.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This has been a strange debate. First, it is clear that it is a debate about barter deals and not about leaseback. That will come later. Secondly, the Secretary of State effectively came to the House to admit that he had been taken by surprise by his own announcement. The policy of the Government had turned round, as it were, and bitten the hand that feeds it. The Government have become used in the past to making decisions first and asking questions later, but in this instance they announced the decision, made the inquiries later, and then suddenly discovered what horrible things they had done. There is, however, the consolation that perhaps occasionally messages get through.
  Let us look at some of the headlines that have appeared in the specialist press in the past few weeks. Surveyor of 7 April has the headline
  "Tories attack barter deal ban".
  The magazine Building, on 8 April, stated:
  "Housebuilders rage against end of council barter deals"
  The article below the headline began:
  "Construction of 50,000 homes a year could be scuppered and inner city regeneration project wrecked if Government proposals to end land deals between councils and contractors go ahead."
  Later in the article, the director of the House-Builders Federation is quoted as saying:

  115
  "The Government must realise that this is a standard way of doing business, particularly in the inner cities. This could scupper as much as 25 per cent. of the housebuilding programme. If they made a mistake on this one, they could have shot the whole inner city drive in the foot".
  A headline in Surveyor on 21 April was:
  "Housing for elderly and disabled under threat from Finance Bill".
  The finance officer of the Association of District Councils said:
  "While the Secretary of State clearly aimed at ending the excesses of a few, he has really gone too far and is putting in jeopardy a large number of schemes".
  The Financial Times of today said:
  "Nearly 150 district council projects worth more than £350 million may have to be abandoned … The schemes range in value from under £1 million to a £45 million housing development in Oxford and a £40 million redevelopment of Bournemouth's Pavilion entertainments centre."
  We could give many examples. Yet again, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) showed that the evidence is contrary to what the Government thought. On some matters, the councils have done just what the Government asked. Tower Hamlets, which my colleagues control, has been trying to find money for more housing for the homeless. If it had suggested a scheme exactly on these lines, it would have been caught by the ban. I should be interested to know whether my own council of Southwark would be caught. It has not started actual work on such schemes, but if they are precluded, all that Southwark will be able to do is sell land for cash and spend 20 or 30 per cent. of the capital receipts.
  That seems to fly in the face of Government policy. Other people have said that the Government's policy—whether we in the Opposition like it or not, we have to accept it—is that partnership deals with local authorities are what is required and that councils should work with the private sector and come to the best arrangements for them and the communities. Barter deals are not mortgages of the future as leaseback is—that is a different issue. They do not involve a cost to the ratepayers, because they are assessed as valuable in themselves. They offend against capital controls technically, but not fundamentally in terms of economic policy.
  We do not expect the Secretary of State to apply his new concessions to every scheme. The Government entered this area of policy, like the poll tax, with the same motivation, saying, "The Government must control everything, no matter what local councils decide." The Government have now realised that that was a foolish way forward.
  In the past year, many barter schemes have come before the Secretary of State. Many local authorities have asked him to confirm that one or other barter scheme is legal. Such schemes appeared then to be legal, and it appears that the Government have now accepted that they should be. I hope that the reality behind the concessions, which we welcome, is that in the event all such schemes that are good will be allowed through and eventually the Government will have the good grace to admit that they made a terrible mistake and that, quite often, local government knows what it is doing.
  Mr. John Hannam: On Report, once or twice I have supported the principle of a clause but have been worried about the implications of the wording. I am in that position again tonight. I very much welcome the
  116
  concessions announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, especially the promise of consultation before new regulations are introduced.
  As my right hon. Friend stated in his announcement on 9 March, the reason is to catch
  "a minority of local authorities … employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them". —[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 326.]
  I concur with that objective, but I fear that the legislation is drafted so widely that it will catch many worthwhile schemes across the country, as we have heard from other hon. Members in the debate.
  8.45 pm
  It is true that certain local authorities have used the present regulations to fund revenue deficits, using schemes such as mortgaging municipal buildings and selling off parking meters to meet current expenditure, but most local authorities, certainly my own in Exeter, have adhered strictly to the law and the intention of the law. In Exeter, we have six schemes that are affected by the revised rules. All of them relate to matters of a capital nature. They all enjoy all-party local support. They are supported by commercial interests and are generally intended for the enhancement, improvement and future prosperity of the city and the area. There is no adverse effect on the ratepayers of the city, which has the lowest district rate in Devon. It is difficult to see why those much-needed schemes, which I should like to describe, should not go ahead without delay and without undue bureaucratic delay by officials.
  I look forward to looking more closely at the details of the changes announced tonight. The legislation as presently drafted appears to have been produced in haste and, in my view, needs to be withdrawn for further consideration and amendment.
  The first scheme that has been affected by the revised rules concerns the relocation of the livestock market in Exeter. Exeter is not just a regional centre for administration and shopping, but it is an important centre in a large agricultural county. The city council owns and operates a thriving livestock market in a partnership arrangement with a private sector consortium of market auctioneers. The market has been on its present site since the 1930s and is now inadequate by reason of its location, its means of access and its size. It also fails to meet present-day standards of hygiene and convenience of operation.
  The council, in full consultation with all interested parties and following a consultant's report, has decided to relocate the market to a new site, which the council owns. It is a complicated and costly project, estimated to cost £4·04 million. It enjoys total support from all parties in the area. It is supported by the Devon Member of the European Parliament, the market auctioneers and the National Farmers Union. The value of the existing site for redevelopment is sufficient to fund the scheme, but the existing site cannot be sold until the new market has been built. In August last year the council entered into an agreement with a merchant bank for the funding of the works in a manner that clearly did not give rise to prescribed expenditure under the law as it then stood, save for a small part of the cost, which would be funded directly by the council. The council has agreed terms for the sale of the existing site to a developer for a sum sufficient to meet the entire costs of the project. An application has been

  117
  made for an EEC grant, supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Member of the European Parliament, and is now at an advanced stage in its progress at Brussels.
  The whole scheme may be in jeopardy, depending upon the correct interpretation of new clause 11, subsections (6) and (8), and upon the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The essential point is that the agreement to construct the new market was made before 10 March 1988 and the new section will come into force as from that date. Consideration, not in money, was given for the works prior to 10 March and although the work has commenced, a considerable amount remains to be done. I must ask for the reiteration of the assurance that works carried out after 10 March, pursuant to a legally binding agreement made before that date, are not intended to be caught by new clause 11. It would be wholly unreasonable for retrospective legislation to make unlawful work that is contractually committed by an agreement made perfectly lawfully prior to 10 March. I ask for a specific assurance on that point. There is no option as such to be exercised, but there is a mechanism whereby, as the project develops, the council has to produce building contracts, which the bank enters into as we go along.
  One other area of great concern in my constituency of Exeter and in other parts of the country is that we should provide sufficient car parking spaces in the central areas of the city, particularly for shoppers and tourists visiting it. That view is endorsed by the chamber of commerce and trade and the English tourist board. It should be borne in mind that a city such as Exeter is the centre of a huge tourist region. It is also a major shopping centre. It is now faced with the challenge of several regional shopping centre proposals on the outskirts of the city, where there will be a generous provision of car parking. The Secretary of State is due to determine later in the year several planning appeals and applications for those out-of-town shopping centres.
  To enhance the car parking provision in the central areas, the council has proposed three schemes for the provision of new car parks. It has been decided to grant a 125-year lease for office development of council-owned land adjacent to the civic offices on terms requiring the developer to construct a 290-space car park for the council. The important point is that the council will not receive a money consideration. The value of the lease will be set—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) wish to make an intervention? He is interrupting constantly.
  Mr. Douglas: We have had special pleading after special pleading by Conservative Members who voted for the introduction of the guillotine for the various stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament. I find that reprehensible.
  Mr. Hannam: Having spoken for six minutes and having listened to speeches of almost interminable length from Opposition Members, I take grave offence at that sort of comment. I am outlining the important——
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Hannam: I shall not give way again during the remainder of my remarks. After the intervention of the
  118
  hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I realise that it would be unwise to allow another intervention and thereby prolong the debate.
  I wish to continue—[interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West keep quiet or seek to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and make his own speech? He is lowering the tone of the debate. An hon. Member was removed from the Chamber for making numerous interjections in a similar manner to that being adopted by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West. I hope that we shall not reach that position tonight. It is virtually impossible to make a speech when there are constant interjections.
  The issues that I am raising are of great relevance and I press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take note of them. I can do without the interjections that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is making from a sedentary position. I do not know whether it is the custom north of the border——
  Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hannam: No, I shall not give way. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once, and I think that in the interests of time it would be worth while if I continued with my speech. I am trying to advance some serious arguments.
  The effect of the Bill will be to draw in a range of proposals from local authorities, including Exeter, that would not incur extra expenditure for the ratepayers. No loss of capital would be involved. The technical provisions of a hastily drafted clause mean that the local council in my constituency is faced with the prospect of proceeding with schemes that are in the pipeline, or schemes which have been carefully formulated, or withdrawing them. If it proceeds with the schemes and it is found that they are not eligible within the framework that we are considering, the council will find that it is necessary to lower expenditure on other worthwhile schemes.
  If the schemes that the council proceeds with are found not to be falling within the letter of the law and they are withdrawn, many important projects such as car parking, the development of leisure facilities, the provision of a new shopping centre and the development of the county ground where the county show is held each year might have to be put into cold storage at a time when there is a desperate need for them to be implemented.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies he will give further details of the concessions that have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The debate on the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 will provide ample opportunity for Opposition Members to voice their opinions. In that debate we could further discuss the various concessions and announcements that have been made by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I shall be brief because I hope to be able to speak again on these matters when we discuss the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 after the Bill has been given a Third Reading.
  If the Secretary of State had any sense of shame, he would apologise to the House for the way in which he inadvertently misled it during his announcement on 9 March. We know that that was not done with malice

  119
  aforethought. It happened because he did not know the facts, but that is something that we have come to expect from the right hon. Gentleman. He stumbles around like some poor old derelict from one balls-up to another. He should re-read what was said on 9 March. I shall not spare the Secretary of State's blushes, because it is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows so much more than he about what goes on in local government. My hon. Friend said:
  "May I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his announcement that these amendments will be presented to the House only on Report?"
  The Secretary of State's response suggested that he knew all about this at the time, but he now confesses that he knew nothing when he was making his announcement. He said:
  "Since the hon. Gentleman appears to be going to support the new amendments that I have said will be tabled, I cannot think why he wants such a great deal of time in which to debate them".—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 335–36.]
  We wanted time because we wanted to get things right. The Secretary of State has still not achieved that, and he should be ashamed of himself. At least he should apologise to the House before we move on at 9 pm.
  Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been criticised for having announced important changes to the capital control regime on 9 March without having consultation beforehand. My right hon. Friend was right to take that course because experience shows that local authorities, when we have consulted before making an announcement, have taken advantage of the consultation period to take action to avoid consequences of the controls that we have sought to introduce.
  In October 1986—[Interruption.] This may not be within the recollection of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who continues to interrupt. In October 1986, we announced our intention to bring the acquisition of vehicles, plant and machinery within the prescribed expenditure with effect from 1 April 1987. We subsequently consulted local government about the regulations to bring this into effect. Between the time of that announcement and the new regulations, local authorities entered into nearly £2 billion-worth of advance leasing deals. Many of the deals were rushed through in the laying period for the regulations. Recent reports have shown how imprudent some of the deals were. Some of the brokers who arranged them did not work out correctly the tax consequences and some authorities are now faced with substantial additional costs. Our approach in this instance is preferable to that which we adopted in October 1986.
  The pipeline concession will make a great deal of difference and will go a long way to meet the anxieties which have been expressed. When the criteria are satisfied —when there is a commitment, there is no net increase in the stock of assets and it is not sought to raise money on the security of assets—the pipeline concession will apply. My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke about the way in which the controls will affect small councils. It is worth emphasising the way in which we already take account of the position of small district councils by——
  Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister recall the letters of Councillor Cowd, the Conservative leader of Merton borough council, to The Times and The Daily Telegraph? He will be aware that Merton was involved in one of the schemes. Councillor Cowd wrote that Merton's scheme was
  "to unlock the authority's equity in its very substantial property holdings … the sum generated would have been actively invested to create income for the benefit of the owners of those assets, the borough's ratepayers."
  That is what authorities have been doing throughout the country. Does not the Minister agree that that is sensible investment? His friend at Merton seems to think that it is.
  Mr. Chope: I shall not comment on the Merton scheme.
  The concessions that have been announced this evening by my right hon. Friend will apply to many schemes. I hope that there will be an opportunity for the points to be discussed in detail with departmental officials when necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter raised some of those points. He has been told quite clearly that the schemes in Exeter that were in the pipeline before the announcement on 9 March will certainly not be affected by the changes. The same is probably true of some of the Macclesfield schemes. They will satisfy some of the criteria to which my right hon. Friend has referred. The same is true also in relation to north Devon schemes that satisfy the criteria that have been announced by my right hon. Friend. As other hon. Members have said, there may be an opportunity later this evening to discuss some of these points in more detail.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  It being nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of the Bill.

New clause 11

  PRESCRIBED EXPENDITURE
  `(1) In the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (in this section referred to as "the 1980 Act"), in section 71 (expenditure to which Part VIII of the 1980 Act applies) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(2) Where any of the activities specified in paragraph 1 Schedule 12 to this Act is undertaken by or for an authority, then, subject to paragraphs 2 to 5 of that Schedule, the amount of expenditure which,—

  (a) by virtue of sections 79A to 80B below, the authority is to be taken to incur on that activity, or

  (b) in a case not falling within those sections, the authority actually incurs on that activity,

  is prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act."
  (2) In section 80 of the 1980 Act (which determines the amount of expenditure which is to be taken to be incurred where an interest in or right over property is acquired) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(4) Where the acquisition is, or is treated by virtue of section 79A above as being, the acquisition of the simple absolute in possession and subsection (3) above does not apply, the amount is the consideration in money which would be obtained for that fee simple if it were sold on the open market by a willing seller at the time of the acquisition; and in determining, for the purpose of calculating that amount, to what interests and rights the fee simple is at that time subject—

  121

  (a) where section 79A applies there shall be taken into account only those mentioned in subsection (2) of that section; and

  (b) there shall be left out of account those arising by virtue of a mortgage or charge to secure the payment of money."

  (3) In subsection (5) of the said section 80 for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
  "(a) the acquisition, though treated by virtue of section 79A above as the acquisition of a fee simple, is in fact the acquisition of a leasehold interest in land; and"
  (4) In subsection (8) of the said section 80 for the words "right to occupy" there shall be substituted "right to possession or occupation of".
  (5) Subsection (14) of the said section 80 shall be omitted.
  (6) In section 80A of the 1980 Act (payment for works carried out for an authority) in subsection (5) (value of works at any time) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added "and

  (c) the value of any consideration which is not in money and which has been or is to be given by the authority for the carrying out of the works".

  (7) In subsection (9) of the said section 80A (works treated as carried out for an authority in cases specified in or determined under regulations) after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "and section 71(2)".
  (8) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 10th March 1988.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

  SHARE AND LOAN CAPITAL AND GUARANTEE PAYMENTS
  `(1) In the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (in this section referred to as "the 1980 Act"), in Schedule 12 (prescribed expenditure under Part VIII), in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (f) the final "and" shall be omitted and at the end of sub-paragraph (g) there shall be added—

  "(h) the acquisition of share capital or loan capital (within the meaning of section 78 of the Finance Act 1986) of any body corporate which is not an authority to which this Part of this Act applies, and

  (i) the making of payments pursuant to an obligation arising under a guarantee of indemnity given with respect to money borrowed by any person".

  (2) At the end of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 12 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "3A. The reference in paragraph 3 above to a county council includes a reference to any district council or other body in whom, by virtue of an order under any provision of Part VII of the Local Government Act 1985, there is for the time being vested a superannuation fund which, before the abolition date, within the meaning of that Act, was maintained by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council as mentioned in section 60 of that Act."
  (3) With respect to expenditure on the matters specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 12 (as amended by subsection (1) above), the powers conferred by paragraph 4 of that Schedule (to provide by regulations that certain expenditure which would otherwise be prescribed expenditure shall not be such expenditure) may be exercised so as to have effect with respect to expenditure incurred (or treated by virtue of any provision of Part VIII of the 1980 Act as incurred) on or after 10th March 1988.
  (4) In section 75 of the 1980 Act (capital receipts) the power conferred by subsection (5)(d) (to provide that certain assets are brought within the scope of the section) may be exercised with respect to disposals on or after 10 March 1988 of assets acquired on or after that date in cases where, by virtue of the amendments made by subsection (1) above, expenditure on the acquisition of the assets is prescribed expenditure; and, with respect to capital receipts resulting from such disposals, the powers conferred by sections 72(3)(d)
  122
  and 75(5)(a) of that Act (which relate to the prescribed proportion of an authority's capital receipts) may be similarly exercised.
  (5) In section 80 of the 1980 Act (valuation)—

  (a) in subsections (9) and (10) (which relate to the acquisition of the property in goods or an interest or right in goods) after the word "goods", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "share capital or loan capital"; and—

  (b) at the end of subsection (15) (definition of "property" for subsections (9) and (10)) there shall be added the words "and loan capital has the same meaning as in section 78 of the Finance Act 1986".

  (6) Subsections (1), (2) and (5) above shall be deemed to have come into force on 10 March 1988.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Schedule
    `COMMUNITY CHARGES: ENFORCEMENT
      PART I

        INTRODUCTION
        1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to the recovery of—

        (a) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 above and has not been paid;

        (b) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 3 of that Schedule and has not been paid;

        (c) any sum which has become payable to a chargeable person under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 4 of that Schedule and has riot been paid;

        (d) any sum which has become payable (by way of repayment) to a person other than an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2 or 3 of that Schedule and has not been paid;

        (e) any sum which has become payable (by way of repayment) to a contributor under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 4 of that Schedule and has not been paid;

        (f) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 above and has not been paid.

        (2) References in sub-paragraph (1) above to a sum which has become payable and has not been paid include references to a sum forming part of a larger sum which has become payable and the other part of which has been paid.

    PART II
      CHARGES: SOLE LIABILITY
        Preliminary
        2. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(a) above.

        Liability orders
        3.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that—

        (a) the authority concerned may apply to a magistrates' court for an order (a liability order) against the person by whom the sum is payable;

        (b) the magistrates' court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the person concerned and has not been paid.

        (2) The regulations may include provision that the order shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

        (a) the sum payable, and

        (b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs incurred in obtaining the order.

        (3) The regulations may include—

        (a) provision that no application may be made after a prescribed period has expired;

        (b) provision prescribing the procedure to be followed for the initiation of an application (which may

        123
        include provision as to notices and as to form);

        (c) provision prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application;

        (d) provision prescribing the form and contents of an order.

        Information
        4.—(l) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor) he shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the charging authority concerned.
        (2) Relevant information is such information as fulfils the following conditions—

        (a) it is in the debtor's possession or control,

        (b) the charging authority requests him to supply it, and

        (c) it falls within a prescribed description of information and relates to the debtor's employment and earnings.

        (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.

        Attachment of earnings
        5.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor)—

        (a) the authority concerned may make an order (an attachment of earnings order) to secure the payment of any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made,

        (b) such an order shall be expressed to be directed to a person who has the debtor in his employment, and shall operate as an instruction to such a person to make deductions from the debtor's earnings and to pay the amounts deducted to the authority,

        (c) the authority may serve a copy of the order on a person who appears to the authority to have the debtor in his employment, and

        (d) a person who has the debtor in his employment shall comply with the order if a copy of it is served on him.

        (2) The regulations may include—

        (a) provision allowing an attachment of earnings order to be varied;

        (b) provision requiring a person who has the debtor in his employment to comply with the order as varied if a copy of the order as varied is served on him;

        (c) provision requiring an order to be in a prescribed form;

        (d) provision requiring an order to specify the sum to which the order relates, the rate at which the debtor's earnings are to be applied to meet the sum, and such other particulars as may be prescribed;

        (e) rules about the rate which may be so specified;

        (f) provision allowing the person who deducts and pays amounts under the order to deduct from the debtor's earnings prescribed sums towards his administrative costs;

        (g) provision requiring the person who deducts and pays amounts under the order to notify the debtor, in a prescribed manner and at any prescribed time, of the total amount of sums (including sums towards administrative costs) deducted up to the time of the notification;

        (h) provision requiring any person on whom a copy of the order is served to notify the authority in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed period if he does not have the debtor in his employment or the debtor subsequently ceases to be in his employment;

        (i) provision that, where the whole amount to which the order relates has been paid, the authority shall give notice of that fact to any person who appears to it to have the debtor in his employment and who has been served with a copy of the order;

        (j) provision allowing or requiring an order to be discharged.

        (3) The regulations may include provision that while an attachment of earnings order is in force—
        124

        (a) the debtor shall from time to time notify the authority concerned, in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed period, of each occasion when he leaves any employment or becomes employed or reemployed, and shall include in such a notification a statement of his earnings and expected earnings from the employment concerned and of such other matters as may be prescribed;

        (b) any person who becomes the debtor's employer and knows that the order is in force and by what authority it was made shall notify the authority concerned, in a prescribed manner, and within a prescribed period, that he is the debtor's employer, and shall include in such a notification a statement of the debtor's earnings and expected earnings from the employment concerned and of such other matters as may be prescribed.

        (4) The regulations may include provision with respect to the priority to be accorded as between—

        (a) two or more orders made under the regulations;

        (b) orders made under the regulations and orders made under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971.

        Distress
        6.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor) the authority concerned may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the debtor's goods.
        (2) The appropriate amount is the aggregate of—

        (a) an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

        (b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the charges connected with the distress.

        (3) The regulations may include provision that—

        (a) a distress may be made anywhere in England and Wales;

        (b) a distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account;

        (c) no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise.

        Commitment to prison
        7.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that —

        (a) where an authority has sought to levy an amount by distress under any provision included under paragraph 6 above, the debtor is an individual, and it appears to the authority that no (or insufficient) goods of the debtor can be found on which to levy the amount, the authority may apply to a magistrates' court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison;

        (b) on such application being made the court shall (in the debtor's presence) inquire as to his means and inquire whether the failure to pay which led to the liability order being made was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect

        (c) if (and only if) the court is of opinion that his failure was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect it may if it thinks fit issue a warrant of commitment against the debtor, or fix a term of imprisonment and postpone the issue of the warrant until such time and on such conditions (if any) as the court thinks just;

        (d) the warrant shall be made in respect of the relevant amount (within the meaning given by sub-paragraph (2) below);

        (e) the warrant shall state that amount;

        (f) the order in the warrant shall be that the debtor be imprisoned for a time specified in the warrant (which shall not exceed 3 months), unless the amount stated in the warrant is sooner paid;

        125

        (g) the period of imprisonment shall be reduced by a prescribed amount in respect of part payment in prescribed circumstances;

        (h) a warrant may be directed to the authority concerned and to such other persons (if any) as the court issuing it thinks fit;

        (i) a warrant may be executed anywhere in England and Wales by any person to whom it is directed

        (2) The relevant amount is the aggregate of—

        (a) an amount equal to the appropriate amount within the meaning of paragraph 6 above or (as the case may be) to so much of it as remains outstanding, and

        (b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs of commitment.

        (3) The regulations may include—

        (a) provision that a single warrant shall not be issued, under any provision included under this paragraph, against more than one person;

        (b) provision as to the form of a warrant;

        (c) provision allowing remission of payment where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed;

        (d) provision allowing an application to be renewed where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed;

        (e) provision that a statement in writing to the effect that wages of any amount have been paid to the debtor during any period, purporting to be signed by or on behalf of his employer, shall be evidence of the facts there stated;

        (f) provision that, for the purpose of enabling inquiry to he made as to the debtor's conduct and means, a justice of the peace may issue a summons to him to appear before a magistrates' court and (if he does not obey the summons) may issue a warrant for his arrest;

        (g) provision that, for the purpose of enabling such inquiry, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant for the debtor's arrest without issuing a summons;

        (h) provision as to the execution of a warrant for arrest (which may include provision allowing it to be executed anywhere in England and Wales).

        Charging orders
        8.—(l) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor), the charge concerned is a collective community charge, and prescribed conditions are fulfilled—

        (a) the authority concerned may apply to a court for an order (a charging order) imposing, on any interest held by the debtor beneficially in the designated dwelling concerned, a charge for securing the due amount, and

        (b) a charge imposed by a charging order shall have the like effect and shall be enforceable in the same courts and in the same manner as an equitable charge created by the debtor by writing under his hand.

        (2) The due amount is the aggregate of—

        (a) an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

        (b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of costs connected with the charging order.

        (3) The regulations may include provision—

        (a) as to the court to which an application may be made (which may be the High Court or a county court);

        (b) as to the factors to be considered by the court in deciding whether to make a charging order;

        (c) requiring an order to specify the dwelling and interest concerned, and such other matters as may be prescribed;

        (d) requiring an order to be in a prescribed form;

        (e) allowing an order to be made absolutely or subject to conditions;

        (f) as to the discharge or variation of an order.

        Relationship between remedies
        9. As regards a case where a magistrates' court has made a liability order, regulations under this Schedule may include provision that—
        126

        (a) attachment of earnings may be resorted to more than once;

        (b) distress may be resorted to more than once;

        (c) attachment of earnings and distress may be resorted to alternately

        (d) steps by way of attachment, distress, commitment or charging may not be taken while steps by way of another of those methods are being taken;

        (e) where a warrant of commitment is issued against (or a term of imprisonment is fixed in the case of) the person concerned no steps, or no further steps, by way of attachment, distress or charging may be taken.

        Magistrates and justices
        10. Regulations under this Schedule may include—

        (a) provision for determining what justices and magistrates' courts are to have jurisdiction in cases provided for by the regulations;

        (b) provision as to the composition of magistrates' courts in cases provided for by the regulations.

      PART III

        CHARGES: JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
        11. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(b) above.
        12.—(1) 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.
        (2) In particular, the regulations may provide that where a sum is payable by a chargeable person and a spouse or manager (as the case may be)—

        (a) a liability order may be made against the chargeable person alone, or against that person and the spouse or manager;

        (b) a liability order may riot be made against the spouse or manager alone;

        (c) where a liability order has been made against both the chargeable person and the spouse or manager, an attachment of earnings order may be made against one of them or different attachment of earnings order may be made against each;

        (d) where a liability order has been made against both, distress may be made against one of them or against each;

        (e) where distress has been made against each, a warrant of commitment may be applied for against one of them or different warrants may be applied for against each;

        (f) where distress has been made against the chargeable person only, a warrant of commitment may be applied for against that person;

        (g) where a liability order has been made against both, a charging order may be made against one of them or different charging orders may be made against each.

        (3) As regards a case where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a chargeable person and a spouse, the regulations may include provision that a warrant of commitment may not be applied for against the spouse unless distress has been made against the chargeable person and it appears to the authority concerned that no (or insufficient) goods of that person can be found.
        (4) As regards a case where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a chargeable person and a spouse or manager, the regulations may include provision that—

        (a) steps by way of attachment, distress or charging may not be taken against one while steps by way of the same method or another of those methods are being taken against the other;

        (b) where a warrant of commitment is issued against (or a term of imprisonment is fixed in the case of) one of them no steps, or no further steps, by way of attachment, distress or charging may be taken against that one.

        (5) In this paragraph "chargeable person", "spouse" and "manager" shall be construed in accordance with sections 16 and 17 above.

      PART IV

        CONTRIBUTIONS
        13. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(c) above.
        14. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that any such sum shall be recoverable in the same way as rent or (depending on the terms of the regulations) shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

      PART V

        REPAYMENTS
        15. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(d) or (c) above.
        16. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that any such sum shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

      PART VI

        PENALTIES
        17. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(f) above.
        18.—(1) 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.
        (2) Provision as to penalties incurred under paragraph 2(8) to (11) of Schedule 3 above before I April 1990 may be included in regulations under this Schedule notwithstanding that no liability to pay amounts in respect of community charges arises before that date.

    PART VII
      GENERAL
        Exclusion of certain matters
        19. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that any matter which could be the subject of an appeal under section 22 above may not be raised in proceedings under the regulations.
        Costs
        20. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a charging authority has received in proceedings under the regulations an amount by way of costs it shall pay an amount (determined in accordance with prescribed rules) to a prescribed person for the benefit of such court as is identified in accordance with prescribed rules.

        Termination of proceedings
        21.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that in a case where—

        (a) proceedings under the regulations have been taken as regards the recovery of any sum mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above, and

        (b) the outstanding amount is paid or tendered to the person to whom it is payable,

        that person shall accept the amount, no further steps shall be taken as regards its recovery, and any person committed to prison in pursuance of the proceedings shall be released.
        (2) The outstanding amount is an amount equal to the sum concerned or to so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be).
        (3) In a case where costs and charges are relevant the outstanding amount shall be treated as augmented by a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of costs and charges incurred in the proceedings up to the time of payment or tender.

        Offences
        22.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he is required by any provision included under paragraph 4 above to supply information and—

        (a) he fails without reasonable excuse to supply the information in accordance with the provision, or

        (b) in supplying information in purported compliance with the provision he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.

        (2) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that—

        (a) a person shall be guilty of an offence if he is required by any provision included under paragraph 5(1)(d) or (2)(b) above to comply with an attachment of earnings order and fails to do so;

        128

        (b) it shall be a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps to comply with the order.

        (3) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he is required by any provision included under paragraph 5(2)(g) or (h) or (3)(a) or (b) above to notify another person and

        (a) he fails without reasonable excuse to notify the other person in accordance with the provision, or

        (b) in notifying the other person in purported compliance with the provision he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.

        (4) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that a person guilty of an offence under any provision included under sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding—

        (a) level 2 on the standard scale (where the provision is included under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (3)(a) above), or

        (b) level 3 on the standard scale (where the provision is included under sub-paragraph (1)(b), (2) or (3)(b) above).

        (5) References in this paragraph to any provision included under paragraph 4 or 5 above include references to any equivalent provision included under paragraph 12 or 18 above.

        Other enactments
        23.—(l) Regulations under this Schedule may apply any provision contained in or made under a relevant enactment, or may apply any such provision subject to prescribed modifications, or may contain provision equivalent to any such provision (whether or not subject to prescribed modifications).
        (2) Relevant enactments are Part VI of the General Rate Act 1967, the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, the Charging Orders Act 1979, and any enactment applied by any of those enactments.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Schedule

        SOCIAL SECURITY
        1. The Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as mentioned in the following provisions of this Schedule.
        2.—(1) Section 20 (income-related benefits) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In Subsection (1) the word "and" shall be omitted and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted "and
        (d) community charge benefits."
        (3) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
        "(8A) A person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a particular day falling after 31 March 1990 if each of the three conditions set out in subsections (8B) to (8E) below is fulfilled.
        (8B) In relation to England and Wales, the first condition is that—

        (a) on the day the person concerned is shown, in a charging authority's community charges register, as subject to a personal community charge of the authority and is not there shown as undertaking a full-time course of education on the day, or

        (b) the day consists of or falls within a contribution period in respect of which the person concernd is liable to pay an amount under section 9 of the 1988 Act (collective community charge contributions).

        (8C) In relation to Scotland, the first condition is that—

        (a) in respect of the day the person concerned is shown, in a Community Charges Register, as being liable to pay the personal community charge and is not there shown as undertaking a full-time course of education on the day, or

        (b) the day consists of or falls within a contribution period in respect of which the

        129
        person concerned is liable to pay a collective community charge contribution under section 11(11) of the 1987 Act.

        (8D) The second condition is that there is an appropriate maximum community charge benefit in the case of the person concerned.—
        (8E) The third condition is that—

        (a) the person concerned has no income in respect of the day,

        (b) his income in respect of the day does not exceed the applicable amount, or

        (c) his income in respect of the day exceeds that amount but does not exceed the second applicable amount.

        (8F) In respect of the same day, a person shall be entitled to a separate community charge benefit in respect of each charge or contribution period concerned (if more than one).
        (8G) But regulations may provide that if—

        (a) a person would (apart from the regulations) be entitled, in respect of the same day, to separate community charge benefits, and

        (b) the circumstances are such as are prescribed.

        he shall not be entitled to such one or more of the benefits as may be identified in accordance with prescribed rules."
        (4) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
        "(9A) Subsection (9) above does not prevent different members of the same family becoming entitled to different community charge benefits by virtue of their fulfilling the conditions in respect of different charges or of different contribution periods
        (5) In subsection (11)—

        (a) before the definition of child there shall be inserted—

        "chargeable financial year" has the same as in the 1988 Act;

        "charging authority" has the same meaning as in the 1988 Act;"

        (b) after the definition of child there shall be inserted—

        "contribution period", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 9 of the 1988 Act;

        "contribution period", in relation to Scotland, means a continuous period of residence in any premises (which falls in a chargeable financial year) in respect of each day of which a person is liable to pay a collective community charge contribution under section 11(11) of the 1987 Act;"

        (c) after the definition of family there shall be inserted—

        "levying authority" has the same meaning as in the 1987 Act;"

        (d) after the definition of married couple there shall be inserted—

        "the 1987 Act" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987;

        "the 1988 Act" means the Local Government Finance Act 1988."

        3.—(1) Section 21 (amount of entitlement) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—

        "(5A) Where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a day, and section 20(8E)(a) or (b) above applies, the amount to which he is entitled shall be the amount which is the appropriate maximum community charge benefit in his case.

        (5B) Where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a day, and section 20(8E)(c) above applies, the amount to which he is entitled shall be found by deducting amount B from amount A, where—

        (a) amount A is the appropriate maximum community charge benefit in his case, and

        (b) amount B is a prescribed percentage of the difference between the applicable amount and the income of the person concerned in respect of the day.

        (5C) Subsection (5D) below applies where—

        (a) a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a day,

        130

        (b) on the day the conditions in section 63(1)(a) and (b) of the 1988 Act or the conditions in section 67(1)(a) and (b) of that Act (residual rating) are fulfilled as regards a hereditament.

        (c) the person entitled to the benefit is the same person as the ratepayer referred to in section 63(1)(b) or 67(1)(b) of that Act (as the case may be), and

        (d) the circumstances are such as are prescribed.

        (5D) In such a case—

        (a) neither subsection (4) nor subsection (5) above shall apply for the purpose of finding the amount of any prescribed housing benefit which takes the form of a rate rebate and to which he is entitled in respect of any payments by way of the residual rate concerned,

        (b) neither subsection (5A) nor subsection (5B) above shall apply for the purpose of finding the amount of the community charge benefit,

        (c) the aggregate amount of any such housing benefit and the community charge benefit shall be such as is prescribed,

        (d) the amount of any such housing benefit shall be such proportion of that aggregate amount as is prescribed, and

        (e) the amount of the community charge benefit shall be such proportion of that aggregate amount as is prescribed."

        (3) In subsection (6) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
        "(c) the appropriate maximum community charge benefit,"
        4.—(l) Section 22 (calculation) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (3) for "arid housing benefit" there shall be substituted ", housing benefit and any community charge benefit".
        (3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
        "(4A) The second applicable amount shall be such amount or the aggregate of such amounts as may be prescribed."
        5. The following shall be inserted after section 22—

        COUPLES
        22A.—(1) As regards any case where a person is a member of a married or unmarried couple throughout a particular day, regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State sees fit as to—

        (a) the entitlement of the person to a community charge benefit in respect of the day, and

        (b) the amount to which he is entitled.

        (2) Nothing in subsections (3) to (8) below shall prejudice the generality of subsection (1) above.
        (3) The regulations may provide that prescribed provisions shall apply instead of prescribed provisions of this Part, or that prescribed provisions of this Part shall not apply or shall apply subject to prescribed amendments or adaptations.
        (4) The regulations may provide that, for the purpose of calculating in the case of the person concerned the matters mentioned in subsection (5) below, prescribed amounts relating to the person and his partner are to be aggregated and the aggregate is to be apportioned.
        (5) The matters are income, capital, the applicable amount, the second applicable amount, and the appropriate maximum community charge benefit.
        (6) Where the regulations contain provision replacing section 21(5C) and 5(d) above as regards a case where the person entitled to a community charge benefit is a member of a married or unmarried couple, the regulations may include—

        (a) provision as to any relevant housing benefit to which the person concerned is entitled (as well as provision as to any community charge benefit to which he is entitled);

        (b) provision as to any community charge benefit or relevant housing benefit to which his partner is entitled.

        (7) The regulations may—

        131

        (a) amend section 31B(5) below so as to allow for disregarding the whole or part of any pension payable to the partner of the person concerned in determining the latter's income;

        (b) amend section 31B(6) below accordingly.

        (8) The regulations may contain different provision as to the following different cases—

        (a) cases where the first condition is fulfilled on the day concerned by the person concerned but not by his partner;

        (b) cases where the first condition is fulfilled on the day concerned by the person concerned and by his partner.

        (9) The regulations may include such sup-plementary, incidental or consequential provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
        (10) In this section—

        (a) references to a person's partner are to the other member of the couple concerned,

        (b) references to relevant housing benefit, in relation to a person, are to prescribed housing benefit which takes the form of a rate rebate and to which he is entitled in respect of any payments by way of the residual rate concerned, and

        (c) references to the first condition are to the condition mentioned in section 20(8B) or (8C) above (as the case may be)."

        6. The following shall be inserted after section 31—

      Community charge benefits

        NATURE OF BENEFITS
        31A.—(1) In relation to England and Wales, regulations shall provide that where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a charging authority's personal community charge the benefit shall take such of the following forms as is prescribed in the case of the person—

        (a) a payment or payments by the authority to the person;

        (b) a reduction in the amount the person is liable to pay to the authority in respect of the charge as it has effect for the relevant chargeable financial year;

        (c) both such payment or payments and such reduction.

        (2) In relation to Scotland, regulations shall provide that where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a personal community charge determined by a regional, islands or district council the benefit shall take such of the following forms as is prescribed in the case of a person—

        (a) a payment or payments to the person by the levying authority to which the charge is payable;

        (b) a reduction in the amount the person is liable to pay in respect of the charge as it has effect for the relevant chargeable financial year;

        (c) both such payment or payments and such reduction.

        (3) Regulations shall provide that where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a contribution period the benefit shall take such of the following forms as is prescribed in the case of the person—

        (a) a payment or payments by the relevant authority to the person;

        (b) the reductions mentioned in subsection (4) below;

        (c) both such payment or payments and such reductions.

        (4) The reductions are—

        (a) a reduction in the amount the person is liable to pay to the charge payer in respect of the contribution period, and

        (b) a consequential reduction in the amount the charge payer is liable to pay in respect of the charge concerned as it has effect for the relevant chargeable financial year.

        (5) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above the relevant chargeable financial year is the chargeable financial year in which the relevant day falls; and the relevant day is the day in respect of which the person concerned is entitled to the benefit.
        (6) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the relevant authority is—

        (a) in relation to England and Wales, the authority to which an amount is payable in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;

        (b) in relation to Scotland, the levying authority to which the collective community charge is payable.

        (7) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the charge payer is

        (a) in relation to England and Wales, the person who is liable to pay an amount in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;

        (b) in relation to Scotland, the person who is liable to pay the collective community charge under section 11(5) of the 1987 Act.

        (8) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the relevant chargeable financial year is the chargeable financial year in which the contribution period falls.
        (9) Regulations under subsection (1), (2) or (3) above may include such supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient; and such provisions may include provisions amending or adapting provisions of the 1987 Act or the 1988 Act.

        ARRANGEMENTS FOR BENEFITS
        31B.—(1) Any community charge benefit provided for by virtue of a scheme under section 20(1) above (in this Act referred to as a community charge benefit scheme) is to be administered by the appropriate authority.
        (2) For the purposes of this section the appropriate authority in relation to a particular benefit is—

        (a) in relation to England and Wales, the charging authority as regards whose personal or collective community charge a person is entitled to the benefit;

        (b) in relation to Scotland, the levying authority to which the personal or collective community charge is payable by a person entitled to the benefit.

        (3) Charging authorities may agree that one shall carry out responsibilities relating to community charge benefits on another's behalf.
        (4) Levying authorities may agree that one shall carry out responsibilities relating to community charge benefits on another's behalf.
        (5) A charging authority or levying authority may modify any part of the community charge benefit scheme administered by the authority—

        (a) so as to provide for disregarding, in determining a person's income, the whole or part of any war widow's pension payable to that person;

        (b) to such extent in other respects as may be prescribed,

        and any such modifications may be adopted by resolution of an authority.
        (6) Modifications other than such modifications as are mentioned in subsection (5)(a) above shall be so framed as to secure that, in the estimate of the authority adopting them, the total of the benefits which will be allowed by the authority for any year will not exceed the permitted total of benefits for that year.
        (7) An authority which has adopted modifications may by resolution revoke or vary them.
        (8) If the community charge benefit scheme includes power for an authority to exercise a discretion in allowing community charge benefits, the authority shall not exercise that discretion so that the total of the benefits allowed by it for any year exceeds the permitted total of benefits for that year.
        (9) In relation to any authority the permitted total of benefits for any year shall be such amount as is calculated in accordance with rules contained in an order made by the Secretary of State.

        ADJUDICATION
        31C.—(1) Regulations shall provide that, where a person has claimed a community charge benefit as regards—

        (a) a person or collective community charge of a charging authority, or

        (b) a personal or collective community charge payable to a levying authority,

        the authority shall notify the person of its determination of the claim.
        (2) Any such notification shall be given in such form as may be prescribed.
        (3) Regulations shall make provision for reviews of determinations relating to community charge benefits.

        EXCESS BENEFITS
        31D.—(1) Regulations may make provision as to any case where a charging authority or a levying authority has allowed a community charge benefit to a person and the amount allowed exceeds the amount to which he is entitled in respect of the benefit.
        (2) As regards any prescribed case where the benefit is in respect of a personal community charge the regulations may provide that

        (a) a sum equal to the excess shall be due from the person concerned to the authority (whatever the form the benefit takes);

        (b) any liability under any provision included under paragraph (a) above shall be met by such method mentioned in subsection (3) below as is prescribed as regards the case concerned, or by such combination of two or all three of the methods as is prescribed as regards the case concerned.

        (3) The methods are—

        (a) payments by the person concerned;

        (b) addition to any amount payable in respect of the charge concerned;

        (c) deduction from any other income-related benefit which he may be allowed by the authority concerned.

        (4) As regards any prescribed case where the benefit is in respect of a contribution period the regulations may provide that—

        (a) a sum equal to the excess shall be due from the person concerned to the authority (whatever the form the benefit takes);

        (b) any liability under any provision included under paragraph (a) above shall be met by such method mentioned in subsection (5) below as is prescribed as regards the case concerned, or by such combination of the methods as is prescribed as regards the case concerned;

        (c) there is to be no adjustment as between the person concerned and the charge payer, or as between the charge payer and the authority concerned.

        (5) The methods are—

        (a) payment by the person concerned;

        (b) deduction from any other income-related benefit which he may be allowed by the authority concerned.

        (6) In a case where the regulations provide that a sum or part of a sum is to be paid, and the sum or part is not paid on or before such day as may be prescribed, the regulations may provide that the sum or part shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.
        (7) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the charge payer is—

        (a) in relation to England and Wales, the person who is liable to pay an amount in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;

        (b) in relation to Scotland, the person who is liable to pay the collective community charge under section 11(5) of the 1987 Act.

        SHORTFALL IN BENEFITS.
        31E. (1) Regulations may make provision as to any case
        134
        where a charging authority or a levying authority has allowed a community charge benefit to a person and the amount allowed is less than the amount to which he is entitled in respect of the benefit.
        (2) In particular, as regards any prescribed case where the benefit is in respect of a contribution period the regulations may provide that—

        (a) a sum equal to the difference shall be due from the authority to the person concerned;

        (b) any liability under any provision included under paragraph (a) above shall be met by payment and not by such reductions as are mentioned in section 31A(4) above (whatever the form the benefit actually allowed takes);

        (c) there is to be no adjustment as between the person concerned and the charge payer, or as between the charge payer and the authority concerned.

        (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the charge payer is—

        (a) in relation to England and Wales, the person who is liable to pay an amount in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;

        (b) in relation to Scotland, the person who is liable to pay the collective community charge under section 11(5) of the 1987 Act

        COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFIT FINANCE.
        31F.—(1) For each year the Secretary of State shall pay a subsidy (to be known as community charge benefit subsidy) to each charging authority and to each levying authority.
        (2) The amount of community charge benefit subsidy to be paid to a charging authority or a levying authority for a year shall be calculated in such manner as may be specified by an order made by the Secretary of State.
        (3) Any such order shall require the calculation to be made by reference to an amount found by—

        (a) taking the total amount allowed by the authority for the year by way of community charge benefits, and

        (b) adjusting that total by making such additions or subtractions (or both) as are specified in the order.

        (4) The Secretary of State may deduct, from the amount which would (apart from this subsection) be payable to a charging or levying authority by way of community charge benefit subsidy for a year, such amount as he considers it unreasonable to pay by way of such subsidy.
        (5) The Secretary of State may pay to an authority, as part of the amount of community charge benefit subsidy payable to the authority for a year, an additional sum in respect of the costs of administering community charge benefits; and any such additional sum shall be calculated in a manner specified by an order made by the Secretary of State.
        (6) Subsidy under this section shall be payable by the Secretary of State at such time and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, but subject—

        (a) to the making of a claim for it in such form and containing such particulars as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine; and

        (b) to such conditions as to records, certificates, audit or otherwise as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, impose.

        (7) The amount of any subsidy payable to an authority shall be calculated to the nearest pound, by disregarding an odd amount of 50 pence or less and by treating an odd amount exceeding 50 pence as a whole pound.

        INFORMATION.
        31G.—(1) The Secretary of State may supply to charging authorities and levying authorities such information of a prescribed description obtained by reason of the exercise of any of his functions under the

        135
        benefit Acts as they may require in connection with any of their functions relating to community charge benefits.
        (2) Charging authorities and levying authorities shall supply to the Secretary of State such information of a prescribed description obtained by reason of the exercise of their functions relating to community charge benefits as he may require in connection with any of his functions under the benefit Acts.
        (3) It shall also be the duty of each charging authority and of each levying authority to supply the Secretary of State, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time—

        (a) with such information as he may require concerning its performance of any of its functions relating to community charge benefits; and

        (b) with such information as he may require to enable him to prepare estimates of likely future amounts of community charge benefit subsidy.

        (4) Each charging authority shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of securing that any person who may be entitled to a community charge benefit as regards a personal or collective community charge of the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it.
        (5) Each levying authority shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of securing that any person who may be entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a personal community charge payable to the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it.
        (6) Each charging authority and each levying authority shall make copies of the community charge benefit scheme, with any modifications adopted by it under section 31B above, available for public inspection at its principal office at all reasonable hours without payment."
        7. In section 51 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit) in subsection (2) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
        "(ee) community charge benefits;".
        8.—(1) Section 56 (legal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (2)(a) and (b) after "housing benefit" there shall be inserted "or community charge benefits".
        (3) In subsection (4) for "concerning" there shall be substituted "which relates to housing benefit and concerns".
        (4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
        "(4A) In subsections (2) and (3) above "the appropriate authority" means, in relation to an offence relating to community charge benefits, such authority as is prescribed in relation to the offence."
        (5) In subsection (5) for "(4)" there shall be substituted "(4A)".
        9. In subsection 61 (consultations on subordinate legislation) after paragraph (b) of subsection (7) there shall be inserted—

        "(c) regulations relating to community charge benefits (other than regulations of which the effect is to increase any amount specified in regulations previously made);

        (d) an order under section 31B(9) or 31F above,".

        10. In section 63 (annual up-rating of benefits) in subsection (1)(i) after "22(1)" there shall be inserted "or (4A)".
        11.—(1) Section 83 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (2) after "housing benefit" there shall be inserted " or community charge benefits".
        (3) In subsection (3) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—

        "(cc) regulations under Part II of this Act which relate to community charge benefits and are made before 1 April 1990;

        (ccc) orders under section 31F(2) or (5) above which are made before 1 April 1990;

        (4) In subsection (5) after "30" there shall be inserted ",31F". 12. In section 85 (financial provision) in subsection (1)(a) after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted—
        "(vi) community charge benefit subsidy;".'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Amendment made: No 42, in title, line 6, after 'about', insert 'the capital expenditure and'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        9.1 pm
        Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
        Our debates have been long, but conducted with good nature and courtesy. I thank the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for that. The details of the Bill have stood up to examination remarkably well, although there are a number of improvements that we have undertaken to make. The principle of the Bill has been challenged repeatedly, but no superior alternative has been found.
        The policies of the Opposition parties—local income tax for the remnants of the alliance and their ex-friends, and local income tax plus capital value rates for the Labour party—have been shown to be fatally flawed and unworkable, so much so that both Opposition parties have tried to avoid discussing them, let alone pressing them, throughout our entire debates. That has made their opposition "vacuous"—in the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He said:
        "Simply to oppose is a sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise".
        I sympathise with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He started the debates "naked", and is now accused by his deputy leader of ending them "vacuous". He has done a good job on the bill and he deserves better than that, especially from his own party.
        Mr. Simon Hughes rose——
        Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
        The debate came to life last Monday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) advanced a possible solution that, he argued, combined the advantages of a flat rate charge with his desire for the better off to contribute more. At least that was a positive alternative—unlike anything offered by the Labour party. In fact, his scheme combined the disadvantages of a step system with near unworkability without meeting the egalitarian instincts of the Labour party, although it supported him against its better judgment, as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, in a cyncial attempt to stop the Bill.
        The fact is that all the many alternatives we have considered—banded community charges, local income tax, capital value rates, and my hon. Friend's proposal for a three-band community charge—have been shown to have fatal flaws, because it is in principle thoroughly undesirable, and costly and complicated in practice, to have a progressive element in the raising of revenue locally. That is why we suggest that only a quarter of local revenue should be raised locally. That enables us to overcome the practical problems of a progressive local system, by providing for half of local spending through the national tax system, which is progressive.
        Some of my hon. Friends would go further, and provide more from the Exchequer, to reduce the size of the

        137
        community charge bill. The Bill enables us to take that decision when we come to it, which is not now. I should point out that the great advantage of this system is that, whatever level of Exchequer grant is chosen, the principle of accountability is still preserved, because extra spending above assessed need will always be paid by the community charge payer and be comparable between different authorities. So, for example, if the grant was set so that at last year's spending the community charge for spending at GRE was, say, £100 rather than £178, there would still be the same disparities between London and Rochester, because of the profligacy of the one and the prudence of the other, though the community charge in both cases would be lower. That is not the case with rates, where we have attempted in the past to bring home the costs of local government spending to voters by reducing the grant total and altering the mechanisms by which it is paid. That is an attempt which has not been entirely successful, because of' the lack of accountability inherent in the rate system.
        That reinforces the point that the progressive contribution to local spending must come from national taxation. I think that we have the split between local and national contributions about right. However, we can judge every year the proportion which we think is right to levy from progressive taxation when we set the level of Exchequer grant.
        We have related our proposals to ability to pay. The new improved rebate system gives strong protection to the less well off. It has been shown to leave no one with an unfair burden, while still asking virtually everyone to make at least a small contribution to their council's spending, in the interest of accountability.
        The new system of local government finance will usher in a new era—a new attitude in local government. The relationship between councils and their electors will change to one where every council has to concentrate on local rather than national issues, on providing value for money in the services they provide and on serving their customers as their first priority. That will be a great improvement for many authorities controlled by Opposition parties—high time, too. I believe that in time the community charge will come to be seen as a watershed in terms of the strengthening of local democracy.
        I make no judgment about what another place may or may not do in relation to the Bill. However, I do believe that I am entitled to observe that the proposal has been endorsed at a general election, and I quote the relevant passage in our 1987 manifesto:
        "We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community-Charge.
        This will be a fixed rate charge for local services paid by those over the age of 18, except for the mentally ill and elderly people living in homes and hospitals. The less-well-off and students will not have to pay the full charge—but everyone will be aware of the costs as well as the benefits of the local services. This should encourage people to take a greater interest in the policies of their local council and getting value for money."
        That is the end of the quotation from our manifesto, which spelt out in great detail what we propose to do.
        Mr. Wilson rose——
        Mr. Speaker: Order.
        Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Ridley: I will not give way, because I want to give a lot of hon. Gentlemen an opportunity to speak. I will refrain from giving way.
        The policy has since been endorsed in a Second Reading debate in the House lasting two days, a Committee stage of 147 hours, and a Report stage of five days. That included a memorable debate on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East when I believe the House, with a perfectly respectable majority, took a clear decision to align the system of local government finance with the reality of a society where prosperity is even more widely spread and in which most people can afford a reasonable, flat rate charge and, collectively, they can afford generous help for the less well off. I am sure their Lordships will bear all these points in mind when they come to discuss the Bill.
        I thank my Minister of State, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my officials and all our many supporters for the immense efforts they have all made to get us to this historic point. I commend the Bill to the House.
        9.9 pm
        Dr. Cunningham: I join the Secretary of State in expressing thanks for the continued courtesy with which these contemptuous, not to say outrageous, matters have been discussed. He could have added that they had been discussed with considerable humour, although not always intentionally, as I gather from some of the things that he has said.
        This must be the worst Bill to be introduced by any Government in this country this century. Its provisions are deeply and manifestly unfair. We remain fundamentally and vehemently opposed to it. After four months of discussion and debate, the proposals are worse than at the outset. Fundamental questions remain unanswered, for example, the real level of the tax burden that is to be imposed. We do not know how the rebate scheme will operate or who will benefit. The Government cannot explain how their new business tax will be introduced. We do not know how the new local authority grants system will operate in practice.
        However, we do know that the British people now bitterly oppose the whole idea. We know that all British local government associations remain implacably opposed to the idea of the poll tax. We know that the Government's policy on the poll tax has been widely condemned in the British press. A leader in The Times on 20 April was highly critical. In a leader on 21 April, The Daily Telegraph called upon the Government, "to think again."
        In a leading article on 20 April, The Independent stated that the Prime Minister should,
        "pluck up courage and admit that when she and her colleagues committed themselves to the poll tax, they made a mistake."
        The Guardian described the poll tax as "a stricken flagship".—[Interruption.] Apparently, all that counts for nothing in a democracy. The Economist called upon the Government to "scrap" the poll tax. In an editorial criticising the proposal, The Observer stated:
        "Thatcher has lost poll tax argument".
        Perhaps surprisingly, and most witheringly of all, The Mail on Sunday gave the Government,
        "Nought out of three for the poll tax targets".
        It is rumoured that it gave the Secretary of State nought out of three because it did not think that he could count any higher than that. The same leader then stated:

        139
        "Today, as the Government stumbles from ridicule to rebellion over the plan, it has achieved none of its primary objectives … The best solution for the Government is to cut its losses and plump, albeit through gritted teeth, for a progressive tax based as much on the ability to pay as on demand for services."
        The General Synod of the Church of England has also —[Interruption.] Oh, yes, the General Synod has also condemned the proposals,
        "believing that a flat-rate community charge is inherently unjust and fails to take sufficient account of ability to pay".
        However, apparently all that condemnation counts for nothing—the Government plough on.
        The Tory Reform Group did not have a kind word to say for the poll tax. The Financial Times called it, "The wilting poll tax", stating:
        "The poll tax will never be the right solution to the complex problems of British local government finance. It will never, for this reason, be popular."
        It has been interesting to reflect on the wrigglings and writhings of Ministers in the face of all that. The Home Secretary went to his Witney constituency and the local paper the Oxford Times stated:
        "Hurd says system is the fairest".
        However, unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, on the same day, the front page of the same newspaper reported the mayor of the Tory Burford council in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as stating,
        "Poll tax will 'double rates bills'"
        That is the kind of confusion and disarray that exists in Government circles, the Conservative party and the country.
        On Second Reading I pointed out that there were 344 places where matters were left for orders, ministerial decision or for a decision to be announced. By the end of the Committee stage there were 409 such instances and after one week on Report the total has risen incredibly to 649 such instances where no answer is available and it is left to ministerial discretion, orders or some other system yet to be announced or introduced in the House.
        At least we have one achievement. On Tuesday 19 April the Secretary of State went on the BBC's "Today" programme and finally conceded that what we were talking about was not a community charge, but a tax. He said:
        "is this tax too harsh on the least well off."
        He went on to describe it later in the broadcast—I am quoting from the transcript—as follows:
        "And, as you see in the national press the Poll Tax has not apparently affected the rating of the Party in the country."
        The Secretary of State had better tell that to his right hon. and hon. Friends as they go about their business, working for the party in the local elections in the next few weeks.
        The Prime Minister foolishly described the Bill as her flagship. It staggered off the stocks in December with almost all the officer class absent from the bridge. It sailed on in confusion through troubled waters and ran on to the rocks last Monday. I do not know why the Secretary of State thinks that the House of Lords will not ask some searching questions about his Bill. It certainly could not be described in any sense as a glittering, gleaming flagship now; it is more like a dirty Tory tramp steamer staggering along from problem to problem. Every time a serious argument arises, a few more of the crew jump ship and
        140
        disappear without trace. Every day last week and yet again today we have seen more and more deserters from the cause. It is not so much a flagship; more a Moby Nick.
        There is no willing majority for this awful mess. There is no honest majority for it either, as Conservative Members realise. It does not deserve to move an inch further.
        Several Hon. Members rose——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call hon. Members from the Back Benches, I remind the House that this is a short debate and I ask for brief speeches.
        9.18 pm
        Mr. W. Benyon: As we near the end of this great marathon I have a terrible feeling of foreboding. I have opposed the measure from the word go. I said so in my election address; I voted against it on Second Reading; I voted for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates); and I shall vote against the Bill again tonight.
        I was surprised that the Opposition turned out in such force to vote for the amendment last Monday. I thought that some of the troops would be unavoidably absent because, like the Israelites finding manna in the wilderness, they could not believe their good fortune. Oppositions do not win elections; Governments lose them. For 18 months to two years before the next election the demands for this Tory tax will be fluttering on to 10 million doormats. It will not be a paper reminder; there will be visits from council officers.
        Anybody who read The Observer yesterday will know what I am talking about. What brave people they are, asking about Aunt Nellie, young Jim and all the rest of them. From now on there will be a spate of cartoons, jokes and bitter comment.
        All that can save us is the ineptitude of the Opposition —I suppose that we can count on that. The only other alternative would be for the Government to remove some of the burden on local authorities and therefore reduce the incidence of the tax.
        My hon. Friends are all experienced canvassers and their efforts during the previous election campaign played a large part in the result. What reaction do they expect on the doorsteps in two years' time? Obviously there will be winners and they will approve, but I suspect that their approval will be muted. There will also be vehement opposition from the losers. But surely what there will not be is any acceptance that the local council is responsible for its position. Councils will blame the Government, as indeed they now blame the Government, for the rates.
        No other Government in the western world have tried a poll tax. Some have thought about it, but they have all rejected it. I ask my hon. Friends, would Disraeli have introduced such a tax? Would Salisbury, Bonar-Law, Baldwin, Churchill or Eden have introduced such a tax? The answer must be no. It is against the tradition of our party. It is a new Conservativism. It may be new, but it is certainly not Conservative.
        9.21 pm
        Mr. Matthew Taylor: At the start of the final debate on the Tory tax—the poll tax—the Secretary of State prefaced his remarks by saying that the Bill had stood up remarkably well to examination in this House. A majority

        141
        of 25 for the showpiece of the Government is remarkable. I am not entirely sure that that is the type of remarkable event that the Secretary of State wanted his flagship to enjoy.
        As the Bill has passed through the House we have, as in so many cases, seen a bad Bill get worse. Almost all the anomalies that appeared in the Bill are still there. It is still discriminating against those becoming mentally ill, it is still discriminating against student nurses. It is still penalising medical students and remand prisoners. It is still hurting those least able to stand up for themselves and least able to defend themselves against the tax. Worse still, the Government have surpassed themselves in their ability to make bad things worse because they have introduced measures to ensure that even the homeless—the dossers —will not escape the tax. They have introduced imprisonment as the penalty for those who cannot pay. They have instigated yet more expenditure controls on local authorities unable, even now, to provide a decent service for those within their authority.
        As to the only possible improvement that the Government tried to give us—the changes in the withdrawal on rebates—the truth will out. The Government wanted to take back what they had given by the back door while presenting that change to their Back Benchers at the front door and asking for their support.
        The Secretary of State says that there is no alternative that can work. His measure, however, is not supported by any other country. Even those countries that still have a poll tax are withdrawing it, whereas the local income tax is present in country after country—it is made to work in those countries.
        The Minister for Local Government should consider how he will explain to student nurses in Shepway why they would save 34 per cent. under our local income tax scheme in comparison with the Secretary of State's proposals. In the constituency of the Minister for Local Government, student nurses would save 36 per cent. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) kept jumping up and down and telling us about student nurses. He should bear in mind that, under our scheme, student nurses would save 27 per cent. in his constituency.
        There are alternatives to the poll tax—we have heard of such alternatives from Conservative Back Benchers. Those alternatives have been put forward for various measures. With vote after rebellious vote the flagship has sunk deeper into the water.
        The truth is that the Secretary of State cannot defend his proposals. He has to twist arms, using the Whips Office, and offices in the constituencies of Conservative Members, who are too honourable to permit the passing of the Bill without protest. I hope that at the end of the debate those hon. Members will show their honour once again by fighting this proposed Tory tax. They would be doing a service, because, if nothing else, this will be a one-Government tax. It will not just be thrown away as soon as another party comes into Government. It will be thrown away and recognised as a failure as soon as the Prime Minister changes, whatever party he or she may represent.
        That shows the lack of support for the Bill, and Conservative Members know it. There have been no cheers for the Secretary of State, no smiles, and no pleasure in its passing. There is only fear on the Conservative Benches, because they know the havoc that it will wreak in the local elections and the general election to come.
        9.25 pm
        Sir David Price: I should tell the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that I am joining ship at this point. As I have not yet spoken on the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words before we say au revoir to the Bill. It certainly will not be adieu.
        I have long been a critic of the domestic rating system, and I have spoken on the subject in the House many times. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has produced a Bill to abolish the domestic rating system, and we should not pass the Bill without noting that. In saying goodbye to the domestic rates, let us remember that they are unfair, overcomplex, out-of-date and deeply resented by many of the people who pay them. Let us also remember that, if we continued the domestic rating system, there would have to be a revaluation——
        Mr. Maxton: We have had one.
        Sir David Price: I know. The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent comment. What happened in Scotland shows exactly what would happen if we had it in England and Wales—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members had been in government, they would have taken the kicks for that revaluation. Any Government in power would take the kicks after such a revaluation.
        It does not follow that a substitute local tax would be automatically superior to the domestic rates. It appears from our debates that not all my colleagues are entirely over the moon with the new community charge. However, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have not heard a superior solution offered during our debates.
        We should also remember that it is no good advancing theoretical options that are administratively impossible to run. Nor is it any good to put forward proposals on taxes that are already pre-empted by national taxes. I think especially of a local sales tax. What my right hon. Friend has proposed in the Bill is a reasonable alternative to the domestic rate, provided that it is retained at the levels currently suggested for the shire counties. The knowledge that the charge is expected to produce only a quarter of local government revenue is a safeguard against its getting out of hand, but it always remains open to the Government to increase the taxpayers' contribution. That should be a great comfort to those who are doubtful about the future level of charges.
        Furthermore—it is sufficient for my purposes to note the possibility, and it was confirmed by my right hon. Friend in his speech on Third Reading—the Bill provides a secure escape route for those who doubt whether the charge will be held at the present proposed level. It is also important to note that, should new duties of national importance be placed on local authorities by the Government or by Parliament, specific grants should be given to cover them. I have in mind in particular the current proposal by Sir Roy Griffiths that care in the community should move to local authorities.
        With those two reservations, I shall be very content to vote for Third Reading.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Terry Davis: This Bill is not about accountability but about redistribution—the redistribution of taxation and therefore of income and wealth. The Bill's real objective is to shift the cost of local government from the

        143
        people with the highest incomes, living in the biggest and most expensive houses, to people with average and below average incomes, living in flats, bungalows, terraced houses and, many families living in typical three-bedroomed semi-detached houses—owner-occupiers and council tenants alike. The people of this country reject this Tory tax, and that is one of the reasons why they will reject this Tory Government.
        9.31 pm
        Mr. Robin Squire: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and, given that there was little change in Committee, it will come as little surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends if my vote remains the same on Third Reading.
        I bitterly regret the fact that, as a result of property revaluation in Scotland, my party has been bounced into arguably the worst solution of all in local government finance. I have asked my hon. Friends to raise their eyes to other countries. If one does that, one sees three options: a tax on property, a tax on individuals, based on income, or a level charge across the board. I have no doubt that the last is the worst option. My biggest regret as someone who for a number of years has followed the whole question of local authority funding and how to achieve a better system is that tonight we are probably postponing a long-term solution. My real fear is that in a few years' time a Government—frankly, it could be under either of the major political parties—will come back to the House because the proposals will have been found to be unworkable in many ways, and exorbitantly expensive.
        It is with a heavy heart that I announce that I shall not be supporting the Bill tonight.
        9.32 pm
        Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Patently, the Bill does not have the wholehearted consent of the House of Commons. It does not have majority support in Wales, any more than its predecessor had majority support in Scotland, and many Conservative Members must be praying that the House of Lords will let the House of Commons off the hook.
        The Bill is inherently unfair, in charging the millionaire and those on relatively low incomes the same for local government services. What is proposed is an inefficient way of collecting money; the Bill will double the cost of collecting charges for the local exchequer.
        The imposition that the Bill will place on small businesses will not only be a burden on those businesses; it will make a travesty of regional policy and make impossible any meaningful approach to regeneration in areas away from the south-east of England.
        The Government's failure to introduce proposals to safeguard the position of community councils will be felt in Wales, and parish councils will suffer in England. The Government should be ashamed of their failure to ensure a coherent policy for care in the community, with the result that people with mental handicaps will find themselves better off in institutional care than at home in the community.
        It became clear in an earlier debate that the real danger is that the Government will be looking for ways of offloading charges from local government. In the end, the
        144
        most likely candidate for transfer from the county councils to the central Exchequer will be education, or at least the cost of teachers—another step towards the centralisation of services.
        I appeal to Conservative Members who have the courage of their convictions to vote against this iniquitous tax.
        9.33 pm
        Mr. Tony Baldry: No one will seriously mourn the passing of the present domestic rating system. It is riddled with anomalies and unfairness. It gives every incentive for local councils to be profligate and to write cheques on other people's bank accounts. It gives no real incentive for local councils to be prudent, as they have little accountability to those whose money they spend, often with gay abandon.
        The arguments against the present rating system are legion. Nothing kills off more quickly than the prospect of revaluation any lingering idea of retaining the existing rating system rather than opting for something new. We could not carry on with the existing system without a revaluation, since the last revaluation was in 1973. A revaluation now after 14 years would inevitably lead to massive disruption for ratepayers.
        The community charge has many advantages. It is straightforward, nearly every adult over the age of 18 will be liable to pay an equal share, and there is protection for the weaker and poorer members of the community. It will ensure that those who spend the money will be accountable to those who provide much of the money that is spent. It will ensure that business, commerce and industry will no longer become prey to the unreasonable demands of unreasonable councils and will be a fairer system because 69 per cent. of pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off.
        Estimates using sample information aggregated from family expenditure surveys show that most families will be better off paying the proposed community charge than they are with rates. On average, the community charge will be lower than the rates bill, at all income levels up to £150 a week. When it is fully implemented, 53 per cent. of households or 9·8 million families in England will gain from the community charge. Critics try to sink the community charge and to dream up as many obstacles as possible. It is a racing certainty that they cannot come up with an alternative that provides fairness and accountability by councillors to those who provide the money that they spend.
        Hon. Members: Reading.
        Mr. Speaker: Order.
        Mr. Baldry: The Opposition will not be able to argue with any conviction whatever that the community charge will weaken democracy. They may rant about it, but throughout the passage of the Bill they have not come up with a viable alternative. They have been empty of ideas. The community charge will at last put the community in charge. It is a worthwhile and sensible reform and should command the support of the whole House.
        9.37 pm
        Mr. John McFall: I was a member of the Committee and I can tell the House that we spent 147 hours debating the Bill. The first debate was about ability

        145
        to pay and the last debate will he about the same subject. I well remember the definition of the poll tax given by the Tory Reform Group. They said that it is fair only in the sense that the black death was fair. It is indiscriminate and strikes at rich and poor, young and old, unemployed and employed alike. That should be the theme of the last debate on the Bill.
        Underlying the Bill is a let-them-eat-cake approach to social problems. It assumes a world of choice for everyone, but we know that choice is a function of economic viability arid, increasingly, the Government have denied that to many millions of people. The tax does nothing for individuals or for businesses. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in Committee about registration for individuals using the Simon Community, an organisation that looks after the destitute in London, and I well remember what he said. He said that he would be surprised if the community did not know where the people came from and where they went. That is the Government's view of reality, and that is why they are so out of touch.
        I shall leave the last word to a constituent who sent me a definition of poll tax. It comes from the 1961 "Odhams Encyclopaedia" which says that it is
        "a tax per head of population—not graduated, imposed in primitive communities where it appears impossible to ascertain individual capacity to bear the burden."
        I say that it is imposed by primitive political individuals on the Government Front Bench who have no sense of social responsibility. A leader in The Times said that it is a social Bill with wider social implications, The Economist, which is a friend of the Government, said we should scrap the tax, and The Times said it should he scuppered in another place. But Conservative Members who have spoken against the Bill should not confine their courage to their voices. They should transfer it to their feet by joining us and voting against the Bill tonight.
        9.40 pm
        Mr. Simon Burns: I shall not detain the House for too long. After seven days on the Floor of the House and more than 140 hours in Committee debating numerous technical amendments and a number of welcome concessions, the community charge remains essentially the same as it leaves the House as it was when it entered this place.
        The reason for that is not unexpected. We fought the last election on a manifesto that clearly stated that the community charge would be a fixed rate charge. On Second Reading, a substantial majority voted for the Bill. In Committee, although there were many Divisions, our majorities were large. Last Monday, on an amendment to change the basic idea behind the community charge, the Government's majority dropped, but it should never be forgotten that there was still a majority of 25 votes. Indeed, 320 of my hon. Friends supported the Government.
        Finally, as the Bill goes to the other place, its opponents are clamouring for help. The alliance parties are inspiring the will of the House of Lords to do the work that could not be done in the House of Commons because this House did not approve changing the Bill. Lloyd George certainly must be smiling in his grave at the ironic position of the Opposition. The Labour party is clamouring for help from the House of Lords. The Labour party now must be
        146
        pleased that the proposed reform of that body by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) never saw the light of day.
        As the measure reaches the other place, the Lords should think very carefully before they try to do anything substantially to change the Bill. The legislation was in our manifesto on which we won the election. Many Conservative Members voted consistently for the Bill I advise the Lords not to jump in too quickly to thwart the will of the House.
        9.43 pm
        Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The defects of the poll tax are innumerable. It is cumbersome to administer, it is more difficult to collect and it creates the bureaucratic burden of maintaining the poll tax legislation. The fact that today we have heard that the poll tax will be subject to a capping mechanism shows that the Government do not believe their own promise that it will make local government more accountable.
        The poll tax will increase the temptation to avoid registering to vote. Above all, the tax is not fair. It is hitting the poorest people in our society the hardest. Only last week I was told by a wealthy single man with two homes that he stood to gain £2,500 as a result of the measure. The people in Greenwich will lose almost universally. A survey of 1,500 people shows that 93 per cent. of the people in Greenwich will lose and 62 per cent. of them will lose by more than £500 a year. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.
        Mrs. Barnes: Not only are the poor hit hard by the measure, but those on modest average incomes will find it extremely hard to pay an extra £500, £600 or £700 a year.
        It has been suggested that no alternative has been put forward. Time and again my party has said that local income tax and proportional representation would at a stroke make local authorities properly democratically accountable.
        9.45 pm
        Sir Barney Hayhoe: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I thought it a bad Bill and I should now like to see it dumped in the legislative dustbin from which its major provision came. The community charge is regressive, inefficient and unfair. The arguments in its favour were always thin and they have grown shabby and worn with repetition. Claims about increased accountability are wildly exaggerated and the statistics deployed in aid are, at best, questionable.
        The poll tax is generally unpopular. The Committee and Report stages demonstrated that much of the Bill has been ill-prepared. The 11th hour concession about rebates was an inadequate response to the widespread desire, and our earlier commitment, that the new tax should take account of the ability of the individual or the household to pay. The circumstances surrounding this concession leave a nasty taste in one's mouth.
        I regard the manifesto argument and justification as largely bogus. The issue was not generally discussed and debated at the general election. Indeed, Ministers were astonishingly reticent. or perhaps politically wise, in saying little about it. Some candidates, including myself, were careful to distance themselves from the proposal.

        147
        I cannot recall any other major measure introduced by a Conservative Government since Winston Churchill returned to power in 1951 which is as potentially damaging to the long-term interests of the Conservative party as this Bill. As I look at its intrinsic unfairness and its bureaucratic implications, I am sorry and ashamed that such a Bill should be introduced by Conservative Ministers. However, it is not really a Conservative measure, but rather a product of what is labelled by the media as Thatcherism.
        Of course the Bill contains some useful provisions, but, in my judgment, these are insufficient to outweigh the fundamental flaws of this unfair community charge proposal. I shall vote against Third Reading.
        Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) have spoken perceptively about the political realities of what is going through. Even when the Bill staggers out of this House and into the other place, the debate will not end. It is only just beginning. It will continue for another two years in the country. Day by day, people learn more about the poll tax, and there is a straightforward progression in all of this. The more that they know about it, the more they are opposed to it.
        The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has been the only Tory Back-Bench Member to speak in favour of the Bill. I can use the script that he used, because I have here a brief from the Conservative reseach department. I recognised the phrases in it. It is a gullible's travels of the poll tax which gives the more gullible Conservative Members something to cling to. It says that the rates are anachronistic because they are a property tax. We do not believe that there is anything anachronistic about a property tax, and it is better to have an old but imperfect tax than an infinitely worse new tax. Tory Members are told to talk about lack of accountability and to tell people that nearly half of all local voters do not pay rates. That is a myth which appeals only to the simple-minded who believe that the only person to pay the rates is the one whose name happens to be on the rates demand.
        Tories are told to go forth and tell the public that the rates are unfair and that a poor widow—presumably the same one who has just been hit by housing benefit cuts —pays the same as four adults. However, they are not to go forth and say that in future, under the poll tax, a millionaire will pay a quarter of what four poor adults will pay.
        Conservatives are supposed to go forth and tell people that domestic rates are highly complex. However, they will not go forth and tell people that domestic rates are a model of clarity, compared with the Kafkaesque poll tax. Those are the facts. Eighty per cent. of the people in Scotland have come to despise the poll tax and its architects. The same process will take place in England and Wales.
        The poll tax is wicked. It was conceived by people with no social concern, backed by people who do not have the independence of mind to think for themselves. The poll tax will be defeated, if not in this House, in the country. The people who have imposed the poll tax will be defeated with it.
        9.50 pm
        Mr. Edward Leigh: To the great amusement of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made much of the Tory flagship leaving port. At least the Tory flagship has set sail. Where is the Labour flagship? It is still tied firmly to the quay. At the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we still do not know Labour party policy. The House and the nation have a right to know what the Labour party intends to foist on the nation if we are ever so unlucky as to elect a Labour Government.
        The Labour party is afeared. It is afeared that it can no longer foist large business rates on an unsuspecting business community. It is afeared that it can no longer foist heavy rate rises on the community knowing that in many areas only one in four voters actually pays rates.
        The Labour party is afeared. This is an historic moment. The community charge will be based on people's ability to pay because three quarters of the cost will be accounted for by business and taxation. That is why Conservative Members will vote for the Third Reading, not just in their ones and twos, but in their tens and hundreds.
        9.51 pm
        Mr. Rooker: When the keel was laid for this flagship, the Prime Minister was not here. As it sets sail out of the harbour off the House of Commons, she is not here. There is no member of the Cabinet on the Government Front Bench except the Secretary of State for the Environment. Ministers are distancing themselves as far from this Bill as possible.
        This Bill is the Tory flagship. The flagship will sink as a result of design defects as the flagship of the Royal Swedish navy sank as it left the harbour in 1628 because of design defects. The Bill is flawed. It is unfair and undemocratic. Indeed, it is anti-democratic in its drafting. It is also, of course, anti-local government from the first clause to the last.
        Conservative Members have refused to defend any kind of independent local government system in this country. Five million adults in England will lose under the poll tax, including 1 million single pensioners. Those are the consequences awaiting this flagship.
        Someone referred to concessions. We still do not know whether monks and nuns will be on rebates or exempt from the tax. The Government have lost the argument. Day in, clause in, and day out, clause out, they have lost the argument.
        Every day over the past week, different Conservative Members voted against the Bill. The Bill would not pass on a free or secret vote. I challenge any Minister who contradicts that to raise his hand.
        Our opposition has been positive and honourable. We have promoted amendments to the Bill to change the nature of the tax to make it fairer. We are promoting amendments to the Bill to change the nature of the tax, to make it fairer. We have promoted amendments to relate the tax to income, and to keep part of local government taxation related to property. At every juncture, the Government have rubbished each alternative. They have rubbished also the alternative put forward by their own Back Benchers. They have twisted the figures for exemption on every occasion that they have been put forward by the Opposition.

        149
        The words of a Conservative Member should be borne in mind; nobody will be able to accuse the Opposition——
        Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Of having a policy?
        Mr. Rooker: No one will be able to accuse any Opposition party of seeking to make crude party political capital out of this Bill. We do not want this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we do not want the Bill, even though it will damage the Government to the point that they will lose the next election. We care about the detail but we do not want the Bill. That is why we have suggested alternatives. We have no secret desire to see the Bill on the statute book to the advantage of our party. Conservative Members may jest and laugh, but for them there is no long-stop down that Corridor. Whatever they may feel in their hearts, they will not deliver. The Bill will get its Third Reading, whatever the majority. However, I tell the Government that this Bill will bury them.
        Mr. Howard: I intended responding to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) by remarking on the absence from the Opposition Front Bench of members of the shadow Cabinet. However, I would have been doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice because a couple of minutes ago there crept into the recesses of the Chamber, and can still be seen hidden, none other than the right hon. Gentleman the deputy leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It was he who described the opposition of his party to this Bill as vacuous—not honourable and positive as was suggested by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but vacuous, because the Opposition failed to put forward a policy of their own.
        The Bill has occupied the attention of the House for a total of 188 hours. During the whole of our debate there has been one issue upon which almost all of us have been in complete agreement: we cannot continue with the existing system of paying for local government—the status quo is not an option. Change is urgently required, and only the Government had the courage to put to the people of this country specific proposals for change.
        We had two objectives in seeking to reform the way in which we pay for local government. The need for accountability was recognised as long ago as 1966, when the Labour Government White Paper complained that many people who could afford to pay for local government made no contribution. The fact is that one will never achieve accountability in local government until everyone makes a direct contribution towards the cost of local authority services. The community charge, and only the community charge, fulfils that objective. We believe that a standard level of service should cost the same in every local authority area in the country. That is what the community charge, and only the community charge, will achieve. We believe that any variations in local spending should be paid for by the local communities that benefit from that spending. That is what the community charge, and only the community charge, will achieve.
        For years there has been a clamour across the party divide for an end to the domestic rating system. There is only one difference between ourselves and the Opposition parties. It is not that only the Government see the need for reform; it is that only the Government have the courage and determination to carry out that reform. It is reform
        150
        that will be good for local communities, good for local government, and good for the people of this country. I commend it to the House.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 259.

        Division No. 275]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Couchman, James

        Alexander, Richard

        Cran, James

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Allason, Rupert

        Curry, David

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

        Amess, David

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Amos, Alan

        Day, Stephen

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Devlin, Tim

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Ashby, David

        Dicks, Terry

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Atkins, Robert

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Atkinson, David

        Dover, Den

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Dunn, Bob

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Durant, Tony

        Baldry, Tony

        Eggar, Tim

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Batiste, Spencer

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Evennett, David

        Bendall, Vivian

        Fallon, Michael

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Farr, Sir John

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Favell, Tony

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Body, Sir Richard

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Forman, Nigel

        Boswell, Tim

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Forth, Eric

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Franks, Cecil

        Bowis, John

        Freeman, Roger

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        French, Douglas

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Fry, Peter

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Gale, Roger

        Brazier, Julian

        Gardiner, George

        Bright, Graham

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

        Gow, Ian

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Gregory, Conal

        Burns, Simon

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Burt, Alistair

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Butcher, John

        Grist, Ian

        Butler, Chris

        Ground, Patrick

        Butterfill, John

        Grylls, Michael

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Cash, William

        Hannam, John

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Harris, David

        Chapman, Sydney

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Chope, Christopher

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Churchill, Mr

        Hayes, Jerry

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

        Hayward, Robert

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Heddle, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Conway, Derek

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hill, James

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hind, Kenneth

        Cope, John

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        151

        Holt, Richard

        Neubert, Michael

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Howard, Michael

        Nicholls, Patrick

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

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Page, Richard

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Paice, James

        Hunter, Andrew

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Patnick, Irvine

        Irving, Charles

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Jack, Michael

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Jackson, Robert

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Janman, Tim

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Jessel, Toby

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Portillo, Michael

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Price, Sir David

        Key, Robert

        Raffan, Keith

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Redwood, John

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Renton, Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Knapman, Roger

        Riddick, Graham

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Knowles, Michael

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Lang, Ian

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Latham, Michael

        Rost, Peter

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Rowe, Andrew

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Ryder, Richard

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lightbown, David

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lilley, Peter

        Scott, Nicholas

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lord, Michael

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        McCrindle, Robert

        Shersby, Michael

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Sims, Roger

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Maclean, David

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Speed, Keith

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Speller, Tony

        Madel, David

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Mans, Keith

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        Maples, John

        Steen, Anthony

        Marland, Paul

        Stern, Michael

        Marlow, Tony

        Stevens, Lewis

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Stokes, John

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Sumberg, David

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mellor, David

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Miller, Hal

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Mills, Iain

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Moate, Roger

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Thorne, Neil

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Thurnham, Peter

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Tracey, Richard

        Moss, Malcolm

        Tredinnick, David

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Trippier, David

        Neale, Gerrard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Needham, Richard

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Nelson, Anthony

        Viggers, Peter

        152

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Wilkinson, John

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Wilshire, David

        Walden, George

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Waller, Gary

        Wood, Timothy

        Ward, John

        Woodcock, Mike

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Yeo, Tim

        Warren, Kenneth

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Watts, John

        Wheeler, John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Whitney, Ray

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Adley, Robert

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

        Allen, Graham

        Dewar, Donald

        Alton, David

        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)

        Eastham, Ken

        Barron, Kevin

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Battle, John

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Fatchett, Derek

        Beith, A. J.

        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

        Benyon, W.

        Flannery, Martin

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Flynn, Paul

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Foster, Derek

        Blair, Tony

        Foulkes, George

        Blunkett, David

        Fraser, John

        Boateng, Paul

        Fyfe, Maria

        Boyes, Roland

        Galbraith, Sam

        Bradley, Keith

        Galloway, George

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        George, Bruce

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Buchan, Norman

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Buckley, George J.

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Caborn, Richard

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Callaghan, Jim

        Gordon, Mildred

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Gould, Bryan

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Graham, Thomas

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Cartwright, John

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hardy, Peter

        Clay, Bob

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Clelland, David

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Cohen, Harry

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Coleman, Donald

        Henderson, Doug

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Corbett, Robin

        Holland, Stuart

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Home Robertson, John

        Cormack, Patrick

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cousins, Jim

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Cox, Tom

        Howells, Geraint

        Crowther, Stan

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cryer, Bob

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Cummings, John

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Darling, Alistair

        Hume, John

        153

        Illsley, Eric

        McTaggart, Bob

        Ingram, Adam

        McWilliam, John

        Irvine, Michael

        Madden, Max

        Janner, Greville

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        John, Brynmor

        Marek, Dr John

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Martlew, Eric

        Kennedy, Charles

        Maxton, John

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Meacher, Michael

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Meale, Alan

        Knox, David

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Lambie, David

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Lamond, James

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Leighton, Ron

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Lewis, Terry

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Litherland, Robert

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Livingstone, Ken

        Morley, Elliott

        Livsey, Richard

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

        Loyden, Eddie

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        McAllion, John

        Mullin, Chris

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Murphy, Paul

        McCartney, Ian

        Nellist, Dave

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        McFall, John

        O'Brien, William

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        O'Neill, Martin

        McKelvey, William

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        McLeish, Henry

        Parry, Robert

        Maclennan, Robert

        Patchett, Terry

        McNamara, Kevin

        Pendry, Tom

        154

        Pike, Peter L.

        Squire, Robin

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Prescott, John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Stott, Roger

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Strang, Gavin

        Randall, Stuart

        Straw, Jack

        Rathbone, Tim

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Redmond, Martin

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Reid, Dr John

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Richardson, Jo

        Turner, Dennis

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Vaz, Keith

        Robertson, George

        Wall, Pat

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Wallace, James

        Rogers, Allan

        Walley, Joan

        Rooker, Jeff

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Salmond, Alex

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Wilson, Brian

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Winnick, David

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Short, Clare

        Worthington, Tony

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wray, Jimmy

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

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

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Snape, Peter

        Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

        Soley, Clive

        Mr. Alun Michael.

        Spearing, Nigel

        Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure)
        10.15 pm
        Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move,
        That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 434), dated 9th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
        My reason for moving the motion is that on 9 March the Secretary of State announced that he intended to introduce further measures to restrict local authority capital borrowing expenditure. He said:
        "a minority of local authorities are employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them under the existing capital control system."—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vo. 129, column 326.]
        That was the Secretary of State's reason for bringing in the new measures. Again, the right hon. Gentleman is taking panic measures against local authorities, because councillors have found ways of providing for their constituents services that in many instances are important and necessary to maintain and to provide a worthy and Christian way of life in their communities. Tonight, the Secretary of State informed the House of further changes. His statement that he did not know what was happening further demonstrates the panic that the Government are in.
        Furthermore, the new regulations come only three months after the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Consolidation and Amendment) Regulations 1987—statutory instrument No. 2186 of 1987. The financing devices that were under attack in the new regulations did not suddenly come to the Government's attention. The regulations suddenly became necessary through a lack of foresight and the crisis of management facing the Government. Hon. Members will recall that, only a few months ago, the Secretary of State said that he was the only person who understood local government finance. Tonight, he admitted that he does not have a clue. He does not know what is going on.
        It has been accepted that several local authorities checked with the Department of the Environment before entering into any barter deals and schemes with private organisations. The Secretary of State told the House tonight that he did not know what was happening. That is a measure of how much the Secretary of State realises what is taking place in his Department.
        Obviously, the advice that was given to local authorities was affirmative, and they proceeded in accordance with that advice. The Secretary of State then said that he knew nothing about what was happening. In fact, more than 250 local authorities could be affected by the move that was presented by the Secretary of State. As a result of the new regulations, several local authorities will incur prescribed expenditure set out in agreements that have already been entered into.
        The Government have promised to consider issuing more additional capital allocations when the Secretary of State is satisfied that agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure borrowing controls. We are curious to learn from the Secretary of State how he intends to decide on the imperfections of
        156
        local authorities, and what information he has about the issuing of additional borrowing powers and to which authorities.
        The Secretary of State said that there were no facts given on the issue. However, local authorities will be asking whether their particular schemes will be included in the exemptions that were announced by the Secretary of State. The Department of the Environment accepted that almost one third of local authorities could be affected by these regulations, where barter deals have been entered into. As I said, many authorities checked with the Department of the Environment on the schemes that they were considering before entering into any deals with the private sector. The action of the Secretary of State affects large and small authorities alike.
        Cheltenham borough council intended to raise funds to provide a flood relief and draining scheme in their area. That was to be done by lease and leaseback deals, using a swimming pool complex to raise the funds. That is quite legitimate, but, because of the Secretary of State's action, that council will have to look for alternatives. It was not possible for Cheltenham borough council to find that amount of money from their allocations or capital receipts.
        Gloucester city council had to stop a £5 million housing development on a former allotment site. That, again, was a necessary scheme. It will now have to find other means of raising funds for the scheme because of the Government cuts, both in the housing improvement programme and the housing investment programme, and because of the regulations that the Secretary of State announced that he would introduce.
        Those schemes, and many others, were genuine capital schemes. The capital being raised was to fund existing capital programmes and not, as the Secretary of State implies, to bridge deficits in the revenue account.
        Furthermore, local authorities are only copying the Government's attitude in using the assets available to them to finance other policies. The Secretary of State said that councils should transfer their asset base to the private sector. That is exactly what local authorities have been doing. It is devastating for people who serve on local councils, and wish to provide services for their communities, to discover that the Government are reneging on their advice to local government that it should be looking for other forms of financing capital schemes and that the private sector should be taken into consideration and into partnership.
        I wish to question the Under-Secretary of State about the concessions that the Secretary of State said are to be made to local authorities. Wakefield district council, in the area I represent, used to boast of being the centre of the mining industry. However, over the past nine years we have watched the demise of the mining industry in west Yorkshire and, because of that demise, the district council wanted to retain some of the history of mining in the Wakefield area. With the co-operation of British Coal and other bodies, it was agreed to turn one of the smaller pits, which had closed, into a mining museum.
        Caphouse colliery is a small colliery in West Yorkshire. It is a shallow pit, which is to be developed as a mining museum. The trust that was set up to develop the Caphouse colliery scheme applied to the European Community for a grant and was promised that a grant would be made. Suffice it to say that the Department of the Environment has told Wakefield district council that if the

        157
        application for the grant is approved and the grant is obtained, the council will have to give up an equivalent amount of loan sanction to cover it.
        I ask the Under-Secretary whether the anomalous rules that the Government are introducing mean that that grant will count against that council's prescribed expenditure allocation. In other words, will Wakefield district council come under the provisions of the proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined, or will the grant that would be forthcoming from the EEC count against the capital borrowing levels of Wakefield district council? That issue can be mirrored in many other local authorities which are in the same situation of trying to develop something in their area under the barter system or the lease and leaseback arrangements.
        I must also draw attention to the grotesque report that was issued by the Government on 9 March to try to substantiate their action in changing the law on capital spending. The chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Councillor Jack Layden, made it clear in his letter to the Secretary of State on 22 March that the statement that was issued by the Secretary of State was dramatically misleading.
        Southwark's reply to the Secretary of State's statement was that the statement
        "could not be much further from the truth."
        Richmond's reply was
        "Mr. Ridley's statement is entirely inaccurate as far as the reference to this council is concerned."
        Coventry replied:
        "The statement contains a serious inaccuracy."
        Manchester replied:
        "The Department should have been able to get the facts right"
        and stated that everything was discussed in public.
        Brighton replied:
        "The section in the document is inaccurate and we have written to the Secretary of State to point this out."
        In other words, the Secretary of State's statement was totally misleading, and inaccurate in many ways and should have been withdrawn at the very beginning. It is true that my report does not suit Conservative Members, but those are the facts. Local authorities are still waiting for replies to the points that they have made about the Secretary of State's statement.
        I draw attention to the report of the Audit Commission entitled "Local Authority Property —A Management Overview." Paragraph 33 states:
        "Resources necessarily tied up in property could be released to generate capital receipts. At a time of increasing pressure on resources it is vital that authorities seek to augment their capital allocations whenever possible. Despite restrictions on the use of capital receipts, they are still worth having."
        Paragraph 26 states:
        "Capital receipts can also be used for the redemption of debt thus also bringing revenue benefits. A balance therefore needs to be struck between investing in the life of the asset and other conflicting demands."
        At paragraph 44, the Audit Commission states:
        "Central government ought to place more emphasis on `carrots' rather than 'sticks'. Incentives to develop under-used land could be improved by changes to the system of capital controls."
        The Audit Commission is advising the Government that there is more to be gained from using incentives and offering support and carrots than from trying to beat local authorities with sticks, which is what the Secretary of State has been attempting to do for some considerable time.
        158
        The digest issued by the Association of District Councils refers to 150 district council projects which are in jeopardy because of the Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the new regulations. Of those, at least 31 are leisure schemes, more than 30 are housing schemes and a great many are to provide facilities for the elderly and the disabled.
        The district councils are embarking on schemes to provide necessary facilities for their communities. Many involve development for industry, many provide office accommodation to release high-rented accommodation, some provide new market facilities in the communities and there are a host of other proposals. The majority of district councils are Tory-controlled or have no overall majority, so it is not Labour-controlled authorities that are pressing the Government for amendments to their regulations.
        In view of what the Secretary of State said tonight, the most appropriate action is to withdraw the regulations. I ask the Minister to withdraw them. If he will not, I ask the House to reject them.
        10.32 pm
        Sir John Farr: I cannot say that I give an enthusiastic welcome to these regulations, for many of the reasons which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) described and particularly because of their impact, which is unfair and harsh, on my district council. It is a modest, prudent, well-run, economically conducted affair, yet it finds these regulations wholly unacceptable.
        I shall highlight one or two points in the letter I received today from the chief executive. He states:
        "In view of the progressive decline in the annual housing and other services block capital allocations over recent years the Council has had to seek various ways and means to enable its high priority schemes to proceed. Some major projects have been by means of 'advanced payments schemes' but, of course such devices were blocked by the earlier Government controls introduced about a year ago."
        Accordingly, more recently and within the law, my district council
        "decided to engage in a 'barter scheme' by the sale of existing Council mortgages to achieve a barter arrangement in conjunction with CIPFA Services Limited. This arrangement was due to have financed two small housing schemes for elderly persons' bungalows"—
        the sort of project that one would imagine all sides of the House would welcome—
        "at a total cost of £400,000, in villages in which the Council had made no previous housing provision. The barter scheme was also intended to allow the Council to provide a sports pavilion, at a cost of £160,000, for a 50 acre multi-pitch sports ground which the Council has recently acquired after many years of negotiation with a multiplicity of owners."
        Such worthy projects will be blocked as a results of the regulations that we are discussing.
        "The latest capital expenditure controls also appear likely to block a scheme for bungalow provision for the elderly in another village where the Council intended to sell part of the housing site to a private developer in consideration of the developer building a small group of elderly persons' bungalows for the Council."
        That scheme has been in the pipeline for many years and had unanimous support. As a result of inadequate housing investment allocation and limitation on the use of capital receipts, it has proceeded no further.
        My council and I also believe that two further worthwhile projects will be prejudiced if the regulations re passed tonight. The first is a scheme relating to the provision of another group of bungalows for the elderly

        159
        under council control. In addition to that, the council has been negotiating to exchange land to provide sites for car parking and recreation.
        Initially, it was difficult to believe that such modest requirements in the conduct of model local government should be blocked by any Government at Whitehall. Apparently the new proposals will prevent such exchanges. My council's chief executive has been in touch with the Department of the Environment and it has suggested that the council will be caught and prevented from proceeding with the schemes.
        I want the Minister to explain why such model schemes designed to help elderly people and improve the running of small towns by the provision of additional car parking are to be blocked by the regulations.
        My council would prefer not to resort to "unorthodox" means of financing capital schemes. The chief executive has, however, pointed out:
        "with the Housing Capital Allocation for 1988–89 at £640,000 and the Other Services Block Allocation at £171,000 it will be evident that capital investment is gradually nearing a standstill, even though the prescribed proportion of capital receipts now produces annually a spending potential almost double the capital allocations."
        In recent years, Harborough district council has been a model of well-conducted local government. In deference to Government pressure and as a result of declining means of finance since the introduction of the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980, it has rephased or eliminated many other capital projects.
        It will be obvious to the House that the particular schemes that I have mentioned were regarded as high priority by the council. I find it difficult to believe that it is the intention of the regulations to hamper good local government in such a way. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will give me answers that are sufficient to convince me to follow him into the Division Lobby.
        10.39 pm
        Mr. Peter L. Pike: This important debate is on a set of regulations that is another example of the Government's determination to clamp down on local government's ability to deal with its present problems. To some extent, local authorities have had to use such means to finance projects in their areas because of the Government's controls on capital expenditure. By introducing legislation on the powers of local authorities and their means of raising finance, the Government have repeatedly attacked and restricted their ability to function. This is yet another example.
        When the Secretary of State spoke earlier about the poll tax Bill, he made it clear that when he made his statement in March he did not realise the exact position. As it is becoming increasingly clear that this means of financing local government expenditure is being used by local authorities of all political persuasions, the Government should be prepared to think again about the regulations. The Association of District Councils has said that the regulations will jeopardise 150 district council projects. That must worry the Government.
        As local authorities can use only a limited amount of their capital receipts, the Government must realise the problems that they are creating. The regulations would affect the ability of local authorities to tackle some of the
        160
        Government's so-called priorities on housing problems and urban decay. Since the general election, they have said much about tackling the problems of the inner cities, yet the regulations would make the task even more difficult.
        The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) mentioned the problems that would be created in his constituency, and in the earlier debate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) listed the range of problems that would be created in his local borough if the Government do not change their mind. I hope that the Minister will respond to one or two points that I shall make about Burnley.
        A few years ago, Burnley sold more than 100 unmodernised semi-detached council houses to Wimpey. The intention was to renovate the houses and sell them in the private sector, but most of them had been empty for some time. Instead of taking cash for those houses, because the council could have spent only 20 per cent. of it, it agreed that Wimpey should modernise 12 houses that remained in council ownership. It meant that 12 families could have their houses modernised immediately, instead of the smaller number whose houses could have been modernised by the limited amount of capital receipts that the council could have spent.
        The chief executive officer of Burnley borough council told me that it is involved in a neighbourhood revitalisation scheme in conjunction with the Government. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) visited the area recently to examine the problems of the Hargher Clough and Stoops estates. Those schemes could also be affected if the Government are not prepared to consider sensibly how they will be financed.
        The central area of Burnley also needs modernisation, and we must deal with the car parking problems in the town centre. Those examples are similar to those cited by Conservative Members. It seems sensible that local authorities should be able to deal with the problems; let us have regeneration rather than allowing dereliction and decay.
        The Government repeatedly say that local government and the private sector should work together. Surely such schemes are a good example of local authorities and the private sector working together to deal with problems in their areas. The chief executive pointed out to me a scheme in the neighbouring authority of Pendle. The authority is to form a company and take a lease or enter a leaseback arrangement to enable it to build a swimming bath. That scheme, too, could be jeopardised if we continue to move in this direction. The regulations have nothing to commend them; they do nothing to enable local authorities to deal with their problems. They will serve only to ensure that the problems get worse rather than tackling them now.
        I hope that the Minister will think again. As I said, the Secretary of State made it clear that much more information had come to his attention since he made his statement in March. In the earlier debate, the Minister said that he would grant two concessions to the schemes in the pipeline, but that does not mean that similar schemes will be able to go ahead in future. The Minister may have faced up to reality with regard to schemes that have already been negotiated or are being negotiated now and may have solved the problems they pose, but if he believes that they are valid and justified now, he ought to permit similar

        161
        schemes in future. If he does not do that, he must once again accept responsibility for creating problems for local government.
        10.47 pm
        Mr. John Butterfill: One of the principal problems that the Government faced when they came to power was the indebtedness, not just of national Government but, significantly, of local authorities, particularly as local authorities account for 25 per cent. of all public expenditure. It is significant that, when the controls on the use of capital receipts were first introduced, many local authorities asked, "Why should we not be able to spend the money that we receive from the sale of assets? It is our money and we have it there in the bank." But of course, they did not have the money in the bank. Had they paid the money into the bank, they would only have reduced their indebtedness. That is true of local authorities up and down the land. They are all heavily borrowed and there is a need to reduce the amounts that they borrow. That is why the Government rightly introduced controls on the use of capital receipts.
        The measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced on 9 March proved to be absolutely right. It was necessary to introduce them to ascertain the scale of avoidance of the capital receipts rules through the use of barter. My right hon. Friend has done the nation a great service by introducing the regulations.
        Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to respond, as he did earlier this evening, to the particular problems that have been revealed in many places, arising from the regulations. It was right, for example, to make exemptions to allow local authorities to deal with existing unavoidable contractual arrangements. It was right, too, to examine individual proposals for expenditure—par-ticularly where those were necessary to achieve comprehensive redevelopment or to assist in land assembly or with similar problems.
        I thank the Secretary of State for his action, which has been very helpful to my own constituency of Bournemouth, West. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and I have made a number of representations to the Secretary of State about particular projects in Bournemouth. One was the major redevelopment of an area in Boscombe in which the council was involved in a major programme of land assembly and in promoting with private interests the redevelopment of a rundown area. That was absolutely right and I hope that it will fall precisely within the exemptions that my right hon. Friend has announced.
        The other proposal was to refurbish the pavilion in Bournemouth. Again, we proceeded with a partial privatisation of that asset, which all Conservative Members think is entirely laudable. I hope that that project will also fall within the terms of the exemptions announced by my right hon. Friend.
        In general, the principle that we need to control public expenditure must be right. In particular, we need to take action where it is clear that avoidance measures are being taken by some local authorities that do not accept the need for such control. The regulations laid before the House on 9 March by my right hon. Friend are right and have been proved right by subsequent events.
        10.50 pm
        Mr. Simon Hughes: In a way this is part two of the debate on the Local Government Finance Bill, because earlier we talked about new clauses to do with barter, and we are now talking about regulations to do with leaseback. I shall join other hon. Members in praying against the regulations.
        Two sorts of arrangements will be caught by the regulations if they are approved by the House. One is sale and leaseback and the other is lease and leaseback. I entirely understand the Government's general economic policy, about which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has just spoken. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that in many respects, and not just for specific constituency reasons that we put forward when we seek to have an exemption granted, it would be quite consistent for him to argue the Government's policy while at the same time opposing the regulations. I hope that at least I have the hon. Gentleman's understanding of that.
        One cannot be dogmatic in asserting that leaseback arrangements need necessarily mortgage the future or the massive increase in public expenditure that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West implied in his speech. We do not take the view that one ought to condone leaseback schemes that allow the elected representative of tomorrow to charge their poll tax payers a massive amount for the expenditure of today.
        There can be perfectly reasonable leaseback schemes in which the method of arranging the lease and the finance does not build up the cost towards the end of the term. The cost is charged reasonably at the beginning, when people pay for what they receive. Many local authorities, mainly metropolitan authorities, will be caught by these arrangements, and not all those authorities are controlled by the same party. Outside London, Doncaster and Newcastle will be caught. Inside London, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark, which are Labour-controlled, will be caught, as will Merton and Westminster which are controlled by the Conservatives, and Tower Hamlets and Richmond which are controlled by my colleagues.
        All those authorities have schemes that were worked out over months or years with Government approval, and different arrangements were made along the lines that the Government said they were keen to support. Sometimes it is necessary to go further and to do a true sale or leaseback in order to raise money to meet the bills of today. When the Government impose enormous cuts on local government, that often drives local authorities to extreme positions.
        Of course, the capital control system is the main reason for councils trying to be creative and to get around the controls. Like other hon. Members, I have always accepted that there must be an upper limit on capital expenditure and that the Government must set reasonable parameters. However, example by example, scheme by scheme, lease by lease is not the way in which the controls should be implemented.
        I shall make a couple of points that, as far as I am aware, have not been made. First, I resent the fact that the scheme has not been subject to prior consultation. The Minister will know that in the past there has been consultation. I know that his first line of reply will be to say that this is a temporary scheme which runs only until October and that the regulations have a limited life and will have to be renewed. I understand that, but I can tell

        163
        the Minister and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) whose speech I heard and understood, that the legal advice received by some councils suggests that, even in these regulations, the Government may be acting illegally.
        I say that carefully. I do not make an allegation wildly but on the basis that it has been held in advance that regulations brought about without consultation and which would act to the severe detriment of local authorities who had entered into arrangements on the basis of expectation and prior practice could well be illegal. I warn the Government about that and hope that they do not find themselves in the same political difficulty as in the past when they have brought to the House measures which were later held to be illegal by the courts.
        Secondly, I must repeat the complaint by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in the earlier debate. My research assistant wrote to the private secretary of the Secretary of State following the announcement of 9 March and she replied—no doubt in similar terms to the reply given to the hon. Member for Copeland—enclosing a copy of the notes which the press officers gave to
        "members of the Press who asked for examples of the kind of local authority schemes which might be affected"
        The words ring amusingly hollow. It continued:
        "This was not a note prepared with formal distribution in mind."
        The next day it managed to get into the papers, including The Daily Telegraph, the local papers in Southwark and Richmond and many others.
        The trouble is that what was asserted was patently untrue. It is extremely poor practice for the Government to distribute to the press—although it was not an official document marked, "Press release from the DOE"—a list of facts and assertions about practices in local authorities which are inaccurate or insubstantial. Will the Minister explain how that came about? I have no doubt that those allegations, probably from Conservative party political sources, were disseminated and publicised unchecked and gave many of the councils concerned—including Conservative councils—a bad name.
        Richmond, a council run by my party, was in that list. The Daily Telegraph stated:
        "Richmond-upon-Thames planned to raise £10 million to finance a leisure complex by leaseback of assets."
        Richmond has not attempted to raise money for a leisure complex by a leaseback scheme. The reference is entirely erroneous.
        Tower Hamlets has two leaseback schemes which have had to be abandoned as a result of the 9 March statement. The first involved buying accommodation for providing temporary housing for homeless families before they were rehoused permanently in ordinary council stock. The temporary accommodation was outside the borough. Such accommodation can be used only in ways of which the Government approve. Tower Hamlets would have been doing just what the Government have been asking it to do —provide units for large families averaging six members and involving in total to 2,400 people. It would have been cheaper than bed and breakfast and would have used private finance.
        The second scheme was to set up an "arm's-length" development company in Globe Town which would raise private money to buy sites locally which would be sold to
        164
        housing associations and then leased back to the council. In this case, £300 million expenditure would have provided 800 homes for shared ownership schemes over three years and 300 to 400 ordinary rented homes for people in Tower Hamlets.
        The great problem is that, if those schemes, or any others, are caught under the Government's proposals, the councils have to seek exemption. The theory is fine, but the reality is that sometimes, it never happens administratively, I can give a specific example to show that the after-the-event approval is not working, and things have clogged up in Marsham street. In February 1987, certain schemes were outlawed—for example, some in Tower Hamlets. The council sought approval for a scheme—the Minister may know it—involving the National Leasing and Finance Co., Merrill Lynch and the United Kingdom Housing Trust Ltd. As of today, 14 months after the request, no answer has been received.
        Tower Hamlets wrote to the Department of the Environment seeking an exemption on 13 February 1987, received no reply, chased it on 3 April, received a holding reply on 8 April, heard no more. I raised it when I went with a deputation in the autumn; there was a letter back from the Department on 19 November, saying that it was seeking legal advice, and would be writing again. Tower Hamlets has still heard nothing, 14 months after asking for an exemption for a scheme that the Government encouraged. It is not acceptable for the Government to change the rules to say that they will make the decision and then not to decide anything. This scheme would have allowed a £50 million rented housing scheme, but it cannot happen.
        I shall give an example from my constituency, to pre-empt what might otherwise be a similar delay. Southwark was mentioned in this list of what was envisaged by local councils. The article claimed:
        "Southwark raised £30 million by leaseback of offices and fixtures and fittings in council houses. The deal will cost £96 million over 20 years."
        Sadly, that, too, was completely false. Southwark did not raise the money, the scheme did not involve the leaseback, of council house fixtures and fittings, and money was to be used not for revenue purposes but as capital resources. The important thing is that Southwark is affected, because the announcement on 9 March has frozen expenditure, so all capital schemes have had a moratorium placed on them.
        This is an excellent scheme that the Government have applauded as a partnership between the London docklands corporation, the council, the Housing Corporation, the Nationwide building society and Barratts. The Amos estate is the place, in the old, downtown area of Southwark docks. This is just the sort of scheme which the Government have smiled upon and encouraged. It involved a public, voluntary and private sector partnership, with the knowledge of the previous Minister for Housing, and approval intimated by officials.
        The scheme was agreed and signed in September, and it was due to be opened by the Queen Mother in June. Now, it has effectively been banned retrospectively. This is ludicrous. We cannot do anything to help that, but although my constituents and my local council do not agree on everything, like any logical people, we ask the Government to get their act together, instead of producing regulations that ban a scheme that they have encouraged, and which partnership deals have been implemented, that is ready to go and due to be opened.

        165
        I hope that the Government will look at schemes such as that in the Amos estate in Southwark and realise that this sort of ex post facto legislation banning the lot and then seeking to undo the effects is the wrong way round. Leaseback, and sale and leaseback, can be a perfectly reasonable way forward. For heaven's sake, will Ministers not be so paranoid about local government?
        11.3 pm
        Mr. Roger Knapman: I second all that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, no doubt with a great deal more eloquence than I can command. He raised an important point: some quarter of all Government expenditure in this sector is conducted by local authorities, so we must examine it. After listening for the last half-hour, I wonder whether there is any form of control over local government expenditure that Opposition Members consider right and proper. We heard something from their Front Bench about a carrot. Carrots help one to see in the dark, and that would be an asset in the activities that Labour councils control.
        I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the difference between those local authorities that are selling or leasing assets merely to balance the books and those that are doing it to achieve some form of capital expenditure as they carry out many forms of worthwhile activities, particularly those authorised under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and subsequent Acts. I believe that there are many enabling powers that we do not want to hamper.
        I listened with great interest to details of the new scheme this afternoon and especially to the third part, or that part of it I could hear—I will read the report in Hansard tomorrow with interest—about the assets that can be finished and then owned or managed by the private sector. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me when he replies whether the private sector will include building societies and housing corporations. Will they be able to take over the activities from local authorities?
        I would have thought that these measures would have satisfied all but the most avid empire-builder in local authorities. They leave a great deal of scope and I welcome them. I also suggest that Opposition Members should not criticise any part of the proposals until they are quite sure that local authorities in their constituencies do not have scores of empty council houses.
        11.5 pm
        Mr. Tony Banks: These regulations are a clear example of the Government believing in their own propaganda. They are an example of the Government legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said earlier, local authorities have got themselves into this situation not because they are wilful, or spendthrift or because they like dancing rings around the civil servants at the Department of the Environment, but because they have been forced into it by the circumstances imposed on them by central Government policies.
        The Government have been panicked by what they have read in the newspapers. The mealy-mouthed comments, innuendos and downright lies now seem to inspire the Government in terms of their relationship with
        166
        local government and it is causing them to make asses of themselves. That is precisely what the Government have been doing over this measure.
        The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) spoke in that vein, as if this matter dealt with intransigent local authorities that just wanted to carry on spending money for the sake of it. I do not know what experience the hon. Gentleman has of local government. However, I want to inform the Minister that a whole range of Labour-controlled authorities in London have viable schemes which might now be threatened—although we cannot be sure whether they are threatened because further changes were announced earlier this evening.
        We have already heard a litany of complaints from Conservative Members about how their local authorities will be affected. I hope that the Minister was able to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who described the kind of schemes that would be caught. I also hope that the Minister heard the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) detailing the schemes that might now be jeopardised by the Government's proposals.
        Mr. John Battle: My hon. Friend may recall that one of the schemes referred to was intended to solve the problem of Airey houses and homes that have been classified as defective by the Government. Will my hon. Friend care to remind the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who referred to scores and scores of empty council houses, that one of the great problems has been defective houses which councils have not been able to improve because no system has existed to enable them to do so? When people have bought those houses, they have been blighted because mortgage companies would not give mortgages for them unless the authorities could find solutions to those problems. It comes a little cheap from Conservative Members to refer to houses being boarded up if they do not look at the facts and the evidence and without providing the funds to do something about the problem.
        Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is an example of Conservative Members speaking from the depths of their prejudices and bigotry rather than from the experience that Opposition Members and others have of the problems that we have to confront in the inner cities.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned a problem that also exists in the London borough of Newham where there are Taylor Woodrow Anglian blocks. Ronan Point is in the constituency of Newham, South. A development brief has been issued for the disposal and development of those blocks. They are all empty: 800 units of accommodation are now void because they are unsafe and cannot be used. Therefore, the council has become involved in a proposal that could involve an element of barter. I want to know from the Minister whether that particular scheme in the London borough of Newham involving the Taylor Woodrow Anglian blocks, which he knows much about, will go ahead under his new proposals.
        I turn now to some of the "wilful" schemes in Labour boroughs. Hammersmith and Fulham council made a last-minute bid to escape the deadline and on the night of 9 March it entered into a £25 million deal which involved retaining the freehold on non-residential property and leasing it back through a company wholly owned by the

        167
        council. The money will be used both to refurbish existing housing stocks and to build new houses; what a waste of money—seeking to improve existing homes and build new ones. What an irresponsible council Hammersmith and Fulham has become! I mention also its 1988–89 HIP allocation of £14·3 million and its estimated bed-and-breakfast bill of £7 million. What do Conservative Members know about the problems that confront councils serving London's inner-city areas?
        Haringey has been caught with a scheme comprising 45 units of accommodation, all destined for use as temporary housing. Lewisham has a scheme of 48 one and two-bedrooms flats caught by the rule change. It is another of the boroughs that now finds that it must allocate all its housing to homeless families, with the remainder going to urgent transfer cases. Those are the problems with which London local authorities are trying to deal, and by using the very schemes and arrangements which the Government and Conservative Members roundly condemn, without knowing precisely why they were proposed.
        Before the Minister attempts to defend the indefensible, I may ask him what will be the situation for a number of the schemes in Newham. We have short-term private property having leases of from five to 10 years for the homeless. We have also the leases of office accommodation for more than three years, and leases and leaseback deals for newly built housing with housing associations or developers—for example, the Winsor and Moore Paragon schemes. Then there are the barter deals; package deals with developers, whereby the council receives land, works or buildings as part of the package; package deals undertaken through the medium of a private company, whereby land, works and so on are funded by private finance; and other developments with private developers, whereby the council receives land or works, depending on how the legislation is drawn up.
        Those are just some examples, and while it sticks in the throats of many Labour local authorities to make so many deals in the private sector, they do so because they wish to look after the interests of the people in their boroughs. It is for that reason that they will sit down and sup with the devil—and that includes the Secretary of State, who would perhaps be an even less attractive proposition as a dinner companion than the devil himself.
        With regard to private sector leasing, Newham's current policy is to lease private properties for the homeless for a period of between five and 10 years, without needing—at present—to use any capital resources. As from 10 March 1988, such leases will result in prescribed expenditure to the full freehold value. Newham's schemes are designed not to get around capital controls but to alleviate the homeless crisis that exists there. It is a major crisis. In 1983–84, Newham was spending only £52,000 per year on bed-and-breakfast charges. In 1987–88, that increased to more than £5 million. The borough must do something to deal with that grave social problem, which afflicts not only Newham but the whole of London's inner city.
        The Government deny councils the resources to deal with the problem on the ground, as it were, by building new council accommodation. However, councils are bound to enter into such arrangements and it would be a dereliction of their duty if they did not do so. I hope that
        168
        when the Minister replies he will say that where a borough such as Newham has made barter or leaseback deals to deal honestly with its housing problem, those schemes will be approved by the Department of the Environment.
        I have already mentioned the Taylor Woodrow-Anglian blocks. Let me also mention the Woodlands estate, the Upton park goods yard/Cleves road development, and the docklands and other planning proposals. All are known to the Department. Letters have been going backwards and forwards. At least, they have been going towards the Department; we have not received many replies yet. Will the Minister give me an assurance that tomorrow he will go to his Department and ask his civil servants to dig out all correspondence relating to the various deals that have been received from the London borough of Newham, and that a speedy and urgent reply will result?
        Earlier, the Secretary of State made it clear in a very disarming way that when the announcement was made on 9 March he did not know very much about the position. He now realises that it was not as he had thought: that it was not as he had read it in The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Evening Standard. It did not resemble the propaganda put out by Conservative Central Office. It did not even resemble what had been caught up in the fevered minds of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench and at No. 10 Downing street.
        It was a case of local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, trying to deal with the problems that now confront them—many of those problems exacerbated by central Government policies. Because of the way that they have done this, they should gain the Government's support, not their opposition. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to tell me something good for once, so that I can go back and tell the people of Newham.
        10.16 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): This is, in a sense, the second part of a debate that was started earlier this evening when we discussed the new clauses to the Local Government Finance Bill. Perhaps I could start by making some general remarks about the regulations, and then reply to the specific points that have been raised.
        The regulations have two main purposes. First, they shorten from 20 years to three the maximum length of lease that is exempt from prescribed expenditure control. Secondly, they provide that certain capital receipts shall not give rise to additional spending within the capital control system.
        It has been suggested that the regulations mark a major new restriction on local authority activity. That is not the case. The regulations are a response to a growth in local authority activity outside the capital control system. The previous regulations exempted from capital controls leases which were for less than 20 years, and which were not building leases in the sense that it was envisaged that buildings would be built on the land for the local authorities concerned.
        If local authorities had been content to accept the spirit of the regulations then, there would have been no need for action. In the event, however, leasing has become a growth industry. We have seen a flurry of leases for a period of 20 years less one day, sometimes with recitals that it is the

        169
        intention of the parties that they should be renewed after 20 years. We have seen elaborate option agreements which appear to have no purpose other than to avoid the provisions on building leases.
        The regulations therefore reduce the exemption period from 20 years to three. They also remove the exemption from leases that are part of a wider transaction. That leads me to the question of lease and leaseback.
        I fully accept that lease and leaseback and sale and leaseback are well recognised commercial techniques. Their commercial purpose is well known. They are a means of allowing a loan to be raised on the security of property. They are in fact loans, although they may not in law be loans.
        There is no reason why a local authority should need to raise a loan by this means, other than to avoid borrowing controls. Local authorities have exellent credit ratings, and the Local Government Act 1972 secures the loans that they raise on their revenues. The regulations therefore provide that a lease taken by a local authority is always within capital controls if the authority already holds a freehold or superior leasehold interest in the property.
        One of the principles underlying the 1980 Act is what I might call the "duality" of prescribed expenditure and capital receipts. If a local authority disposes of an asset, or ceases to possess an asset, it is treated as if it had received a capital receipt equal to the amount of prescribed expenditure that it would have had to incur to acquire the asset. Regulation 2 preserves that principle. It provides that no capital receipt is generated on the acquisition of which no prescribed expenditure, or nil prescribed expenditure, was scored.
        The regulations have a temporary effect. They will expire on 1 October, and will be replaced by permanent regulations on or before that date. That is because they were of necessity introduced without prior consultation and with immediate effect. I regret that experience dictated that the legislative changes had to be introduced without consultation. I drew attention earlier, however, when we were discussing the Local Government Finance Bill on Report, to what our experience has been. I am sure that the House will accept that it was prudent to announce our decision in the way that we did on 9 March.
        Mr. Tony Banks: On 9 March, the Secretary of State said:
        "if time permits, we intend to legislate, in the autumn, for a total reform of the capital control system."—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 333.]
        Does that remain the policy of central Government?
        Mr. Chope: Certainly. It is the policy of central Government to reform the capital control system. We hope to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to bring that into effect.
        In recognition of experience on consultation, the regulations are temporary. We are consulting the local authority associations on what changes should be made before permanent regulations are laid. Even tomorrow, there will be a meeting between the officials of the Department of the Environment and local authority representatives to discuss some of the detail of the regulations.
        One of the proposed relaxations concerns the transfer of new town houses. The present regulations provide that, where a local authority has acquired assets since the start of the present control system without incurring prescribed
        170
        expenditure, the disposal of those assets will not generate a capital receipt. This is to ensure that local authorities that have acquired assets outside the capital control system do not get credited with spending power within that system if they sell them.
        It has been brought to our attention that this will prevent district councils which have taken transfers of new town houses and other assets from having the benefit of receipts from sales. That was not the intention of the regulations, and the anomaly will be corrected in relation to new town assets and other transferred assets when permanent regulations are introduced. The Department will take administrative action in respect of disposals in the meantime.
        I do not think that it is appropriate in the time available to enter into a long discussion about the list of schemes that was released to the press and the circumstances that surrounded that. That is history. It was not part of an organised press release. I am sure that the Government would have been criticised by Opposition Members if we had not had available some examples of the sort of abuses that were taking place.
        Mr. Roland Boyes: I ask the Minister to comment on a short paragraph in a letter that I received from Redditch borough council. It concerns a series of barter schemes that would have created a number of dwellings for the people of Redditch. The paragraph reads:
        "However, there would be distinct advantages if the Secretary of State could be persuaded to exempt barter schemes which were already the subject of agreement on 9th March, but where the assets to be acquired under the agreement had not yet been transferred to the Council."
        Can the Minister give any guidance to the chief executive of Redditch in the light of that paragraph?
        Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that issue when we were debating new clauses that were tabled on Report to the Local Government Finance Bill, especially those that dealt specifically with barter and interim pipeline arrangements. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Official Report for details of the concessions that were made.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I heard what the Minister said about the press release or handout on 9 March. Will he give the House an undertaking that in future the Department will not issue, formally or informally, documents that are clearly inaccurate and have not been checked that bring local government into unnecessary disrepute?
        Mr. Chope: The document was much more accurate than some Opposition Members might care to admit. It made it clear that there were many schemes in the pipeline and others that had already been implemented. Not all the schemes had come to the notice of the Department in detail. Our experience is that councils are reticent about some schemes. The substance of the document was to a large extent correct. In a letter to the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, my right hon. Friend set out the issue clearly. That document is a public letter that has been released to the press.
        The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the EEC grant to be paid on the mining museum in Wakefield. That has nothing to do with the regulations that are before us. He also raised a point about

        171
        agreements that are already entered into. If a local authority took a lease under an agreement to which both parties were fully committed on or before 9 March, the new regulations do not apply. They apply to agreements that become binding on or after 10 March.
        The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Audit Commission report. My right hon. Friend also referred to that report in his remarks in the debate on the new clauses. We accept the point that the Commission made, although not the wider conclusions that the hon. Member for Normanton drew. The report is relevant to barter and to the new clauses that the Opposition did not vote against, but not to the regulations, which are about leasing and not property rationalisation.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) asked for an explanation of the reasons for the measures announced on 9 March. From his description of the schemes, they are affected, if at all, by the new clauses that we debated earlier, rather than by the regulations. I urge him to read in the Official Report the explanation that my right hon. Friend gave when moving the new clauses. I urge him and the council in the area that he represents to consider the terms of the concessions announced earlier.
        I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that, for the purposes of the regulations, building societies and housing associations are classed as private sector.
        The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised several points. He did not tell us the extent to which, in the past, Newham incurred capital expenditure. It has now accumulated capital debt of £450 million. That is the figure for 1986–87. That is a £2,199 debt per head of population. The hon. Gentleman wants to allow that council to have freedom to incur more and more debt without any restraint whatever. We have a capital control system to prioritise capital spending by local authorities.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I specifically put to the Minister a point about delay in dealing with exemptions, and cited the example of a 14-month delay. Will the Minister admit to the House that that is entirely unacceptable and that, if he wants to go ahead with the scheme, it will not be on the basis that local government cannot get an exemption or a reason from the Department?
        Mr. Chope: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for that matter.
        Again, schemes were introduced in which approvals can be given. Some of them have turned out to be a lot more complicated than was at first thought.
        The Government have an excellent record on capital controls and on capital allocations to local authorities. Indeed, in 1987–88, there was gross capital expenditure by local authorities of over £6·7 billion. That is 30 per cent. of all public sector capital expenditure, civil and military.
        The debate is about definitions. It is about bringing within the control system those schemes of a capital nature that should be brought within the control system. Surely that is sensible and should commend itself to the House.
        11.28 pm
        Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has not convinced his colleagues or the Opposition. Each hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has outlined to him the shortcomings and problems that, because of the regulations, authorities in their constituencies must meet.
        The Minister said that the press release from the Secretary of State's Department was accurate. Yet local authorities have submitted evidence to show that the statements in the press release were totally inaccurate. The Minister should have agreed that it should have been withdrawn. Local authorities have been slighted by some schemes that were genuinely entered into in accordance with the law and in line with the previous regulations that were set by the Department of the Environment.
        Referring to the Wakefield scheme, I take it that there will be no problem with EEC grants financing local authority capital schemes and that the Minister has assured the House that they will not be taken into consideration.
        Finally, I make one point concerning the question of the 20 years less one day. In Wakefield, there is a residuary body scheme for the provision of office accommodation. Is the Minister saying that the residuary body will be able to reclaim that scheme in 20 years' time? That was the implication which the Minister gave in his reply to a question from one of my hon. Friends. In view of the uncertainty of the regulations, I ask the Minister to withdraw them. If he will not, we shall vote against them.
        Question put:—
        The House divided: Ayes: 147, Noes: 274.

        Division No. 276]

        [11.30 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Allen, Graham

        Darling, Alistair

        Anderson, Donald

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Dixon, Don

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Doran, Frank

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Douglas, Dick

        Barron, Kevin

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Battle, John

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Beckett, Margaret

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Beith, A. J.

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Fatchett, Derek

        Blair, Tony

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Blunkett, David

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

        Boyes, Roland

        Fisher, Mark

        Bradley, Keith

        Foster, Derek

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Foulkes, George

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Fraser, John

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Buchan, Norman

        George, Bruce

        Buckley, George J.

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Caborn, Richard

        Gordon, Mildred

        Callaghan, Jim

        Graham, Thomas

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Henderson, Doug

        Clay, Bob

        Hinchliffe, David

        Clelland, David

        Home Robertson, John

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Cousins, Jim

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cryer, Bob

        Illsley, Eric

        Cummings, John

        Ingram, Adam

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        173

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Prescott, John

        Lamond, James

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Redmond, Martin

        Leighton, Ron

        Reid, Dr John

        Lewis, Terry

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Robertson, George

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Loyden, Eddie

        Rogers, Allan

        McAllion, John

        Rooker, Jeff

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        McFall, John

        Rowlands, Ted

        McKelvey, William

        Salmond, Alex

        McLeish, Henry

        Skinner, Dennis

        McNamara, Kevin

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        McWilliam, John

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

        Madden, Max

        Soley, Clive

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Spearing, Nigel

        Marek, Dr John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Turner, Dennis

        Maxton, John

        Wall, Pat

        Meale, Alan

        Wallace, James

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Mullin, Chris

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Murphy, Paul

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Nellist, Dave

        Worthington, Tony

        O'Brien, William

        Wray, Jimmy

        O'Neill, Martin

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Parry, Robert

        Patchett, Terry

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Pendry, Tom

        Mr. Alun Michael and

        Pike, Peter L.

        Mr. Allen McKay.

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Butcher, John

        Alexander, Richard

        Butler, Chris

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Butterfill, John

        Allason, Rupert

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Amess, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Amos, Alan

        Carrington, Matthew

        Arbuthnot, James

        Carttiss, Michael

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Ashby, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Aspinwall, Jack

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

        Atkins, Robert

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Atkinson, David

        Colvin, Michael

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Conway, Derek

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Baldry, Tony

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Cope, John

        Bellingham, Henry

        Cran, James

        Bendall, Vivian

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Day, Stephen

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Dover, Den

        Bottomley, Peter

        Dunn, Bob

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Durant, Tony

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Eggar, Tim

        Bowis, John

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Evennett, David

        Brazier, Julian

        Fallon, Michael

        Bright, Graham

        Favell, Tony

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Forman, Nigel

        Burns, Simon

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Burt, Alistair

        Forth, Eric

        174

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Madel, David

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Franks, Cecil

        Malins, Humfrey

        Freeman, Roger

        Mans, Keith

        French, Douglas

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gale, Roger

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Gow, Ian

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mellor, David

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Miller, Hal

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Mills, Iain

        Grist, Ian

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Ground, Patrick

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Grylls, Michael

        Moate, Roger

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

        Hannam, John

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

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

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Harris, David

        Needham, Richard

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hayes, Jerry

        Neubert, Michael

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hayward, Robert

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Heddle, John

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hill, James

        Paice, James

        Hind, Kenneth

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Holt, Richard

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Howard, Michael

        Porter, David (Waveney)

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

        Portillo, Michael

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Price, Sir David

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Raffan, Keith

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Hunter, Andrew

        Rathbone, Tim

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Redwood, John

        Irvine, Michael

        Renton, Tim

        Jack, Michael

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Jackson, Robert

        Riddick, Graham

        Janman, Tim

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Jessel, Toby

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Rowe, Andrew

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Ryder, Richard

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Knapman, Roger

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knowles, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Knox, David

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lang, Ian

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Latham, Michael

        Sims, Roger

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lightbown, David

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Lilley, Peter

        Speed, Keith

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Speller, Tony

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Lord, Michael

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Squire, Robin

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Steen, Anthony

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Stern, Michael

        Maclean, David

        Stevens, Lewis

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        175

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Ward, John

        Summerson, Hugo

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Warren, Kenneth

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Watts, John

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wheeler, John

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Whitney, Ray

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Thorne, Neil

        Wilkinson, John

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Wilshire, David

        Thurnham, Peter

        Wolfson, Mark

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Wood, Timothy

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Woodcock, Mike

        Tracey, Richard

        Yeo, Tim

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Walden, George

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Waller, Gary

        Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

        Question accordingly negatived.

        MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (TRANSFERS) BILL
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
        Question agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read a Second time.
        Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
        Committee tomorrow.

        STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

        REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
        That the draft (Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16th March 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
        Question agreed to.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on items 5 and 6 on the Order Paper.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)

        DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
        That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th February.
        That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Turkey) Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th February.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
        Question agreed to.

    PETITION

      Social Security
      11.43 pm
      Mr. John Battle: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Leeds Church Action on Poverty Group and residents of the city of Leeds. This petition is a protest against the reductions in social security benefit that have been taking their toll on the disposable incomes of many of the less well-off since the beginning of this month. The benefit reductions and the result of the implementation of the reform of social security which, despite great public criticism, became the Social Security Act 1986, have resulted in cuts in housing benefit in particular. Its effects are now being felt and, my petitioners believe, will lead to a real increase in poverty for many people in our society. The petition reads:
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will repeal the Social Security Act 1986 and introduce a social security system that protects all the poor in our society.
      I beg leave to present the petition.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Hartland Point Coastal Rescue Station
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
      11.44 pm
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to this debate and to my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) for their support.
      The background to the debate is the Secretary of State's decision to transfer the Hartland search and rescue responsibilities to Swansea and to close the sub-centre. The Secretary of State was good enough to see me immediately he announced his decision and I expressed the concern of the public and myself at the decision. My right hon. Friend offered me the opportunity of having the chief coastguard, Captain Peter Harris, with me for a public meeting. The purpose of the meeting—as I suggested—was to test the community's response and to try to find evidence that would enable me to persuade my hon. Friend to change his mind. That meeting has taken place and the main point of my speech is that the community would prefer to keep Hartland as it is.
      The sub-centre should be kept because the coast is treacherous and dangerous and local fishermen are at risk. The growth in tourism has been enormous and the north Devon link road and the Okehampton bypass are rapidly developing. Facilities are being provided to tempt local people and holiday-makers to use the sea more. There are now five adventure training centres in the Bideford area alone, with sea canoeing, surfing, sailboarding, coast and cliff activities offered. There is an estuary ski centre, two rowing clubs, four small sailing clubs, the north Devon yacht club and other marinas planned.
      Perhaps a thousand people, many of them children, use the Bideford bay and estuary each week. Is it any wonder that many of the facilities provided by the search and rescue service help those users of the sea? Indeed, we encourage people to come to Devon and Cornwall to enjoy our coastline. Both the population and the tourist industry are growing.
      At the same time as the great growth in amateur and professional activity on the sea and cliffs, Trinity House is ceasing to maintain the Bideford bell buoy and the leading lights. The Royal National Lifeboat Institute is withdrawing the Bristol channel lifeboat at Clovelly. Now we are faced with the closure of the Hartland search and rescue sub-centre. As a result of those three impending, separate moves, there has been a severe and natural loss of confidence within the fishing community, among other local sailors, their families and visitors, about future safety at sea.
      The swiftness of the provision of the information did not help. The local coastguards heard of their impending transfer from the BBC. Their worries were immediately passed on and shared by the entire community. The loss of the coastguards and their families will be felt most keenly by the community who know them personally as well as in their professional capacity; they are admired and valued. People are also worried about the auxiliaries whose part-time work is also at risk. In such a small town, the 20 or so jobs matter very much. Work is not so prolific in our area that we can afford to lose even a single part-time job.
      178
      The entire community wants the Minister to keep the Hartland search and rescue sub-centre open and based at home. If the change must go ahead, can the Minister give me any assurance regarding the job security of the auxiliaries? Indeed, is there a chance that he could strengthen their role? Is there no work that could be left behind—no tasks connected with the maritime rescue sub-centre that the auxiliary rescue company could take up? The Minister will be aware that the auxiliaries are a hard-working and dedicated body of people. With the impending loss of the coastguards, it would be good to extend their service to the community still further.
      If the proposed closure does take effect, I am pleased to hear that there will be no job loss among the coastguards, but that they will be transferred.
      Our sector officer, of course, will remain. Would it be possible to strengthen his post if not by the appointment of a second sector officer, perhaps by concentrating his geographical area or in some other way? He is our community policeman in sea-going terms and he must not be stretched too far. Indeed, he will be the only full-time officer left.
      As for Swansea—that dreadful place which strikes fear into the hearts of all at Hartland—there is a rumour that there will be inadequate staffing there, that there will not be sufficient officers on the watch and that not enough people will be in charge. Can the Minister assure me that there will be adequate staffing at Swansea? After all. it will have to cope with a double work load. Double the number of accidents will be sent through to the Swansea area.
      There is a great worry that the telephone system will be inadequate. People who dial 999 complain constantly that they cannot get through. Will the telephone system be strengthened so that 999 calls will get through? That still leaves the fear that the general public, who report so many accidents, will not bother to make a trunk call. It is easy to make a local call, and we hope that they will still take the trouble when it becomes a long distance call.
      Great concern was expressed at the meeting about the problem of distance. Everyone accepts that the new technology high-frequency radios will be effective, but not everyone has them. Many of the very small sailors, including sailboarders, do not have such equipment. However much we press them, they just will not have it.
      But will the distance matter in terms of safety? Some people expressed fears about the distance because of the radio. Can the Minister assure me that he will monitor the speed of responses and that., in the coming months, if the decision takes effect, he will look carefully to see whether the response is genuinely as rapid as though the local coastguards were still at Hartland? Can he tell us honestly that it will be as swift and effective? That is the deepest fear of everyone, allied with the natural worry that, in the necessarily lengthy period of transfer, the coastguards based in Swansea will not know the local coastline well.
      I was reassured by Captain Peter Harris's statement that he was transferring local coastguards more slowly so that they could teach their colleagues, but, as one local fisherman said: "They know me. They know where I fish, and when I get into trouble they know where I am. How can anyone in Swansea have that local knowledge?" That was a personal statement, but it expressed the community's fears.
      I have a petition signed by 1,300 people which was gathered together swiftly in only five days. Treble the number of signatures could have been attracted had the

      179
      period been longer. One of the most important points made at the meeting was the need for a visual watch. I know, because Captain Harris told me, that we have not had a visual watch at Hartland since 1983, and that in many ways it is an archaic mthod of preserving safety at sea. As one of the coastguards said, at the exact moment that an accident happens he may be looking sideways. He may not be getting a cup of coffee, but something else may happen. The visual watch may not provide the guarantee of safety that the community believes it does.
      None the less, especially with our great influx of tourists, I believe that a visual watch is important. The 1,300 people who signed the petition that was brought to me at 8 am on Sunday morning certainly feel that most deeply. Can the Minister reassure me that he will guarantee to set a visual watch when it is genuinely needed?
      I cannot accept the Secretary of State's decision with peace of mind for sailors without the Minister's guarantee of continuing safety through these and other measures.
      11.53 pm
      Mr. Tony Speller: It is normally a great pleasure to ally myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), and I do so wholeheartedly, but not gladly. Now is not the time to reduce cover for the small boat brigade, let alone for the airbed brigade who bob gently out to sea on the tide, knowing nothing of the sea and its ways. My hon. Friend's constituents know about the sea, and have preserved the watch for a long time.
      I understand entirely the reasons for the ministerial decision and I do not query it, but my constituents from the Ilfracombe and Croyde coastguard stations have come to me, not alarmed for jobs—as my hon. Friend said, the jobs are safe—but desperately alarmed for the safety of those who venture out in small boats without the knowledge that is desperately needed. For that reason, I am honoured, as always, to ally myself with my hon. Friend's views. I ask the Minister to keep a most careful eye on what happens. One child lost is too many, and if that loss can be blamed on the loss of the coastguard, neither he nor we will be easily forgiven.
      11.55 pm
      Mr. Gerrard Neale: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for including the interests of north Cornwall, and the part of the coast that joins Hartland, in this Adjournment debate.
      Let me reiterate two or three of my hon. Friend's points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify exactly what the future will be for the auxiliaries, because there is great concern among those who are involved in the tourist industry, and know that coast well, about the difficulties that visitors get into. They also know that many more people are indulging in adventurous sports and pastimes off the coast, which can cause considerable difficulties.
      I also look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister says about Swansea and staffing there. Naturally, there is a lack of peace of mind as a result of the
      180
      announcement, which arises in no small way from the lack of confidence in Swansea's ability to deal with the problems—given that it is so far away.
      My hon. Friend is quite right to have raised this issue and she is doing a great service to the people of Hartland, as well as to those who visit it while on holiday.
      11.57 pm
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Good fortune has shone on my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and secured her the opportunity to raise both the proposed closure in March next year of Hartland Point maritime co-ordination sub-centre and the adequacy of coastguard services planned for the north and west Devon coast.
      Understandably, my hon. Friend seeks reassurance about coastguard services, not only on behalf of residents in her constituency but with an eye to the welfare of the thousands of visitors who flock to the area that she represents and to its attractive coastline.
      My hon. Friend raised a number of important points. She referred to the huge number of people who use the coastal sea, especially in the summer, to concerns about Trinity House and Royal National Lifeboat Institution changes in the area, to the possible redeployment of those no longer required in the Hartland Point centre, to the possibility of a second full-time officer, on changes to reduce the sector officer's work load, to the adequacy of manning at Swansea and to the monitoring of the speed and efficiency of rescue services. I shall endeavour to cover all those points in my reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) also raised the question of breeches buoys and rocket facilities, and I shall cover those points too.
      For many people, including some hon. Members, the role and duties of Her Majesty's coastguard are something of a mystery. For that reason, it may be helpful if I start by explaining what the coastguards do and how they are organised to do it.
      The United Kingdom coastline is divided into 110 sectors, each of which is manned by a group of part-time, but thoroughly trained, local auxiliary coastguards who perform varied duties from cliff rescue to visual watches at times of danger, under the command of a regular sector officer. The auxiliaries are recruited, trained and administered by the sector officer, a full-time professional coastguard.
      Around our coast, there are 24 rescue co-ordination centres, whose job it is to receive information on incidents requiring search and rescue and to bring into operation the most suitable form of rescue service. The rescue co-ordination centres are manned 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they receive their information from satellite or radio distress signals, 999 calls and local coastguard sectors. The VHF radio is constantly monitored and, by means of 39 direction-finding VHF cross-reference systems, it is able to locate, or nearly locate, the source of the VHF distress signal.
      Each co-ordination centre is responsible for a certain number of VHF aerials. It is a very effective system. By cross-linking one set of aerials with another, one can tell the precise direction from which a signal is coming. Where the direction lines from the two sets of aerials cross, one can identify the spot or be very near to the spot from which

      181
      the distress signal has come. The rescue co-ordination centre calls out the appropriate rescue service—the RNLI, a helicopter, or the auxiliary cliff rescue service.
      I should add that even though it is not technically the responsibility of the coastguard, it also helps non-mariners who are in trouble on our coastline. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the constant work that is done in that way by the auxiliary and full-time coastguards.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North raised the question of breeches buoys. At the time of its introduction well over a century ago, the breeches buoy was the only practical way of taking survivors off stranded vessels. Not only has stranding become much more rare, but most vessels that run ashore do not break up quickly. The possibility of rescue by boat or aircraft, or even by walking ashore when weather and tide permit, have led to the end in practical terms of the breeches buoy. On many parts of the coast it has not been used at all in living memory, and in other parts it has been employed very infrequently. Across the nation it has been used to bring people ashore only twice in five years, and even then it is doubtful whether it was the only or best method to use. Consequently, the efforts and money devoted to this complicated, limited and largely unused system are being diverted to other forms of assistance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North also asked about rocket-firing lines—I think that is what he had in mind—to people in trouble in the sea, including those on air beds. Such rockets are not very accurate and may even puncture or otherwise damage the air bed containing the unfortunate person that it is hoped to rescue. That is not a wholly desirable way to proceed.
      An immense amount of technological advance lies behind the provision of rescue services. New methods and new equipment provide ways of achieving an improved service for mariners in distress, whether they are on large commercial vessels, fishing boats or on one of the huge fleet of pleasure craft that crowd our coastline, especially the attractive parts such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend.
      I shall now turn from the general situation to the precise arrangements on the north and west Devon coasts, and shall deal first with visual watches. A visual watch from the Hartland coastguard look-out station is of limited value because one cannot see much of the near coast. However, there are very good long-distance sight lines. In practice, the visual watch is generally kept by Land Rover-equipped teams on appropriate vantage points and that has not been mounted continuously for five years. Visual casualty risk watches have instead been mounted and will continue to be mounted when the risks to mariners can be expected to rise.
      That covers about 30 per cent. of the time and involves particular situations—either severe weather or a sudden deterioration in the weather or expected severe weather. The other characteristics which call for extra visual watches to be mounted are when there are many pleasure craft about. That means regattas, weekends in the summer, bank holidays and similar situations. In those situations when there are large numbers of craft about, especially when there are many amateurs on them, and in deteriorating weather conditions, extra visual watch is mounted and will continue to be mounted.
      In the light of my hon. Friend's representations, I can say that it is intended to strengthen the auxiliary rescue
      182
      company at Hartland Point by deployment of additional auxiliaries—either some or all of those now tied up in the Hartland Point rescue centre and not on visual watch duties. I am sure that that announcement will reassure my hon. Friend and some of her constituents. I can promise that no compulsory redundancies will arise from the proposals for the Hartland Point rescue co-ordination centre.
      My hon. Friend raised the question of the sector officer and asked me whether a second, back-up sector officer could be appointed or whether his work load could be eased so that he could give more time to that area. I can make a second announcement tonight, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome, that it is now proposed that the sector officer's length of coastline should be reduced by one third, and that the number of auxiliary companies for which he is responsible should be reduced from five to three. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to report that.
      Another point raised by my hon. Friend, which slightly puzzles me, concerned the adequacy of the 999 system. The coastguard deserves considerable praise for its ingenuity over the matter of the 999 system. It has aligned the coastguard sectors with British Telecom's 999 call districts. As a result, if one makes a 999 call and asks for the coastguard, British Telecom automatically connects the call to the right coastguard rescue co-ordination centre. Of course, if someone from north Devon wants to get in touch with Swansea, he will not be successful because at the moment he will be put in touch with Hartland Point, as British Telecom is tied in with the coastguard. Once the change has taken place, he will automatically be put on to Swansea. My hon. Friend can be reassured on that point. I add that there is no question of her constituents worrying about long-distance calls, as such calls are automatically free.
      My hon. Friend also raised the question of the merging of districts. There is a technical benefit from merging two districts on opposite sides of the Bristol channel. In a variety of ways this will simplify radio surveillance. Because of the configuration of the coastline, the best location for some of the VHF aerials is on the opposite side of the Bristol channel. Thus, Hartland has control of an area of Cardiff and Swansea is connected to an aerial site at Combe Martin behind Ilfracombe. By opetating all the aerial sites from one operations room, mutual interference will be avoided and there will be an improvement in the technical operation of the radio side of the rescue operations services. Because all the aerials are expected to be retained, there will be no diminution in the cover. The changes in the routes of the control lines and the concentration of traffic in bigger, better-manned stations will help.
      It has been asked why the merger is not the other way round, with Hartland being retained instead of Swansea. That is because substantially better facilities which are necessary to cope with major problems, particularly major disasters, are available at Swansea. Unlike Hartland, the building is permanent and has capacity for expansion.
      The coastguard depends for its effectiveness on local knowledge and it takes considerable pains to enable watchkeepers to gain and acquire familiarity with the full extent of their guard, not only by visiting and exploring, but by developing an intricate network of contacts which can be used to obtain up-to-date information. Above all, the auxiliaries, under the regular sector officers, who live

      183
      all along the coast, provide invaluable sources of background, and immediate operational intelligence when required.
      I can add to that that there are a number of other ways in which contact is made for example—with the harbour-master. It may help if I add that when the change to Swansea takes place, not only will the senior officer being added to the team at Swansea come from Hartland, and bring that knowledge, but it is anticipated that probably four others with some knowledge will go from Hartland. That will ensure not only that there is a pool of such knowledge but that those who are responsible at Swansea will be going across the Bristol channel meeting people along the coast, talking to the auxiliaries and the sector officers, getting to know their contacts so that they know to whom they are talking and the conditions that they are describing.
      My hon. Friend expressed anxieties about the recent RNLI decision to replace the Lundy lifeboat with an improved craft at Appledore. That is entirely outwith my responsibilities. However, I have to say that the overall lifeboat coverage in the area has been substantially improved by the introduction of the Tyne class boats at Tenby, Padstow and the Mumbles as well as at Appledore. Furthermore, one of the new fast carriage boats is due to be stationed at Ilfracombe next year, and that RNLI capability is certainly much appreciated by the coastguards.
      The House will be aware of the helicopter coverage of the area, with RAF search and rescue helicopters providing first-class cover in the Bristol channel by day as well as by night, and in thick weather.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the important point of the staffing level of regular coastguard offices at Swansea. This will be augmented to take account of the increased responsibilities of the station. Four extra watchkeeping officers and an extra officer to reinforce the district management team will be provided, at least until such time
      184
      as the merger has settled down. Some of these, and at least the senior officer reinforcing Swansea, will come from the north Devon coast, bringing with them their intimate local knowledge. Moreover, the full-time senior watch officers at Swansea will be visiting north Devon to examine the coastline, and, as I described earlier, to meet the sector officers, auxiliary companies, harbour masters, RNLI, coxswains and so on.
      My hon. Friend also raised the question of monitoring the response. We see no reason why response times should be changed, but we shall monitor them. On average, there are 230 marine incidents a year in the Hartland district. Each incident will continue to be investigated in the future to determine whether there have been any delays, and whether the response was correct.
      We are approaching the summer season, when many more people take to their boats, some of them amateurs, and some of them very professional. It is time to remind them of the need to make sure that they have VHF radio with them, especially if they go out of sight of land. It would be extremely foolish to sail without VHF radio, which gives the means to summon assistance if need be. Those who are not familiar with the coast should ask the coastguard for advice before setting out, and at all times people should ensure that they have life-saving equipment on board.
      My hon. Friend can take back to north and west Devon the knowledge that she has secured from me the announcements of increased staffing levels at Swansea, the reduction in the length of coastline covered by the full-time sector officer looking after the auxiliaries, the strengthening in the auxiliary forces at the Hartland area by redeployment of some of those now employed in the maritime rescue sub-centre, and the continual monitoring of the speed of response to any incidents that occur in this area. I hope that with those four announcements, my hon. Friend will feel that her time in this short Adjournment debate has been well spent.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Roc Sandford
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis as to what costs were incurred by the Metropolitan police in bringing charges relating to the possession of drugs against Mr. Roc Sandford.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Mr. Roc Sandford was charged with possession of controlled drugs, was tried and subsequently acquitted at the Crown court in 1985. He was initially awarded £15,000 costs against the police. A further £4,000 costs and £10,000 damages have since been awarded by the Metropolitan police in an out-of-court settlement. Metropolitan police budgeting arrangements have been changed since that time and so it is not now possible to assess accurately the cost of the operation.

  Charity Commissioners
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the powers and functions of the Charity Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of representations from charitable organisations and others broadly in support of the Woodfield report's recommendations for strengthening the powers of the Charity Commissioners, and altering the scope and balance of their work.

  Drugs Cases
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the number of cases involving charges of drugs possession made by his officers in which these charges have been dropped in the wake of allegations of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution brought against the police, and on the amount of damages paid in each case; and if he will name the stations involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for visitors' visas subsequently applied for asylum in each of the last five years; of which countries the applicants were nationals; and how many applications were successful.
  2
  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available.

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the regional emergency committees will be activated during the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link, due to take place in September and October 1988; whether he will describe liaison arrangements between his Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers through the Police War Duties Committee in relation to these exercises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Officials have discussed the arrangements for these exercises with chief officers of police. It is a matter for individual chief officers to determine whether, and to what extent, their forces should participate. The question of participation by regional emergency committees is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Health Lottery
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the LOTO consultancy seeking amendment of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to permit the operation of a health lottery.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  Snaresbrook (Court Building)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his plans are for the future of the temporary court building at Snaresbrook, in London.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The six Crown court court rooms now being constructed at Snaresbrook are due to come into operation later this year. Planning permission for such use has been granted by the local planning authority for five years from the date of occupation.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations has he received about the need for more secure conditions in bail hostels in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 15 April 1988]: From time to time, probation service organisations such as the National Association of Probation Officers and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and individual chief probation officers have made representations that the staffing levels at some approved probation/bail hostels should be increased to ensure the safety of hostel staff and a working party has been established to look into this matter.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Housing Bill
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners,
  3
  what representations the Church Commissioners have received about the implications for their investment policy of the Housing Bill.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners have not received any representations.

ENERGY

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 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. Michael Spicer
  My Department has no child care provision and has no plans to introduce any.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to invite United States companies to build nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None.

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy in what way his Department will participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department is not involved in these exercises.

  Energy Disconnections
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give his Department's estimate of the number of disconnections for non-payment of bills in respect of(a) gas and (b) electricity for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the industries concerned. I have asked the chairmen of the Electricity Council and British Gas plc to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will publish his next report on oil and gas developments in the United Kingdom, the "Brown Book".

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend has today published the latest edition of the Brown Book, and has arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. The report gives a detailed account of oil and gas development during 1987.

PRIME MINISTER

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she intends to participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link, due to take place in September and October 1988; whether it is intended to activate the Cabinet Office Briefing Room, COBRA, and transition-to-war headquarters PINDAR; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The military home defence exercises planned for September and October 1988 are district field training exercises, each under the independent command of the appropriate general officer commanding. The questions of Ministerial participation and of the involvement of central crisis management machinery do not arise.

  Middle East (International Conference)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 19 April on the middle east to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short),Official Report, column 672, whether she will make it her policy to encourage discussions between Israel and Governments other than that of Jordan within the framework of an international conference; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. In our view an international conference would be open to the Governments of Israel and neighbouring states, to Palestinian representatives and to the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council.

  Nuclear Weapons Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 24 March,Official Report, column 162, (1) whether there has been any modernisation of the capability of any United States nuclear warheads and associated weapons systems stationed in the United Kingdom since 1979;

  (2) what was the most recent decision on modernisation of nuclear warheads affecting non-strategic weapons systems in service with British forces;

  (3) pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 24 March, Official Report, column 162, what was the most recent modernisation of nuclear warheads affecting non-strategic weapons systems in service with British forces.

  The Prime Minister
  Consistent with the policy of successive Governments I am unable to confirm or deny the presence of United States nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. As with its conventional weapons systems, the process of in-service modification of NATO's existing nuclear weapons systems is a continuous one. Since this Government came into office in 1979, no decisions have been taken to introduce new sub-strategic nuclear warheads or nuclear capable systems into service with British forces. Ground-launched cruise missiles have been deployed in the United Kingdom since 1983, but otherwise no new United States nuclear capable systems have been stationed in the United Kingdom since 1979.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has received from the Medical Research Council for future research into(a) major psychiatric disorders and (b) schizophrenia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received no such proposals. It is for the Medical Research Council to determine its priorities for research from within the annual grant in aid which it receives from the Department's science budget.

  Dental School, Edinburgh
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has of the cost of developing a new dental school in Edinburgh in the event of the University Grants Committee working party's proposals to close Dundee's dental hospital going ahead.

  Mr. Jackson
  Current plans envisage a replacement dental hospital in Edinburgh; there are no present plans for a new dental school within the university. The University Grants Committee, in consultation with relevant Government Departments, is considering the implications of the dental review working party's proposals.

  Student Unions (Ultra Vires Payments)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many prosecutions have been undertaken in respect of ultra vires payments by student unions in each year since 1970;

  (2) what information he has as to police investigations of ultra vires payments by student unions in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Jackson
  The criminal courts would be involved in relation to ultra vires payments only to the extent that a criminal offence might also have been committed. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not hold information centrally on prosecutions or police investigations in sufficient detail to identify any involving student unions or their officers.

  Inner London Parents (Ballot)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to the answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 19 April,Official Report, column 669, on what information he based his statement that the Inner London parents' ballot was not a ballot of all Inner London education authority parents.

  Mr. Dunn
  My statement reflected the fact that the ballot gave only one vote to couples with a single child attending an ILEA school, and gave no vote to those parents in the Inner London education authority area who, perhaps because of dissatisfaction with ILEA, have chosen for their children either a school maintained by another authority, or an independent school.

  Grant Maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the selection procedure to be adopted for grant-maintained schools which may be formed after the enactment of the Education Reform Bill, particularly when the number of applications for entry exceeds the standard number.

  Mr. Dunn
  A school which applies to my right hon. Friend for grant-maintained status will have to provide information on its physical capacity and state the arrangements it proposes to adopt in respect of the admission of pupils if the application is approved. The articles of government of each grant-maintained school, which will be made by my right hon. Friend, will set out the school's admission policy, will provide for appeals against decisions on admissions, and will provide for details of the admissions arrangements to be published each year. Admissions arrangements must include the criteria the governors would use in deciding among applicants if the school was oversubscribed. If the school's admissions arrangements when it was a local authority school did not allow for the selection of pupil by reference to ability or aptitude, the prohibition on such selection criteria will apply at the date of the school's transfer to grant-maintained status. Other criteria for deciding priorities might refer, for example, to the distance of an applicant's home from the school, or to the presence of a brother or sister in the school.

  Teachers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates have been made of the number of teachers needed in each subject at the secondary level to ensure that each school will have all qualified staff needed to teach all subjects in the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on II January, at column 53.

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the expenditure per pupil for each of the years from 1976 to 1982 in Kirklees metropolitan council area.

  Mr. Dunn
  The net institutional recurrent expenditure per pupil by Kirklees local education authority in primary and secondary schools in the years 1975–76 to 1982–83 is set out in the table.

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  Expenditure per pupil in Kirklees 1976 to 1982

  Primary

  Secondary

  1975–76

  240

  360

  1976–77

  270

  390

  7

  Primary

  Secondary

  1977–78

  290

  420

  1978–79

  330

  475

  1979–80

  390

  545

  1980–81

  500

  690

  1981–82

  590

  780

  1982–83

  650

  855

  Note:—All figures are in cash terms.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on the problems faced by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Giles of 39 Napier avenue, Southend, as a result of the Land Registry's delay in responding to a request for deeds for that property, Title No. EX 354786; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The application for the registration of the lease of this property was lodged at the Land Registry on 15 July 1987. On 14 April 1988 the registry received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Giles' solicitors inquiring about progress and stating that the property had been sold. The application was completed on 22 April.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General what child care provision(a) his Department and (b) the Lord Chancellor's 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.

  The Attorney-General
  (a) None. Only seven of the 19 officials in the Law Officers' Department have children of pre-school or school age and there is no demand for child provision.

  (b) None. The great majority of the 450 offices of the Lord Chancellor's Department have fewer than 30 staff which is too few to support local day care schemes. However, where there is sufficient demand for child care, practical advice and support are available to members of staff who wish to establish child care schemes, and requests for modest financial assistance to help establish such schemes will be considered.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will introduce legislation to bring Crown immunity in England and Wales into line with the formulation of the rule of construction established for Scottish courts by the decision in the case of Lord Advocate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence v. Strathclyde regional council and v. Dumbarton district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government have decided to appeal against the decision of the Court of Session to the House of Lords. It would be inappropriate to consider action in advance of that appeal.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Drugs (Illegal Imports)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of seizures of illegally imported drugs, for the last year for which information is available, come from(a) EEC countries and (b) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Lilley
  The last year for which definitive information is available is 1986. The proportions were as follows:

  Drug

  From or via other EC countries per cent.

  From the rest of the world per cent.

  Heroin

  13·3

  86·7

  Cocaine

  50·.2

  49·8

  Cannabis resin

  64·6

  35·4

  Cannabis (herbal)

  8·3

  91·7

  Amphetamines

  100

  —

  War Loan
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will enter in the Official Report, in tabular form, for 3½ per cent. war loan, information showing the numbers of individuals with holdings of up to (a) £1,000, (b) £2,000, (c) £4,000, (d) £5,000 and (e) £5,000 to £10,000; and within these categories if he will give a breakdown of how long this stock has been held.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Foreign Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total costs incurred by his Department on foreign travel during the financial year 1987–88 identified by(a) ministerial travel and (b) travel abroad by civil servants.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: In 1987–88 the total travel and subsistence costs of foreign trips by Ministers and their private secretaries was £19,751. The cost of foreign travel by other civil servants was £464,189.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  South West African-Namibia
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to South West African-Namibian development through national, Commonwealth or European Community action in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Gross bilateral aid and the estimated British share of Commonwealth—Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation—aid to Namibia since 1983 have been as follows:

  £'000

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Gross bilateral aid

  279

  313

  605

  733

  Estimated United Kingdom share of Commonwealth aid1

  66

  72

  91

  105

  9
  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  1 Figures cover the period July/June.

  Between 1979 and 1986 the EC provided 9·9 mecu—United Kingdom share equivalent to about £1·4 million—but no annual breakdown of expenditure is available.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current development projects in South West Africa-Namibia for which United Kingdom national, Commonwealth or European Community assistance is given; what is the value of that assistance; and if he will specify the means or agencies through which assistance is channelled.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The bulk of our bilateral programme and all assistance through the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation is devoted to educational activities outside Namibia. Within the country we are currently supporting the following projects:

  Estimatedexpenditure1988–89

  In-service teacher training project

  15,500

  Books presentations to various schools/colleges

  10,000

  Classroom furniture for Ongula Metanga primary school

  1,900

  Textbooks for Katatura School

  1,250

  Textbooks for Windhoek legal advice centre

  1,500

  Salaries for staff at Odibo Clinic

  5,500

  Assistance to the first project is channelled through the Namibia Christian Exchange; the remainder through the British embassy and the British Council in South Africa.

  The EC is providing some 500,000 ecu — United Kingdom share £73,000 — for community centres, support for public awareness and vocational training in Namibia.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is currently being given by the British Government to Ethiopia to alleviate the problems of drought, locust and famine in that country.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  British commitments for famine relief in Ethiopia, through bilateral and European Community channels, total over £45 million since the beginning of 1987. This includes the cost of 94,500 tonnes of bilateral food aid to help in meeting needs during 1988 and £3 million to support airlift operations by the office of the United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator. It also includes assistance with transport, port handling equipment, medicines and grain storage.

  We are also assisting with rehabilitation following the 1984–85 famine, including a £1·2 million well rehabilitation project in Welo region.

  Since the beginning of 1987 we have provided over £650,000 for emergency assistance in Ethiopia through the Desert Locust Control Organisation for Eastern Africa.

  AIDS
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British expertise and experience in screening blood for the HIV will be made available to African states under the overseas 10
  development aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Screened blood is a priority for all national AIDS control programmes. These are being established in African countries and elsewhere under the technical guidance of the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS. British expertise is being used to develop many of these programmes. Britain has committed over £12 million so far from the overseas aid programme in support of this work.

  British blood experts are also helping to develop a global initiative, launched by the World Health Organisation, to safeguard blood against HIV and other infections.

  Zambia
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is this assessment of Zambia's response to International Monetary Fund demands in relation to the management of the Zambian economy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am disappointed that Zambia has not so far been able to reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund on an appropriate economic reform programme. We believe such a programme to be essential to economic recovery in Zambia.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made, or intends to make, to Zambia in support of International Monetary Fund pressure for Zambia's budget deficit to be reduced to 5 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are in regular contact with the Zambian Government and have encouraged them to reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The technical details are for the International Monetary Fund and the Zambians to settle.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available to him, in formulating aid policy, about the economic situation in Zambia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  A wide range of economic information is available to me on Zambia from both international and local sources.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to Zambian development through national, Commonwealth and European Community action in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Gross bilateral aid and the estimated British share of Commonwealth and European Community aid to Zambia since 1983 is as follows:

  £'000

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Gross bilateral aid

  15,485

  32,901

  25,552

  35,366

  Estimated United Kingdom share of EC aid

  1,290

  4,140

  5,220

  2,500

  11

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Estimated United Kingdom share of Common-wealth Fund for Technical Cooperation expenditure for Zambia

  48

  71

  123

  160

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why £30 million of British aid to Zambia has been frozen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In December 1986 Her Majesty's Government indicated that some £30 million could be made available to Zambia in the calendar year 1987 in the form of programme aid, provided that agreement could be reached between Zambia and the IMF on an appropriate programme of economic reform. No such agreement was reached and none of the finance was released.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current development projects in Zambia for which United Kingdom national, Commonwealth and European Community assistance had been agreed, the value of that assistance, and for which of these projects aid has been frozen.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Under the bilateral aid programme for Zambia, Britain is currently financing two rural development schemes at a total cost of some £7·6 million. In addition, we expect to disburse about £12 million in 1988–89 on a range of technical co-operation activities including the provision of expert personnel; training for Zambians in the United Kingdom; consultancies; and a contribution to the World Health Organisation/Government of Zambia medium term AIDS control plan.

  Britain contributes 30 per cent. of the expenditure of the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation which currently runs some 53 projects in Zambia mainly involving the provision of experts and training at an estimated cost of £1·6 million.

  Current development projects in Zambia financed by the european Community under the second and third Lome conventions are as follows:

  Title

  mecu Allocation

  Agricultural Sector Import Programme

  21·800

  Rehabilitation copper and cobalt mining industry (II)

  28·000

  Interest rate subsidy, NCCM Chingola Mine

  6·816

  Tsetse and trypanosomiasis control programme

  5·000

  Maize development

  5·550

  Rural township water supply

  5·200

  Rice development

  4·000

  Rural health centres

  2·000

  First Microprojects Programme

  2·120

  Vaccine production project

  3·000

  Development Bank of Zambia interest rate subsidy

  1·724

  Miscellaneous studies

  1·079

  Miscellaneous regional training activities

  2·244

  Agricultural sector import programme

  18·200

  12

  Title

  mecu Allocation

  Development Bank of Zambia

  10·500

  Copperbelt smallholder development

  12·000

  Centre for accounting studies

  4·000

  Maths and Science Teacher education

  3·500

  Reintegration of nationals

  0·300

  None of the development activities described above has been froze.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment is available to him of Zambia's debt repayment arrears; and to which countries repayment has not been made.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Zambia's arrears on repayments of aid loans to the United Kingdom are currently £3·2 million. Arrears to the International Monetary Fund are SDR 421 million, and to the World Bank $82 million. No current figures are readily available on the extent of other arrears.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the effect on Zambia of the suspension of international aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Some aid to Zambia, but by no means all, has been suspended. Project aid and technical cooperation from Britain and certain other donors are continuing. The reduction in flows of balance of payments aid to Zambia has coincided with a rise in Zambia's copper export earnings as a result of higher world prices and with decisions by the Zambians to reduce their payments of debt service. It is difficult to assess with precision the effects over time of these various offsetting changes.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his current assessment of shortages of food and other essentials in Zambia; and what are the implications for Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid effort.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the prospects for an above-average cereals harvest this year in Zambia are very good. However, there are continuing shortages of staple commodities and other essentials available for sale. In the current circumstances, we shall continue to concentrate our aid programme to Zambia on the provision of technical co-operation in key areas and on the integrated rural development schemes in the northern and central provinces.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment is available to him on the level of economic growth in Zambia in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The estimated growth in Zambia's gross domestic product since 1983 is as follows:

  percentage growth rate in GDP

  growth

  1984

  -0·4

  1985

  3·4

  1986

  2·0

  1987

  2·5

  Source: IMF staff papers.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he now has of crop failure in Ethiopia and of that country's emergency needs for grain and supplies of food; how far those needs are being met by donor countries; and how far grain and supplies of food will be available in the areas where they are most needed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  A Food and Agriculture Organisation assessment mission in December 1987 estimated tht Eritrea had suffered an 80 per cent. main crop failure. In Tigre and Welo regions crop failure was estimated to be over 70 per cent. and in Hararghe 30 per cent.; while parts of other regions, in particular north-eastern Shewa and eastern Gonder, were also seriously affected. Ethiopia's total additional food requirement until the end of 1988 was set at 1·3 million tonnes. Following poor secondary "belg" rains in Welo and northern Shewa in February-March 1988, this overall requirement is likely to be increased by up to 200,000 tonnes.

  Donors have pledged over 1 million tonnes of food aid for 1988. Together with food pledged in 1987 but expected to be delivered in 1988, and carry-over stocks, this should be sufficient to meet Ethiopia's needs. However, the recent escalation of civil war in Eritrea and Tigre, and the Ethiopian Government's announcement that most expatriate relief workers must leave these regions, has brought distribution of food to those in need almost to a standstill. The world food programme is now recommending that donors delay food aid shipments due to congestion of the Ethiopian ports.

  The situation is extremely serious and a major tragedy is likely if full-scale relief operations cannot be resumed soon. All parties to the conflict will bear a grave responsibility if this occurs. We have consistently called on all concerned to allow secure free passage for relief convoys.

WALES

  Welsh College of Music and Drama
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what inspections of the Welsh college of music and drama have been made by Her Majesty's inspectors of education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The initial training course offered jointly by the Welsh college of music and drama and the South Glamorgan institute of higher education was inspected in autumn 1986 and spring 1987. A general inspection of the college took place between 29 February and 4 March this year.

  South-East Wales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution from the Welsh Development Agency and Cardiff Bay development corporation is being made to the promotion of south-east Wales as a financial services centre.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The campaign I launched recently to promote south-east Wales as a financial services center 14
  is being led by the Welsh Development Agency and backed by a consortium of six other bodies, including the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  The campaign is planned to run for two years initially The WDA proposes to contribute a maximum of £500,000 a year from within its existing marketing budget. The development corporation plans a contribution of £25,000 in each year.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the business community in Wales to discuss the proposed national non-domestic rate.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I have had frequent communications with representatives of the business community in Wales and have discussed many topics that are of mutual interest.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, when he next meets the chairman of the Welsh water authority, he will discuss future water charges.

  Mr. Grist
  Yes. They will be included as part of our discussion of the authority's corporate plan.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales, and if he will give the equivalent figures for the same date in 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 10 March 1988 the numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 7,696, 22,495 and 141,403 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

  In-patient Treatment
  Mr. Alex Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are waiting for in-patient treatment for urgent and non-urgent cases in Powys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Thirty-two people were waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment in NHS hospitals in Powys on 30 September 1987, a reduction of 45 per cent. on the previous year, and none were waiting for urgent treatment. I congratulate the Powys health authority on meeting its in-patient targets.

  Sheep Movements
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of the restrictions of sheep movements in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep in parts of north Wales following the Chernobyl accident have been successful in protecting public health and maintaining consumer confidence in lamb. £3·3 million has been paid to affected producers in Wales under schemes of compensation introduced in consultation with the farming unions.

  Home Improvement (Grants and Loans)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the annual number of home improvement grants and home improvement loans in Wales at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Grist
  In 1987 some 20,000 grants were completed at a cost in excess of £59 million. Information on home improvement loans is not collected by the Department.

  Pontypool and District Hospital
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the possible closure of Pontypool and district hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations concerning the possible closure of Pontypool and district hospital.

  Tree-planting Schemes
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in initiatives and plans to encourage broadleaved tree-planting schemes in the Principality.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The planting of broadleaves will be encouraged under the new woodland grant scheme, which provides substantially higher rates of grant for broad-leaves than for conifers and a supplement for planting on better land. Planting of broadleaved trees by farmers will be further encouraged under the proposed farm woodland scheme.

  Amenity tree planting is supported by grants from the Countryside Commission and a number of other sources.

  Housing Lists
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were on local authority housing lists(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of people on housing waiting lists is not available centrally.

  Flint Castle (Report)
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in the light of the report entitled "Flint Castle and Environs: A Feasibility Study," commissioned by CADW, Delyn borough council and the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I welcome the report. We are currently considering with the various parties involved how best to proceed in the light of the consultants' findings.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what number and percentage of the total electors in the district council areas of(a) Preseli, Pembrokeshire, and (b) south Pembrokeshire currently pay domestic rates; and what estimate he has of the number and percentage of electors in each area who will pay the community charge.

  Mr. Grist
  My best estimate is that there are about 27,000 people in Preseli and 16,000 in south 16
  Pembrokeshire liable for domestic rates. This represents 51 per cent. of the electoral rolls in each district. Almost all adults will be liable for the community charge.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of concessionary bus fares for children arising out of the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Transport Act 1985 gave local authorities the opportunity to review their concessionary fares schemes and to improve, modify or introduce schemes for certain groups including children. Some authorities have used these powers, but in most areas there has been no change.

  Clwyd Area Health Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed as (i) ancillaries and (ii) professionals by Clwyd area health authority in(a) 1979 and (b) 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of whole-time equivalents at 30 September employed by Clwyd district health authority is given as follows:

  1979

  1987

  Ancillary staff

  1,324

  1,186

  Professional and technical staff'

  377

  553

  1 Includes professions allied to medicine, scientific staff, technicians, pharmacists and opticians.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed by Clwyd area health authority family practitioner committee in 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  The information, which relates to whole-time equivalents as at 30 September, is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  31·0

  1987

  34·6

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many secondary schools in Wales teach Welsh as a second language; how many pupils are involved in each year group; and what percentage this is for each year group.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In September 1987, 196 secondary schools in Wales taught Welsh as a second language. The information by year group is as follows:

  Year group

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of year group

  I

  22,496

  69·4

  II

  21,277

  63·0

  III

  17,362

  49·1

  IV

  6,844

  18·2

  V

  6,996

  17·7

  VI

  640

  3·0

  Total

  75,615

  37·8

  17
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary schools in Wales teach, wholly or partly in Welsh(a) two subjects, (b) three subjects, (c) four subjects, (d) five subjects and (e) more than five subjects.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many secondary schools in Wales teach wholly or partly in Welsh(a) two subjects, (b) three subjects, (c) four subjects, (d) five subjects and (e) more than five subjects.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information relating to September 1987 is as follows:

  Number of subjects

  Number of schools

  2

  —

  3

  7

  4

  1

  5

  2

  More than 5

  40

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary schools in Wales teach Welsh to all pupils either as the language of the home or a second language, giving the number and percentage of pupils in each case.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. However, in September 1987, 1,018 primary schools taught Welsh to all pupils either as a second language or as a medium of instruction. These schools represented 122,140 pupils, about 47·5 per cent. of the total primary school population.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are currently in training to teach(a) through the medium of Welsh at junior level, (b) through the medium of Welsh at secondary level, (c) Welsh as a second language in junior schools and (d) Welsh as a second language in secondary schools; and how many he estimates will be required to meet the needs of implementing the national curriculum's requirements in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In 1986 there were 213 students in Wales training to teach through the medium of Welsh at primary level and about 38 at secondary level. No information is held about the number of students training to teach Welsh as a second language, but in 1986, 53 students in training were pursuing Welsh as a main subject in bachelor of education courses and 16 were pursuing postgraduate training to teach Welsh in secondary schools. It is too early to make precise estimates of the number of teachers that will be required to meet the needs of implementing the national curriculum. Local education authorities will be expected to plan on the basis of incremental implementation of the national curriculum over a number of years within the framework of the present planned resources.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lebanon
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom citizens held as hostages in Lebanon.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's embassy in Beirut is doing everything it reasonably can to obtain information there about the disappearance and present whereabouts of our hostages. We are in regular contact with middle eastern and other Governments who might be able to help. While we deeply sympathise with the hostages and share the anguish of their families, it is our firm policy not to make substantive concessions to kidnappers, because experience has shown that making deals leads to more hostage taking and places further lives at risk.

  Christina Endrigkeit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the West German Government over the implications for Euro-Arab relations of the investigative custody of Christina Endrigkeit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. I have nothing to add to the many statements we have made on these matters.

  Vladimir Tufeld
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Soviet Government about their continued failure to grant an exit visa to Vladimir Tufeld of Moscow so that he can join his critically ill wife.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have made repeated representations to the Soviet authorities on behalf of Vladimir Tufeld, making clear my right hon. and learned Friend's personal interest and that of the Prime Minister, most recently on 21 April. My right hon. and learned Friend was able to meet Mr. Tufeld in February and to raise his case personally with Mr. Shevardnadze. The humanitarian grounds for his being given art exit visa are overwhelming and we hope the Soviet authorities will reconsider their decision.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken, alone or with other members of the United Nations, with regard to(a) apartheid in South Africa, (b) the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, (c) the repeated violence in the territory of Angola, and (d) the funding of mercenary troops in Mozambique, over the past 12 months.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made frequent representations, both bilaterally and in concert with our European Community partners, on human rights abuses, including detentions without charge, and forced removals; restrictions on the media; the restrictions placed on 17 anti-apartheid organisations and individuals on 24 February; the implications of the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill; clemency for the Sharpeville six; the need to release Nelson Mandela and other political
  19
  prisoners, to unban the ANC and other political parties and to start a process of dialogue and negotiation with credible black leaders.

  On Namibia, we have worked in support of Security Council resolution 601, empowering the Secretary General to negotiate a ceasefire leading to implementation of SCR 435. On Angola, in addition to voting for Security Council resolutions 602 and 606 which called for the immediate withdrawal of South African troops, we have used every available opportunity to impress upon the South African Government the need for them to contribute to a peaceful settlement. The South African Government are also well aware of our strong view that they should not support Renamo forces in Mozambique, directly or indirectly.

  Young People (Exchange Visits)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans to increase the funding available for young people living in the United Kingdom to undertake Commonwealth and other international exchange visits; if he will take steps to ensure that the proposed Youth for Europe scheme maintains or increases opportunities for young people in Britain to undertake exchange visits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no plans to increase the available funds at present. Our aim is to ensure that any Youth for Europe programme complements the existing successful youth exchange programmes in the United Kingdom.

  Brazil
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his Brazilian counterpart; if he will discuss with him Brazil's failure to sign the mutual protocol on the substances which deplete the ozone layer and the damage caused to it by the burning of the Amazonian forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet the Foreign Minister of Brazil.

  Ascension Island
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any further progress has been made in cleaning litter and empty beer cans from Ascension Island.

  Mr. Eggar
  Ascension Island Services is responsible for refuse collection on the island and ensures that refuse is collected on a regular basis. There are notices displayed around the island warning people that anyone caught dropping litter will be fined up to a maximum of £20. Also the Scouts carry out sponsored tidying-up campaigns from time to time.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the Government rates of pay and social welfare on St. Helena.

  Mr. Eggar
  The St. Helena Government set these pay rates. Rates of pay, with effect from 1 April 1988, range 20
  from £1,284 up to £9,012. There are a total of 62 salary points on the scale. Weekly social welfare rates range from £4·75 for a dependent child up to £32·50 for a family.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many dwellings have been completed on St. Helena in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Government dwellings have been com-pleted on St. Helena in each of the last five years as follows:

  Number

  1983–84

  12

  1984–85

  23

  1985–86

  11

  1986–87

  11

  1987–88

  0

  In addition, planning approval for private dwellings are granted as follows:

  Number

  1983

  34

  1984

  67

  1985

  35

  1986

  50

  1987

  60

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many donkeys there are on Ascension Island; whose responsibility they are; and what are the areas that they are allowed to graze.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is estimated that there are about 60 donkeys on Ascension. They are protected under the Ascension Island ordinances and are the Administrator's responsibility. With the exception of the air base which is fenced off, the donkeys are free to graze on the island.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the reduction of feral cats on Ascension Island; and what estimate he can make of the remaining numbers.

  Mr. Eggar
  Ascension Island Services and the organisations based on Ascension have an on-going culling programme for all sectors of the island, with the assistance, as appropriate, of the police. These measures are considered to be effective and it is estimated that more than 150 cats were destroyed last year. It is not known how many cats remain on the island.

  Fiji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with Ministers from Fiji; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend had talks with the Prime Minister of Fiji on 29 March, covering various aspects of our relations. Ratu Mara spoke of his efforts to return Fiji to constitutional government. These have our full support.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state what representations he has received about the current status of United Kingdom military aid to Fiji.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received one letter from a member of the public.
  21
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if military aid has been restored to Fiji; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A modest programme of military training will continue.

  NAVTEX
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that EEC countries transmit NAVTEX naviga-tional guidance information.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Provision of NAVTEX, an international service for promulgation to ships of coastal navigational and meteorological and other safety information, is coordinated through the International Maritime Organisation-sponsored worldwide navigational warning service. Some European coasts already have the service, and further transmitting stations are planned.

SCOTLAND

  Tributyl
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for fish farming of his research into anti-foulant tributyl.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following consideration of the results carried out by Government scientists the use of tributyltin-based compounds used to prevent the fouling of fish farm nets and cages is prohibited through regulations introduced last year. This has required the fish farming industry to consider alternative compounds as anti-foulants.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the publicity material about breast cancer screening which the Scottish Health Education Group is preparing will be ready.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The essential component of the breast cancer screening programme is that women in the age range 50 to 64 will receive a personal invitation to attend a centre for screening. The Scottish Health Education Group is collaborating with the national training centre for breast cancer screening in Edinburgh to devise a suitable letter of invitation and an information leaflet about breast cancer screening. The material will be available in June. The need for a national publicity campaign will be considered once all the screening centres are in operation.

  Job losses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures of job losses caused by the removal or closure of American-owned factories in Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated number of job losses in manufacturing units which were US-owned in 1979 with an employment of more than 10 in that year, and which are now closed, is 21,600.

  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning investigations by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive of publicly owned land in Scotland to assess the suitability of sites for the development of a repository for the disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are not aware of such investigations by Nirex in connection with its current work on identifying possible repository sites in Great Britain.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has about approaches made by landowners in Scotland to the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive with proposals for the use of land as potential sites for a nuclear waste disposal facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is not a matter for the Scottish Office. Such approaches would be made to Nirex, which is known to observe confidentiality on any approach by landowners.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the area of land approved for forestry grant-aid in each of the five years to 31 March 1987 and from 1 April 1987 to date in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 April 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area of land (hectares)

  1983

  34,419

  1984

  34,096

  1985

  33,267

  1986

  37,875

  1987

  65,935

  The total area of land approved for planting in the period 1 April 1987 to 31 December 1987, the latest date to which figures are readily available, was 49,756 hectares.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the minimum payment of the community charge, including community water charge, would have been payable by pensioners on basic retirement pension income in the current financial year, for each district, island and regional authority; if he will express each sum payable as a percentage of the total community charge in that area; and if he will make a statement about the average proportion of the community charge which will have to be met by those on low incomes.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]The information requested in respect of 1988–89 is set out in the table. All pensioners whose basic state pension is their only source of income, and whose capital does not exceed £3,000, will receive the maximum community charge rebate. In most cases they will qualify for income support. Income support rates already take account of the payment of the minimum contribution to rates and of water rates:
  23
  in 1989–90 they will be adjusted to take account of the introduction of the community charge in Scotland. Many people on low incomes will have their full charge covered.

  Local authority area

  Personal community charge

  Community water charge

  Total liability

  Maximum rebate

  Amount payable

  Amount payable as a percentage of total liability per cent.

  Borders

  Berwick

  181

  24

  205

  145

  60

  29

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  183

  24

  207

  147

  60

  29

  Roxburgh

  187

  24

  211

  150

  61

  29

  Tweeddale

  181

  24

  205

  145

  60

  29

  Central

  Clackmannan

  228

  16

  245

  183

  62

  25

  Falkirk

  217

  16

  233

  174

  60

  26

  Stirling

  253

  16

  270

  203

  67

  25

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  193

  17

  210

  155

  56

  27

  Nithsdale

  193

  17

  210

  155

  56

  27

  Stewartry

  193

  17

  210

  155

  56

  27

  Wigtown

  186

  17

  203

  149

  54

  27

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  230

  17

  247

  184

  63

  26

  Kirkcaldy

  241

  17

  258

  193

  65

  25

  North East Fife

  244

  17

  261

  195

  66

  25

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  192

  28

  220

  154

  66

  30

  Banff and Buchan

  180

  28

  208

  144

  64

  31

  Gordon

  178

  28

  206

  143

  64

  31

  Kincardine and Deeside

  173

  28

  201

  138

  63

  31

  Moray

  173

  28

  201

  139

  63

  31

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  181

  20

  201

  144

  56

  28

  Caithness

  182

  20

  202

  146

  57

  28

  Inverness

  183

  20

  204

  147

  57

  28

  Lochaber

  194

  20

  214

  155

  59

  28

  Nairn

  180

  20

  200

  144

  56

  28

  Ross and Cromarty

  189

  20

  209

  151

  58

  28

  Skye and Lochalsh

  179

  20

  200

  143

  56

  28

  Sutherland

  174

  20

  195

  140

  55

  28

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  311

  20

  331

  249

  82

  25

  Edinburgh

  314

  20

  334

  251

  83

  25

  Midlothian

  303

  20

  323

  242

  81

  25

  West Lothian

  296

  20

  316

  237

  79

  25

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  256

  17

  274

  205

  69

  25

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  265

  17

  283

  212

  70

  25

  Clydebank

  249

  17

  267

  199

  67

  25

  Clydesdale

  246

  17

  263

  197

  67

  25

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  248

  17

  266

  199

  67

  25

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  239

  17

  256

  191

  65

  25

  Cunninghame

  262

  17

  279

  210

  70

  25

  Dumbarton

  264

  17

  281

  211

  70

  25

  East Kilbride

  244

  17

  261

  195

  66

  25

  Eastwood

  246

  17

  264

  197

  67

  25

  Glasgow

  274

  17

  291

  219

  72

  25

  Hamilton

  254

  17

  272

  203

  68

  25

  Inverclyde

  246

  17

  263

  196

  67

  25

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  251

  17

  268

  201

  68

  25

  Kyle and Carrick

  257

  17

  274

  205

  69

  25

  Monklands

  249

  17

  266

  199

  67

  25

  Motherwell

  244

  17

  261

  195

  66

  25

  Renfrew

  255

  17

  273

  204

  68

  25

  Strathkelvin

  249

  17

  266

  199

  67

  25

  Tayside

  Angus

  226

  19

  245

  181

  64

  26

  Dundee

  256

  19

  275

  204

  70

  26

  24

  25

  Local authority area

  Personal community charge

  Community water charge

  Total liability

  Maximum rebate

  Amount payable

  Amount payable as a percentage of total liability per cent.

  Perth and Kinross

  230

  19

  249

  184

  65

  26

  Orkney

  79

  28

  107

  63

  44

  41

  Shetland

  187

  14

  201

  150

  51

  26

  Western Isles

  105

  20

  125

  84

  41

  33

  Scotland Total

  246

  19

  266

  197

  68

  26

  Note: Figures may not add owing to rounding.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Schemes (Bonus Payments)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether the proposed bonus payment to be paid at the end of an adult training scheme placement will affect benefit entitlement or tax liability;

  (2) who is to be responsible for funding the proposed bonus payment to be paid at the end of a placement on the adult training scheme;

  (3) what is the proposed minimum and maximum level for the proposed bonus payment to be paid at the end of a placement on the adult training scheme;

  (4) if the proposed bonus payment for participants leaving the adult training scheme will be available on all different elements of the programmes;

  (5) if the proposed bonus payment for those leaving the adult training scheme will be paid to all leavers no matter how long they spend on the scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Training managers or providers of practical training placements in the new programme, employment training, may, if they wish and from their own resources, give participants a bonus on completion of their training or any part of their training. The amount and terms of any such payments will be entirely at the discretion of the training manager or provider. Where such a bonus relates exclusively to the completion of part or all of the training programme it will not be liable to income tax. Provided that the bonus is no more than £250 and the recipient has not received any other ad hoc payments in the same 52-week period, it will not be treated as income but as capital for the purposes of assessing entitlement to income support and housing benefit.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average rate of pay for vacancies currently notified to jobcentres.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available.

  Lost Working Days (Strikes)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days of work were lost through strikes in December 1987; what was the comparable figure in December 1978; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in December 1987 is provisionally estimated as 55,000. The comparable figure for December 1978 is 542,000 lost working days.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed persons over the age of 50 years and out of work for more than one year, broken down by sex, are there in the travel-to-work areas of(a)Cambridgeshire, (b) Lincolnshire, (c) Norfolk, (d) Suffolk, (e) Bedfordshire, (f) Northamptonshire and (g) Leicestershire.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of male and female unemployed claimants aged over 50 years who have been unemployed for one year or more, at 14 January 1988 for the counties requested. Travel-to-work area boundaries are not conterminous with those of counties and a number of travel-to-work areas include parts of more than one county. This information is in the Library.

  Unemployed Claimants—14 January 1988

  County

  Unemployed Claimants

  Male

  Female

  Cambridgeshire

  1,400

  505

  Lincolnshire

  2,128

  734

  Norfolk

  2,433

  1,039

  Suffolk

  1,498

  620

  Bedfordshire

  1,680

  589

  Northamptonshire

  1,373

  668

  Leicestershire

  3,140

  933

  Mr. Boyes
  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 north-east.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 10 March 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the north-east (counties of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear) had fallen in the year by 26,700 or nearly 15·3 per cent.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage fall in unemployment in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Lancashire since August 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants at 9 August 1984 and 10 March 1988, together with the percentage change, for each parliamentary constituency in the county of Lancashire. The figures are affected by seasonal factors and the change in the coverage of the count in March 1986.
  27

  Unemployed Claimants

  Constituency

  August 1984

  March 1988

  Percentage change

  Blackburn

  7,843

  5,839

  -25·6

  Blackpool North

  4,797

  5,087

  6·1

  Blackpool South

  4,707

  5,435

  15·5

  Burnley

  5,949

  4,283

  -28·0

  Chorley

  4,598

  3,358

  -27·0

  Fylde

  2,749

  2,428

  -11·7

  Hyndburn

  4,170

  3,006

  -27·9

  Lancaster

  3,484

  2,722

  -21·9

  Morecambe and Lundesdale

  3,468

  3,849

  11·0

  Pendle

  4,597

  3,237

  -29·6

  Preston

  7,619

  6,085

  -20·1

  Ribble Valley

  2,164

  1,546

  -28·6

  Rossendale and Darwen

  4,728

  3,352

  -29·1

  South Ribble

  4,626

  3,228

  -30·2

  West Lancashire

  7,039

  5,565

  -20·9

  Wyre

  3,807

  3,138

  -17·6

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what way his Department will participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department of Employment will not be taking part in any of these military home defence exercises.

  Elderly Men
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men aged between 60 and 65 years are(a) retired, (b) unemployed and (c) at work.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary results from the 1987 labour force survey are as shown in the table:

  Men aged 60–64 inclusive Great Britain—Spring 1987

  Thousands

  (1) In paid employment

  676

  (2) Unemployed1

  77

  (3) Economically inactive

  628

  of which retired 2

  254

  1 Great Britain labour force definition.

  2 Those who said that they had not looked for work in the week before interview because they had retired.

  Retail Prices Index Computer System
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the outcome of the review of the retail prices index computer system commissioned by the Department from the head of the Government statistical service.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have recently received a report from the head of the Government statistical service confirming that the index is being calculated correctly. I will today be placing in the Library of the House a copy of his report to me together with a further report of the investigations undertaken in the course of the review.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Income Support
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his estimates, broken down into claimant group, of the numbers of income support claimants who, in the event of a general increase of benefit levels in April 1989 of 4 per cent. will, at that date, as a result of 1988–89 transitional protection, receive(a) no benefit increase, (b) an increase of less than £1 and (c) an increase of less than 4 per cent.

  Mr. Scott
  In the event of a 4 per cent. increase in benefit levels in April 1989, an estimated 540,000 income support claimants would receive no benefit increase at uprating. An estimated 600,000 would receive an increase of less than 4 per cent. Information on the number who would receive an increase of less than £1 is not available.

  Social Security (Changes)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will itemise the assumptions and detailed calculations he has made in reaching the conclusion that 54 per cent. of claimants under 25 years will gain in real terms as a result of changes resulting this month from the Social Security Act; and, in particular, if he will explain the assumption made as to the proportion of householders and non-householders within this claimant group.

  Mr. Portillo
  The structural effect of the Social Security Act 1986 for single claimants under 25 years and without children is given in table 8 of the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits". The assumptions are given in the explanotory notes to this publication.

  The numbers of non-householders and householders in this category are 660,000 and 170,000, respectively.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish the low-income families' statistics based on the 1985 family expenditure survey.

  Mr. Portillo
  We intend to publish these statistics shortly.

  Senile Dementia
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what research his Department is conducting into senile dementia; and what progress is being made in both retarding the onset of such dementia, and reducing its impact.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science, is the main Government-funded body for biomedical research in the United Kingdom and has a number of units looking at different aspects of senile dementia. The main clinical aims include treating any coexisting illnesses or disabilities which could accentuate the effects of dementia, and supporting and counselling families and other carers.

  At present there is no treatment which is able to prevent, arrest or reverse senile dementia. We are paying

  29
  close attention to trials which are investigating the potential of Tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA) as a treatment.

  The Department is not currently conducting research specifically into senile dementia although we are funding a special medical development about the evaluation of nursing homes for the elderly mentally ill which is relevant to sufferers of senile dementia.

  Hospital Medical Staff
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish in the Official Report, in tabular form, details by regional health authority and specialty of the numbers of senior registrars employed in the National Health Service;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report in tabular form details by regional health authority and specialty of the numbers and grades of those authorised to perform surgical procedures excluding consultants, and senior registrars.

  Mr. Newton
  All clinical, medical and dental staff of health authorities are able to perform some surgical procedures. It is the responsibility of the consultant under whose care a patient is admitted to decide how far 30
  individual procedures may be delegated to junior staff under his supervision. Information on numbers of clinical staff in each region by specialty and grade, including senior registrars, is published annually in "Hospital Medical (Dental) Staff—England and Wales: Regional Tables". These are provided routinely to, and are available in, the Library. The latest available information is that for 30 September 1986.

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in what way his Department will participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link, due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  There will be no participation by the Department of Health and Social Security in these exercises. There may be limited participation by the National Health Service but the details have yet to be finalised.

  Single and Special Payments (Lewisham)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for single payments and special payments made before 1 April are waiting to be processed in each of his Department's offices serving the London borough of Lewisham; and what additional resources are being made available to deal with the outstanding applications.

  Mr. Portillo
  At close of business on 8 April 1988 the offices serving the London borough of Lewisham had single payment and additional requirement claims outstanding as shown in the following table. The figures are provisional and subject to revision.

  Office

  Single Payments

  Additional Requirements

  Lewisham

  16,130

  14,500

  Greenwich Park

  4,581

  12,000

  Peckham

  421

  111

  Hither Green

  297

  85

  Crystal Palace

  597

  527

  Eltham

  266

  235

  Woolwich

  1,580

  1,616

  Bromley

  762

  1Nil

  1 Estimated figures.

  Additional resources to deal with the outstanding claims are being allocated where available and the situation is being kept under review.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the approximate cost of kidney dialysis nationally or on a regional basis; how many privately funded dialysis units are in operation; and whether their costs differ from charges made by the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  The approximate total cost* of hospital and home haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in England in 1986 was £76 million (at 1986–87 prices). Information is not held centrally about private sector organisations which provide dialysis for private patients, nor do we have information about the costs of privately funded units. We are aware of one privately-operated unit in England which has a contract to provide dialysis for NHS patients and others in Wales which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The annual charge for dialysis at this unit is of the same order as the costs of NHS satellite units which provide dialysis for patients already established on treatment in other parts of the country.

  * This calculation is based on a detailed study in 1981 revalued to 1986–87 price levels, and, as such, cannot take account of recent changes in treatment, case-mix etc.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what instructions he has issued to the West Midlands regional health authority about the numbers of new kidney patients who may receive dialysis treatment; and whether there are any limitations on this treatment being given to kidney patients suffering from diabetes.

  Mrs. Currie
  There have been no recent instructions issued to regional health authorities about the number of patients with end stage renal failure to be taken onto 32
  dialysis. The target set is 40 new kidney patients per million population to be taken on to renal programmes by 1987 has been exceeded by the West Midlands regional health authority. The question of treatment for patients with end stage renal failure who are suffering from diabetes is a matter for clinical judgment.

  Accident Prevention
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action his Department proposes to take and what funds will be made available in response to the report "Strategies for Accident Prevention" from the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention and the Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties recently published by his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department welcomes this report as made clear by my noble Friend when it was published. We look forward to further initiatives from the medical profession and will be ready to encourage them.

  Social Workers (Training)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current progress of negotiations with the Central Council for Education and Training of Social Workers to implement the proposals for the new three-year training course for social workers, the DOSW.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 22 April at column 601.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost of hearing aids available under the National Health Service; what information he has on costs of hearing aids available privately; what representations he has received about the comparative performance of National Health Service and privately available hearing aids; and if he is planning any action to improve the quality and performance of National Health Service hearing aids.

  Mr. Scott
  Hearing aids for the National Health Service are obtained by Mersey regional health authority following competitive tendering and costs are not disclosed for good commercial reasons. The prices paid are, however, considerably lower than those charged for private hearing aids. We have not received representations recently in regard to comparative performance but the quality and performance of NHS hearing aids are kept under review by the Department, supported by Mersey RHA.

  Benefits and Grants
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the figures for expenditure on supplementary benefits, urgent needs provision, maternity grants, death grants and all other benefits which now come under the social fund, for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Portillo
  The social fund is designed as a new system for meeting exceptional need and not as a replacement for those benefits which have now been abolished. The figures requested for urgent needs payment, maternity grants, death grants and single payments are set out in the table, as far as they are available.
  33

  £ million

  Year

  Urgent Needs Payments

  Maternity Grants

  Death Grants

  Single Payments

  1974–75

  n/a

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  1975–76

  n/a

  16

  16

  n/a

  1976–77

  n/a

  15

  n/a

  n/a

  1977–78

  n/a

  15

  n/a

  n/a

  1978–79

  n/a

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  n/a

  17

  n/a

  40

  1980–81

  n/a

  16

  17

  48

  1981–82

  n/a

  15

  17

  57

  1982–83

  n/a

  16

  17

  98

  1983–84

  n/a

  17

  n/a

  166

  1984–85

  0·5

  17

  17

  241

  1985–86

  0·4

  17

  17

  335

  1986–87

  1·0

  —

  —

  330

  n/a = not available.

  Benefit (Capital Disregard)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the limit of capital for eligibility for housing benefit from £6,000 to £10,000 for those who receive state retirement pensions.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available. The overall cost of increasing the capital limit to £10,000 is of the order of £60 million on the assumptions contained in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 18 April 1988 at columns 341–342. It is estimated that most of the additional cost would be in respect of those of retirement age.

  Ireland (Payments to Itinerants)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding the level of social security payments to itinerants from the Republic of Ireland and the comparable level of payments to citizens of other European Community countries.

  Mr. Portillo
  European Community nationals who go to another European Community country to seek work are eligible for social assistance benefits equally with and under the same conditions as that country's own nationals but only so long as their right to remain in the country continues.

  Housing Benefit (Disregard Threshold)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the disregard threshold of housing benefit from £6,000 to £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  Of the order of £60 million, based on the assumptions contained in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 18 April 1988 at column 341–42.

  Invasive Carcinoma
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his written reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, 2 March,Official Report, columns 611–12, if he will now arrange for information on the number of women in the United Kingdom suffering from invasive carcinoma to be centrally collected and periodically published.
  34
  Mrs. Currie
  Data on the incidence of cancer, including histological type, are collected centrally in England and Wales, and in Scotland, from regional cancer registries. Statistics from these data, excluding histological type, are published annually in "Cancer Statistics series MB 1 for England and Wales", and in "Scottish Health Statistics for Scotland". Copies are in the Library.

  Comparable statistics for Northern Ireland are not readily available.

  Information on the total number of women suffering from cancer at a particular point in time, as opposed to the incidence of new cases, is not collected centrally, nor could it be without encountering very great practical difficulties.

  Retail Prices Index Error
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the list of charities to benefit as a result of the non-payment of the retail prices index computer error shortfall to pensioners.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall be making an announcement shortly.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether Leicestershire district health authority has yet introduced cervical screening call and recall schemes for women living within the Leicestershire health authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Yes.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time taken to return a woman's cervical smear test results to her doctor within the Leicestershire health authority area.

  Mrs. Currie
  The average time taken to process a cervical smear test in Leicestershire is currently about eight weeks compared with the Departmental guideline of four weeks. Three additional part-time staff have been recruited to reduce the time taken and are now being trained.

  Public Health Laboratory Service (Crown Immunity)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to remove Crown immunity from health and safety legislation from the public health laboratory service.
  35
  Mrs. Currie
  No. The public health laboratory service is required to comply with the terms of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and, where necessary, is subject to enforcement through the Crown notice procedure.

  Nurses (Uniforms)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the rules governing the wearing of uniforms by nurses when off-duty or taking part in demonstrations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no national guidelines and it is for individual health authorities to determine policies governing the wearing of uniforms by nurses when off duty.

  Hospital Theft
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost to public funds of theft of hospital stores and equipment.

  Mrs. Currie
  The summarised accounts of regional and district health athorities in England provides a statement of losses, etc. which records losses of equipment and property in stores and in use due to theft, fraud or arson (whether proved or suspected), neglect of duty or gross carelessness. The relevant figures for 1986–87 (the latest year available) are:

  £

  Bedding and linen

  174,121

  Other equipment and property

  1,403,977

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the net cost to public funds if men retired at 60 years and the job vacancies were filled by people currently long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Scott
  Our best estimate of the net cost to public funds of a men's pension age of 60 is over £3,000 million at 1985–86 prices. This assumes that two-thirds of vacancies are filled and that 75 per cent. of them are filled

  Old benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for six inner London boroughs Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  14·50

  22·92

  19·16

  10·24

  6·95

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  91·68

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  14·50

  22·92

  17·91

  10·24

  6·55

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·13

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  14·50

  22·92

  16·66

  10·24

  6·15

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·36

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  14·50

  22·92

  15·41

  10·24

  5·75

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·51

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  14·50

  22·92

  14·16

  10·24

  5·35

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·46

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  14·50

  22·92

  12·65

  10·24

  4·78

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  91·78

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  10·57

  10·24

  3·97

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  89·76

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  7·27

  10·24

  2·67

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  91·56

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  3·97

  10·24

  1·37

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  93·36

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  0·67

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  95·09

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  98·27

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  104·67

  36
  by people from the unemployment register. If all vacancies were filled, and all by people previously unemployed, the net cost would be about £2,000 million. These figures are currently under review.

  Lancashire DHAs
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what his Department estimates will be the increases paid by Lancashire district health authorities in lieu of rates or rates to Lancashire county council and district councils in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much each district health authority in Lancashire paid to Lancashire county council and district councils in lieu of rates or rates in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on rates, all rates paid and due to be paid by health authorities to county and district councils is not collected "in year". Health authority annual accounts for 1987–88 are not due for submission to the Department until the end of June 1988. Information for that financial year will be available in the autumn. In the meantime, my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of North Western regional health authority who will be able to provide the information he requires.

  Net Weekly Spending Power
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish tables using the assumptions in his answer to the hon. Member for Kensington of 4 February,Official Report, column 737, but using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in those inner London areas for which he has sufficient data, and with an additional column showing the extent of the differences that will result from the changes in benefits intended for April.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: The information is set out in the tables.

  The answers provided are not representative of families with children living in inner London, as the sample covers less than 50 per cent. of the area's boroughs; nor do the answers reflect the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people actually pay.
  37

  New benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for six inner London boroughs Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  14·50

  22·92

  8·16

  10·24

  2·42

  5·85

  83·39

  -8·29

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  14·50

  22·92

  6·58

  10·24

  1·93

  5·85

  83·75

  -9·38

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  14·50

  22·92

  5·00

  10·24

  1·45

  5·85

  84·11

  -10·45

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  14·50

  22·92

  3·71

  10·24

  1·05

  5·85

  84·40

  -10·11

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  14·50

  22·92

  2·43

  10·24

  0·65

  5·85

  84·70

  -9·76

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  14·50

  22·92

  1·57

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  84·51

  -7·27

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  84·86

  -4·90

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·71

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  86·78

  -4·78

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  3·23

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  88·70

  -4·66

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  91·87

  -3·22

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  98·27

  0·00

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  104·67

  0·00

  Old benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for six inner London boroughs Married couple with three children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  32·90

  21·75

  22·92

  20·20

  10·24

  7·28

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  107·05

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  30·50

  21·75

  22·92

  18·30

  10·24

  6·68

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·25

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  25·50

  21·75

  22·92

  17·05

  10·24

  6·28

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·68

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  20·50

  21·75

  22·92

  15·80

  10·24

  5·88

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·63

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  15·50

  21·75

  22·92

  14·55

  10·24

  5·48

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·58

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  10·50

  21·75

  22·92

  13·16

  10·24

  4·99

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  109·10

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  5·50

  21·75

  22·92

  11·51

  10·24

  4·34

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·20

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·50

  21·75

  22·92

  9·86

  10·24

  3·69

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  107·30

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  21·75

  22·92

  6·72

  10·24

  2·45

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  106·99

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  21·75

  22·92

  3·42

  10·24

  1·15

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  108·79

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  110·62

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  111·92

  New Benefit System from April 1988: Average rent and rates for six Inner London Boroughs Married couple with three children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Dif-ference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  51·72

  21·75

  22·92

  6·50

  10·24

  1·91

  5·85

  99·87

  -7·18

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  46·05

  21·75

  22·92

  4·92

  10·24

  1·42

  5·85

  100·23

  -10·02

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  40·39

  21·75

  22·92

  3·24

  10·24

  0·94

  5·85

  100·59

  -11·09

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  35·77

  21·75

  22·92

  2·06

  10·24

  0·54

  5·85

  100·89

  -10·74

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  31·15

  21·75

  22·92

  0·77

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  101·04

  -10·54

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  28·07

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  101·59

  -7·51

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  23·59

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  103·51

  -4·69

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  19·11

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  105·43

  -1·87

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  14·63

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  107·35

  0·36

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  10·15

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  109·27

  0·48

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  5·67

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  111·19

  0·57

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  1·19

  21·75

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  113·11

  1·19

  Old benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for six inner London boroughs Lone working mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  19·40

  22·92

  17·94

  10·24

  6·56

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·97

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  19·40

  22·92

  16·69

  10·24

  6·16

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·42

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  19·40

  22·92

  15·44

  10·24

  5·76

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·85

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  19·40

  22·92

  14·19

  10·24

  5·36

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·80

  10·000

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  19·40

  22·92

  12·68

  10·24

  4·80

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·33

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  19·40

  22·92

  11·03

  10·24

  4·15

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·43

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  19·40

  22·92

  8·95

  10·24

  3·33

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  92·40

  38

  39

  New benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for six inner London boroughs Lone working mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  Gross Earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family Credit

  Child Benefit

  Rent

  Rent Rebates

  Rates

  Rate Rebate

  Fares to Work

  Net Weekly Spending Power

  Dif-ference between Systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  19·40

  22·92

  2·08

  10·24

  0·55

  5·85

  80·34

  -14·63

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  19·40

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  80·14

  -16·28

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  19·40

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  82·56

  -15·29

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  19·40

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  84·54

  -13·26

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  19·40

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  86·52

  -10·81

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  19·40

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  87·84

  -6·59

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  19·40

  22·92

  0·00

  10·24

  0·00

  5·85

  89·76

  -2·64

  Old tax and benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for 6 inner London boroughs Lone parent with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Supple-mentary benefit

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Fares to work

  Rent

  1Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  A. Not working—after 1 year on benefit

  45·69

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22·92

  10·24

  31·62

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  67·93

  B. Working part time—earning £20 per week

  230·65

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  22·92

  10·24

  31·62

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  69·97

  C. Working part time—earning £40 per week

  212·11

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  22·92

  10·24

  31·62

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  71·43

  1 Includes water rates of £1·54.

  2 Assumes benefit in payment for less than a year.

  New benefit system from April 1988: Average rent and rates for 6 inner London boroughs Lone parent with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Income support

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Fares to work

  Rent

  1 Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  Dif-ference between systems

  A. Not working —after 1 year on benefit

  45·35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22·92

  10·24

  29·88

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  65·85

  -2·08

  B. Working part-time— earning £20 p.w.

  240·35

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  22·92

  10·24

  29·88

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·93

  + 7·96

  C. Working part-time— earning £40 p.w.

  220·35

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  22·92

  10·24

  29·88

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·93

  +6·50

  1 Includes water rates of £1·54.

  2 Assumes benefit in payment for less than a year.

  Notes to tables:

  i. Average rent and rates figures for six inner London boroughs have been provided by the Department of Environment.

  ii. The Thames Water authority average water rate has been used as the rate is consistent throughout London.

  iii. Rent, rates and water rates assumptions for April 1988 are based on the RPI increase for September 1986 to September 1987 (4–2 per cent.).

  iv. The remaining assumptions used are those set out in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits" October 1987.

  v. The "fares to work" used in the tables illustrating part-time earnings are assumed to be half of the "fares to work" of a full-time worker.

  vi. The national supplementary benefit figures used in the previous reply of 4th February, have been reduced by 24p. This is the difference between the assumed national average local authority water rate and the assumed London average local authority water rate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  New Zealand (EC Butter Quota)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is in a position to make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government as to their attitude towards the renegotiation of New Zealand's butter quota from the European Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The EC Commission has not yet made a proposal on the arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter from 1 January 1989, and so I have 40
  nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 3 March, at column 679.

  Beef
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecast he has as to total beef production in the United Kingdom in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Future levels of beef production in the United Kingdom will depend on the supply of calves and cull cows from the dairy herd, development of the beef
  41
  breeding herd and many other complex factors, all of which are uncertain. I regret that I am unable to provide the figures requested.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 31 March,Official Report, column 1264, when he expects to make a statement on his response to the report of the nitrate coordination group.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government are currently consider-ing a number of options on nitrate and will announce their conclusions once this evaluation has been completed.

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what way his Department will participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link, due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is not participating in any of the military home defence exercises due to take place in September and October 1988.

  Press Conferences and Background Briefings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods if, pursuant to the answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 259, he will state what practical definition his Department uses for (a) a press conference and (b) background briefings.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Press conferences are on-the-record and normally called to announce new developments. Background briefings are usually concerned with ongoing issues or when requested by individual journalists.

  Chernobyl (Briefing)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 259 which newspapers and other publications were invited to his Ministry's background briefings on Chernobyl on (a) 21 April 1987 and (b) 21 March 1988.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We do not give the names of those invited to background briefings.

  Research and Development (Barnes Report)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those persons and organisations outside Her Majesty's Government who have already been consulted on the Barnes report on agricultural research and development; which of these have reported; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As explained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) on 3 March, at column 674, there have been no formal consultations
  42
  outside Government. But the following is a comprehensive list of all the organisations contacted or from which views were received. The report itself is under consideration.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council (HQ and RIs)

  Agricultural attachés, Bonn, The Hague, Madrid, Paris

  Apple and Pear Development Council

  Arable Research Centres Ltd.

  British Food Manufacturing Industry RA

  British Institute of Agricultural Consultants

  British Poultry Federation

  Building Services Research and Information Association

  Cabinet Office

  Cambridge Life Sciences Ltd.

  Campden Food Preservation RA

  Dairy Trade Federation

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  Department of Education and Science

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Farm Advisory Services Team

  Flour Milling and Baking RA

  Food and Drink Federation

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Huntingdon Research Centre

  ICI (Plant Protection)

  Institute of Arable Crop Consultants

  Institute of Professional Civil Servants

  Marks and Spencer plc

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  National Farmers' Union

  National Pig Breeders' Association

  Potato Marketing Board

  Potato Processors' Association

  Priorities Board

  Processors and Growers Research Organisation

  RHM Ltd.

  Sainsburys plc

  Scottish Agricultural Colleges

  Scottish Agricultural Research Institutes

  Scottish National Farmers' Union

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  South Eastern Regional Panel Chairman and farmer members

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  Tate and Lyle

  Unilever Ltd.

  United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association

  Welsh Office Agriculture Department

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Government to reach their conclusion on the Barnes report on agricultural research and development; what factors are influencing the timing of a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The report has only just been completed and is now under consideration. It is too early to say when conclusions might be reached.

  Foreign Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total costs incurred by his Department on foreign travel during the financial year 1987-88 identified by(a) ministerial travel and (b) travel abroad by civil servants.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: Accounts for the financial year 1987–88 have yet to be finalised, but provisional figures indicate that the total costs incurred by my Department on foreign travel, including related subsistence., were as follows:

  43

  £

  Ministerial travel (including civil servants in Ministers' offices whose costs cannot be separately identified)

  106,265

  Travel by civil servants

  1,125,293

  Total:

  1,231,558

  Of the total, travel costs on European Community business, not including subsistence, accounted for £480,058, the bulk of which is recoverable from Community funds.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Records, Compact Discs and Tapes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the increase in the value of United Kingdom trade deliveries of records, compact discs and tapes between 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  Figures released by the British phonographic industry show that the percentage increases between 1986 and 1987 in the value of United Kingdom trade deliveries were as follows:—

  Percentage increase

  Singles

  5

  LPs

  4

  Cassettes

  22

  CDs

  106

  Combined Albums

  28

  Total

  24

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what way his Department will participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department is not involved in any of these exercises.

  Action for Cities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a breakdown by(a) Department, (b) social category and (c) project or programme of how the sum of £3,000 million to support urban regeneration referred to in the launch of Action for Cities is comprised; and if he will identify how much of this is new expenditure.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested is shown in the table. Most of the expenditure shown is provided for within published estimates of public expenditure. In most cases the precise allocation of resources depends on the projects submitted for approval. The programmes shown largely relate to inner city development, enterprise and employment — the main themes of the Action for Cities document launched on 7 March. There is no reference to other programmes,44
  including those supported by the Home Office Department of Education and Science and Department of Health and Social Security which benefit inner cities.

  Action for Cities: estimated expenditure 1988–89

  £ million

  Employment, Training and Enterpriseprogrammes, including support for small firms. Total excludes programmes administered nationally eg Loan Guarantee Scheme, YTS schemes with national companies (Department of Employment/MSC)

  1,119

  Estate Action—involving tenants in management and improvement of their homes; additional expenditure by local authorities (Department of the Environment)

  140

  Funding for Housing Associations through Housing Corporations and through local authorities. (Local authorities share £50 million) (Department of the Environment)

  450

  Urban Programme, including Urban Development and Urban Regeneration Grants

  314

  Urban Development Corporations

  203

  Derelict Land Reclamation (Department of the Environment)

  25

  Task Forces City Action Teams. (Department of Trade and Industry)

  21

  Support for inner city business, including Regional Selective Assistance, investment and innovation grants for small firms, and English Estates (Department of Trade and Industry)

  200

  Roads—schemes in Department of Transport programme and supported by Transport Supplementary Grant

  250

  Equivalent programmes in Scotland and Wales

  300

  Total

  3,022

  Research and Development
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what procedures exist for estimating the rate of return on Government-funded research and development, and what are the latest estimates for(a) aerospace, (b) electronic engineering, (c) mechanical engineering, (d) nuclear power and (e) chemical industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are procedures for evaluating the net benefits of Government-funded research and development. They rarely provide estimates of rates of return and are not generally available by industrial sector. The annual review of Government-funded R and D reports the evaluations undertaken by Departments.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has conducted any investigation into the effects on British industry of the internal market on a sector by sector basis, or in respect of any individual sector.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The completion of the single market will provide great opportunities for a wide range of United Kingdom business sectors. As part of the Government's efforts to make sure that United Kingdom companies are aware of and make the most of these opportunities, we are in active discussion with all sectors of United Kingdom business. Our priorities on the single market naturally take account of the position of different sectors.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the proposals made by the European Community Commission in respect of the
  45
  internal market have the agreement of Her Majesty's Government; identifying them and those to which Her Majesty's Government do not agree.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government strongly support the aim of completing the single market. We attach priority to many of the proposals made by the European Commission, but have difficulties with some others—as do other member states. Many measures in the single market programme are complex and all involve detailed negotiation. It would not therefore be possible to present the information in the form requested. Copies of the 1988 presidency action programme on the single market, which lists over 140 individual measures for discussion by the Council this year, are available in the Library of the House.

  Standards
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many of the secretariats of the 81 technical committees concerned with standards in the European Economic Community Britain holds; and how many it sought;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning British participation in the technical committees concerned with standards in the European Community.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Harmonised European standards for non-electrical products are produced by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). According to the latest information, CEN how has 90 technical committees, of which the United Kingdom holds 11 secretariats.

  Since June 1987 the United Kingdom has sought the secretariat of four technical committees and obtained three. My Department has received only a small number of representations from industry representatives about United Kingdom participation in the CEN technical committees.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), Official Report, 31 March 1988, column 590.

  British National Space Centre
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who currently is the deputy director of the British National Space Centre; and how many of those who are its officers are drawn from industry.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There is no official position of deputy director of the British National Space Centre. Mr. A. C. Nicholas and Mr. K. Inglis acted temporarily as deputy directors following the retirement of Mr. J. C. Leeming on 28 February 1988. I have announced —Official Report, 18 April 1988, columns 350–51— the appointment of Mr. Arthur Pryor as the new director. None of the BNSC staff is from industry, though an industry representative sits on the BNSC management board.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the British National Space Centre is funded entirely from public funds; and if he will make a statement on its future.
  46
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The British National Space Centre is funded entirely from public funds. I have nothing further to add to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on 18 April 1988.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names of those who serve at the British National Space Centre and if he will state the terms of reference defining the role of the centre, and the budget available to it.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The British National Space Centre was set up to co-ordinate the civil space interests of Government, including those of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Science and Engineering Research Council and the National Environment Research Council. The BNSC co-ordinates an annual budget of some 120 million and has a staff of around 300.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made concerning the appointment of a director for the National Space Centre.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I announced the appointment of Mr. Arthur Pryor as director general on 18 April.

  Airbus
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has yet formed a view on the Coopers and Lybrand report on the Airbus enterprise, a copy of which was sent to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have seen the report, which was commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand by the Boeing company. The Government are at present considering the Airbus system in the light of the recent report of the four independent experts, colloquially known as the "wise men". I have nothing to add on this matter to my reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member For Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on 13 April.

  Shoe Imports (Taiwan)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he now plans to take steps to limit shoe imports from Taiwan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have received detailed information on the effects upon United Kingdom manufacturers of shoe imports from Taiwan, which we are urgently considering.

  SIB (Recognition Orders)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether leave has yet been give under section 120(2) of the Financial Services Act for the Securities and Investments Board to make recognition orders in respect of any investment exchanges or clearing houses.

  Mr. Maude
  Having considered, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, reports made by the Director General of Fair Trading on the rules, regulations, guidance and arrangements submitted by the exchanges and clearing houses listed in the table, my right hon. and noble Friend has concluded that on the basis of the information presently available to him he does not
  47
  consider there is anything in the material submitted which has, or is intended or likely to have, to any significant extent the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. He has therefore given his leave to the SIB to make recognition orders in respect of the following investment exchanges and clearing houses:

  The London International Financial Futures Exchange Ltd.

  LIFFE Options plc.

  The London Metal Exchange Limited.

  London Commodity Exchange (1986) Limited.

  The International Petroleum Exchange of London Limited.

  International Commodities Clearing House Limited. GAFTA Clearing House Company Limited.

  Debt Counselling
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to review the level of funding of bodies offering debt counselling particularly in relation to short-term programmes; and if he will make a statement on the level of debt counselling available in Scotland.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: I have been asked to reply.

  Most debt counselling in Scotland is provided by citizens advice bureaux. The Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which provides the central support services for local bureaux, is almost entirely funded by the Government. Its grant-in-aid for the current financial year is £926,000 and this is reviewed each year. The running costs of local bureaux are a matter for local funding, however, I understand that citizens advice bureaux dealt with over 42,000 debt counselling cases in 1986–87 from their 82 offices throughout Scotland.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department intends spending on advertising the enterprise initiative in 1988–89.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Budget allocations for advertising the enterprise initiative during 1988–89 are still under discussion in my Department. The amount finally set will take into account the need to maintain a good level of response to the initiative.

  Space (Technology Demonstration Programme)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in the European Space Agency about setting in hand a technology demonstration programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Technology demonstration is a component of many ESA programmes. The agency also has an optional in-orbit technology demonstration activity, already under way. I have not had occasion to discuss this with my ESA opposite numbers, although my officials at the British National Space Centre keep closely in touch with officials at ESA.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rates
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the estimated population of 18 years and over resident in each rating authority area in England.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Adult Population of English Rating Authorities (June 1986)

  Number

  Isles of Scilly

  1,539

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  195,901

  Bury

  131,008

  Manchester

  342,715

  Oldham

  164,702

  Rochdale

  152,608

  Salford

  182,941

  Stockport

  221,840

  Tameside

  164,052

  Trafford

  166,004

  Wigan

  230,873

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  118,385

  Liverpool

  368,281

  St. Helens

  142,259

  Sefton

  229,252

  Wirral

  255,269

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  169,161

  Doncaster

  218,528

  Rotherham

  189,586

  Sheffield

  419,723

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  160,557

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  218,470

  North Tyneside

  149,032

  South Tyneside

  121,495

  Sunderland

  222,994

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  752,500

  Coventry

  233,952

  Dudley

  231,932

  Sandwell

  228,446

  Solihull

  153,225

  Walsall

  198,070

  Wolverhampton

  189,626

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  340,265

  Calderdale

  147,004

  Kirklees

  282,669

  Leeds

  545,761

  Wakefield

  235,411

  City of London

  4,168

  Camden

  149,491

  Greenwich

  164,761

  Hackney

  139,732

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  121,239

  Islington

  132,315

  Kensington and Chelsea

  113,665

  Lambeth

  190,495

  Lewisham

  179,299

  Southwark

  167,322

  Tower Hamlets

  114,696

  Wandsworth

  203,066

  Westminster

  146,211

  49

  Number

  Barking and Dagenham

  113,827

  Barnet

  236,251

  Bexley

  169,989

  Brent

  196,451

  Bromley

  233,770

  Croydon

  244,725

  Ealing

  227,942

  Enfield

  205,438

  Haringey

  151,495

  Harrow

  155,859

  Havering

  184,829

  Hillingdon

  179,030

  Hounslow

  148,430

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  106,056

  Merton

  128,933

  Newham

  152,381

  Redbridge

  178,300

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  130,312

  Sutton

  132,052

  Waltham Forest

  165,044

  Avon

  Bath

  66,827

  Bristol

  304,059

  Kingswood

  68,466

  Northavon

  94,857

  Wansdyke

  60,668

  Woodspring

  137,691

  Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  100,917

  Luton

  122,396

  Mid Bedfordshire

  83,056

  South Bedfordshire

  81,645

  Berkshire

  Bracknell

  68,452

  Newbury

  99,801

  Reading

  103,084

  Slough

  73,380

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  101,423

  Wokingham

  105,063

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  106,137

  South Bucks

  47,904

  Chiltern

  70,432

  Milton Keynes

  114,332

  Wycombe

  117,252

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge

  78,617

  East Cambridgeshire

  44,949

  Fenland

  54,065

  Huntingdonshire

  103,359

  Peterborough

  108,478

  South Cambridgeshire

  87,951

  Cheshire

  Chester

  90,542

  Congleton

  64,996

  Crewe and Nantwich

  74,241

  Ellesmere and Neston

  59,892

  Halton

  89,098

  Macclesfield

  118,038

  Vale Royal

  85,466

  Warrington

  135,314

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool

  68,206

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  109,629

  Middlesbrough

  105,712

  Stockton on Tees

  130,932

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  55,568

  50

  Number

  Carrick

  62,354

  Kerrier

  66,704

  North Cornwall

  54,734

  Penwith

  44,716

  Restormel

  64,056

  Cumbria

  Allerdale

  74,319

  Barrow in Furness

  56,877

  Carlisle

  78,160

  Copeland

  54,387

  Eden

  35,174

  South Lakeland

  77,866

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley

  85,378

  Bolsover

  53,733

  Chesterfield

  75,731

  Derby

  163,106

  Erewash

  81,427

  High Peak

  63,510

  North East Derbyshire

  75,076

  South Derbyshire

  53,276

  Derbyshire Dales

  52,316

  Devon

  East Devon

  91,349

  Exeter

  77,030

  North Devon

  63,258

  Plymouth

  194,787

  South Hams

  56,319

  Teignbridge

  84,511

  Mid Devon

  46,850

  Torbay

  94,570

  Torridge

  38,990

  West Devon

  34,149

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  124,265

  Christchurch

  34,198

  North Dorset

  39,895

  Poole

  99,462

  Purbeck

  34,527

  West Dorset

  65,263

  Weymouth and Portland

  48,469

  East Dorset

  61,250

  Durham

  Chester Le Street

  40,702

  Darlington

  76,452

  Derwentside

  66,669

  Durham

  66,009

  Easington

  73,298

  Sedgefield

  67,374

  Teesdale

  19,274

  Wear Valley

  49,958

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  113,740

  Eastbourne

  65,643

  Hastings

  63,267

  Hove

  73,814

  Lewes

  68,741

  Rother

  66,905

  Wealden

  100,496

  Essex

  Basildon

  116,437

  Braintree

  87,235

  Brentwood

  55,756

  Castle Point

  64,827

  Chelmsford

  113,121

  Colchester

  110,047

  Epping Forest

  89,344

  Harlow

  55,451

  Maldon

  39,425

  Rochford

  57,226

  51

  Number

  Southend on Sea

  126,367

  Tendering

  99,397

  Thurrock

  92,999

  Uttlesford

  49,652

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham

  67,033

  Cotswold

  56,800

  Forest of Dean

  57,737

  Gloucester

  68,783

  Stroud

  81,804

  Tewkesbury

  65,807

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Deane

  101,740

  East Hampshire

  74,014

  Eastleigh

  75,472

  Fareham

  73,251

  Gosport

  57,145

  Hart

  60,142

  Havant

  88,605

  New Forest

  124,233

  Portsmouth

  146,741

  Rushmoor

  59,739

  Southampton

  153,754

  Test Valley

  75,950

  Winchester

  72,089

  Hereford and Worcester

  Bromsgrove

  68,167

  Hereford

  37,165

  Leominster

  29,850

  Malvern Hills

  66,993

  Redditch

  52,856

  South Herefordshire

  37,799

  Worcester

  58,470

  Wychavon

  75,576

  Wyre Forest

  70,603

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  62,543

  Dacorum

  100,276

  East Hertfordshire

  89,764

  Hertsmere

  68,313

  North Hertfordshire

  84,548

  St. Albans

  99,290

  Stevenage

  55,742

  Three Rivers

  62,371

  Watford

  57,721

  Welwyn Hatfield

  72,497

  Humberside

  Beverley

  85,179

  Boothferry

  47,227

  Cleethorpes

  52,121

  Glanford

  52,703

  Great Grimsby

  67,522

  Holderness

  37,314

  Kingston-Upon-Hull

  192,838

  East Yorkshire

  62,077

  Scunthorpe

  46,737

  Isle of Wight

  Medina

  55,434

  South Wight

  43,485

  Kent

  Ashford

  70,350

  Canterbury

  99,145

  Dartford

  58,434

  Dover

  80,670

  Gillingham

  70,712

  Gravesham

  71,181

  Maidstone

  102,388

  Rochester on Medway

  108,501

  Sevenoaks

  83,511

  Shepway

  69,857

  52

  Number

  Swale

  83,790

  Thanet

  97,267

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  76,394

  Tunbridge Wells

  75,171

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  101,228

  Blackpool

  117,419

  Burnley

  66,136

  Chorley

  71,014

  Fylde

  58,073

  Hyndburn

  60,033

  Lancaster

  101,666

  Pendle

  63,471

  Preston

  94,337

  Ribble Valley

  40,530

  Rossendale

  47,698

  South Ribble

  73,529

  West Lancashire

  79,528

  Wyre

  79,860

  Leicestershire

  Blaby

  61,939

  Charnwood

  110,277

  Harborough

  49,172

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  71,566

  Leicester

  208,122

  Melton

  32,792

  North West Leicester

  60,428

  Oadby and Wigston

  40,116

  Rutland

  26,403

  Lincolnshire

  Boston

  40,517

  East Lindsey

  87,192

  Lincoln

  60,292

  North Kesteven

  64,136

  South Holland

  50,902

  South Kesteven

  76,863

  West Lindsey

  58,389

  Norfolk

  Breckland

  78,071

  Broadland

  78,688

  Great Yarmouth

  65,851

  North Norfolk

  72,259

  Norwich

  94,638

  South Norfolk

  77,222

  Kings Lynn/West Norfolk

  99,417

  Northamptonshire

  Corby

  37,112

  Daventry

  45,555

  East Northampton

  48,646

  Kettering

  55,932

  Northampton

  129,352

  South Northampton

  50,488

  Wellingborough

  48,872

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  23,057

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  20,745

  Blyth Valley

  58,114

  Castle Morpeth

  39,673

  Tynedale

  42,819

  Wansbeck

  46,596

  North Yorkshire

  Craven

  37,763

  Hambleton

  58,560

  Harrogate

  113,599

  Richmondshire

  37,359

  Ryedale

  69,440

  Scarborough

  81,733

  Selby

  66,307

  York

  79,477

  53

  Number

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield

  81,464

  Bassetlaw

  80,368

  Broxtowe

  82,472

  Gedling

  82,767

  Mansfield

  76,325

  Newark and Sherwood

  80,738

  Nottingham

  210,938

  Rushcliffe

  75,119

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell

  89,750

  Oxford

  89,871

  South Oxfordshire

  101,455

  Vale of White Horse

  83,265

  West Oxfordshire

  70,392

  Shropshire

  Bridgnorth

  39,704

  North Shropshire

  40,153

  Oswestry

  24,353

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  69,761

  South Shropshire

  27,580

  The Wrekin

  95,027

  Somerset

  Mendip

  71,103

  Sedgemoor

  72,433

  Taunton Deane

  70,727

  West Somerset

  24,781

  South Somerset

  106,644

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase

  63,844

  East Staffordshire

  72,007

  Lichfield

  69,145

  Newcastle under Lyme

  91,106

  South Staffordshire

  79,491

  Stafford

  91,257

  Staffordshire, Moorlands

  73,729

  Stoke-on-Trent

  189,901

  Tamworth

  47,563

  Suffolk

  Babergh

  58,331

  Forest Heath

  41,111

  Ipswich

  89,879

  Mid Suffolk

  57,589

  St. Edmundsbury

  68,839

  Suffolk Coastal

  80,870

  Waveney

  81,494

  Surrey

  Elmbridge

  86,709

  Epsom and Ewell

  52,461

  Guildford

  96,533

  Mole Valley

  60,749

  Reigate and Banstead

  90,927

  Runnymede

  56,214

  Spelthorne

  70,487

  Surrey Heath

  59,633

  Tandridge

  58,975

  Waverley

  85,488

  Woking

  65,837

  Warwickshire

  North Warwickshire

  45,659

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  85,444

  Rugby

  64,003

  Stratford-on-Avon

  81,817

  Warwick

  90,904

  West Sussex

  Adur

  46,150

  Arun

  103,146

  Chichester

  83,169

  54

  Number

  Crawley

  63,906

  Horsham

  80,862

  Mid Sussex

  91,035

  Worthing

  78,678

  Wiltshire

  Kennet

  49,531

  North Wiltshire

  83,458

  Salisbury

  79,242

  Thamedown

  122,619

  West Wiltshire

  77,972

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the rates paid per head of population of 18 years and over in each rating authority for 1987–88.

  Mr. Chope
  Listed is the available information for 1987–88:

  Unrebated domestic rate bill per adult

  £

  Isles of Scilly

  180

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  194

  Bury

  239

  Manchester

  291

  Oldham

  184

  Rochdale

  212

  Salford

  227

  Stockport

  235

  Tameside

  205

  Trafford

  232

  Wigan

  212

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  263

  Liverpool

  264

  St. Helens

  233

  Sefton

  242

  Wirral

  284

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  172

  Doncaster

  202

  Rotherham

  195

  Sheffield

  213

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  182

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  261

  North Tyneside

  250

  South Tyneside

  189

  Sunderland

  194

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  231

  Coventry

  241

  Dudley

  237

  Sandwell

  214

  Solihull

  240

  Walsall

  243

  Wolverhampton

  245

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  187

  Calderdale

  166

  Kirklees

  165

  Leeds

  175

  Wakefield

  185

  City of London

  457

  Camden

  412

  55

  £

  Greenwich

  244

  Hackney

  295

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  310

  Islington

  276

  Kensington and Chelsea

  344

  Lambeth

  289

  Lewisham

  279

  Southwark

  275

  Tower Hamlets

  285

  Wandsworth

  161

  Westminster

  497

  Barking and Dagenham

  205

  Barnet

  293

  Bexley

  187

  Brent

  324

  Bromley

  211

  Croydon

  212

  Ealing

  299

  Enfield

  223

  Haringey

  350

  Harrow

  259

  Havering

  206

  Hillingdon

  252

  Hounslow

  301

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  243

  Merton

  219

  Newham

  277

  Redbridge

  197

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  274

  Sutton

  246

  Waltham Forest

  366

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  160

  Carrick

  167

  Kerrier

  145

  North Cornwall

  162

  Penwith

  157

  Restormel

  154

  Cumbria

  Allerdale

  167

  Barrow in Furness

  151

  Carlisle

  184

  Copeland

  154

  Eden

  167

  South Lakeland

  204

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley

  216

  Bolsover

  194

  Chesterfield

  219

  Derby

  258

  Erewash

  217

  High Peak

  209

  North East Derbyshire

  230

  South Derbyshire

  231

  Derbyshire Dales

  244

  Devon

  East Devon

  188

  Exeter

  163

  North Devon

  143

  Plymouth

  165

  South Hams

  195

  Teignbridge

  169

  Mid Devon

  147

  Torbay

  203

  Torridge

  130

  West Devon

  157

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  212

  Christchurch

  241

  North Dorset

  171

  Poole

  241

  Purbeck

  184

  56

  £

  West Dorset

  174

  Weymouth & Portland

  167

  East Dorset

  249

  Durham

  Chester Le Street

  180

  Darlington

  194

  Derwentside

  163

  Durham

  173

  Easington

  145

  Sedgefield

  172

  Teesdale

  127

  Wear Valley

  149

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  230

  Eastbourne

  258

  Hastings

  204

  Hove

  230

  Lewes

  240

  Rother

  254

  Wealden

  222

  Essex

  Basildon

  305

  Braintree

  217

  Brentwood

  310

  Castle Point

  254

  Chelmsford

  258

  Colchester

  206

  Epping Forest

  301

  Harlow

  323

  Maldon

  246

  Rochford

  270

  Southend on Sea

  267

  Tendring

  237

  Thurrock

  269

  Uttlesford

  262

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham

  217

  Cotswold

  216

  Forest of Dean

  150

  Gloucester

  170

  Stroud

  189

  Tewkesbury

  204

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Deane

  193

  East Hampshire

  228

  Eastleigh

  210

  Fareham

  226

  Gosport

  197

  Hart

  249

  Havant

  218

  New Forest

  208

  Portsmouth

  169

  Rushmoor

  191

  Southampton

  176

  Test Valley

  201

  Winchester

  223

  Hereford and Worcester

  Bromsgrove

  206

  Hereford

  153

  Leominster

  148

  Malvern Hills

  207

  Redditch

  207

  South Herefordshire

  147

  Worcester

  210

  Wychavon

  217

  Wyre Forest

  194

  Avon

  Bath

  200

  Bristol

  222

  Kingswood

  204

  57

  £

  Northavon

  214

  Wansdyke

  213

  Woodspring

  234

  Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  257

  Luton

  296

  Mid Bedfordshire

  255

  South Bedfordshire

  297

  Berkshire

  Bracknell

  220

  Newbury

  216

  Reading

  200

  Slough

  202

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  261

  Wokingham

  237

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  231

  South Bucks

  364

  Chiltern

  360

  Milton Keynes

  244

  Wycombe

  297

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge

  251

  East Cambridgeshire

  182

  Fenland

  175

  Huntingdonshire

  199

  Peterborough

  216

  South Cambridgeshire

  254

  Cheshire

  Chester

  236

  Congleton

  221

  Crewe and Nantwich

  225

  Ellesmere and Neston

  238

  Halton

  202

  Macclesfield

  273

  Vale Royal

  216

  Warrington

  208

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool

  198

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  236

  Middlesbrough

  236

  Stockton on Tees

  233

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  247

  Dacorum

  277

  East Hertfordshire

  251

  Hertsmere

  301

  North Hertfordshire

  271

  St. Albans

  278

  Stevenage

  280

  Three Rivers

  306

  Watford

  259

  Welwyn Hatfield

  296

  Humberside

  Beverley

  229

  Boothferry

  156

  Cleethorpes

  188

  Glanford

  179

  Great Grimsby

  175

  Holderness

  179

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  177

  East Yorkshire

  171

  Scunthorpe

  202

  Isle of Wight

  Medina

  192

  South Wight

  208

  Kent

  58

  £

  Ashford

  174

  Canterbury

  168

  Dartford

  164

  Dover

  147

  Gillingham

  155

  Gravesham

  173

  Maidstone

  166

  Rochester on Medway

  153

  Sevenoaks

  185

  Shepway

  195

  Swale

  146

  Thanet

  180

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  167

  Tunbridge Wells

  172

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  147

  Blackpool

  179

  Burnley

  137

  Chorley

  175

  Fylde

  204

  Hyndburn

  131

  Lancaster

  154

  Pendle

  129

  Preston

  167

  Ribble Valley

  170

  Rossendale

  151

  South Ribble

  168

  West Lancashire

  209

  Wyre

  183

  Leicestershire

  Blaby

  207

  Charnwood

  211

  Harborough

  224

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  195

  Leicester

  182

  Melton

  196

  North West Leicester

  198

  Oadby and Wigston

  217

  Rutland

  186

  Lincolnshire

  Boston

  157

  East Lindsey

  156

  Lincoln

  153

  North Kesteven

  154

  South Holland

  154

  South Kesteven

  167

  West Lindsey

  154

  Norfolk

  Breckland

  158

  Broadland

  177

  Great Yarmouth

  167

  North Norfolk

  161

  Norwich

  188

  South Norfolk

  178

  Kings Lynn/West Norfolk

  149

  Northamptonshire

  Corby

  198

  Daventry

  230

  East Northampton

  174

  Kettering

  187

  Northampton

  221

  South Northampton

  218

  Wellingborough

  185

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  168

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  173

  Blyth Valley

  199

  Castle Morpeth

  214

  Tynedale

  179

  Wansbeck

  175

  59

  £

  North Yorkshire

  Craven

  149

  Hambleton

  171

  Harrogate

  192

  Richmondshire

  142

  Ryedale

  152

  Scarborough

  159

  Selby

  152

  York

  129

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield

  175

  Bassetlaw

  190

  Broxtowe

  212

  Gedling

  232

  Mansfield

  192

  Newark and Sherwood

  189

  Nottingham

  204

  Rushcliffe

  244

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell

  217

  Oxford

  220

  South Oxfordshire

  250

  Vale of White Horse

  233

  West Oxfordshire

  215

  Shropshire

  Bridgnorth

  175

  North Shropshire

  152

  Oswestry

  151

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  184

  South Shropshire

  151

  The Wrekin

  189

  Somerset

  Mendip

  183

  Sedgemoor

  193

  Taunton Deane

  182

  West Somerset

  195

  South Somerset

  183

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase

  191

  East Staffordshire

  185

  Lichfield

  230

  Newcastle under Lyme

  189

  South Staffordshire

  231

  Stafford

  196

  Staffs. Moorlands

  180

  Stoke-on-Trent

  167

  Tamworth

  205

  Suffolk

  Babergh

  196

  Forest Heath

  170

  Ipswich

  205

  Mid Suffolk

  182

  St. Edmundsbury

  176

  Suffolk Coastal

  216

  Waveney

  182

  Surrey

  Elmbridge

  329

  Epsom and Ewell

  298

  Guildford

  249

  Mole Valley

  252

  Reigate and Banstead

  263

  Runnymede

  226

  Spelthorne

  231

  Surrey Heath

  268

  Tandridge

  228

  Waverley

  273

  Woking

  271

  Warwickshire

  North Warwickshire

  218

  60

  £

  Nuneaton & Bedworth

  220

  Rugby

  223

  Stratford-on-Avon

  261

  Warwick

  257

  West Sussex

  Adur

  217

  Arun

  214

  Chichester

  200

  Crawley

  197

  Horsham

  205

  Mid Sussex

  224

  Worthing

  206

  Wiltshire

  Rennet

  184

  North Wiltshire

  168

  Salisbury

  191

  Thamesdown

  198

  West Wiltshire

  178

  Government Offices (Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the target power loading expressed in watts per square metre to which the Property Services Agency works when assessing the energy efficiency of the Government's estate.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA has no single power loading target for assessing energy efficiency; targets vary widely according to the building type, use and occupancy. Individual Government Departments are now responsible for setting their own energy efficiency targets.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent in 1987 in improving the energy efficiency of lighting in Government offices and premises.

  Mr. Chope
  On the central Government civil estate covered by the PRS system, approximately £750,000 was made available by PSA in 1987–88 for investment in lighting energy efficiency measures. Savings will also accrue from PSA's maintenance and replacement programme.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much office space per square foot is occupied by Government Departments; how much electricity is consumed by lighting in these offices; and by how much this has been reduced since 1979 as a result of energy conservation measures.

  Mr. Chope
  The central Government civil estate covered by the PRS system includes approximately 6·6 million sq m of office accommodation, including computer centres. The electricity consumption of these offices costs approximately £16 million per year. It is not feasible to keep separate records for the whole estate on the energy consumption of lighting installations.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what target reductions in electricity usage for lighting the Property Services Agency expects to achieve in 1988; and what was the target for 1987.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA does not set specific targets for savings in electrical consumption for lighting. Targets are set for total energy savings, which are now the responsibility of individual Departments.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will he responsible for the payment of the poll tax on prison department properties lived in by prison officers and their families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Prison officers and members of their families over the age of 18 will be responsible for paying the personal community charge on the same basis as other adults.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance is to be given to local authorities in England and Wales to compensate for the information technology expenditure which will be incurred by the registration process for the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 13 April at column 127 to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) and my reply of 20 April at column 481 to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the additional administration costs falling on the London borough of Waltham Forest as a result of his decision to make transitional arrangements for introduction of the community charge in that borough; and if he will reimburse those additional administration costs.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 December 1987; c. 642]: We have now further considered the question of reimbursing those boroughs which will be required to maintain their domestic rating system alongside the community charge during the transitional period. We have concluded that it would be right to arrange for some compensation for the reasonable extra costs involved outside the revenue support grant arrangements. We shall therefore be seeking a power to pay specific grant to the boroughs concerned. The details of the proposed grant will be a matter for consultation.

  We have also reconsidered the extent of the application of these arrangements in the light of representations from some of those affected and in the light of the preliminary returns of expenditure for 1988–89. We have concluded that it would be right to increase the threshold for inclusion within these arrangements so that only those areas where combined budgeted expenditure for 1987–88 of the authorities operating in that area exceeded the combined needs assessment for the area by more than £200 per head will now be affected. This change would have the effect of ensuring that domestic rates would be abolished in the London borough of Waltham Forest, the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster and the London borough of Wandsworth from 1 April 1990.

  Shopping and Leisure Complexes
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy on out-of-town shopping and leisure complexes in the light of the recent consultation paper issued by SERPLAN on out-of-town shopping and leisure complexes, a copy of which has been forwarded to him.
  62
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The London and South East Regional Planning Conference published a paper "Towards a Policy for Regional Shopping Centres" in July 1987. SERPLAN drew on responses to that paper in commenting last autumn on a consultation paper by my Department which became planning policy guidance note 6, published on 20 January. This note sets out the Government's policy on major retail development; a copy is in the Library.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals for initiatives to provide new rented housing for local people in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The White Paper published last September, "Housing: The Government's Proposals", Cm. 214, set out the Government's proposals for housing generally including proposals to expand the housing association programme which provides low cost homes for rent arid other tenures in rural and urban areas. On 11 February my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning announced that the Housing Corporation's guidelines for allocations to rural areas were being reviewed. Priority will no longer be confined to designated rural stress areas and the corporation will aim to double the present level of provision by housing associations in rural areas.

  We are considering whether any further measures, designed specifically to help rural areas, are needed.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications of the price differential that now exists between leaded and unleaded petrol for the date on which he envisages that the European directive on vehicle emissions for medium and large car categories will be implemented.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The increased duty differential between unleaded and leaded petrol announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement has no implications for the Government's plans to implement the new EC directive 87/76/EEC, which remain as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 7 December, at columns 20–21.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on an agreement to control the exhaust emissions from small cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I reported the current state of discussions on stage II emission limits for small cars under the new EC directive 87/76/EEC in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on 24 March, at columns 186–87. It is for the German presidency to consider how further progress towards an agreement might be made.

  Unused Sites (Richmond)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the unused sites owned by public bodies within the London borough of Richmond upon Thames together with their owners and sizes in acres.
  63
  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested for unused and underutilised sites entered on the land register for the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is as follows:

  Owner and site address

  Size in acres

  London borough of Richmond upon Thames

  Land at Meadway, Twickenham

  3·50

  Land at Oak avenue, Hampton

  3·25

  Lichfield gardens car park, Richmond

  1·40

  British Railways Board

  Barnes station goods yard, Queens Ride

  2·74

  Land off Church road, Richmond

  1·00

  Land adjacent to the River Crane, Twickenham

  2·88

  London residuary body

  254–392 Chertsey road

  6·58

  Thames water authority

  Part of Petersham pumping station

  1·70

  North of Upper Sunbury road, South of Kempton Park reservoirs

  38·60

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what way his Department will participate in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  DOE involvement in the forthcoming military home defence exercises is expected to be minimal and limited to normal day-to-day support services provided, on request, by the Property Services Agency.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the housing associations in receipt of higher management allowance for their work in the inner city areas; and if he will give the amount of the allowance in each case.

  Mrs. Roe
  Higher management allowances are awarded to housing associations to reflect the additional costs arising from tenant needs and estate difficulties which present particular problems, including work in areas of urban and rural stress. The list below details those associations in receipt of HMA as at 1 April 1988 who cited the fact that they worked in such stress areas as at least part of the reason for their extra management costs. The HMA awards made to these associations are also listed.

  Higher Management Allowances, Associations working in stress areas

  Association Name and Operational Area

  HMA £ per unit

  Baptist HAL, London North

  44

  Battersea Churches HT, London South

  91

  Battersea Tenants Co-op, London South

  91

  Beth Johnson HAL, West Midlands

  49

  Bethnal Green and East London, London North

  44

  Birmingham Friendship, West Midlands

  107

  64

  Association Name and Operational Area

  HMA £ per unit

  Bradford and Northern, North East

  45

  Brent Peoples HAL, London North

  91

  Bridge HSL, East Midlands

  43

  Bristol Churches, West

  62

  Brunel and Family HAL, North East

  81

  Caldmore Area HAL, West Midlands

  118

  Central and Provincial HT, London North

  41

  Cheshire Foundation, London North

  70

  Cheviot HAL, North East

  26

  Chichester Diocesan, London South

  62

  Christ Action (Enfield), London North

  42

  Church HAL, London North

  91

  Circle 33 HT, London North

  91

  Coastal Counties HA, London South

  45

  Columbus First HAL, London North

  60

  Community HAL, London North

  91

  Community Relations HA, North West

  118

  Coventry Churches (2nd), West Midlands

  118

  Coventry Churches HAL, West Midlands

  118

  Croydon Churches, London South

  74

  De Montfort HSL, East Midlands

  49

  Ealing Family HAL, London North (N)

  91

  East London HAL, London North

  62

  East Midlands HAL, East Midlands

  52

  East Midlands Retirement, East Midlands

  51

  Eaves Brook HA, North West

  37

  Elizabeth Bates HSL, London North

  35

  Endeavour HAL, North East

  22

  Family First Trust, East Midlands

  91

  Family HA, London South

  118

  FHA Birkenhead, Merseyside

  33

  Furnival HSG Co-op, West

  55

  Greater Hornby HA, Merseyside

  90

  Grosvenor HA, Merseyside

  24

  Habinteg HAL, London North

  102

  Heantun HAL, West Midlands

  112

  Hestia HAL, West Midlands

  118

  Holyland HSG Co-op, Merseyside

  131

  Humanist Hal, London North

  52

  Hyde HA, London South

  104

  Irwell Valley, North West

  112

  Keniston (Second) HAL, London North

  66

  Keniston HAL, London North

  91

  Kensington HT, London North

  66

  Knightstone HA, West

  42

  Leicester HAL, East Midlands

  118

  Leicester Students HAL, East Midlands

  39

  Liver HA, Merseyside

  76

  London and Quadrant, London South

  91

  Lotus HSL, West Midlands

  17

  Manchester and District, North West

  102

  Manchester 1926, North West

  61

  Manchester Methodist, North West

  93

  Martlet HA, London South

  25

  Medway Churches HA, London South

  84

  Mercian HSL, West Midlands

  95

  Merseyside IMP HSES, Merseyside

  113

  Metropolitan HT, London North

  68

  Moseley & District, West Midlands

  8

  Mosscare HA, North West

  66

  Muir Group HA, North West

  34

  New Islington & Hackney, London North

  91

  Newcastle upon Tyne HAL, North East

  77

  Newlon HT, London North

  91

  Nina West Homes, London North

  62

  Normid HAL, West Midlands

  96

  65

  Association Name and Operational Area

  HMA £ per unit

  North British HA, North West

  25

  North Sheffield HAL, North East

  113

  Notting Hill HT, London North

  91

  Paddington Churches HAL, London North

  84

  Phoenix HAL, North East

  6

  Pierhead HA, Merseyside

  110

  Portsmouth HA, West

  112

  Presentation HA, London South

  91

  Princes Park HSG Co-Op, Merseyside

  124

  Raglan HA, West

  62

  Railway HA & Ben. Fund, North East

  90

  Railway Street Co-Op, North East

  37

  Ridings HAL, North East

  118

  Rodney HA, Merseyside

  96

  Salford Community, North West

  118

  Servite Houses, London North

  88

  Shackleton HA, London South

  77

  Shepherds Bush HAL, London North

  90

  Sir Oswald Stoll Found. London North

  91

  Soho HAL, London North

  91

  Solon South West HA, London South

  100

  Solon Wandsworth HA, London South

  83

  South East Lancs HA, North West

  38

  South London FHA, London South

  90

  South Yorkshire HAL, North East

  113

  St. Helens HA, Merseyside

  74

  St. Marylebone HA, London North

  91

  St. Pancras HA in Camden, London North

  54

  St. Philips HSL, West Midlands

  61

  St. Vincents Manchester, North West

  18

  Staffordshire HAL, West Midlands

  94

  Stoke on Trent, West Midlands

  30

  Stonham HA, London South

  118

  Sunderland River Co-Op, North East

  56

  Tennant HT, London North

  83

  Thames HA, London South

  118

  Third Collingwood, West

  67

  Three Rivers HAL, North East

  48

  Threshold Single Per, London South

  91

  Toxteth Park HSG Co-Op, Merseyside

  131

  Two Castles HAL, North West

  61

  United Kingdom HT, London North

  91

  United Reformed Church, London North

  26

  Venture HA, Merseyside

  90

  Walbrook HAL, East Midlands

  114

  Wandle HA, London North

  81

  Warrington HA, Merseyside

  54

  Waterloo HAL, West Midlands

  92

  Wearmouth Co-Op, North East

  57

  West Pennine HA, North West

  118

  Womens Pioneer HL, London North

  63

  York HA, North East

  96

  Young Persons HA, MER

  109

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish in local newspapers the list of petrol stations at which unleaded petrol may be purchased.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I will be delighted to make the latest list, and a new map produced by the Department, available to any newspaper or organisation which will publish it.

  Radon
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will urgently bring forward legislation requiring new and existing houses to be protected from the ingress of radon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The building regulations already provide sufficient powers to regulate the construction of new buildings. For existing buildings we are considering what action needs to be taken, but it is unlikely that new legislation will be needed.

  Departmental Cars
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Mini and Renault 4 cars held by his Department in store have been sold in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no Minis or Renault 4s held in store. Since 1982, the earliest year for which records are available, the Crown Suppliers have disposed of 45 Austin Rover Minis by auction.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose his Department maintains Mini and Renault 4 cars in store; and how many are kept.

  Mr. Chope
  The Crown Suppliers — an operating trading fund of the Department of the Environment— have no Minis in store. They have six Austin Rover Minis on hire to, and operated by, Government Departments, and hold two as operational reserves. No Renault 4s are held.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost to his Department of maintaining Mini and Renault 4 cars, including respectively the cost of(a) rental and (b) updating Ministry of Transport tests.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated annual cost of repair and maintenance for the Austin Rover Minis currently operated by the Crown Suppliers is £2,800 pa—£350 per vehicle. There are no Renault 4s operated by the Department. There are no rental costs and costs of Ministry of Transport tests are £87·50.

  Charitable Land (Change of Use)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued regarding the status of land originally donated for charitable purposes when applications are made for change of use.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No guidance is necessary. The planning system determines whether proposed changes in the use of land are acceptable in the public interest. Planning permission granted under the Town and Country Planning Act does not override restrictions on the use of land imposed under other legislation or by other means.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water companies are currently partially or wholly owned by foreign interests in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of ownership this represents.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not available.

  Melton Borough Council
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to the reply by the joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 20 April,Official Report, column 824, he will now give details of the information he has received from his regional office in Nottingham regarding the level of rate set for two successive financial years by the Melton borough council.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on local rates is collected centrally, not by regional offices. Listed below are the rates levied in Melton in the last two years, from which it will be seen that the district rate for Melton borough council has been zero in both years. The local rate has been made up entirely of special expenses in Melton Mowbray and parish precepts.

  1987–88 (p)

  1988–89 (p)

  District rate

  0·00

  0·00

  Special district expenses

  2·61

  4·06

  Average parish precept

  1·52

  1·76

  Local rate

  4·13

  15·82

  Leicestershire C.C. precept

  199·30

  2221·20

  General rate

  203·43

  3227·02

  Domestic rate

  184·93

  4208·52

  1 40·9 per cent. increase.

  2 11·0 per cent. increase.

  3 11·6 per cent. business increase.

  4 12·8 per cent. domestic increase.

  Dotterels
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the increase in the ringing of dotterels.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: The increase in ringing results from a study commenced in May 1987 by the Nature Conservancy Council to assess the impact of tourism, grazing and other factors on the dotterel's mountain habitats, with the aim of determining the vulnerability of the breeding population to these pressures and the species lifespan and breeding behaviour.

  Ringing is carried out by harmless and well-tested techniques, under licences granted by the NCC under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy with regard to the ringing of dotterels and their chicks by professional ringers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: The dotterel appears on annex 1 of the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds as a species requiring special conservation measures concerning its habitat. The colour-ringing of a small proportion of birds is a vital part of a study by the Nature Conservancy Council, commencing in May last year, to provide a sound scientific basis for the implementation of our obligations under the directive.

  Housing (East London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 20 April,Official
  68
  Report, column 825, he will state the name of the consultants studying the scope for housing development in east London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The consultant has not yet been appointed. Invitations to tender for the contract will be sent out shortly.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 20 April,Official Report, column 825, he will more closely identify the sites in Newham under consideration for housing development, giving (a) the acreage, (b) the current ownership pattern and (c) the time scale envisaged from consultancy to commencement for the building projects and (d) the likely financial package involved.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Further information on the general areas to be covered by the studies will be published shortly. The consultant who is appointed to undertake the study will be asked to report on the sites within each area, including those matters raised by the hon. Member.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground (Policing)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to what discussions have recently taken place between the Metropolitan police, London Regional Transport and the British Transport police concerning policing of the London Underground.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Metropolitan police and the British Transport police liaise closely at all levels on the policing of the London Underground. London Regional Transport is represented on the British Transport police committee and staff of London Underground Limited are in constant contact with British Transport police officers on operational matters.

  Vehicle Testing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to undertake a major review of the MoT test certificate procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A review of the MoT testing scheme was completed last year.

  Recommendations relating to technical standards and disciplinary action are being discussed with the motor trade. These will lead to significant improvements to the standard of testing.

  Other measures already introduced include improvements to the security printing of MoT certificates and tighter security at MoT garages. The Department has improved its information about trading standards offences so that MoT examiners who are convicted of such offences can be dealt with under the Department's disciplinary arrangements.

  In total MoT authorisation was withdrawn from 127 garages last year compared with 73 in the previous year. We are continuing to discuss with the trading standards organisations further measures to combat fraudulent use of test certificates.

  Motor Trade (Abuses)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received with regard to the
  69
  Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards report "Tackling Abuses in the Motor Trade" of October 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs and I discussed many of the issues covered in this report with the Director General of Fair Trading, motor trade representatives and others on 15 December 1987. We agreed the desirability of amending section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to make it easier for trading standards officers to deal with sellers of unroadworthy vehicles. The LACOTS is considering our suggestions about the possible extension of trading standards officers' powers to inspect cars on garage forecourts. DVLC officials are contributing to Office of Fair Trading investigations into action against "clocking" of used cars.

  Dual Carriageways (Central Reservations)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last 10 years gaps in the central reservation of dual carriageway trunk roads have been closed in spite of objections being raised to the advertised proposals; and in how many of these instances a public inquiry was held before any ministerial decision was made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I regret that this information is not available. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Near Misses
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further action he is taking to reduce the risk of near misses of airliners in British airspace and at British airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Action to reduce the risk of air misses in United Kingdom airspace is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The authority is wholly responsible for aviation regulation and (with the Ministry of Defence) for air traffic management in the United Kingdom. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), on 18 April 1988, at columns 532–34.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to bring private ambulances within the purview of the traffic commissioners by abolishing the right of such ambulances to operate on a restricted public service vehicle licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no need for such legislation. Restricted PSV licences are issued by the traffic commissioners. The holders are subject to obligations (for example, in respect of maintenance) comparable to those required under a standard licence.

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what way his Department will participate in 70
  any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link due to take place in September and October 1988; how many staff are allocated to this task; how much such participation is estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  One person in the Department has been invited to take part in Exercise Strong Link. The estimated cost is £173. Arrangements have also been made for some exercise activities to take place, at no cost to the Department, at sites occupied by public sector transport undertakings.

  King's Cross and St. Pancras
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals British Rail have submitted to him in respect of King's Cross and St. Pancras stations.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None.

  Dial-a-ride
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect deregulation of transport in London will have on the future of dial-a-ride schemes.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the expansion of dial-a-ride; and what changes in funding are likely during the next 12 months.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We look to London Regional Transport for advice on the future development of the dial-a-ride scheme in London, which has considerably expanded in recent years. Funding this year is 50 per cent. higher than three years ago. We are encouraged by LRT's continuing efforts to secure greater cost-effectiveness and enhanced levels of service.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to announce his policy towards the funding of the dial-a-ride schemes beyond April 1989.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  London Regional Transport's bids for funding the London dial-a-rides beyond April 1989 will be considered in the normal way in the investment and financing review.

  Ammunition Lorries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce regulations to ensure that ammunition lorries are escorted by trained Ministry of Defence Police or military personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The new regulations will provide for drivers of lorries carrying high explosive ammunition to be accompanied by a competent person. The arrangements for movement of military ammunition will be a matter for decision by the responsible authorities..

  Rolling Stock and Locomotives
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information and details of specifications for new
  71
  investment on (a) rolling stock and (b) locomotives are required by and sent to his Department for consideration before approval is given for capital expenditure to be incurred.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  BR's investment submissions to Ministers are supported by copies of the appraisals BR uses for its own internal consideration of proposals. These normally include an analysis of the problem identified and the objective of the investment; a business background; a description of options; major assumptions and inputs; a financial evaluation (including sensitivity tests); and non-financial considerations.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about lorries and parts of lorries recovered from the Herald of Free Enterprise in connection with their roadworthiness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: None of which I am aware.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that vehicles recovered from the Herald of Free Enterprise conform with vehicle inspectorate construction and the regulations before being allowed on the road again.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: The law requires this already.

  Public Carriage Office
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why delays in inspections for roadworthiness at the Public Carriage Office are increasing; and what steps he is taking to eliminate the problems to drivers and owners of black cabs and to the residents of Penton street being caused by these delays.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: The operation of the Public Carriage Office is the responsibility of an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I understand that the March peak in the number of vehicles submitted for relicensing and the early Easter holiday have caused a temporary build-up. The PCO has taken short-term steps to deal with the backlog, and longer-term measures are in hand to improve the quality of the vehicles being submitted and the ways in which they are tested, particularly by the introduction of a booking system.

DEFENCE

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning low flying over Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1 February 1988 and 19 April 1988 the Ministry of Defence received 83 inquiries or complaints from Wales about low-flying military aircraft.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of defence procurement contracts placed by his Department during the last full financial year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the financial year 1986–87, the latest period for which full information is available, the total value of headquarter contracts placed by my Department was £9·3 billion.

  Personnel (Location)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of armed services personnel are stationed in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) each of the English regions and (d) elsewhere.

  Mr. Freeman
  At 30 June 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the percentages of the total strength of the armed services stationed in each of the areas listed were as follows:

  Percentage

  Wales

  1·9

  Scotland

  6·2

  England—Total

  59·9

  North

  0·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4·5

  East Midlands

  4·1

  East Anglia

  5·0

  South East

  27·2

  South West

  15·2

  West Midlands

  2·7

  North West

  0·5

  Elsewhere

  32·0

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has no child care provision at present for civilian employees. The Department is however encouraging personnel to become involved in the setting up of holiday play schemes.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has considered any proposals for joint production, design or custody of nuclear weapons with any country other than the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom is currently studying the requirement for a successor to its free-fall nuclear bomb. In this context, we have considered with France each country's requirement for an air-launched stand-off missile. Exchanges are continuing with a view to indentifying where British and French requirements might be similar, and assessing what merit there might be in collaboration.

  Military Training Areas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are made for the use of military training areas by(a) foreign military units based in the United Kingdom and (b) foreign troops and aircraft temporarily stationed in the United Kingdom; whether any payments are made for the use of these facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Bilateral agreements exist with a number of NATO and other foreign forces covering their use of military training areas in the United Kingdom. Detailed arrangements in each case differ, but such agreements may include the waiver of charges where reciprocal use is made by British forces of training areas in the visiting force's country.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts have been awarded to companies operating in the United Kingdom, as part of the strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sixty-three.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts for research and/or development have been awarded to universities and other research institutions in the United Kingdom, as part of the strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Twenty-three.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many jobs have been created in(a) research institutions and (b) universities in the United Kingdom, as part of the strategic defence initiative programme;

  (2) what information he has as to how many jobs have been created in companies operating in the United Kingdom, as part of the strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Such information is not maintained by the Government.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of contracts awarded to companies operating in the United Kingdom, as part of the strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximately $54 million.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of contracts awarded to universities and other research institutions in the United Kingdom, as part of the strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximately $7 million.

  Computer-aided Accidents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to use Viper computer chips in safety critical systems controlled by his Department; what other steps are being taken to avoid computer-aided accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I anticipate that Viper will be used in critical defence equipment delivered from the early 1990s onwards, as part of the Department's continuing work on high integrity computing.

  Horseguards Parade (Flags)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the cleanliness of the flags at the entrance to Horseguards parade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Only one representation has been received from a member of the public concerning the cleanliness of the flags at the entrance to Horse Guards parade. Every effort is made to maintain the flags in a reasonable state, both those that are flown continually and those flown only on certain occasions. The flags are cleaned regularly, repaired as necessary and replaced once past economic repair. On certain ceremonial occasions, such as Her Majesty The Queen's birthday parade, a new Union flag is used.

  Home Defence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in relation to the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link scheduled to take place in September and October 1988, he will place copies of the exercise scenarios in the Library; if he will list those(a) local authorities, (b) health authorities, (c) police authorities, (d) water authorities and (e) others which have indicated their intention to (i) participate in, (ii) give assistance to, or (iii) observe each of these exercises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is the hope of district commanders that a number of non-military agencies will participate in, assist or observe the military home defence exercises which are taking place this autumn, although the details have not yet been finalised. It is likely that local authorities' participation will be limited to attendance at visitor days. The police are expected to take part in the exercises but the level of participation will vary at the discretion of individual chief constables. There will be some limited NHS involvement, with ambulance services and voluntary aid societies taking part in a number of the exercises. Water authority assistance is limited to the provision of a number of sites which will be used, at no cost to the authorities, to practise key point guarding. Planning is continuing for the participation of appropriate fire services, Customs and Excise officials, port and transport police. It is not our practice to release details of exercise scenarios.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military home defence exercises are due to take place in(a) the Scottish Highlands and (b) the Scottish Lowlands military districts during autumn 1988 in relation to those exercises due to take place in England and Wales; if he will place the exercise scenarios in the Library; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Bonnie Dundee is the only military home defence exercise taking place in Scotland this autumn. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 4 February. It is not our practice to give details of exercise scenarios.

  F16 Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards flights by United States Air Force F-16 aircraft over United Kingdom airspace following recent crashes in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  NATO military aircraft flying in United Kingdom airspace, including United States Air Force F-16s, are subject to the same regulations as aircraft operated by our own forces. Should concern arise about the safety or airworthiness of any military aircraft type operating in United Kingdom airspace appropriate steps would be taken.

  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the light of the Danish general election called for 10 May, the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group in Kolding, Denmark, will now take place as scheduled on 27 and 28 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the light of the election called by the Danish Government for 10 May, it has been agreed that the nuclear planning group meeting due to be held at Kolding in Denmark on 27–28 April will now take place at NATO headquarters in Brussels on the same dates.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the Statement on the Defence Estimates for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce the date of publication next month.

  Ammunition Transport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the United States Army on its action in February in substituting civilian personnel for Ministry of Defence Police for the task of escorting ammunition lorries at Caerwent.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. I am satisfied with the current arrangements for the transport of ammunition to and from RAF Caerwent using civilian attendants, which meet the provisions of the Conveyance by Road of Military Explosives Regulations 1977.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the cost of employing escorts for ammunition lorries from Caerwent base has been reduced as a result of the replacing of Ministry of Defence police by civilian personnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The varying nature of the ammunition transport task at RAF Caerwent means that it is not possible to quantify the overall saving resulting from this change. However, the cost of employing a civilian attendant for this task is about half that of using a Ministry of Defence policeman.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is required for escorts employed for the transport of ammunition by road.

  Mr. Freeman
  Drivers and escorts of vehicles used in the transport of ammunition by road are given training and 76
  instructions to enable them to understand the nature of the dangers to which the ammunition carried may give rise and the action they are required to take in an emergency. Such training and instruction is in accordance with the Conveyance by Road of Military Explosives Regulations 1977.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether civilian personnel have been substituted for Ministry of Defence police or military personnel in the work of escorting ammunition convoys from any bases under his control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Drivers and escorts of vehicles used for transporting ammunition, whether in convoy or not, may be military or civilian personnel according to circumstances. Ministry of Defence police do not normally escort ammunition convoys.

  Tain Bombing Range
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 April to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye,Official Report, column 504, which services he proposes to seek tenders for at Tain bombing range; what time scale is envisaged for the return and assessment of tenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Tenders will be sought for a range of support services, including quadrant observation, range warden activities, range safety petrol, target maintenance, the maintenance of communications equipment and vehicles, vehicle driving and administration. The supervision of the range will remain as it is at present, under RAF control. Invitations to tender will be issued in May. Any contract would not commence before April 1989.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many centres for chemical weapons production are currently in existence in the United Kingdom; and what is the total estimate of stockpiled chemical weapons in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None.

  Mooring Vessels
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when will he be in a position to announce the orders for the range mooring vessel and the two power mooring lighters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Orders will be placed later today with Richards Shipbuilders Ltd. for a range mooring vessel and with McTay Marine for two powered mooring lighters. Upon completion, these vessels will enter service with the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service. I am pleased that it has been possible to conclude the contracts for the three vessels at prices significantly lower than the total of about £10 million originally budgeted for them in 1985–86.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  West Belfast (Citizen's Arrest)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there is any evidence to suggest that an attempt
  77
  was made to carry out a citizens arrest by those persons who attacked and murdered two soldiers in west Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, several people have already been charged with offences in connection with these murders, and police investigations continue. In these circumstances I cannot properly attempt to anticipate what evidence may emerge.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has to date on whether there has been a positive response to the continuing advertising campaign in Northern Ireland seeking information about terrorist activity and encouraging use of the confidential telephone service.

  Mr. Stanley
  Since the present campaign began in January to publicise the confidential telephone service there has been a very positive and encouraging response from members of the public.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Stanley
  In accordance with the commitment in the circular "Equal Opportunities for Women in the Northern Ireland Civil Service" published May 1986, the Northern Ireland Civil Service has considered the provision of child care facilities and in particular workplace nurseries. It concluded that such nurseries could only be provided with a substantial injection of capital to meet start-up costs and a continuing subsidy from Government towards running costs. The use of public funds for this purpose has not so far been considered justifiable in relation to other needs.

  However the Northern Ireland Civil Service is anxious to assist staff in making other suitable child minding arrangements and recently introduced a scheme to assist staff to find suitable registered childminders. In addition it is considering with the trade unions the provision of other facilities such as day care for pre-school age children, after-school care for older children, and holiday play schemes.

  The home Civil Service part of the Northern Ireland Office, which comprises about 190 staff divided between London and Belfast, does not provide child care facilities, but gives sympathetic consideration to the individual needs of staff with young children.

  Education (Maintenance Allowances)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what groups have made representations about the review of educational maintenance allowances in Northern Ireland;

  (2) if he will implement the proposals contained in the NUS/USI document on a proposed new educational maintenance allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement;
  78
  (3) what arrangements he proposes to make regarding the issuing of a report after the review procedure of educational maintenance allowances has been completed;

  (4) how long it will take to complete the review of educational maintenance allowances presently being undertaken by the Department of Education.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Representations have been received from the citizens advice bureaux, the NUS-USI, Omagh district council and the Western education and library board. I shall take into account the views of these bodies before reaching final conclusions. I shall also consider whether to issue a report and I will be making a statement later this year.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of payments made to those in receipt of educational maintenance allowance in each of the years 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 in each of the four education and library boards in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Number of payments per annum1

  Education and Library Boards

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  21987–88

  Belfast

  488

  442

  458

  460

  558

  North-Eastern

  864

  982

  412

  436

  320

  South-Eastern

  476

  380

  310

  280

  260

  Southern

  1,848

  1,434

  964

  778

  740

  Western

  2,072

  1,500

  1,260

  1,136

  1,120

  1 EMAs are paid in two instalments per annum and the number in receipt of educational maintenance allowances is half the number shown in the table.

  2 Estimated.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of total public recurrent expenditure on higher and further education has been attributable to educational maintenance allowances in each year from 1983 to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Public expenditure on education maintenance allowances is incurred under the public expenditure programme for administration and miscellaneous services.

  The expenditure figures are as follows:

  £

  1983–84

  523,838

  1984–85

  518,313

  1985–86

  363,990

  1986–87

  316,401

  11987–88

  264,000

  1 Provisional.

  This expenditure, as a proportion of recurrent expenditure on higher and further education (including teacher training) is as follows:

  Percentage

  1983–84

  0·4

  1984–85

  0·3

  1985–86

  0·2

  1986–87

  0·2

  11987–88

  0·1

  1 Provisional.

  Chief Constable (Report)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland's report for 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  A copy was placed in the Library on 12 April.

  Maryfield Secretariat
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the total sums expended on the Maryfield secretariat by (a) the United Kingdom, indicating on which vote it is borne, and (b) the Irish Republic; and if he will give a breakdown for each country for (i) salaries and wages of civil servants, (ii) security expenditure for capital and wages, (iii) telephones, (iv) heat and light, (v) stationery and other office costs, (vi) travel and (vii) other costs, for each year or financial year of the secretariat's existence.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: Total costs to United Kingdom public funds of the secretariat to the end of March 1988 since its commencement in 1985
  80
  are provisionally assessed at £468,000. I have nothing further to add to replies on this subject that I have given in the past to the hon. Gentleman and others.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing at the latest available date a breakdown of the (a) United Kingdom civil servants, (b) Northern Ireland civil servants and (c) civil servants of the Irish Republic, by grade, religion and sex, working in the Maryfield secretariat.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: No.

  Hayshed Bugging
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, pursuant to his answers of 25 March,Official Report, column 241, 28 March, Official Report, column 314, and 31 March, Official Report, column 700, he will outline the policy considerations which underlie his statements that it is not the practice to comment on matters such as the legal authority under which a bug was placed in the hayshed in which Michael Tighe was killed.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: It is established policy that the Government do not comment on matters which might jeopardise national security.

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

Tributes to Lord Ramsey of Canterbury
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the whole House will have been saddened to hear of the death over the weekend of Lord Ramsey of Canterbury. He first entered your Lordships' House on appointment to his first see, Durham, in 1952 and continued to sit as Archbishop of York and Canterbury and since 1974 as a Life Peer. Much has already been said and written about Lord Ramsey as a scholarly and spiritual man. Those of your Lordships who remember him as Archbishop and a frequent attender in this House will recall that those qualities permeated his contributions to debates in this Chamber. However, that is not to say that he did not speak his mind in the House on matters of concern to him and to the Church.
As Archbishop he was called upon for advice on the role of the bishops during the negotiations on Lords' reform in the late 1960s. The adoption of the synodical system of government by the Church, and its assumption of responsibility in 1973 for doctrine and worship, represented a major change in the relationship between Parliament and the established Church.
However, above all, we remember Lord Ramsey today for his remarkable gifts and for his great presence. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in offering every sympathy to his widow.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has paid a worthy and a warm tribute to Lord Ramsey. On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I endorse everything that he said.
2
The impression that I had of Lord Ramsey, although I did not have the privilege of knowing him well, was that he was a cheerful and benevolent Christian leader who sustained the Anglican Church through his personality and his extensive travels. However, although it is true that his travels were significant—especially his historic journey to meet Pope Paul in Rome—he was a far more profound personality than appeared immediately on the surface.
He was a distinguished theologian and a gifted teacher as well as a thoughtful pastoral Archbishop. If he gave the touching impression of vagueness at times, he could also be decisive on great issues. I once heard him make a witty and humorous speech and I realised then that he had a strong sense of humour, although I believe that he hesitated and worried a great deal before he made a speech in this House. Perhaps more of us should follow his example!
There was an innocence and a humility about Lord Ramsey which placed him in a special category. All those who worked closely with him loved and revered him. He takes his place as one of the great Church leaders of this century, and our deep sympathy goes out to Lady Ramsey and his family at this time.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to associate myself and noble friends with the tributes which have been paid to the late Lord Ramsey. I speak as a Non-conformist and I can say that, during his 13 years as Archbishop, Lord Ramsey was held in the highest regard by all branches of the Christian Church and indeed by the general public outside. It was of significance to us on these Benches that in his younger days he was in fact on the list of approved Liberal candidates.
I have two particular memories of Lord Ramsey. He preached the sermon at a service held in Westminster Abbey in 1977 to mark the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the formation of the National Liberal Federation. As I was the organiser on the Liberal Party side on that occasion, it fell to me to invite him to attend and he graciously accepted. I well remember his impressive remarks on that occasion.

3
The second memory I have is of a dinner in 1968—another commemorative occasion—which was held at the National Liberal Club to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the formation of Gladstone's first government. The two principal speakers were Lord Ramsey and Lady Violet Bonham-Carter. I sat between them because I was presiding. They got into such animated discussion that their heads came closer and closer together and I could scarcely get my fork to my mouth.
The outstanding memory from both those occasions is of a kind, thoughtful and courageous man.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from this Bench we should also like to be associated with the tributes being paid to Lord Ramsey. He and I came into this House as Life Peers at about the same time in 1974. He had a brilliant mind and on his day he was an extremely good communicator. He did not intervene often in our debates—some of us felt not often enough—but he was always listened to intently. We always enjoyed his command of the English language and his philosophical and, at times, somewhat radical views.
He enjoyed his holidays in Dartmoor; he liked the solitude of the Devon landscape and he was concerned about our environment. He was a kindly and courteous man, who inspired affection and loyalty in all those who knew him and worked with him. We know that he will be sorely missed in many facets of life. Our sympathy too goes out to his widow and friends.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, speaking from these Benches and for noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, I take it as the greatest of privileges to remember someone who was a friend, someone from whose hands I received my own consecration as a bishop, and someone who always conveyed that great sense that things mattered to God. Because of his experience in the Union of the University of Cambridge of which he was once president, Michael Ramsey might have been moved to enter the world of political engagement. Instead he served the ordained ministry of the Church of God but always with the consciousness that it is in the civil order and the actualities of daily life that Christian decisions must be made. He always had respect for those carrying responsibility in the civil order. Therefore, as noble Lords have heard in the tributes which have been given in your Lordships' House, he was loved and respected not only by his fellow churchmen and those of other Churches, but not least by Members of your Lordships' House. He held his membership of this House in most serious regard.

Agriculture Set-aside Rules: Progress
2.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the details of a set-aside and extensification scheme for
4
agricultural land, and whether the scheme will include all the options set out in the European Commission proposals for such a scheme.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the European Commission's detailed legal rules for set-aside are expected to be adopted very shortly. Only then will the Government be in a position to determine how the scheme might be applied in the United Kingdom. An announcement will be made as soon as possible so that the scheme can apply for the 1988–89 marketing year. Decisions on the extensification scheme, which will depend on detailed Commission rules yet to be proposed, must await a later stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply. Perhaps he can say whether the Government are intending to include a grassland option, the so-called grazed fallow in the set-aside scheme? Is the Minister aware that this option has considerable support from environmentalists and from a substantial section of the farming community? Does the Minister agree that provided there are suitable safeguards to prevent an increase in breeding animals on grassland which has been set aside this would be a sensible option?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are considering whether this option should apply in the United Kingdom. It has environmental advantages. We are concerned about the impact it might have on the livestock sector; there are also the difficulties of control. As regards this proposal, we have argued very strongly for very tightly drawn Community rules.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to be congratulated on adding to the richness of our language the word "extensification", or is it a word already well understood in farmyards throughout the United Kingdom?
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I know the difficulties which face the Minister over this question but delays are leading to a situation where farmers simply do not know what to do. If these delays affect the 1988–89 crop it is going to be very difficult for any farmer to plan ahead; we need something very soon.
In the set-aside discussions, I hope that any farmer who takes 20 per cent. of his land out of production—he is doing his bit in that respect—will not have to pay the levy. At present the levy has to be paid to help the situation. If a farmer takes out 20 per cent., can the Minister say whether a farmer will still have to pay the levy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are required by EC legislation to have the scheme in place by 1st July. The difficulty to date has been in finalising the rules. That is part of the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. We cannot actually devise the regulations. I hope, however, that very shortly this will be done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for asking a question so soon after my noble friend. Is it not the case that the upland farmers of this

5
country are at present going through an extremely uncertain and difficult time and that they are worried about the likely future effect of Community policy upon their livelihood? Can the Minister say what effect the extensification policy will have upon the upland farmers of Britain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in a way upland farmers already have an extensification policy by the very nature of their method of farming. In some ways it can be said that they set an example to us all.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I asked the Minister a second question. It was whether, in the discussions, consideration is being given to the question of the levy against farmers who take 20 per cent. of their land out of production.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this question will depend upon the finalisation of the rules in Brussels. As I have said, I hope that this matter will be dealt with very shortly. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity of "attempting"—I believe that to be the right word—to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Renton. I hope very much that more and more farmers are beginning to understand the meaning of the word "extensification".
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can explain to his noble friend Lord Renton that extensification is a piece of Euro-jargon. Perhaps the Minister can explain to his noble friend the exact difference between extensification and disintensification which is another piece of Euro-jargon.
Is the Minister aware that a reduction in the intensity of stocking of the United Kingdom population of cattle and sheep of one quarter of an acre per livestock unit would require an extra three million acres of grassland? Considering the various proposals for farm woodland, does the Minister agree that more grass and more trees would be an excellent prescription for agricultural policy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope very much that one of the net results of the two items, set-aside and extensification, raised by today's Question will be what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just described.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government take the opportunity offered by this rethink to consider intensifying the employment of people for a given yield of a given agricultural product and disintensifying the application of chemicals to the land?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the basis of employment in the creation of food will at the end of the day be decided by the consumer.

British Food and Farming Year
2.50 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to commemorate British Food and Farming Year in 1989.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government thoroughly support the objectives of British Food and Farming Year and hope that it will be successful in creating a wider understanding of the important role which the food and farming industries play in the national life. The department is represented on the organising council for the year and is closely involved with progress on what is planned. It would take me too long to list all the projects which are planned for the year, but I will willingly place a list of the main ones in the Library. In addition, the department is co-ordinating its centenary celebrations with all these activities.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that a substantial campaign is planned for 1989, including a three-day agricultural show in Hyde Park, which is likely to be the largest event of its kind since the Great Exhibition of 1851? Can he say what practical help the department is proposing to give to Food and Farming Year, remembering the considerable amount of government help that was given to Industry Year and to Energy Year?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is entirely right to say that it will be a major commemoration. A major two-part television documentary is to be produced by the BBC. The ministry itself will be making a grant of £50,000 directly towards it. However, I must remind your Lordships that this is essentially an industry celebration.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend when, where and in what circumstances food assumes British nationality?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure that I am entirely qualified to answer that question.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the commemoration next year the best of luck. However, there are strong rumours that the Prime Minister wants to do away with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that that will not be part of the commemoration.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously aware of something of which I am totally unaware.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one very useful thing the Government could do in that year is to bring in revised allotment legislation based on the Thorpe Report? If the Minister does not know what the Thorpe Report is, I have a copy and advise him to read it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that that may be too specialised a question, but if the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question on that subject I shall be more than happy to answer it.

Geffrye and Horniman Museums
2.53 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority, they will take steps to ensure that the Geffrye and Horniman museums continue to be available to the public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the answer is, yes. The Government have made it clear that we wish to ensure a secure future for these two museums.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and constructive reply. Will she consider giving trustee status to the Horniman Museum so that it may be both nationally and privately funded? Will she consider the making of the Geffrye Museum an outstation of the Museum of London? Is she aware that her helpful reply today has done much to allay the doubts of those who fully support government education policy but are nervous about the effect of the abolition of ILEA on the arts, which, to be fair to ILEA, is one of the matters it handled well?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the proposals put forward by my noble friend are two of the possibilities that are under consideration. We certainly recognise the concern expressed about the need for satisfactory long-term financial arrangements and we hope that a final announcement will be possible soon.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while I welcome the noble Baroness's reply and the Government's decision, will she confirm that in their new status the two museums will not be given the right to sell items from their collections, as I believe is planned by the Government in connection with others?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that this has been suggested or indeed that it would be approved.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, may I associate those on these Benches with the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord St. John? Does the noble Baroness agree that the essential thing in keeping these two museums going is that the amount of money they have been receiving from ILEA should not in any way be reduced by the abolition of ILEA? An assurance on that matter would make everybody concerned very much happier.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can give no final assurances in this respect but I can emphasise that we recognise the importance of the collections, and in particular the ethnographical collections at the Horniman. The museums provide a substantial service in the South-East, particularly to schools and colleges, and we are actively looking for ways to safeguard this service and to preserve the funding.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can we take it for granted that these museums will not—I repeat "not"—be handed over to the local authorities, which are not competent to run them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, before a final decision is made, that must always be a possibility. However, at the moment, it seems unlikely.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask when a final answer will be given. My post is absolutely bulging with letters from people who are anxious about the future of these museums. It would be a great help to everybody if the noble Baroness could assure us that very soon a definite announcement will be made.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are all conscious of the weight of our mailbags these days. However, I can do no more than assure the noble Baroness that the announcement will be made as soon as possible.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, so far the noble Baroness has used the words "wish" and "hope" with regard to the future of the museums. Can she go a little further and say definitely that the museums will continue in existence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in my original Answer I said that,
"we wish to ensure a secure future for these two museums".
That should leave noble Lords in no doubt at all about our intentions on the subject.
Lord McNair: My Lords, in her deliberations, will the noble Baroness give due weight to the fact that the Horniman Museum is situated, roughly speaking, in Dulwich?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the solution embodied in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, regarding central funding for the Horniman and the Geffrye coming under the wing of the Museum of London, which I understand to be willing to act in loco parentis,would be sensible because the boroughs concerned might not be well equipped and also might be unable and unwilling to take over those responsibilities?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, and as I said, those possibilities are under consideration.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not a matter that should be handed over to the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that may well be so. I shall certainly raise the point with my right honourable friend.

DTI Advertising and Publicity Expenditure
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the Department of Trade and Industry proposes to spend on advertising and publicity in 1988–89, and how much they spent in 1986–87 and in 1987–88.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, budget allocations for advertising and publicity during 1988–89 are still under discussion in my department. Expenditure in 1986–87 was £4·3 million, and in 1987–88 was £13·6 million.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Secretary of State not able to give us the figure he proposes for the present year? If the reports we read are correct, does this lavish spending on advertising and publicity by his department mean that he is now a convert to the view that the best way to solve problems is to throw public money at them?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the amount for advertising and publicity during 1988–89 is still being discussed by my department. If we go back 10 years to the last year of the old era and up-rate the amount the Government then spent on advertising by median inflation, the figure comes to £58 million. Excluding privatisations, the budget for last year was £54 million. That answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, following my noble friend's second question, why does the noble Lord's department need to spend any money at all on advertising? To use his favourite phrase why can it not rely upon market forces?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the department is relying upon market forces. If the noble Lord cares to look at the White Paper which I brought to your Lordships' House last January he will see that I said that close communications between my department and business will be improved by greater emphasis on marketing DTI services and running clearly focused campaigns on issues relevant to business and to the DTI. I have today received details of a survey which shows that over 85 per cent. of businessmen think it right for my department to seek to spread best management practice in the ways that it is doing; 85 per cent. is an extraordinarily high sample, but I think that it is one with which we can rest content.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, did I hear correctly the figures that the noble Lord gave; that he increased spending last year on publicity and advertising for his department by three times? If so, will he tell the House why he thinks it right to spend taxpayers' money on advertising for government party political purposes but not for local government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes, clearly. The noble Lord, who rarely misses anything I say, may have overlooked the fact that I was pointing out
10
that, allowing for median inflation, the Government as a whole are spending less than was spent 10 years ago. I am happy to say that within my department, first, part of the spend is on the single market campaign. If the noble Lord thinks that that is political, I refer him to leaders in the Daily Mirror and the Guardian which both say that it is a non-political campaign and one to which the whole nation should respond. Secondly, the way in which my department is seeking to spread best business practice has received the approval of 85 per cent. of the business community. Again, I hardly think that that is political. In case the noble Lord should forget, we are possibly some four years from the next election.
Lord Jay: My Lords, whatever the Daily Mirror may say, will the Secretary of State also tell us which government department has been reproved by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for proposing to use public money for party political purposes?
Lord Young of Graf ham: My Lords, I know of no such department. All advertisements that appear on television must be approved by the IBA, as the Government found in the 1970s and early 1980s. I cannot find one thing in anything that my department advertises that is the remotest bit political, unless the noble Lord thinks that describing cases of success in Consett, the Lake District, Yorkshire, Portsmouth, Cornwall, Kent, Corby, Scunthorpe and even London is political. If so, he is in danger of aligning the Labour Party with failure.

Malicious Communications Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Employment Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Employment Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [[Right to a ballot before industrial action]:
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("(1A) The ballot referred to in subsection (1) above must be a postal ballot if the industrial action is not proposed by or intended to be organised by the principal executive committee of a trade union or of more than one trade union.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is different from the amendment narrowly defeated by three votes on Report with the aid of the Labour Party. That amendment would have required a postal ballot only where national industrial action was proposed. The Government were sympathetic, but they were unwilling to accept the amendment because they thought that it could be got round by unions leaving out some members or some locations, making what otherwise would have been national industrial action not national. On the face of it, there could be some validity in that point and so the present amendment avoids that objection. It applies only to industrial action which is not national and which is not proposed by, or intended to be organised by, an executive committee of a trade union or more than one trade union.
My amendment therefore covers all industrial disputes which are local but not national. That issue has not been debated or decided upon in your Lordships' House before and therefore cannot contravene the standing order on the subject. It is not a novel idea. Unions already require a postal ballot before industrial action, however small or local, takes place. On 28th March the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to the working of the trade union ballot funds' scheme. He said that in 1987, out of a total of 526 applications by trade unions for funding for a ballot by the Government, 262 were for postal ballots on industrial action.
It is clear that there is a growing practice among trade unions for postal ballots for industrial action. They find no problem with that. By now they should all have registers of their members with their addresses or they will be unable to arrange the distribution of postal ballots to their members for elections when they have elections for union executives. If there were any difficulty in obtaining up-to-date addresses in a local dispute, the firm concerned would always be willing to supply their employees' names and addresses. That happened recently in postal ballots for local industrial disputes at Ford and Rover.
There is no difficulty in sending out postal ballot forms before industrial action. It is sometimes argued that a postal ballot will make it more difficult to call off a strike because another postal ballot would be required to end it. That is not the case. My amendment merely requires that the ballot needed before industrial action under Clause 1(1) should be postal. There is nothing about having to end an industrial dispute by postal ballot. There is nothing in the Bill which requires that, any more than there is in my amendment. That must be the members' choice, irrespective of what the Bill lays down.
It can be argued that a postal ballot before industrial action may delay the start of a strike. That would be a good thing. There is never any need for hurry in starting a strike. The more time there is for reflection, the better. The Government will probably say that they accept that postal ballots before industrial action should be the norm but that they find difficulty in legally enforcing them. That is what they said about ballots for union executives during the passage of the 1984 Bill. They even wrote into the
12
1984 Act how much they would prefer unions to use postal rather than workplace ballots for executive elections. They were warned then that workplace ballots are, can be and would be manipulated.
The Government were told that if they did not insist on postal ballots for executive elections in unions, they would later have to come back to Parliament with a measure to enforce them. This is exactly what the Government are doing in this Bill four years later. I must warn them now that if postal ballots for industrial action at local level are not included in this Bill, they will have to come back to Parliament again to ask for the law to be amended. That is inevitable. So why not do it this afternoon?
The Government have recognised how easy it is to manipulate workplace ballots for elections. Surely they understand that it is just as easy to manipulate workplace ballots for local industrial disputes. If this amendment is carried, the Government in another place can either throw it out or accept it; it would then be a Lords' amendment which they could accept. Alternatively, they could make amendments of their own to this Lords' amendment, which I hope your Lordships will carry.
To pass the amendment would leave some options open to the Government which they would not have if your Lordships do not pass it. If the amendment is not carried, it will be impossible for any provisions whatever for postal ballots before industrial disputes to be included in this Bill in another place. I hope therefore that noble Lords will agree to carry the amendment. I think that we shall be helping the Government if we do. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is too modest. This is not a minor change to the amendment which he put down when we discussed the Bill on Report. It is a direct reversal; it is turning through 180 degrees. On Report he moved that, if there was national industrial action, a strike ballot should, by law, be a postal ballot. Now he is saying that if it is not national industrial action and therefore if it is not authorised by a union—if it is not an official strike, but if it is a local, unofficial strike—there should be a legally binding postal ballot. Virtually all national strikes are official and the overwhelming majority of unofficial strikes are local, including one-hour walkouts, overtime bans and things of that kind—instantaneous stoppages. The noble Lord is suggesting a total reversal of a position so that the law should impose a postal ballot upon small-scale, fragmented unofficial strike action, something which this Government have never attempted to do.
The amendment which the noble Lord has moved would require a major change in the 1984 Act because that Act sensibly enough was designed to bite upon official strike action, not upon unofficial strike action. The Government appreciate that to try to impose legal rules of this kind upon fragmented, local, partial, small-scale unofficial action at local level is very difficult or impossible and probably counter-productive.
The detail of the amendment says that:
"The ballot referred to in subsection (1) … must be a postal ballot if the industrial action is not proposed by or intended to be organised by the principal executive committee …"

13
That demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the role which national executive or principal executive committees, as we now have to call them for the purposes of the legislation, play in sanctioning industrial action.
If noble Lords look at the union rulebooks, they will see that on the whole national executives do not organise or propose industrial action. They react to demands for industrial action from down the line. In particular they react to demands for industrial action from the rank and file, if we are talking about local industrial disputes. For example, the rulebook of the National Union of Public Employees states that branches which wish to conduct industrial action must seek the approval of the executive committee. If we look at the rulebook of the AEU, we see that the district committee must ask the executive for the right to hold a ballot in order to sanction, authorise and support an intended industrial action. The rulebook of UCATT or the National Union of Journalists is precisely the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, quoted the situation in the EETPU. Of course that union expects there to be a ballot in all authorised official strikes which are the responsibility of the union. But even the EETPU could not expect to impose a ballot under the rulebook for unofficial action taken in no way under the authority of the union itself. Yet that is precisely the thrust of this amendment.
It follows that the amendment would catch virtually all strikes. The legislature and anyone who brought an action would be busy trying to find who had authorised, supported or encouraged this strike and had not had a ballot. The noble Lord is completely reversing the position which he adopted last time. It does not make it any more sensible, it does not make it any easier or more practical and I doubt very much that the Government will accept it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment in principle for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. That may sound odd coming from these Benches, but I pay him the tribute of saying that his analysis is a wholly objective and constructive analysis with which I personally agree.
Apparently the purpose of this amendment is to induce the Government to think again in another place. It is much to be doubted whether it could or indeed should have any such effect. To my mind, for some short reasons which I propose to give, if the amendment were carried it would be the first step, in the Government's step-by-step approach, which was in the wrong direction. What is the norm is not of necessity, in the essence of administrative wisdom, always to be made legally enforceable. Our conventions on Third Reading preclude any full debate. There has been no opportunity to discuss this amendment at any prior stage in the Bill.
It may be said, "Oh, but if the postal method proposed by this amendment had been in force, it might have avoided the alleged intimidation in the ferries dispute." There is no conclusive evidence of that. It may be said, "Oh, notwithstanding problems of definition, there ought to be some special procedure applicable for certain services." That may
14
well be so, but it goes far beyond the scope of this amendment. As was pointed out cogently by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, this is of general application; it covers all industrial action.
The principle of a postal ballot applicable to a nationwide or general industrial action called by the PEC, which I supported, was rejected on Report. However, if this amendment had been moved on Report, I should have opposed it. The application of the principle is far from the same. Here the issues are of urgent, immediate consequences. Speed in the decision-making process is of the essence; the numbers involved are relatively few; the economic consequences are relatively small. A very substantial erosion of the traditional freedom and individual right to withdraw or withhold labour lawfully is involved.
It is inevitable that this provision, if it were placed on the statute hook, would be seen by the vast majority of trade unionists as viciously interventionist. According to chapter 5 of the Green Paper which your Lordships debated, workplace ballots are acceptable in these circumstances, and there are no conclusive findings on the question of turnout.
I say in conclusion that, in the wake of the Ford fiasco, it is not so much for the Government to think again along the lines of this amendment, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, but for the TUC to think again on crucial issues which are left within the remit of the trade unions, such as the machinery for the resolution of inter-union disputes, the single union agreements and the no-strike agreements. This amendment has no relevance to such questions; such is not the intention, as was the case with the amendment of the noble Lord which was lost on Report. The amendment as drafted is neither fair, reasonable, requisite nor, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested, practical. The hope must be that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I made it plain at an earlier stage that we are opposed to the widening by the Government of the definition of "industrial action" which is contained in subsection (7) of Clause 1 and is applicable to subsection (1) and therefore to this amendment. For that reason alone I cannot commend this amendment to my noble friends. However, the provision goes much deeper than that, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
On Report the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, pressed his amendment that where national industrial action was proposed there must be a postal ballot. We had grave doubts concerning both the definition of the words and the practicability of what he had in mind. But, as the House will well know, we are keen that postal ballots should operate wherever possible. We felt that in the special case of widespread industrial disruption the Government might at least have undertaken to see whether they could build positively on the principle underlying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
However, the amendment which the noble Lord has now moved is in an altogether different category.

15
He has told us that the EETPU holds postal ballots before any industrial dispute takes place, however small or local it may be. But even allowing for the somewhat specialised nature of work done by electricians—much of it is carried out in workshops, power stations and other such places—I should be very surprised indeed if this policy is not sometimes flouted. Indeed it may be significant that the noble Lord has not been able to make a similar claim for, for example, the Amalgamated Engineering Union. That is an equally progressive union in this respect.
I can recall from my own experience how quickly tempers can flare if, for example, an employee is sworn at by a foreman. In the heat of the moment he and his mates simply walk off the job. That behaviour would presumably qualify as industrial action for the purposes of this amendment. But it is surely unrealistic in such circumstances to require the people concerned solemnly to embark on the formalities of a secret postal ballot with all its attendant delay and expense. For those reasons I am sorry that I cannot on this occasion support the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I strongly supported the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, when he moved his amendment on Report. I felt at the time and still feel that the Government made a serious mistake which they will eventually in practice come to regret—no doubt they may well have to come back to Parliament to correct that mistake in another year's time—in not at least taking the principle of that amendment, looking at it and trying to redefine the kind of action that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, had in mind in a more acceptable way.
I very much regretted that and I had hoped that we may be able to come back to it successfully on Third Reading. However, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have to say that I could not possibly support the amendment in this form. Not only does it seek to do something quite different from the amendment that we were discussing at the earlier stage, but it also seeks to do something which I think is positively wrong. I am afraid that I must make that clear but I repeat that I wish that the Government had been wiser at an earlier stage.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this is indeed a very important amendment, whose effects would be considerable if it were to be accepted. It could have an impact—not necessarily in the way intended—on many industrial disputes, or the way in which they are organised, and the balloting that is or is not carried out in connection with them.
The amendment directs our attention once again to an area on which we had a most useful debate on Report. There was, as has been said, considerable support for the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, to Clause 1.
Indeed I would at this moment pay tribute to some of the very constructive suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has made in connection with this Bill, some of which the Government have felt able to accept.
16
However, the proposition now advanced is quite different from the one which the House rejected on Report, and I suggest that it has altogether less merit.
The 1984 Act introduced the requirement that to preserve its immunity a union would have to obtain majority support in a proper, secret—and I emphasise the words "proper" and "secret"—ballot before it authorised or endorsed industrial action.
Those provisions have had a profound—and I suggest beneficial—effect. Something over 500 ballots have been identified which have apparently been held in order to comply with the provisions of Part II of the 1984 Act; it is quite possible that there have been many more. We are really a very long way from the days when the norm was for a union to call members out without giving them any opportunity to express their own views about the matter, or on the basis of a show of hands in some carpark meeting which might be intimidatory or unrepresentative, or both.
The right of members to vote in secrecy and to record their votes on a proper ballot paper, is well on the way to becoming an accepted feature of our country's industrial relations procedures. It is good democratic practice, and the Government are determined to do nothing that will put such practice at risk.
Clause 1 of the Bill adds an essential complement to the provisions of the 1984 Act, which are at present enforceable only by employers. It gives a union member the ability to apply to the court for an order restraining his union if it induces him or others to take industrial action without majority support from a proper secret ballot. To be a "proper secret ballot" a ballot will need to satisfy all the requirements set out in Section 11 of the 1984 Act as amended by the Bill. These requirements are rigorous. For example, the method of voting must be by marking a voting paper which puts an appropriate question, or questions, in the required form. The union, its members, officials or employees must not interfere or constrain any of the voters. There are other provisions too.
It is worth noting that the member's right under Clause 1 provides a valuable check that the method of voting in practice meets the statutory requirements. A union member may well be in a better position than an employer to spot a failure to meet those standards.
However, this amendment seeks to impose a further requirement if a ballot is to protect a union against an application by a member under Clause 1 in certain circumstances. The requirement is that the ballot shall be a "postal ballot", and the circumstances are that the industrial action concerned, in the words of the amendment:
"is not proposed by or intended to be organised by the principal executive committee of a trade union".
In this context it is relevant to quote from paragraph 5.6 of the Green Paper, which was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Campbell and which put forward the Government's view that while the postal voting method, with proper independent scrutiny, was the best method of conducting certain union elections and political fund ballots, postal ballots,

17
"are sometimes much less suitable for strike ballots for which the issues can be of immediate concern and speed of decision making of the essence. In addition, the numbers of those involved in strike ballots can be very small".
The result of the amendment could be a rash of unofficial industrial action and considerable damage to good and orderly industrial relations. I should remind your Lordships that the effectiveness of our recent legislation depends critically upon the regulation of the activities of trade unions with respect to industrial action. It has little impact in practice upon unofficial action, and we have nothing to gain by encouraging a reduction of unions' responsibility in this respect.
Another response is conceivable and it could have unfortunate consequences. These might follow if unions reacted to the new requirement by introducing rules which provided that only the principal executive committee could authorise or endorse industrial action. They would be doing that so as to avoid the postal voting requirement. But if this were the only method of authorisation, that committee might come under pressure from members at local level to give formal or blanket authorisation as a matter of urgency. The committee might then find itself forced to give such authorisation on an emergency basis for action which on fuller consideration it might have repudiated.
Major employers' organisations such as the CBI and EEF did not contest the Green Paper statement quoted earlier; nor did they ask that a postal voting requirement should be attached to the protection of union immunity for ballots on any kind of industrial action balloting and still less those to which the amendment refers. They have drawn no abuse to our attention to which a legislative requirement of this kind would be an appropriate response, and we are aware of none. The practical case for this change has not been made.
Your Lordships should, however, be quite clear that the Government firmly believe that postal voting is to be encouraged wherever it can usefully be applied to a ballot on industrial action. My noble friend Lord Dundee, speaking in the debate on the relevant amendment at the Bill's Report stage, mentioned that the Government already encourage the use of postal voting by making the costs of such ballots reclaimable under the trade union ballot funding scheme. He also said that a statutory code of practice about the conduct of trade union industrial action balloting issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 18 of the Bill could recommend that proper postal voting should be used to conduct such ballots wherever that was practicable and offered real advantages in terms of avoiding the possibility of any abuse of members' democratic rights.
I confirm that it is our intention to issue such a code at an early date, as our amendment to Clause 34 indicates, and that it will strongly encourage unions to hold a ballot before industrial action by post wherever this is reasonably practicable. It is clearly right that we should strongly encourage moves towards the use of properly conducted postal voting before industrial action. But it would be counterproductive and damaging to both good industrial relations and the use of balloting on industrial action generally if this amendment were accepted.
18
We must not put at risk the achievements of our legislation by imposing a requirement which is so onerous as to encourage evasion and so drafted as to make that possible. While I appreciate the concern which has led the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, to table this amendment it is an inappropriate means of bringing about the improvements in industrial action balloting that he seeks. I hope that in the light of these remarks the noble Lord will see fit not to press the amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I cannot see fit to do as the Minister suggests. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, thinks that the amendment has something to do with unofficial strikes. It has nothing to do with them. Unofficial strikes are by their very nature unofficial and cannot be controlled neatly by law. It is clear from the amendment that I am talking about a member of a trade union who claims that the union has without the support of a ballot authorised or endorsed any industrial action in which members of that union take part in an industrial dispute.
Many strikes are local and are endorsed by the executive. Then they may or may not be officially endorsed. We are speaking of strikes which are deemed to be officially endorsed. I am trying to persuade your Lordships that if we are to have that clause and the possibility of official strikes being mounted which must be endorsed by the executive, there should be a postal ballot before such strikes as there is for elections for union executives. If you can fiddle a union executive election at a workplace, which you can and do, you can fiddle a workplace strike ballot.
The amendent has nothing to do with unofficial strikes. Local strikes are frequently official or, if they are unofficial, the union concerned is approached and asked to make the strike official. If the union is to be asked to do that, there must be a ballot beforehand for the local people concerned.
Some mention was made of the difficulty unions would have in organising such ballots. That is not so. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the engineers and said, "If it is such a good idea, why are the engineers not keen on it?". As a matter of fact, the engineers are keen on it. They have recently been involved in no fewer than two local disputes where they helped to organise local postal ballots. They did that with the aid of employers who supplied them with names and addresses. That is the nub of such ballots; if you can get local names and addresses, you are home and dry. I cannot imagine that the engineers would be opposed to such an arrangement. I cannot see why unions should be opposed to it. Their records should be sufficiently good for them to know where their members are and what their addresses are. If the workplace involved is a local factory where there has been a certain amount of change of employment, surely employers can tell the union the names and addresses of the people concerned.
I said in moving the amendment that I knew what the Government would say, which is what all governments say. They say: "We like it very much in theory and we should like it to be the norm. It would be much better if there were postal ballots before industrial action". They went on saying that about

19
elections for union officials long before the 1984 Act. We told them then that they were wrong, and they have now admitted that they were wrong. I am telling them again today that they are wrong. If they are going to persist in their wooden-headedness, they will be back in a couple of years admitting that I was right and they were wrong.
I am giving the Government the opportunity to accept the amendment or to let us pass it. Then it can be sent to another place where it may be amended again or where some formula may be found which is satisfactory to all concerned. It could then come back to this House and we could look at it once more. To throw out such an amendment by saying that it is a good idea and it should be the norm but that the Government do not want to enforce the norm seems to me to be Cloud-cuckoo-land. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree that, although he is now talking about strikes which are officially endorsed below national level, he has actually been writing about all strikes that are not proposed or intended by the national executive? Therefore, whatever he may be talking about now, the amendment covers unofficial strikes.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: No, my Lords. It must be read in relation to Clause 1(1). Where there is to be such a ballot, in the case of those which are not proposed or intended to be organised by the executive of a union, there must be a postal ballot.
3.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 168.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Monson, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beloff, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Blatch, B.

Rugby, L.

Chapple, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Gainford, L.

Thomas, of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wilton, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Borthwick, L.

Allerton, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Amherst, E.

Bottomley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Brentford, V.

Attlee, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Aylestone, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Balfour, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Banks, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Basnett, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bessborough, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blackstone, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Blyth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Carnock, L.

20

Carr of Hadley, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Cawley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Margadale, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Marley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Cudlipp, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dudley, B.

Norrie, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Effingham, E.

Oram, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Reilly, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Fletcher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Galpern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Scanlon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Serota, B.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hampton, L.

Soper, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Hives, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hood, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooper, B.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Terrington, L.

Jay, L.

Teviot, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Joseph, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thurso, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Trafford, L.

Leatherland, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Longford, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Luke, L.

Westbury, L.

Lurgan, L.

White, B.

McCarthy, L.

Willis, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wynford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
Clause 12 [Extension to non-voting provisions of duty to hold elections]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 28, at end insert—
("except in the case of an official, irrespective of title, who is employed solely for the purpose of administration, who is not a

21
member of the Principal Executive Committee, whose post has on the last two occasions been filled by competitive interview following public advertisement and whose appointment was carried out by the Principal Executive Committee, the members of which were elected in accordance with the provisions of Sections 12 to 15 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked to speak also to Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, whom unfortunately I do not see in his place; I shall be happy to do so. Although my amendment has the advantage of simplicity, it has been pointed out to me that it is not wholly accurate and therefore would not do for the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is an attempt to clean up my small amendment.
I do not propose to go into all the detail that was gone into on an earlier amendment on these lines. It is well explained in cols. 488 to 499 of Hansard of 28th March. I shall take a couple of points from those debates which I hope will still give the Government cause to think further and, if not to accept the amendment, perhaps to accept that of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. If neither is acceptable, perhaps the Government would accept one so that it can be amended in another place.
Your Lordships may remember that I had support for my earlier amendment, Amendment No. 12, from many parts of the House, in particular from my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley whom I am delighted to see in his place. My noble friend hoped, as he did on the preceding amendment, that the Government might use it as the basis for an amendment. I had hoped that this might happen on the previous occasion; unfortunately, it did not.
Perhaps I may presume to say that my noble friend Lord Carr has a wealth of experience in this area. I think I am right in saying that it is over 25 years since he first became a Minister in the then Ministry of Labour. That is quite apart from his distinguished life in commerce since he left the other place. His support is especially worth noting. I remember also that I commented on the support of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who told us about the actual situation.
In replying to the debate, my noble friend Lord Dundee said that he accepted much of my argument. It is all very well to say such things; it does not mean that those remarks are given substance. If such statements are not followed up, how can such words be trusted? It is all very well to use catch-phrases, but it does not become a responsible government to try to legislate by catch-phrases. It is very disappointing.
My noble friend Lord Dundee went on to say:
"I recognise that the amendments of both noble Lords"
and he was referring to others—
"go a little way toward meeting our concerns and avoiding evasion, but members would still not have a direct say in who leads the union". [Official Report, 28/3/88; col. 497.]
That may be why the Government continue to shy away. However, noble Lords will recall that the intention is to try to make it possible for unions to have and hold on to good management and not to have and hold on to what one might call political leaders with a small "p". Nobody would dispute that the political leaders have to be elected. At least, some
22
might dispute it, but not in terms of this Bill. Nevertheless, some unions and particularly the smaller ones need to have very good management. I say "particularly the smaller ones" because I believe it is possible for a bigger union to achieve good management in other ways without having to contravene the provisions of this Bill. However, it will be extremely difficult for them to retain their good management, which is the point on which my noble friend Lord Carr laid special emphasis.
I hope therefore that the Government will pause at this stage and not feel it absolutely essential for the leadership—the management part of the leadership—to be directly elected by the union's broad constituency. It is wrong to think it appropriate for management to be engaged by that process, and my amendment is phrased with that in mind. As I have said previously, elected people are not always the best administrators; in many cases, they certainly are not. It is more appropriate—administratively, this is the case in every other organisation—that top managers should be engaged by the board of directors or similar body and made subject to a different kind of discipline. Within a company it is the discipline of the shareholder.
It is therefore not right to be too rigid about insisting that the top manager cannot be hired in the way suggested by my amendment. Even at this very late hour I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give thought to according at least tacit agreement to either my amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who is not at the moment present in the Chamber, so that a tidier version of this Bill goes to another place taking into account the points I have made and those other noble Lords may make.
This is a last plea. The whole sense of the amendment is to make sure that unions can he properly and decently managed. I hope that my noble friend will be able to find some clever means of including in the Bill something on the lines of my amendment, Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as we do the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place. As he is not present, I shall hope to move the amendment in his place. I believe it is quite possible for me to do so.
We have repeatedly argued the case for unions to have the right to determine what type of arrangement they prefer for the appointment of their general secretaries or chief executive officers. In some unions the position is an up-front one. The official is responsible for contacts with the media, for negotiations with major employers, for organisation, and so on. In other unions, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, the general secretary is the chief administrative officer. In some instances he will be an ex officio member of the principal executive committee; in other cases, he will not.
Both amendments before the House today—that of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the other in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie—make

23
provision for the general secretary who is not a member of the principal executive committee. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is directed towards protecting the position of those unions—there are numbers of them, particularly, as he said, in the white collar field—whose chief executive officer is primarily an administrator. I must say that we prefer the argument advanced in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and that is why I shall wish to move it. Its provisions are slightly less restrictive than those of Amendment No. 2.
However, the essential point is that not all unions are the same. They are widely diverse because of the type of employee for whom they cater and because of the different traditions and backgrounds. Many of the skilled craft unions have always elected their officials. As I have argued before, this is largely because a skilled craftsman who is not elected has, in the past, been able to go back to his trade and receive a union-negotiated rate for the job. In white collar employment that is not the situation. Most white collar employees are used to a career situation in which there is a learning curve and where they may expect promotion and advancement as they progress in the job. If they take time out of the job to do a trade union job then fail to get re-elected, they lose out in their former employment and almost certainly are never able to make up the time that they have lost. That is why white collar unions have endeavoured to offer a career structure to their officials and normal contracts of employment to those whom they employ as chief executive officers. If they did not do that, very few talented people would be willing to leave a career in private industry for a trade union career.
As it is, to do so requires a fair amount of commitment. Generally speaking, the salaries offered by unions still do not compare with what high flyers can expect in private industry and, in particular in commerce where nowadays administrative talent can expect to attract high salaries. If, in addition, such people have to stand for election every five years, they are simply not going to be forthcomng. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made that point in his speech.
If we are concerned about good administration—as I am sure all noble Lords are—then we have to try to attract the right people. It is a mistake to believe—as apparently the Government do—that the individual postal ballot is the most democratic way of selecting senior officials. There is a case for saying that the principal executive committee should have the power of appointment and the power to terminate a contract. It has after all a continuous day-to-day responsibility for running the union. It should be aware whether or not its chief executive is doing a good job. If he is not, it has the power to deal with that situation and it is answerable to the membership about it.
As we have said in this House on a number of occasions in the past, very often the people who are best at administration are not very good when it comes to presenting themselves for election and for campaigning and winning those elections. Amendment No. 2 would look after the position of
24
those officials whose main task is administrative. It is possible, in the light of the discussions we had at Report, that that amendment may commend itself to the Government. On our side, we prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, to which I now speak. It is far more comprehensive and seeks to cover a wider range of duties. There are unions where the duties may not be solely administrative and may entail representational duties as well as duties as a main negotiator, while remaining under the control of the principal executive committee, responsible to that executive committe, clearly an employee of that executive committee, and holding a normal contract of employment with that executive committee.
I repeat what I said earlier in the debate on this point. These are not contracts for life. They are normal employment contracts which the principal executive committee has the power to terminate in accordance with the provisions of that contract. In other words, we are talking about a normal employment situation that a person doing this kind of job may reasonably expect to have in private industry or commerce. I support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, we surely start on common ground. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, the unions should be well-managed. As the noble Baroness has said, one then has to attract the right type of manager and that involves some continuity of office. As the noble Baroness intends to move Amendment No. 3—although it is possible to speak on both Amendments Nos. 2 and 3—perhaps at this stage in order to save time I may confine my observations to Amendment No. 2.
I am much in sympathy with the spirit and objective of the amendment, to protect the continuity of office for officials—in effect, the kind of Civil Service that provides good management. However, it seems to me that, as drafted, this amendment could be open to abuse. First, a person employed "solely for the purpose of administration" nonetheless in the real world may easily cross that faint, indecipherable line between administration and politics. Secondly, it is true that the fact that his post may on two previous occasions have been filled "by competitive interview following public advertisement" may afford a measure of safeguard if the competitive interview excludes in effect all political considerations. But will it?
I do not pretend that my noble friend's proposed amendment opens a wide avenue for abuse along which some wily coachman could drive his proverbial coach and four. However, the avenue is wide enough to accommodate the odd pony and trap. Furthermore, if the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) are reasonably and fairly construed, it is not understood—and I speak subject to correction by my noble friend—why the amendment should be requisite in practice. Subsection (6B) is concerned with the position of the president and the general secretary, or some "nearest equivalent". What is the need to exclude, by the proviso proposed in this amendment, an official, employed solely for the purposes of administration, from the concept of "nearest equivalent" to the president or general

25
secretary? Unless I have misunderstood the drafting of the Bill, for that reason I do not understand the amendment or why it should be appropriate or necessary.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am delighted to support both Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. They seem to me to be potentially good examples of how the House can best exercise its revising function.
A proposal is made by the Government that is shown by members of the official Opposition—in this case experienced trade union leaders—to have practical drawbacks. What they have to say in Committee evokes sympathy in all parts of the Committee. At the Report stage attempts are made—in this instance by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and myself—to meet their point of view. At Third Reading these two amendments are then moved; their aim is to take account of all that has been said earlier, including reservations expressed by the Government. We thus arrive at a potential consensus which can be incorporated in the Bill.
I suggest that that is precisely what should happen in this case. These amendments pay due regard to all the points that were made in our earlier debates. I am glad that in his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has found it possible to include the last words which are almost the same as those used in an amendment that I tabled at the Report stage. They stress the need for the union officials who are affected to be appointed by means of a democractic process: that is, by members of a principal executive committee who have themselves been elected by secret postal ballot. I very much hope therefore that the Government will give this little story a happy ending by accepting one of these amendments.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, once again I should like to urge the Government most strongly to take action along the lines recommended in the amendment. As I understand the Government's policies in this area since 1979, one aim has been to democratise the trade unions. I most strongly agree with that and support the Government. But another purpose has been to encourage the efficient management and administration of trade unions, which I also strongly support and wish to encourage.
But in my view the Government have these two purposes terribly mixed up and in conflict with each other in Clause 12. It is most important that they should be disentangled to get them marching in step with each other and not in conflict. One may draw an analogy with a company. Members of a company elect the board of directors. I wish that companies elected their boards of directors as well as, under up-to-date law, trade unions are now encouraged to elect their principal executive committee or its equivalent. But members of a company do not elect any executive, administrator or adviser unless he is a director. Many companies wish their most senior executives, advisers and administrators to be directors and therefore to be policy makers. If so they are subject to direction, but if not they are the servants of the board not the direct servants of the members. It would be contrary to the efficient carrying out of policy if an executive had the right of
26
appeal over the head of the board of directors direct to the members of the company. It is a nonsense.
I appreciate that one must not press the analogy between a company and a trade union too far, but in this respect it is quite close. We want to see that the principal executive committee is properly and directly elected by the members at regular intervals. If that elected committee wishes to include senior executives and so forth among its members then it becomes subject to election, but if it does not wish to the law ought not to force it to do so.
Therefore I think that a matter of very important managerial and administrative principle is at stake. Unless the Government change Clause 12 they will have two of their purposes working against each other instead of in consort. Once again I urge them most strongly to think again.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am a little unhappy with the argument of my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley based on analogy with public companies. It is true, as he said, that in many cases public companies appoint their chief executives below board level. But it is equally true, in my experience and certainly that of the noble Lord himself, that many companies have an executive chairman who is elected by the company and many more have a managing director who is in a full sense a director and as such is also elected by the shareholders. That surely shows that the argument that insistence upon election must negative the appointment of efficient administrators really does not stand up very well.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite were speaking I reflected with some amusement on the difficulty of a right honourable friend of mine in another place (should the amendment be carried) arguing to another place that elected persons were incapable of administrative skills. That would be a difficult argument to sustain in another place full as it is of elected persons, many of whom are, and others of whom, hope to be, appointed to high administrative office.
I am a little nervous of the amendment. I am not against it in principle. I can understand what my noble friend and my noble friend Lord Mottistone are getting at, but I suspect that it would create something of a loophole in the sound government proposals that the most important people in charge of unions should be elected by their members. One sees in the text of the amendment the words:
"who is not a member of the Principal Executive Committee, whose post [has been advertised]…on…two [previous] occasions",
and who has been appointed by competitive interview. None of those would prevent a union, if it wished, putting in as general secretary an active political figure whom it did not wish to expose to the rigours of election, and indeed whom it suspected might be defeated by a vote of members. It is capable of that as it stands, because in making an appointment by competitive interview it would be perfectly easy to stage a farce—an advertisement could be followed by bringing several people before the executive and then choosing the person one had decided from the beginning one wanted to appoint. It would not defeat human ingenuity to do just that.

27
I wonder why my noble friends are so anxious to take a step which could—I do not say "would"—bypass the sound government proposal of insisting on election of responsible senior officers of a union.
There are unions, as your Lordships know, in which the general secretary is the most conspicuous figure, in which far more than the president, he is the leader of the union. This has been so over the years and will no doubt continue to be so. Although I shall listen to what my noble friend the Minister says, I must confess at this stage to having considerable unease about the amendment and as at present advised I should feel happier if the Bill stood as it is drafted.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him a question? Perhaps I did not make myself clear. He, like myself, has had experience of being the chairman of a large company. Would he really be happy if one of his executives or advisers who was not a member of the board was directly elected by the members of the company and could, as it were, appeal to the popular vote over the heads of the elected board? It might seem a remote possibility, but it could happen. If one is a member of a board or a principal executive one must be, but if one is not one is under the control of the elected board.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I might—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to answer my noble friend's question, if the noble Lord will permit me. The situation, I am sure, is as I have tried to describe it. A company decides whether a high officer shall also have administrative responsibilities, whether as chairman or as managing director, and he will be appointed by a vote of the shareholders. In my experience that has never resulted other than in the appointment of a highly efficient person. As I understand the Bill, where we are not talking of someone in a position covered by the amendment but of a lower administrator, there is no provision for making his election compulsory, so my noble friend's analogy is really no trouble.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must renew the plea that I made at an earlier stage in the Bill for the Government to reconsider the absurd position that they are hoping the House will approve. Surely the amendment is amply justified by considerations of common sense and for those who understand how unions are being run and administered at the present time. As I said last time the Government seem to have no conception of how the public service trade unions nearest to them are being run.
We have in the public service trade union movement administrative officers, executive officers, heads of department, specialist officers and so forth. The pattern of the organisation of a Civil Service
28
trade union largely resembles the structure of the government service itself, and the conditions of service in many of the public service unions are based on the pattern, the grading and the salaries in the public service.
My own union is about to appoint only the fourth general secretary in 66 years. It is a union which has had the most stable leadership over those years of any national union in the country, based on Civil Service conditions and Civil Service methods of appointment. There is the difficulty of getting people to come out of the Civil Service to occupy higher executive positions or senior executive positions in the unions, for management purposes and not for policy-making. The general treasurer of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation is not a policy-maker. He is someone competent in accountancy and methods of organisation in order to look after the growing and substantial measure of financial responsibility in such a union. He has to keep it clean and well administered. He should not be put there and jockeyed into office by particular sections of the organisation.
I hope that the Government are going to drop this fusspot attitude of intrusion into the affairs of unions, which has no relation whatever to the main purpose of the Bill. I feel angry about this because it means that the Bill will be a punitive measure. Its bias against the trade unions is there from the beginning to end. The Government talk about handing unions back to their members. How will 60,000 members of the Inland Revenue, spread over the whole country in 1,500 offices, feel when they may be asked to vote for the appointment of higher executive officers in the union headquarters? They will ask why they are wasting their or the Government's money on a ballot like this. It downgrades the ballot. Nothing but ballots are going on at present, and there will be more under this Bill.
This time round my union has decided that, while the executive committee will exercise its traditional responsibility for the selection of a new general secretary, it will submit that decision to a ballot of the membership. That is out of deference to the new concept of the appointment of principal officers in trade unions. Is that not enough? Some applicants for positions in the union have already said, "I am not going to be thrown into the political controversies of the union if there are any. I am not going to be asked whether I am of the broad Left, whether I am a Social Democrat, a member of the Labour Party or anything of that kind. I come here to satisfy certain professional or administrative requirements and I am prepared to do that, but do not throw me into the arena. I am in attendance at meetings of the executive committee: I am not a member. I shall give my advice and I may seek to be heard on a matter upon which I think I have an opinion which the executive committee might care to consider".
This is the most intolerable intrusion into the common sense administration of the affairs of trade unions that has surely been anywhere near the statute book. It really is. What other institutions in this land are being subjected to this fusspot stuff? Do companies have it? Do they have to get the sanction of the shareholders even for their managers and

29
sectional managers? Can the Government mention any institution where such an intrustion into its internal affairs is expected either by statute or by the rules of the organisation?
It is monstrous. I am usually a pretty moderate person but I feel indignant about this. In fact the offices of the general secretaries of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and kindred unions could well be filled by the normal methods. I did not have to go for re-election. For 38½ years I was there by common consent of the members, and my successors have been there for 16 years and 12 years respectively. Another general secretary is about to be appointed on the retirement of the third holder of that office.
Your Lordships may say that that is remarkable and if all the other unions were as good we should not need to have the Bill at all. But why then subject unions, which have a splendid record in this, to such treatment? Why treat them like delinquent children? It is not right and it is not fair; it is not necessary either. What after all is the purpose of the Bill? It is to try to prevent people who may have ulterior political or other motives being in positions of power without the consent or approval of members and remaining there, unable to be removed except by means of extremely difficult constitutional provisions.
However, you do not get down to the head of department in any other organisation and scrutinise to that extent those who may be appointed to such positions. Why then attempt this? In fact you have in the public sector more better organised trade unionists than anywhere else in the country today. The public service organisations are better organised and have a much higher level of voluntary membership. There is not a closed shop, and yet we have in the region of 90 to 93 per cent. voluntary membership. In spite of all that we have this impertinence from the Government in telling them how to run their show.
This Government are not fit to tell people how to run their shows: they cannot run their own. As for representatives, whatever has possessed this Government to claim that they are in a representative capacity when they sit there with the consent of less than 40 per cent. of the electorate? I ask: where is their bloody mandate? Things cannot go on like this. I beseech the Government to think again. Otherwise they are just going to generate inside moderate and reasonable organisations a feeling of deep resentment. Such organisations will demand that something should be done to wipe the slate clean when the opportunity comes.
I shall have something to say when we debate the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. This is a supremely important occasion, but I shall not dwell on it further at this point in relation to this amendment. The Government should apply their minds to this and get rid of this atmosphere of being not in your Lordships' House but in a penal settlement where the inhabitants must be disciplined. They have gone from being despots to being fusspots, and that is not justified by the circumstances.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I rise to support the two amendments briefly and to assure the noble Lord,
30
Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the fears he saw in the passing of the amendments do not in practice exist. If Clause 12 is passed it will not extend democracy in unions but restrict it. It will make unions less efficient, and I hope I can demonstrate that quite adequately. Also, it will reverse the process occurring now in unions which I am sure we all want to support.
On the point of democracy, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, was absolutely right in his comparison with what happens in companies. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drew attention to the election of the chairmen and managing directors. Of course presidents and general secretaries of unions are elected. That is what is provided for and what we now accept should happen. However, just like any government, an executive of a union wants its civil servants to be responsible to it, to be selected by it and to carry out its instructions. To elect such people separately would be to give them a will of their own, which frankly interferes with the central democracy of a union, and would be quite wrong.
Second, it would interfere in a very serious manner with the efficiency and effectiveness of a union. As the general secretary of a union, I had with me at executive meetings my finance officer, who was an accountant, and my education officer and research officer, both of whom were graduates. They would answer questions from the executive although in the end the responsibility was mine and the decision always that of the executive. They were selected on the basis of merit as a result of advertisement. I could not have guaranteed—I am certain that it would not have been possible—to obtain the same quality of applicant for those positions if they had had to be filled by election. That is quite clear, too, in several other instances. One would be reducing the efficiency of unions and failing to support what is now happening within unions.
As unions become more professional, they are seeking support from people of merit with expertise in areas where that skill is needed. They seek as employees people responsible to the executive, not people who are elected separately. These amendments are vital to the well-being of the trade unions.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords who have spoken, for setting out their views clearly in respect of what has been proposed, including the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. We have of course gone over the same ground at each stage of the Bill, despite the fact that your Lordships' House took a clear decision early on in our proceedings that unions should not be permitted to continue appointing their general secretaries. Nonetheless, as my noble friend Lord Dundee promised at Report stage, we have looked very carefully at the whole issue to see whether we could meet the concerns expressed in our debates. I am sorry to say that the Government can no more accept either of these amendments than they could the earlier ones of my noble friend Lord Mottistone on the same theme.

31
As your Lordships well know, the Government believe it is right to require all members of union executives and presidents and general secretaries to be elected, thereby ensuring that union leaders are representative of the members. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating why we believe the election requirement is important.
I should like to explain why we see such difficulties with these amendments. The essence of the amendments is that unions should be allowed to continue appointing their general secretaries, where certain conditions are satisfied, rather than have them elected as the Bill will require. I understand the way in which your Lordships have sought to draw up tight limits to this; but the bottom line is that some members will be denied the right to vote on who should be their general secretary. The alternative of a vote on the method of how an individual obtains that position simply is not sufficient.
As I have indicated on earlier occasions, general secretaries are often the individuals people think of first when hearing a union's name. They can wield more influence than a non-elected post might suggest. Try as I may, I cannot bring myself to believe that such individuals as Alan Sapper of ACTT, Roy Evans of the ISTC, John Lyons of the EMA and Rodney Bickerstaffe of NUPE are simply anonymous backroom boys quietly discharging the administrative duties which keep their executives running and so should be exempt from the need to be elected.
Even if general secretaries managed to confine themselves to giving factual advice, as they would have to do to benefit from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that does not alter the fact that they have both importance and great influence simply by virtue of their position. I understand, of course, the concern expressed by some noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Mottistone that union officials who simply provide an executive with information and advice should not need to be elected. That was brought home to me very forcefully.
As a result, I introduced an amendment to subsection (6A) (b) to ensure that it is as clear as possible that, generally, such individuals will not need to be elected. But where such an official fulfils the functions of a general secretary, I still hold to the belief that the members should not be denied a direct say in choosing who does the job. The proper election of all PEC members is some safeguard against the danger that they will appoint someone the members do not want, but I have to say that it is simply not sufficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, described the irrelevance, as he saw it, of the current provisions to the trade union of which he was a longstanding and distinguished official. However, is the noble Lord certain that the small number of general secretaries who served that trade union for such a long period of time were wholly and continuously in tune with all the needs and wishes of their members during their extended period in office? I believe that—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a question to which the answer is, yes. I have already pointed out that under this Bill and previous legislation, executive committees must be elected according to the conditions of the five-year interval. They must be elected by ballot; that is, by secret ballot and postal ballot. Surely that ensures that an executive council is in charge. In those circumstances, is there any one person who is not elected and who can dominate the whole of the executive committee, representative of the general membership? This is the safeguard.
I am not talking of general secretaries in particular. I am talking of other officials to whom the requirements of election will apply and who are subordinate to a general secretary. The names mentioned by the noble Lord give a clear indication of what is continually being turned over in the mind of the Government. They are individuals known to the Government whose appointment they cannot believe is representative of the membership.
However, I must not intrude further on the noble Lord's speech. The answer to his question is that he ignores the establishment of the elected authority under the Bill. It is a democractically elected body and has the full authority of an executive council. Surely that is a safeguard against maladministration and jockeying for position among general secretaries.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was coming to the end of my remarks and I remain of the view that the general secretary of a trade union, whether or not he is a member of the executive committee, has considerable importance and influence. He is certainly thought to be so not only in the minds of the members but in the minds of the general public who often see such people on television, for example, and hear from them through other sections of the media. I believe that such a person of influence should represent the views and aspirations of the membership. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most disappointed in my noble friend's remarks and in his inability to see a flexible way of introducing the kind of provision about which we have been talking. I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time but I should like to say a few words to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. He damned my amendment with faint praise and said that he did not believe it to be necessary. In order not to waste the time of the House I deliberately did not repeat all that I said in Committee and at Report. However, I should like to recommend that my noble friend reads what was said on those occasions by myself and other noble Lords. He would then understand clearly why the amendment is thought to be necessary.
I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Far be it from me to intervene between my noble friend as the past chairman of a large public company and my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, who was also chairman of a large public company, as regards the relative similarities of trade unions and companies. Of course, they are not exactly the same.

33
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter implied that it would be easy for people to be slipped in under these amendments. I think he probably did not notice that in both amendments there is, so to speak, a retrospective safeguard that the post of general secretary, on at least the last two occasions, would have had to be filled by competitive interview. If it has not happened in the past, then that situation would not apply in the future.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to intervene as he referred to my argument? What has there been to prevent an unsuitable persons being slipped in on the previous two occasions?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if my noble friend will bear with me, the type of trade unions that I am especially trying to safeguard do not now have that sort of chief executive. Those trade unions which have a general secretary who, quote, "might be thought to be unsuitable", are not going to change him overnight as a result of this legislation remaining unamended.
It is disappointing and a pity that it is so late in the day. I am of a mind to test the feelings of the House, but shall not do so on my amendment because it is in fact flawed. Therefore I must leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to decide on Amendment No. 3. If my amendment was not flawed, I should continue with it because this is the last chance to see what we all think about the matter and to make a decision. It is a terrible pity that the Government are not prepared to budge.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as my noble friend was good enough to mention my name, I should like to assure your Lordships' House that the criticisms—they were respectful criticisms—that I made about Amendment No. 2 (not Amendment No. 3) were made in the light of having read in Hansard what had been said earlier. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I do not think he has answered any one of my criticisms.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps this is not the right moment to go on. It is quite clear that my noble friend did not understand what he read. Therefore, we had better leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 15, line 28, at end insert ("save that this provision shall not apply to the appointment of a general secretary by competitive interview following public advertisement by a trade union which fulfils the following conditions—

(i) the General Secretary may under the rules or practice of the union, attend and speak at some or all of the meetings of that committee for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters taken into account by the committee in carrying out its functions but where the rules of the union do not provide for the General Secretary being a member of the Principal Executive Committee;

34

(ii) the rules of the trade union provide for the appointment (of the general secretary) by the union's principal executive committee;

(iii) the trade union has, on at least the last two occasions when appointing a general secretary prior to this subsection coming into force, filled the position by competitive interview following public advertisement; and

(iv) the members of the trade union have within a period of five years, beginning with the coming into force of this section, approved by a simple majority of those voting in a secret ballot, a resolution approving the practice of appointment of the General Secretary by the principal executive committee by way of competitive interview following public advertisement. Such a ballot shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (f) below.

(a) entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all members of the trade union;

(b) the method of voting must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting;

(c) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

(i) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and

(ii) so far as is reasonably practicable, be enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself;

(d) so far as is reasonably practicable every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

(i) have a voting paper sent to him by post at his home address or any other address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address; and

(ii) be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post;

(e) the ballot must be conducted so as to secure that—

(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, those voting do so in secret; and

(ii) the votes given in the ballot are fairly and accurately counted (any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot);

(f) in paragraphs (a) to (e) above—

"post" means a postal service which—

(i) is provided by the Post Office or under licence granted under section 68 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981; or

(ii) does not infringe the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 66(1) of that Act only by virtue of an order made under section 69 of that Act.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I have already indicated, I move Amendment No. 3 instead of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who is not in his place. I have already spoken to it to some extent. However, there are one or two points I should like to make in support of Amendment No. 3, because it may deal with some of the points raised in the debate on Amendment No. 2.
First, I deal with the argument that has been advanced on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that members of unions have the right to choose their general secretary even if the general secretary has a purely administrative function or is not a member of the principal executive committee as set out in Amendment No. 3. I draw your Lordships' attention to sub-paragraph (iv) of the amendment, which makes it clear that,
"the members of the trade union have within a period of five years, beginning with the coming into force of this section, approved by a simple majority of those voting in a secret ballot, a resolution approving the practice of appointment of the General Secretary by the principal executive committee".

35
In other words, the individual members of the union will have had the opportunity under the amendment to say whether they wish to continue with the procedure or have an arrangement under which the principal executive committee has the powers to appoint the chief executive and of course to terminate the contract of employment of that individual.
I repeat what has already been said by several noble Lords; in no way is this a less democratic procedure than that proposed by the Government. Indeed, it could be argued that in many senses it is more democratic, because the principal executive committee, which we know has to be elected by postal ballot of individual members at least every five years, has the day-to-day responsibility for the administration and organisation of the union. Therefore, the chief executive officer is not under scrutiny, so to speak, once every five years by the membership but under continuous scrutiny by the elected representatives of the membership through the principal executive committee. That committee has the right, with a contract of employment, to terminate the contract if it feels that the job is not being properly done. That seems to me to be the guarantee that people will not be slipped in or manoeuvred into position if the members do not want them there; because the principal executive committee must answer to the members if that is what it has done.
In introducing a procedure whereby there is an election for people whose job is mainly administrative, the Government are politicising that position in a way that it is not politicised at present. People apply for the job on the basis of their administrative skills. Incidentally, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, no one on this side of the House is suggesting that if you are elected you do not have administrative skills. The point about our amendment is that we are dealing with people who must have administrative skills and who are appointed on that basis. They are being drawn in many instances possibly from other unions where they have had other experience, perhaps from industry or commerce. If the union is to run an effective administration it is necessary to ensure that such people will be attracted to work for the union and will also be prepared to put the skills they have learnt in commerce or in industry at the disposal of the trade union.
They will be less inclined to do that if they are under the impression that their job becomes a kind of political football every five years with caucus organisation, and often media intervention, around the issue of their suitability for the general secretaryship. It may well have nothing to do with the way in which they have administered the work and everything to do with their perceived political connections. That was not the original aim of the Bill and therefore it seems to me that the Government should be prepared to look favourably at Amendment No. 3 because it attempts to deal with some of the concerns and reservations that have been voiced in your Lordships' House.
There is a high degree of consensus on all sides of the House that we must ensure that the Bill does not
36
worsen adminstrative practices within unions and that at the end of this legislation we shall have provisions that enable unions to function effectively and in accordance with their traditions and the requirements of their membership. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will permit a brief intervention in opposition. By virtue of sub-paragraph (i) the amendment elaborates, solely for the purpose of administration, on the previous Amendment No. 2. The reasons I sought to give, which I think I understood, in relation to my objections to Amendment No. 2 still apply with full force to this amendment and there is no object in repeating them. None of them has yet been answered.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present when Amendment No. 3 was called. The reason is very simple. I had been trapped on the Docklands Light Railway, which is an excellent mode of transport but it left me at West India Quay Station for quite a while.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner for moving this amendment in my absence. I only wish that I had been here in time to hear the whole of her speech and not just the last part of it. Noble Lords will be aware that I normally draft my own amendments to Bills and generally they are much shorter than this one. Possibly because of the brevity of my amendments, from time to time in the past I have been able to persuade the Government to agree with me either wholly but more often in part. For that I am extremely grateful.
I confess that this amendment was drafted for me by lawyers of the Society of Telecom Executives which is the trade union of the management side of the Telecom business. I do not wish to speak at any length since my noble friend Lady Turner has done that for me. I merely wish to endorse what she has said and to remind the Government that this is the kind of trade union whose approach to industrial relations is exactly the kind of responsible, sensible approach of which the Government and many noble Lords on this side of the House would approve. It is the kind of approach to trade union relations which ought to be strengthened rather than discouraged. It is the sensible approach of the union which is embodied in this amendment. With those few words I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said a few moments ago in answer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone—the arguments apply similarly to this amendment—we believe not only that senior trade union officers should be experts in administration and managing the affairs of their union, but that they should also be elected in accordance with the views of the members of their particular union. It is therefore for that reason that I cannot accept this amendment any more than I could accept that of my noble friend a few moments ago.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it appears that there is nothing more to be said. I believe that on this matter we must keep up our opposition.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, noble Lords must not speak after the Minister at the Third Reading of a Bill.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am informed that the noble Lord is out of order to speak again after I have spoken.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, surely it is in order for the noble Lord to make a comment before the Minister sits down?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may read from the Companion to the Standing Orders at page 99 which states that only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister at Report and Third Reading stages.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I do not intend to go over all the arguments that we have heard. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with the Minister on this issue. I believe that we have set out the case repeatedly for the amendment that is before your Lordships and it is now my intention to press the matter to a Division.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 105.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Amherst, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Attlee, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Banks, L.

Hughes, L.

Basnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Beloff, L.

Jacques, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mais, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Monson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Falkender, B.

Mottistone, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gainford, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

38

Rathcreedan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Renwick, L.

Thurso, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Underhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rugby, L.

Walston, L.

Scanlon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Soper, L.

White, B.

Stallard, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Balfour, E.

Joseph, L.

Bauer, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Lurgan, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cawley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chapple, L.

Orkney, E.

Chelwood, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Polwarth, L.

Cox, B.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Renton, L.

Deedes, L.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elibank, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Slim, V.

Fortescue, E.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Trafford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hives, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hood, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 15, line 48, leave out ("the coming into force of this subsection when") and insert ("22nd October 1987 and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 as they are connected. At Report stage the Government introduced an amendment designed to make it easier for unions to amalgamate. The

39
intention of the Government's amendment, which we welcomed at the time, was to allow members of the principal executive committee who had already been elected in accordance with the terms of the 1984 Act to stay in office for the remainder of their term instead of having to stand for election within a year of the merger.
The amendment put down by the Government and approved at Report stage certainly covers the situation of unions like the GMBATU and APEX, which are currently considering merger. From my contacts with those two unions, I understand that they are satisfied with the wording of the Government's amendment and with the Bill as it now stands as regards future mergers. However, your Lordships will perhaps recall that at Report stage my noble friend Lord McCarthy asked when the provisions of the clause would come into force. He said:
"After all, most trade unions felt that they were free to amalgamate without involving themselves in the provisions of this Bill. The Government produce this Bill and it does not state that it starts from a certain date but simply: 'after the coming into force of this subsection'. That means to say that those one or two unions which may have amalgamated just before or just after the publication of the Bill will not be able to avail themselves of this clause. I am not asking for retrospective legislation, but would it not be fairer to time the coming into effect of this paragraph a little earlier than after the coming into force of the subsection".—[Official Report, 28/3/88; col. 502.]
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he would seek advice on that point. He said in reply to my noble friend:
"I am not aware that there is anything sinister intended in the words to which the noble Lord has referred. If he has any specific cases in mind, I shall certainly have them looked at".
It so happens that there is a specific case in mind. I must make my position clear. My union, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, is the product of a merger between ASTMS and TASS which took effect from January of this year after a ballot of both memberships conducted in accordance with the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act 1965. The object of my amendment is simply to cover the position on the principal executive committee which is elected in accordance with the provisions of the 1984 legislation. The same considerations would apply if my amendment were accepted as will apply in future to the members of the principal executive committee of the GMBATU and APEX and indeed of other unions which may merge in the future.
The object is the same in this case as in the case of future mergers. If there are to be informed and meaningful elections for the principal executive committee it is necessary for some time to be allowed for members of the former unions to get to know each other so that they may more effectively elect an executive for the combined union. If my wording were accepted it would not cover the position of appointed senior officers—joint general secretaries—since these officials were not elected in accordance with the 1964 legislation. They would have to stand for election under the terms already provided for in the Bill.
We are concerned here simply with the position of lay elected members. By allowing this union the same concessions as will apply in the case of other merging
40
unions, it does not seem to me that the Government will be acting in anything other than an even-handed way. If the objective is to have properly informed elections—I take it that it is—surely union members should be given time to find out more about their elected lay principal executive members so that they may make an informed choice when electing the first combined principal executive committee of the new union. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out her views so clearly and for writing to my noble friend Lord Dundee to give a little advance notice of her amendment.
I was pleased to see from her letter that APEX and the GMBATU are, in her words, very happy and satisfied with the amendment which the Government introduced at Report stage. As your Lordships will recall, subsection (2) of Clause 12 was introduced in direct response to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, that the existing law was an obstacle to a merger of the GMBATU and APEX due to take place in January 1989.
The subsection gets over the problems that the noble Lord foresaw by providing that a PEC member who becomes a PEC member of a new or other union as a result of a merger will be able to hold office without the need for re-election for as long as he would have held office if there had been no merger. Despite the difficulties referred to by the noble Baroness, they did not stop the several unions which have merged since the 1984 Act came into force from doing so. Therefore there is clearly no need for the subsection to apply to mergers which take place before it comes into force. This will be in good time for the GMBATU/APEX merger.
The exemption will apply where the individual's election to the PEC of his original union took place before the coming into force of the subsection. However, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Baroness's attempted justification of why the exemption should be available in cases where the merger has taken place before the coming into force of Clause 12(2). I have already said that such mergers were not inhibited by the law as it then stood. In addition I feel that this would be rather an unusual way of organising things. The existing exemption from the normal election requirements contained in Part I of the 1984 Act was available only in cases where a merger took place after the commencement of Part I, and I see no reason to depart from that principle.
One should also bear in mind that where a merger has already taken place the terms of that merger were put to the members and the members of the old union voted for or against it on the understanding that members of their PEC would have to stand for election after a year. Your Lordships may agree that it would be wrong therefore to make a retrospective change now to such understandings. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that a change such as she seeks would be somewhat irregular and undesirable. For that reason I hope that she will not press the three amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I am

41
rather disappointed by the Minister's response, because we are not asking for much. We merely suggest that the operative date should be the Bill's publication date, which I think was 22nd October 1987. We of course raised the points when the issue was before your Lordships on Report. I then said that we had had little time in which to study the amendments; we were not certain what they would encompass; and my first reading of them led me to believe that the clause would cover mergers which had taken place since the Bill's publication. It was only on closer examination that it seemed to the Opposition that it would not do so. We therefore took the matter away, and as the Minister said, I then wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and sent him a copy of the amendment that I proposed.
Moreover, it is not unusual, as I understand it, to have retrospective legislation, although this is not really retrospective because it does not go back before the publication of the Bill. As I understand it, there have been a number of examples in which the Government themselves, especially in the area of social security, have supported legislation which is, in effect, retrospective, or have supported transitional arrangements of one kind or another.
I shall not press the matter at this point because there are other issues of some weight which your Lordships will want to consider in more detail. I think that this is a reasonable suggestion. It would have made it easier for members of an important union to get to know members of the union with which it has just merged. They would then be able to vote with some knowledge of the people for whom they were voting. Otherwise, they will not have the opportunity to do that. I regret the fact that the Government have not seen the virtue of those arguments. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 22, line 25, leave out ("some or all") and insert ("one or more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment, and some others tabled in the names of myself and my noble friends, concerns Clause 17. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 17, added in another place on Report, requires separate ballots in different workplaces in relation to industrial action. That point has been much discussed, not only here but in another place. Although we have discussed the issue a great deal, some of us are not entirely clear what it means. We do not like the clause. We have cudgelled our brains to try to suggest a way of making it make sense in the way that the Government appear to interpret it. Amendment No. 7 is the first of four amendments in that direction. In a phrase, it is designed to make it clear, as the Government appear to intend from previous debates, that an aggregate ballot on industrial action can take place where members voting have a common factor, which is the
42
Government's way of describing elements of a bargaining unit, and that common factor covers employees who are in the different employment of different employers.
The purpose of our amendment is to allow an aggregate ballot in the multi-employer bargaining unit more clearly than the clause now does. I understand, although I can hardly believe it, that the Government may look kindly on some of these amendments. I apprehend that it is desired that I move Amendment No. 7 first and separately. I do that by saying that as the clause stands it requires that a member has, in common with some or all other members of the union, the common factor. We thought that that provision was imprecise. It is not clear what "some or all" means. "One or more", which is what we propose, we believe to be more exact and understandable. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing this helpful clarification. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 22, line 26, leave out ("and have the same employer as that member").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that it is desirable to speak also to Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 8 is perhaps a little more substantial, but it is moved for the same reason. I suppose that the matter may be summarised in this way: the Government's position has been, at any rate for some time, that they wish to allow an aggregate ballot across the multi-employer bargaining unit. They believed that their clause could be interpreted in that way as it stood. We did not believe that that interpretation was better. We did the same as before and took the matter away to see whether we could find a way of meeting the Government's point as simply as possible which would make it clear.
Amendment No. 8 makes a substantial amendment to paragraph (b)(ii) on page 22. It makes a change which we hope meets the common desire; that is to say, the clause as it stands demands that the common factor of the bargaining unit must be shared by a member of the union with someone else employed at the same employment unit by the same employer. We believe that that could give rise to anomalies at the very least. It would be much more sensible to say that there can be an aggregate ballot where there are different places of work, where workers share the common factor or a common factor (not necessarily the same throughout) in the multi-employer bargaining unit, without the requirement that any particular member should need to share that factor; that is to say, his occupational description or his terms and conditions of employment under the collective agreement with an employee at his own place of work.
We believe that this amendment may also meet with some favour. I make it clear that we still do not like the hoops. I have a suspicion that the phrase used by my noble friend Lord McCarthy when he

43
described the clause and the exception as the "gibberish clause" may still attach. We hope that the amendment will make the provision clearer and possibly more workable for those who have to operate this difficult clause. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am yet again grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful clarification. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, line 29, leave out ("that employer") and insert ("the same employer as that member").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 10, tabled in the name of noble Lords opposite, is of attraction to the Government, but we prefer the words in government Amendment No. 9. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that Amendment No. 9 meets the spirit of Amendment No. 10. If your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 9, the noble Lord may feel that he need not move Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, although I believe that Amendment No. 10 is better than Amendment No. 9, I should not dream of moving it in view of the extraordinary circumstances of having secured two concessions from the Government on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 22, line 30, leave out ("neither") and insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is almost consequential but I suspect not quite consequential enough for the Minister to approve of it. Nevertheless I move it in order to secure an explanation. We have now clarified the fact as far as we can, within this rather unusual structure of the clause, that a multi-employer bargaining unit is possible and that what we are concerned with is seeking the common factor among the employees in the bargaining unit. That is, are they of the same occupational description? Do they have similar terms and conditions of employment under a collective agreement?
Then we come in Clause 17(1B)(b)(iii) to a cut-off point. We quite understand that the Government's logic demands a cut-off point in sub-paragraph (iii). If I can put it in this way, attempting merely to be descriptive, this is the sub-paragraph which says that you must not select among the employees with that common factor in a particular employment. The provision says that there must not be a factor that that member has in common with any of the other individuals when he is not allowed to vote. But it then goes on, we think, to repeat itself, that there must not also be a factor that individuals employed by that employer have in common as a consequence of having the same place of work. It seems to us that the
44
repetition of the cut-off by reference to "same place of work" only makes the paragraph difficult to understand for those who are going to have to operate it in industry.
If there is no common factor, some can be given a vote and others not. If there is a common factor, there will be a common factor and you must not have selective balloting. But the mere fact that people have the same place of work when all the other requirements of the exemption paragraph have been satisfied seems to us to be rather a strange, possibly repetitive and in any case rather undesirable element which will cause great confusion in attempts to apply it on the ground in industry. I am speaking also to Amendment No. 12 because that goes with it. I move Amendment No. 11.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I rise to reply on Amendment No. 11 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 12, as did the noble Lord. These amendments would defeat the basic intention of the clause, which is to prevent unions from aggregating ballot results at selected workplaces. The clause allows a union to hold a single aggregated ballot of members at different workplaces where each member in the balloting constituency has a factor in common with some or all of the other members in the constituency.
If the amendment were accepted, a union could combine the votes at two or more workplaces solely on the ground that the members at each of those workplaces had in common the fact that they worked at the same place. The amendment is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the clause and I hope that it will be not be pressed. We talked about this issue at earlier stages of the Bill, particularly in the context of regional bargaining, but that was not an issue which the noble Lord raised on this occasion. I shall therefore not trouble your Lordships with it further now.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I do not agree with that argument, but I think it would be wrong for me to press the amendment or even to speak to it further on Third Reading.
However, I must place on record that when we see Hansard I believe we shall find that the noble Lord said that the Government were trying to avoid the union using workers having the same place of work as a common factor to link them in one bargaining unit when they had different workplaces. I suspect that if this is so we shall see the illogicality of the final three lines of the sub-paragraph. However, I think it is too late. We have done a little; we have clarified the previous paragraphs and perhaps that is as far as we could expect to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Functions of the Secretary of State and of the Commission]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 30, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall affect the duties of the Commission under Section 1(5) of the Employment and Training Act 1973.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the balmy breeze that blows from the other side of the House, I feel that I must press on with this amendment in case it changes direction.
This is also a very minimal amendment upon which we hope that the Government will look kindly. It goes back to my attempt in Committee to obtain certain reassurances from the Government on the continuance of several important functions of the Manpower Services Commission now that it is to be transformed, renamed and many of its functions transferred to the Secretary of State. In the Official Report of 14th March (at col. 934), I asked what was to become of the MSC's powers of independent investigation and research. This amendment is the best way I could find of raising the issue at this point, because it asks us to look at the statute from which the MSC gets that authority. It is in fact the Employment and Training Act 1973 and in particular that part of the Act where this authority is established; that is Section 1(5).
We are asking the Government to agree to embody in this Bill that:
"Nothing in this section shall affect the duties of the Commission under Section 1(5) of the Employment and Training Act 1973".
If we ask what exactly is stipulated in Section 1(5) of that Act, it merely consists of references to Schedule 1 of the Act. But when we refer to Schedule 1 we see what we are talking about. It spells out a whole series of things for which the MSC is responsible and how the MSC is to carry out its business.
However, the crucial paragraph with which I am concerned is paragaph 15, which says:
"It shall be the duty of the Commission to make to the Secretary of State, as soon as possible after the end of each accounting year, a report on the performance of its functions".
Of course that report would be laid before both Houses. I have here the annual report of the MSC for 1986–87. It says that the Manpower Services Commission has in the past placed not only before this House and another place but the public generally and the press much of its activities and much useful information about the operation of the various aspects of the training services—for example, the number of placings in employment; the number of workers on rehabilitation courses; the number of staff on the enterprise allowance scheme; the degree of success of YTS from year to year; the degree of success of adult training programmes of various kinds; and, more controversially, the degree of impact of the job restart programme and so on.
As I tried to say when we debated this issue before, one could never have said of the Manpower Services Commission that it sought in any way to get across the Government in carrying out the responsibilities which it was given under the legislation. However, it always maintained an independence in monitoring the consequences and effects of those policies. The commission did this most notably in the annual report, but it also did it in the publication of its labour market quarterly reports and so on.
I am asking for a reassurance from the Government that this independent monitoring exercise will continue to be carried out under the new situation. I should like to know whether it will be carried out by the new training commission which
46
will not be responsible for all the services in precisely the same way, or will it be carried out by the Department of Employment itself? If so, how can we be certain of the independence and authority of that monitoring organisation? In particular, can the Government demonstrate their desire to maintain the independence of this monitoring service by agreeing to the amendment and putting it in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I was not quite sure and perhaps I should have endeavoured to find out precisely what lay behind this amendment; but now that I have heard that its chief objective is to ensure that the new training commission, like the Manpower Services Commission before it, to read again from the relevant section of Schedule 1 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, should:
"make to the Secretary of State, as soon as possible after the end of each accounting year, a report on the performance of its functions during that year; and the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report made to him in pursuance of this paragraph",
I should like to support the idea. I am not sure whether the amendment as worded can quite achieve that purpose because the Employment and Training Act refers to the Manpower Services Commission whereas after the passing of this Bill we shall have a training commission. What the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, really wants, I believe, is an assurance from the Government that the kind of thing which in this respect has applied under the Employment and Training Act 1973 to the Manpower Services Commission should apply to the new training commission. I support the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in asking the noble Lord for such an assurance.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if all that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is asking for is an assurance, I feel fairly confident that he will get it. On the matter of whether he gets an assurance that this amendment will be made to the Bill I should not wish to encourage him. Quite frankly, it is unnecessary. When we are legislating to leave the text of previous legislation unimpaired we assume that it will continue to have force.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise only to say, without being too technical, that what is proposed is obviously unnecessary.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is apparently to make sure that the duties set out in Schedule 1 to the Employment and Training Act 1973 to which Section 1(5) of that Act refers will continue to apply to the commission after this Bill comes into force. I should like to reassure the noble Lord straightaway that the duties set out in Schedule 1 will still apply in future. There is no conflict between Schedule 1 of the 1973 Act and new Section 3 of the Act as substituted by Clause 25 of the Bill. New Section 3 is not an exhaustive recital of the commission's powers and duties. The purpose of new Section 3 is simply to say what the commission's job is and it does not affect the provisions of Schedule 1. The power to appoint advisers, for example—

47
allowing it to appoint independent researchers—is reproduced in paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act inserted by Schedule 2 to this Bill.
Therefore, as two at least of my noble friends have already said, this amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it; I hope also that he will be reassured by what I have said.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, when three separate noble Lords say that this amendment is unnecessary I suppose that it is better than one noble Lord saying it three times. There have been many instances of one noble Lord saying it three times. I am mildly reassured; but I still do not see why this provision cannot go into the Bill. Nevertheless I do not propose to press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 34, line 28, leave out ("Part I of this Act") and insert ("Sections 1 to 17 and 19 to 23 above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment modifies the provisions for commencement set out in Clause 34 of the Bill. It means that Clause 18 will come into effect on Royal Assent rather than, as currently provided, on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order. Clause 18 has no substantive effect in itself. It enables the Secretary of State to issue and bring into force codes of practice for certain purposes after following the statutory requirements on consultation and parliamentary approval contained in Section 3 of the Employment Act 1980. Like the provisions of Part II of the Bill which are also to be brought into effect on Royal Assent, it is an enabling provision.
The amendment in no way modifies the need for the Secretary of State to satisfy the present statutory requirements of Section 3 of the 1980 Act in respect of consultation and parliamentary approval before the issue of any code under the clause.
The Engineering Employers' Federation whose view was endorsed by the Institute of Personnel Management has urged that a code on trade union industrial action balloting should be available as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill. The amendment avoids unnecessary delay in undertaking the required process of consultation with ACAS and in the publication of a draft code so that representations can be made. I hope that your Lordships will recognise this amendment as both positive and practical. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if one sits here long enough it comes to be one's responsibility to say that something is unnecessary. I really cannot understand why the Government want this amendment at all. As they always get suspicious when I propose amendments that they regard as unnecessary, I am afraid that I must reciprocate.
The plain fact is that there is nothing on earth to prevent the Government, if this Bill received Royal Assent, let us say on 15th May without this
48
amendment embodied in it, from bringing this particular part of the Bill into effect on 17th May. There need be no delay.
All that the Government are doing is preserving their position so that they can bring different parts of the Bill into effect when they want to bring them into effect. Therefore, if the Government wished to bring Clause 18 into effect two days after the whole of the Bill had received Royal Assent they could do so. So why do we have to have this amendment?
Moreover, I am bound to ask why we need to have the amendment at this late stage. On the face of the Bill in another place and on the face of the Bill here in Committee and on Report, no one suggested on the Government's part that we had to have some special provision for Clause 18. Now we are told that we have to do it instantaneously. I can only feel that the Government must have some particular form of code of practice already in mind. I ask if that is the case.
The noble Lord reinforced that feeling when he mentioned the Engineering Employers' Federation which had been involved in some activity to pressurise the Government into producing a code of practice. The Government were saying they were concerned to respond to such pressure. Well, the noble Lord knows as well as I do what some of the contents of the would-be code of practice of the Engineering Employers' Federation are. The EEF, as is entirely its right, has produced a draft code of practice and has given it the widest possible circulation. Some items in the EEF code are perfectly sensible. But there are others to which we would take great exception.
In the EEF code of practice it is suggested, for example, that trade unions when issuing a strike ballot should be under a legal obligation to put the employers' case. Anyone who knows anything about trade union administration knows that quite apart from the injustice of that—no one is insisting that the employer puts the trade union case, and quite rightly so—it is totally impractical. Unions would be the last people in the world to formulate the employer's case and put it in a ballot. That is a job for the employer. In the past few years British employers have rightly revolutionised their procedures for communicating with their own workers. That is their business; it is not the business of the trade unions. It is certainly not the state's business to say in a code of practice that that is what the union should do.
So we are very concerned about this provision. We are very suspicious. We do not understand why it has to be there at all. We ask the Government how it gives them any advantage in terms of time. If the Government are in such a hurry, surely they can give us some idea of what this code of practice, which must be already very well written and waiting somewhere in the Department of Employment, contains.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is a problem here which transcends this Bill. It concerns the propriety of giving power to the Government to introduce a code of practice, so to speak, without your Lordships knowing what is proposed. Since the only effect of the amendment appears to be to achieve

49
just that, I will be very relieved if my noble friend can give some explanation.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I see the matter rather differently from the way in which the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Campbell of Alloway, see it. I should like to give the amendment a cautious welcome at this stage in the hope that in the end it will go at least some way towards meeting what I had in mind at Report stage. Your Lordships will recall that at that time I moved an amendment which provided that Section 17 should not come into force before the expiry of three months after the Secretary of State had published guidance for employers, employees and their representatives explaining how the provisions of the clause should operate. By those best qualified to judge, three months was considered to be the minimum period for guidance to be assimilated by those who will have to operate the clause if it is to have any chance of proving workable.
The Government rejected my amendment. At that stage, all they were willing to concede was that when the Bill was enacted they would explain the requirements of the clause along with those of the rest of the Bill, and that the code of practice on pre-strike ballots which they intended to publish under Clause 18 would necessarily refer to the provisions of Clause 17.
Since that time, I have come to appreciate that under Section 3 of the 1980 Act, publication of a code of practice on pre-strike ballots can take place only after a lengthy consultative process. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did not spell that matter out. Before preparing and publishing a draft code, the Secretary of State must first consult ACAS, then consider representations on the draft code and finally ensure that it is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
I suggest that that takes care of the point which troubles the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, that process would clearly take many months to complete. Even with the help of the amendment, it might not be completed by the time the Government chose to bring all but Clause 18 of Part I of the Bill into force by order. I should therefore like to ask the Minister when he comes to reply to give me at least an assurance that the Government will treat the difficulties that employers and trade unions will have in understanding and operating Clause 17 as a highly relevant factor in determining the date on which the bulk of Part I of the Bill—that is, all but the section which the Government now intend to treat separately—will commence. I suggest that that is not much to ask. Such a statement would not appear on the face of the Bill. However, it might bring a bit of comfort to organisations such as the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Institute of Personnel Management, whose members are very unhappy about the inclusion of Clause 17 in the Bill.
Perhaps I may make one more comment in response to the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I suggest that if the consultative process is carried through as it should be by the Government, the representations of trade unions, along with those of bodies such as the Engineering Employers' Federation and the IPM, should be taken into
50
account. I view the matter with some reservations at this stage. However, I see it as a promising development, if the Government will give me the assurance I seek and if, in undertaking the consultative exercise, they are prepared to take account of what employers and unions have to say.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although my noble friend's amendment seems to be wrapped up—perhaps that is the right expression—in a certain amount of complexity, the purpose seems to be quite simple. We can best understand it by referring to Clause 18 which makes two textual amendments in the existing law—the 1980 Act—with regard to the issue of codes of practice. Although all the other clauses in Part I could perhaps well await commencement orders to be made by the Secretary of State, there seems to be no reason why the two textual amendments in Clause 18 should not come into operation with Royal Assent. That is all that the amendment would do. Therefore, I should have thought that it was a simple matter which could well be supported.
Perhaps I may add that the codes of practice or any amendment of existing codes of practice would be made under the 1980 Act and not directly as a result of a clause in this Bill.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he denying that the Government could bring the Bill in by Royal Assent on 17th May with a commencement order on 18th May for Clause 18? If so, why do we need the amendment?
Lord Renton: Yes, my Lords. The Government could do that. However, they decided not to do so for various reasons.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is technically correct in saying that Clause 18 could be brought into effect very swiftly after Royal Assent. However, I suggest that it is simpler and more convenient to bring the clause into effect on Royal Assent, rather than making a separate commencement order for one clause.
As for the content of the code, the Government are committed at this stage only to covering in the code matters which I referred to in speaking to Amendment No. 1. As my noble friend Lord Renton has said, the only effect of the present amendment is to enable the process of consultation and parliamentary approval to start as early as possible.
Some reference has been made to the timescale for the issue of codes. Required statutory consultation cannot be undertaken before Clause 18 is brought into operation. The amendment can only help to expedite that process. However, there is no detailed timetable to which the Secretary of State is working. As for the period which will be allowed for consultation, no decisions have been made about that. Clearly sufficient time must be allowed for interested bodies and individuals to make representations.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships, so far as concerns previous codes of practice, that, for

51
example, the code of practice on picketing and the closed shop, issued as a result of' the 1980 Act, required a consultation period of three months after ACAS was initially approached. When the code of practice on the closed shop was revised following the 1982 Act, a period of almost two months was allowed for consultation. I am not sure that I have provided the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, sought. If not, I shall be happy to try to help him further.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understood him to say that the code of practice will only cover those items referred to in Amendment No. 1.
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the code of practice cover, say, ballots for elections, ballots for strikes and political ballots, or will it be more limited than that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government have not yet reached a final view on the full range of matters which the code of practice will cover. As I said, the only matter which they have so far thought it right to include in the code of practice is the matter relating to ballots prior to industrial action.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave me the opportunity to ask him a question before he sat down. As I understood what he had to say, he did not quite give me the assurance that I was seeking. Perhaps I may put the matter to him again. I asked that the Government should treat the very real difficulties that employers and trade unions will face in operating Clause 17 as a highly relevant factor in determining the date on which Part I of the Bill—including in particular Clause 17—will commence.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may take advice on that point and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("each voting paper must contain the following statement") and insert ("the following statement must (without being qualified or commented upon by anything else on the voting paper) appear on every voting paper").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during your Lordships' consideration of this Bill on report my noble friend Lord Mottistone tabled an amendment—No. 57—relating to his concern that unions might seek to nullify the effect of words which are required to appear on the voting paper in an industrial action ballot by making certain statements on the voting paper itself.
He quoted a particular example of that sort of practice which had occurred in the context of the Transport and General Workers' Union ballot of
52
members employed by Ford. He pointed out that a statement on the reverse of the voting paper could well have misled members into believing that breaking their contracts of employment during a strike was a matter of no significance.
I promised my noble friend to consider the problem, and the amendment is designed to remove it. The amendment will add a new condition which must be satisfied if an industrial action ballot is to satisfy the requirements of Section 11 of the 1984 Act and thereby preserve a union's immunity and protect it against application to the court by a member under Clause 1 of the Bill.
By virtue of amendments already agreed to by your Lordships, voting papers for industrial action ballots will in future have to contain the statement:
"if you take part in strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment".
The amendment provides that this statement must not be qualified or commented upon by anything else on the voting paper.
It may be helpful if I give your Lordships some examples of the kind of comment or qualification that would not be allowed. A comment on the voting paper such as, "We are obliged to include this statement but you should not allow it to influence you because all strikes involve breaches of contracts of employment", or a qualification such as, "This statement has no bearing upon the industrial action you are being asked to take because it will not be in breach of your contract of employment", will not be compatible with the terms of Section 11(3) as they will stand with the amendment, if your Lordships agree to it.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that the amendment will avoid the kind of problem which his Report stage amendment was designed to overcome, and that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friends and I were very surprised to see the amendment on the Marshalled List for this Third Reading. In our view there are three areas which make this a most serious matter. The first and perhaps the most formal—and I was a little surprised that the Minister did not refer to this matter—is that although this matter was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on 28th March (and I have re-read what he said), that was the only occasion upon which any indication at all was given that this would require attention by the Government. The matter was raised by us in a slightly different though very similar form on 14th March in an amendment the effect of which was to require that neither the section in discussion nor:
"any code issued by the Secretary of State, shall restrict the right of a union to insert words lawfully explaining any matter or giving lawful advice to its members".
I said:
"We are fearful—I make no bones about it—that the Secretary of State may use his new powers to issue a code to restrict the right of trade unions to advise their members on and with the ballot paper".—[Official Report. 14/3/88; col. 1015.]
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in reply (at col. 1016) began by saying:

53
"I think that I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the Government have no such plans to issue a code to require the unions to proceed as he outlined".
That was about the code. However, then at col. 1017, the noble Earl, speaking for the Government and, I assume, for all his colleagues, said:
"There is nothing in that subsection, or indeed elsewhere in Section 11, which prevents the union from including any other statement on the voting paper provided that the nature of any such statement does not in itself amount to a breach of particular requirements. Unions have a perfect right to communicate lawful information by lawful means to their members. Neither the present law nor the provisions in the Bill will limit that right in any way. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment".
We did withdraw that amendment. I apprehend that having the support of the Government for its thrust, as we plainly had, had we pressed it the amendment might well have been carried by this House. Therefore the matter would not have been open to the Government had we not withdrawn on the basis of assurances given on that occasion.
I therefore find it quite remarkable that without any prior notice—last Friday in fact—this new incursion into trade union freedom (because, let us be quite clear, that is what it is) has now been suggested to your Lordships' House on the basis of the evidence of a single case. It is the only case which has ever been put forward. I shall come to that in a moment.
The second area that surprises us is that the Government, presumably knowing where they are going, have now made it clear that they are setting off on a further step down their step-by-step authoritarian road. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy made clear in the last debate, in a strike situation the employer will put his case. Indeed, employers have developed their ability to do so. The trade union will put its case. It still remains by law—the Government's law—the trade union's ballot paper.
The trade union already has to put in mandatory questions. Those have been changed by government decision. The union now has to put a statement dictated by the Government on its ballot paper. However, I should have thought that the Minister would have told us what "on the voting paper" means: does it include the back? If it does not include the back the example of the Transport and General Workers Union is irrelevant because the statement was on the back. Does it include any other paper affixed to the ballot paper? What kind of legislation is this?
Of course this is only the first move. The code and the 1990 Bill will tread further down that road. The Government ought to come clean and say, "We issue the ballot paper for distribution, perhaps compulsorily, by the union and it is our ballot paper—because it is now the Government's ballot paper.
The noble Lord has shown us how far this is going to go. He gave some further examples. I hope that I have the words right but he spoke quickly and I could not be sure that I wrote them down correctly. One of them was a comment about being obliged by law to include a statement on the ballot paper. That I suppose is a comment upon it. As I understand it, the second one was something to the effect that: "This
54
statement has no bearing upon the present industrial dispute because you will not be in breach of contract of employment". Therefore, in a case where workers are taking industrial action by withdrawing voluntary overtime—a case where there is no breach of contract of employment—the union will not be allowed to tell its members on, or possibly on the back of, the ballot paper that that is the case. It will have to make a statement which is untrue, the one dictated by the Government: "This may lead to a breach of your contract of employment".
What kind of industrial law is that? In this tiny amendment clarified by the Minister is a sequence of steps which illustrates the way in which basic freedoms of organisation are infringed by this legislation. It moves step by step toward a more and more authoritarian structure.
Let us take the illustration which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, put before the House when this Bill was discussed on Report. I appreciate that in Hansard, at col. 582, the noble Lord said that the CBI had available cases of other misleading words, as he called them. We have come to find this a difficult matter. It will be remembered that at earlier stages of our debate on this Bill the Minister had a reservoir of information which we never quite came to tap. The CBI reservoir may be full or low, but this House is being asked to decide at Third Reading on a new principle on this matter from one example.
The Minister cannot say no to that—well, he does, and since he has said no I shall explain why I think he should not do so. He cannot say no because he did not give the House any other example of what happened in fact; he only gave examples that he had drawn out of his brief. If they were from leaflets from unions, let him say so.
Let us consider a third point—the example that was given of the back of the ballot paper of the Transport and General Workers' Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said on Report, it is stated thereon:
"As required by recent Government legislation the ballot paper refers to strike or industrial action being in breach of your contract of employment. This has no special significance as all strikes involve a breach of your contract of your employment".
The noble Lord said that that statement was misleading. I aver that no jury would convict that statement as being misleading, in the first place because it is true that strikes are breaches of contracts of employment and, secondly, because plainly in context—and obviously it is not merely a statement of law or of fact—it is a statement of opinion. I do not know what dispute it concerned and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will tell us. I know of' course that it was the Ford dispute, but at what stage and at what point of that dispute did this happen? Why did it happen at that point on the union side, since all strikes are breaches of contract of employment? Presumably the union is saying that things have become so bad that it sees no special significance in that in the dispute that is before us.
If the union did not say that, then the noble Lord appears to be saying that the union should never call its members out on strike at all—and I am sure that he is not saying that. So to what is this one example leading us? It leads us to a situation in which the

55
Government decide what a union document should say; and that feature—that duplicity—is the mark of an authoritarian regime.
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Lord again says no. I shall have to tell him why it is so. He might consider for a moment whether he would not feel more comfortable were he to say, "All right, we shall have ballots and these will be the ballot papers and we say that this is what you do". After all, surely that is the real situation. The noble Lord is trying to bring the union ballot paper under government control.
This amendment takes the first step of a number of steps which in the Government's reasoning are quite logical, judging by past Bills and debates. We regard it as an extremely serious matter. It has been put forward on no evidence of any worth whatever, at a moment when, at the last gasp and without any proper parliamentary debate at all, a slender example can give the Government the ability to move into and grasp yet another area of trade union autonomy. We oppose this amendment very vigorously and we shall oppose what it leads to.
6 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lord, this amendment is the best example that I have seen to justify having amendments on the Third Reading of a Bill. That is a procedure which is allowed in this House but not in the other place.
We are reaching the end of our discussions on the Bill and, as I see it, this is an example of a moment when we see a possible loophole which may undermine the purpose behind the Bill. With his amendment my noble friend is closing the loophole before anyone has had a chance to make use of it to the possible detriment of the good that will come from the Bill. I believe that to be the best justification that we have had for a long time to amend a Bill on its Third Reading.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I fail to follow either the reasoning or the rectitude of the legal presentation of the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn. Unless he is being highly over-technical, which I am sure he is not, it seems to me that he is saying with one breath that all strikes involve breach of a contract of employment, having with a previous breath said that withdrawal of voluntary overtime is not in breach of a contract of employment.
What is the poor member of the trade union to do—an operative or fitter, perhaps? Does he have to have imputed to him knowledge of the legal distinction between a strike and the meaning in law of a voluntary withdrawal of overtime? Of course, the noble Lord teaches industrial law. Does one not have to come to grips with the realities of the situation and get away from some of these legal niceties?
If your Lordships will allow me to say so, the noble Lord was speaking so quickly that at one stage I could not understand what he was saying. I
56
understood him to be saying that there was some fear—some awful fear—about a code of practice. I accept that his sentiments of apprehension are totally reasonable from his point of view, but without knowing the substance of those fears it is very difficult to answer them. I cannot believe that this amendment does anything other than turn a voting paper into a true voting paper in accordance with fair play and the true intendment of this section.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I am sorry not to have explained the matter to him. I know that he has been most attentive to all the debates on the Bill in your Lordships' House. Does he recall the discussion of these amendments on 14th March when the Government gave the assurance that they would introduce no such provision?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not think that it is in order for me to reply, so I shall not do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for having responded on this point, as he said he would at Report stage, with an amendment rather different from the one that I tabled. As a result I did not recognise it for what it clearly is. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for speaking at such length because I have now been able to sort out exactly what the whole thing is about. I have also been able to understand that clearly this is a much more important amendment than I imagined, because the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, dislikes it so much. I have looked again at my comments at Report stage and it seems to me that this is a question of whether or not it is possible to mislead if the amendment of the Government is not included. I deduce from what I said before that that is the case.
I cannot help the House on the issue of whether we can produce some of the additional cases that the CBI has told me that it possesses. I did not have time to open all my letters before we went into bat on this Bill There may be a letter—I do not want to keep your Lordships waiting while I go to find it—which contains those very examples which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, says he should like to see.
However, I shall undertake to read what the CBI has to say and show its comments to my noble friend the Minister, because he will need them. Whether they should go to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will rather depend on what they look like. I thank my noble friend very much for this amendment and for having responded to what is clearly a case of trying to remedy a mischief.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can tell us what it is in the words of the Transport and General Workers' Union on the back of the ballot paper that he thinks is misleading. We think it is just a statement of fact.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I could not hear what the noble Lord was saying. Perhaps he can repeat it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us precisely what he thinks is misleading on the hack of the Transport and General Workers' Union's ballot paper to which he referred at Report stage? We think it is simply a statement of fact.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not wish to waste the time of the House. If the noble Lord will read on, I explained why the statement is objectionable. I draw his attention to col. 582 of Hansard of 28th March. It is absolutely clear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister to answer two questions when he replies. In regard to the first, I think I know the answer; in regard to the second, I do not.
First, is the prohibition from putting anything else on the voting paper sufficient to cover the risk of someone putting something contradictory to the general assertion on the back? Does "on the voting paper" include on the back of the voting paper? Secondly, would the proposal contained in the amendment be adequate to prevent a union which desired to play it that way from attaching separately, but with a paper clip, to each voting paper a statement contradicting the statement on the voting paper? In other words, is an attachment to the voting paper also excluded by this amendment? Subject to that, I am all in favour of the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. Parliament has agreed that there should be a statement on the ballot paper in the terms that I read out when I was moving this amendment. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall repeat the words:
"If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment".
I repeat the words: "you may be in breach of your contract of employment".
Since Parliament agreed to that, the Government apprehend—and this was supported by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and others—that it may be possible to subvert the intention of that statement on the ballot paper by the addition of further statements of the kind I read out just now. The Government believe that by permitting such further statements we would be undermining the provision that Parliament has agreed upon as the words that should appear upon the ballot paper. For that reason we were persuaded, not least by the arguments advanced by my noble friend, that such additional statements should not be permitted. It is for that purpose that I bring forward this amendment.
Frankly, it seems to me that the noble Lord was seeking a provision whereby trade unions could indeed mislead their members by adding misleading statements on the ballot paper. I do not think that on reflection even he would wish to suggest that that was the right way to proceed.
In answer to the poi its raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I believe I am right in saying that a statement on the back, or attached in the way that the noble Lord suggested, would constitute an action that was prohibited by the amendment that I
58
am now bringing forward, as I believe it should be. I hope that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, If my noble friend will allow me, the words used on the amendment are "on the voting paper". I apprehend that that would cover the back. However, does "on" in a statute cover an attached document?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in the few seconds that I have had to take advice on this matter, I am advised that it does. Perhaps I can take further, more considered, advice and write to my noble friend.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, this is a most important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raises the issue from a different viewpoint from mine. The noble Lord has referred to a statement that would be permissible. Such reference adds the right flavour—that of freedom of expression. Is not Parliament entitled to know very clearly the Government's intention in relation to this matter? There is plainly a doubt about what "on the voting paper" means. I would choose the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I should want the provision restricted to "on the face of the voting paper". Are the Government considering bringing in a definition of "on the voting paper" in another place so that the provision can be properly defined?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend this question before he replies. If something is attached to the voting paper which is nothing whatever to do with it, it ceases to become a voting paper. If one has a voting paper in the booth in the normal way, one does not have a propaganda sheet connected with it. A voting paper with an attachment to it which alters its character is not a voting paper within the meaning that the Bill intends.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, that may be what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, thinks, but I suggest that it is not what this amendment states. The amendment refers to the voting paper. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has raised very properly is whether this provision extends to the back of the voting paper or to an attachment to the voting paper. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggests that it does. I am quite clear that the amendment says nothing of the kind. The amendment is therefore flawed and this House has no business to pass it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to take the matter a little further. If a document enclosed with the voting paper is neither on it nor attached to it, can he stretch the words "on the voting paper" to include such an unattached enclosure; or, to take the question further, if the union has plenty of money and puts the document in a separate envelope but posts it at the same time as the ballot paper, where does that leave the Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am quite certain that in the latter case described by the noble Lord there would be no question of the union falling foul of this amendment. Nor is it the intention to prevent the union expressing its views to the member. We are trying to prevent the union misleading the member at the point at which he expresses his view on the voting paper. That is the purpose of this amendment. I believe that is a right and proper purpose. I believe this amendment achieves it. I commend the amendment.
6.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 71.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Balfour, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bauer, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey of Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lurgan, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Moran, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cawley, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Polwarth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rees, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Derwent, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Elibank, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Feversham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Shannon, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinton, E.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Tryon, L.

60

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Vinson, L.

Wynford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

John Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Scanlon, L.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Your Lordships have given close and detailed consideration to this Bill. The attention it has had at all stages of its passage reflects not only the importance of its subjects—industrial relations and trade union law, and arrangements for employment and training—to our economy and society, but also the expertise and experience that many of your Lordships are able to bring to discussion of these topics.
My noble friend Lord Dundee said during the Second Reading of the Bill that your Lordships' House could make significant improvements to the detail of the Bill. His expectation has been amply justified. Your Lordships have inserted a new clause and other new provisions, as well as making a large number of more detailed amendments. The result has made this a better piece of legislation.
It is right for us, at this stage, to reflect on the principles underlying the Bill. Despite the many amendments made in this House your Lordships have approved those principles. The Bill will help our country to develop the kind of trade unions and trade unionism needed both now and for the years ahead. It brings about change in the relevant law by building on and adjusting existing statutes. The rights of individual trade union members will be enhanced,

61
and they will be able, where necessary, to enforce the statutory rights which this Bill gives them.
Those rights are not given to members at the expense of the authority of democratic and responsible trade unions. Such unions which are willing to accord their members the rights they are entitled to expect from unions in a free society have nothing to fear from the Bill. On the other hand, any union which seeks to deny members those rights, or to impose its diktats on unwilling members in a way which could damage their interests, will find that such behaviour now risks the penalties which follow from unlawful action.
The Bill as it will leave your Lordships' House is in step with current industrial relations and trade union members' needs. It is free from any taint of slavish dedication to ideology, and many of its most significant provisions merely extend the good practices of some unions so that members in general can benefit from them.
Part II of the Bill is concerned with training. Creating a proper framework for training is of course every bit as important for our economy as getting our industrial relations right. Some unions—such as the electricians—have recognised this and are actively promoting forward-looking training schemes.
This Bill renames the Manpower Services Commission the Training Commission, to reflect its new focus on training. It gives employers a greater say in the direction of training through the creation of six extra seats.
Legislation alone cannot of itself create the sort of training systems we need to compete in European and world markets. But what this Bill seeks to do is give training a higher place on the agenda of British employers. By training I mean not simply training for the unemployed and training for school-leavers, important though both of these aspects are. I also mean the training and retraining of a company's workforce so that it can keep pace with the market and with technological change.
If I had to suggest a key word to describe this Bill it would be "reform". If I were allowed four words, I might describe it as "reform for the future". If your Lordships believe, as I do, that the Bill can help our society meet and respond to the challenges it faces and will face in the future, I urge you to speed it on its way.
I end by thanking every noble Lord and both noble Baronesses who have contributed to the passage of the Bill and to the discussion on it. They have made constructive suggestions, some of which I was able to accept but some of which we were not. I believe the Bill now deserves a firm place on the statute book. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I can join with the noble Lord the Minister over one matter; that is, in thanking noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill, in thanking my noble friends and indeed, on their behalf, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister himself as well as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I
62
thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, especially for steering us through the many amendments brought forward by the Government, not least those technical amendments which we had to look at with such care. I must tell him frankly, however, that he marches forward bearing a banner with the very strange device he put upon it in his speech: "Trade unions have nothing to fear from this Bill."
The Bill has been changed a great deal in your Lordships' House. The "3rd March amendments" now so important to the Bill restructured the entire part concerned with industrial action and strike ballots in Clause 1 and brought about a very new situation which no doubt will be looked upon in another place. So too, we hope, will amendments of no less importance brought before your Lordships today.
However, even if there are strike ballots, the Bill's principles, which the noble Lord has put before us again, do not, it seems, result in persons having to abide by the results of the ballot if they are in the group favoured by the Government. Of course the Government never favour the majority in a trade union. Not really. They favour the majority in a trade union so long as it produces the results that the Government want. If not, as under Clause 3, the minority can walk away from their contractual agreements and break their agreements under the union rules without any fear of discipline by reason of the contract they have voluntarily taken on. So much for sanctity of contracts and so much for the principle that this is not an anti-trade union Bill.
It is an anti-trade union Bill because it uses the individual not to protect individuals in reality but to use the notion and the machinery of the individual when he is a dissident against majority union action. There has been no evidence produced of the alleged oppression or unfair discipline over any wide area in trade unions. There has been no evidence about postal ballots being more democratic than workplace ballots. Indeed the evidence, if one actually reads it, is very often the other way.
The Government choose the mechanisms. In all sincerity, I have to say to your Lordships that when reading the debates on a trade union Bill of this sort—one of the new "combination laws", as someone said to me the other day—you do not find the same standards applied to evidence and proof as you would find on some other matters relating perhaps to the City or to an administrative matter. The accusations are made in a wide form. Indeed, your Lordships will find that in the very same week that the Sun newspaper was forced to pay £100,000 to officials of the Transport and General Workers Union in respect of accusations of ballot-rigging in a workplace ballot, the same innuendos were being advanced under the privilege of this House. I do not regard that as very satisfactory.
There was a time when the balance was struck a little differently. It did not last long. However, there was a time under this Government when that happened. I should like to quote a statement which gives the flavour of it. It comes from the debates which led up to the legislation of 1980. I remember them well. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, then Secretary of State, introducing the measure, said in

63
the other place at col. 59 on 17th December 1979 that,
"the rights of the individual as an individual need to be balanced by the right of individuals to act together".
He went on to explain why he said that by quoting from his earlier speech on the Address. He said:
"The law should always give full recognition to the inherent weakness of the individual worker vis-a-vis his employer, to the need for him to be organised in a union".
I quote that, not because I agree with many of the proposals the then Secretary of State went on to make, but because at least there was common ground. That common ground is not there today. We have only to look at the way in which the Government have utilised their notion of the individual to see how that is so. Take the quite extraordinary institution of the state Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. The state commissioner's only job, under the Government's legislation, is to produce massive financial aid to encourage and support individual members to bring legal proceedings against a union or its officials. And it appears to be any union. But when that same individual—and he or she is the same person—is injured at work by the acts of a manager or is dismissed by the employing company, there is no great state machine then to help him or her in the courts. There is not even legal aid in respect of the industrial tribunals.
If the individual's rights are infringed in connection with his pension fund or building society, or if he loses his savings in a company crash in a Guinness-style affair, then the great commissioner in the sky is blind and deaf to his travail. It is only when the union is the defender that all is changed and this centralised state machine descends like some godlike creature bearing gifts to give help to the individual. And to do what? To attack the trade union.
That structure is absolutely clear. The trade union is not a favoured institution of government policy. If it were, why have the Government destroyed tripartism in Part II of the Bill? Why, at this particular point in the history of the need to develop training, have they smashed the tripartite structures in the MSC and the industrial training boards?
Gradually, step by step, the balance which I acknowledge was there—although I did not always agree with the conclusions—has disappeared. To drive trade unionists out of the machinery which is needed so urgently to cope with the crisis of training by smashing tripartism is surely an act of folly and doctrinaire irresponsibility. It makes sense on the basis of understanding the Government's policy, though not to our friends and competitors in Europe. If you look at Germany, Switzerland or Italy—I have recently looked at a number of matters in Italy—you will find an industrial culture at least as conflictual as ours, if not more so. But you will not find this policy there. You will find an attempt to maintain the social consensus, with all its conflict, going forward by agreement.
What a contrast there has been in Britain since 1982. What do we find now in Britain? Some say that we find a Bill cast upon us by reason of the miners' strike. It is a favourite analysis when considering some parts of the Bill. I prefer to think that it makes
64
more sense on the basis of longer-term government policies. But even those who expected some equivalent of the Act of 1927 could not have predicted the unseemly contortions in respect of particular amendments that gradually narrowed the ground and hemmed in particular persons as presidents and general secretaries of particular unions.
On the hybridity of the Bill, we have had our say. But it is important that I put on record the fact that we do not retract one word of our Motion on hybridity. We say that developments were improper, that they represented improper use of a public Bill.
Quite apart from that, the Bill surely shows clearly, whenever other associations are mentioned, how it picks upon the trade union for no normal reason and on the basis of no normal evidence that we would understand. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, referred to an analogy at one point, and I appreciate that he wanted to make it only within the context in which he was speaking. When the noble Lord referred to the analogy between the trade union and the company I heard noble Lords on the Front Bench wince.
They do not like such analogies because if one takes analogies with other institutions one tends to ask questions such as: is there any evidence or reasoned argument to suggest that members should be freed from disciplinary rules only in a trade union when in every other association they are enforceable against members? Similarly, there is no evidence of a need to require a union to disclose the accounting records of any branch over a six-year period when shareholders and members of other associations have no such right. Or neither is there evidence of a need to insist that a trade union, and a trade union alone, must elect by postal ballot all those who attend at its national executive committee even though they do not have votes. Nor—and I find this to be the most offensive requirement because no reason has ever been given for it, notwithstanding everything that happened in the miners' strike—is there any evidence of a need to ban a trade union alone from indemnifying officials for past offences innocently committed in their duties in the discretion of the union as the general law allows and as companies do every day with their executives and other agents.
No real argument was ever put forward for that provision. It is a nasty piece of vindictiveness. It is a requirement which will harass the union just as will the requirement that a trade union alone among all institutions must have a scrutineer from a state-approved list. On that matter the Government may well discover that the International Labour Organisation's freedom of association committee has reached the limit of its somewhat strained patience.
When we look at the Bill and its structure we find that it is one in the list which began in 1980–82, since when the Government have gradually stepped along an authoritarian road. At the last gasp they have the effrontery to bring before this House a new limitation upon what it is permissible to say and to state and apparently to do so without much hesitation of any kind. The policies are to remove the union—although not entirely, of course—as an effective institution in the collective organisation of the labour market.

65
If the Government thought about that proposition for one moment I suspect that they would not disagree. They do not like collective organisation of the labour market. It must be a market which the state organises and that is why people should not be surprised by all the new laws which appear to advance what some people call the "nanny state". The nanny state is part of the Government's programme. It sets the market, which then works. That is what they believe. Trade unions have no part in it except as friendly societies or useful co-operators at one point or another. Certainly they have no part as equals, as we now see from the wretched history of the Manpower Services Commission structure.
It is that that we fight. It is more than a particular set of provisions and clauses. It is an attitude and belief in a society which should organise itself with more compassion and dignity and with a more adequate range of freedom for workers who will always be weak in front of their employer, as the Secretary of State said in 1979. It is for that reason that we regard this Bill as a very bad piece of legislation.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, we on these Benches are not much happier with the Bill as it leaves the House than we were when it arrived. The pattern normally followed before the introduction of new legislation to industrial relations is that a consultative paper is first published; account is then taken of the views of interested parties and thereafter the Bill is brought forward. In this case a Green Paper was produced but the Government have taken little or no notice of the responses made to them by employers and trade unions. I suggest that Clause 3 affords a good example.
In Committee and on Report amendments were moved by myself and other noble Lords. They sought to negate the Government's proposal that individual union members should not be disciplined by their union if they refused to take part in industrial action which had been endorsed by a prior secret ballot. That was because, above all, we do not wish to see the balloting process undermined. In the debates which took place the amendments were supported by former trade union leaders of great experience and by other distinguished Members on both sides of the House, who, in my view, had the better of the argument. However, the Government were impervious to their views.
As regards Clause 17, which deals with ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work, the Government's proposals were not even mentioned in last year's Green Paper. When revealed in the Bill they were opposed by employers and unions alike. In Committee I was unsuccessful in seeking to remove the clause from the Bill. I tried to do so partly because, in my view, it is highly undesirable that the House should pass legislation couched in language so obscure that it may be incomprehensible to those affected by it. In the light of amendments that have been passed today the clause is perhaps a little more intellgible. However, I believe that it may still qualify as being what the first Lord Montgomery called a "pig's breakfast".
66
The clause also fails to take account of the practical difficulties that employers and trade unions will have in trying to operate it. However, we must be grateful for small mercies. In response to representations made by myself and other noble Lords, I am pleased to note that in their amendment to Clause 34 the Government have now recognised that the process of consultation concerning the code of practice on pre-strike ballots which they have agreed to publish must begin as soon as possible. Therefore there will be time, if the Government will allow it, for the complex nature of Clause 17 to be made a little more comprehensible before it must be operated.
We have supported, and were in advance of the Government in advocating, the need for trade unions to use secret postal ballots under independent supervision in electing members of their principal executive committees. However, in our view the Government have not responded adequately to what we said in respect of one matter. It is that independently-supervised postal ballots will prove to be very costly for trade unions. We believe that the Government are being parsimonious and short-sighted in refusing to allow public funds to be used to help to finance the cost of employing independent scrutineers.
We also regret that, in the case of Clause 12, the Government have proved unwilling to reach the kind of consensus sought by a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House. We sought to find a way in which union general secretaries, or people holding equivalent positions, could be at least partially shielded from the full rigours of the Bill's requirements for their election.
Like the rest of society, trade unions must operate within the law. However, in our view there should be a minimum of law in industrial relations. Where the law applies it should strike a balance between the interests of employers and those of employees and their representatives. Having supported much of the Government's earlier step-by-step approach to legislation in this field, we believe that in a number of ways the Bill has gone a step too far.
However, let my last words be of thanks for the courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has taken the Bill through its various stages in this House. I also compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and her noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, on their co-operation in ensuring that our discussions have been conducted, perhaps spiritedly but always with good humour.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I promise that my few reflections upon the situation will be more temperate than my earlier speech. I recall every trade union Act since 1906 and I have been actively connected with all trade union legislation since the general strike. I was there when it happened. I reaped the harvest of the misunderstandings which arose at that time regarding the role of the public service organisations. It was the public service organisations that received punishment under the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. We were banished from the TUC and from all political affiliations—even those of us who had none to begin with. Restrictions

67
were placed upon membership of the unions which lasted many years and right throughout the war.
Almost every trade union law passed since the beginning of this century has been in a cause-effect situation. The Taff Vale judgment at the beginning of the century had to be remedied by the 1906 Act on the liability of unions to be summoned for damages for industrial disputes and strikes called in breach of contract. In 1913, political objectives had to be dealt with in trade union legislation to overcome the confusion created by the Osborne judgment. The 1927 Act was the direct consequence of the general strike of 1926 and, as I have already said, it lasted throughout the war.
The only Royal Commission on the trade unions and the trade union movement was that appointed by the Labour Government; namely, the Donovan Commission. That was not a happy outcome for an attempt to achieve a better perspective on trade union activity and its role in modern society. However, what we have seen in this Bill, and its predecessors, has been the direct consequence of the failure of the Conservative Government of 1970 to produce trade union legislation which was both acceptable and, even more important, workable.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Carr, in his place opposite. He and I were closely concerned with the parliamentary tragedy that we had to go through on that Bill when it was guillotined. Every night when the guillotine fell the mood on the Opposition Benches was bitter that we had to go through the night with one Division after another. We had to meet to decide whether the number of Divisions that night would be 20 or 24. It turned the events of Parliament at the time of the conflict between the Liberal Government and your Lordships' House in 1909,1910 and 1911 into a more exhausting period of parliamentary opposition than we had ever had before.
Where does this Bill take us? We have had a step by step approach, and although the Minister did not say so in so many words I think that we are entitled to assume that this is the final piece of legislation on trade union law of this Parliament and possibly of this century. What will the Bill do? It is not accompanied by any improvement in industrial relations. All that we had in the Bullock Report and that period when we were trying to find a different structure and a more satisfactory basis for co-operation between unions, management and industry has been left aside.
The aspect of the step by step approach which pains me is that it has been designed by the Government as a sinister way of pushing through in instalments what they could never have hoped to get through in one Act of Parliament. We have had each instalment after the memory of the earlier one has faded somewhat. It is not until one sees the whole series of the Acts on trade union law that one has the full perspective of what has happened.
None of the legislation has been motivated by an understanding of the history, the role and the future of the trade union movement. It has been a sort of disciplinary exercise. In the name of restoring the unions to their members, constraints have been put
68
on the unions themselves. We have not returned the unions as they were to their members; we have returned the unions to their members with claws cut, wings clipped and restraints put on the range of their activities. Therefore it is no longer the trade union movement that it was.
How can we escape the belief that much in the Bill has been placed there in more intransigent form than it would otherwise have been by the events of the miners' strike and the Wapping dispute? At one stage the Minister said, when he was a little irritated with the reception he received from these Benches, that this was a political Bill and part of government policy. By saying that, he showed that the Government were in no mood to meet criticisms of the Bill in a spirit of constructive co-operation and any spirit of good will. It has been a punitive exercise throughout.
It is the motive behind the legislation that is so painful to bear. However, what is to happen now between the enactment of the Bill and the end of this Parliament, and beyond? The trade union movement is of its own volition at a turning point in its history. It realises that it has to find a different basis for its activities in modern society and in modern industry. There is a deep conflict going on in the trade union movement at present as to the relationship between unions, management and employers. I need not dwell on that point. However, it is fundamental to the future of the trade union movement. Who is assisting that process? Who is offering a hand of help or encouragement? Is it just part of the political conflict that is now going on?
I beseech the trade unions, with what little influence I have left, not to let this Bill and its predecessors embitter them in the work of reconstruction. They must know that they have a big responsibility to the nation and it is their job to fulfil it. By that means the trade unions will earn the confidence and respect of governments, political parties and the nation; and they will restore themselves to a position of pre-eminent influence in the economic, industrial and social affairs of the country. The trade union movement has an amazingly good record of constructive activity in all the turmoil and tumult that it has had to endure. The rioting, the prosecutions and the suppression have been part of the bitter struggle from which I hope we are now emerging. None of this has emerged in these debates, and that is a great pity.
Speaking for a moment to my noble friends, I hope that the Opposition will refrain from making promises about what they will do with this legislation when they get the chance. I believe that numerous mistakes have been made in the past. After the General Strike, for example, a pledge was given that the Labour Government would repeal lock, stock and barrel the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. In 1946 that opportunity came. Ernest Bevin went to the Dispatch Box and said that this was the day of retribution for the 1927 Act. It was to be swept clean from the statute book.
In that triumph he overlooked the fact that since 1927 a war had taken place. One could not face the post-war period with the ramshackle legal and conventional equipment that the trade unions inherited from the war, but that was all they had to

69
go on during the period of reconstruction. Efforts were made by the Labour Government and the Labour Party to bring about a change in trade union law, but those efforts collapsed. Lessons had to be drawn from that. The Labour Party had genuinely attempted to bring a new spirit and a new framework into trade union activity. It is a painful story, all of it. However, to come to this position, it is very difficult to avoid a feeling of considerable bitterness.
I hope that this Bill and its predecessors will now be given a fair run in the period remaining of this Parliament to see how they will work in practice. We must try to look at them in a detached and a not an embittered frame of mind. Can we hope to get out of what we are doing today a new inspiration for cooperation between the trade union movement and the government of the day, whatever political complexion that government may have? I hope we can and that we shall neither in the movement nor in Parliament simply go on saying that what the Tories did shall be swept away and something put in its place, or not as the case may be.
That would be a very bad basis upon which to approach the working of the Bill in the next few years. If we can stand back a little and see how it is working, hoping that all concerned in the trade union movement will try to make the best of it, I believe that in due course we might pinpoint what is wrong, what has been proved to be wrong or what is unacceptable and relatively unimportant and trim the legislation that we have already on the statute book, leaving its fundamentals—there is no doubt that there are fundamentals in the legislation—as a future basis for trade union action.
That is how I feel at the moment and it is in a spirit of hope for the future that I leave the Bill in this House this afternoon. Probably we shall not have another debate on trade unions and their activities, trade unions in society or their place in history for the remainder of this Parliament. What happens to this legislation will occur outside. We must all feel a fairly weighty responsibility for what we are doing today, with the completion of the structure of the trade union movement which the Government have designed for us.
My last word is that I should have felt much better had we had throughout our debates on the trade union legislation a stronger sense of the Government understanding the importance of the work they were doing with a large and historic human institution. It is not something that can be lightly weakened, mutilated or embittered. I fear that that might be the outcome, but I hope that it will not be. I hope that the Bill will prove to be more beneficial than otherwise and that it will help unions to establish a closer relationship with their members. I hope that out of it the trade union movement can go into the next century with the feeling that it has a constructive role in society, leaving some of the memories of the past behind.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, assuming that your Lordships will agree with me, this will be a good time to break in order to return to business in an hour's
70
time. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until eight o'clock.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until eight o'clock. —(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I wish to object. The Minister of State has described the Housing (Scotland) Bill as perhaps the greatest housing Bill since that of 1980. My Chief Whip is getting behind me, and I am not going to pay the slightest attention to him.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, Committee stage, will then commence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.5 to 8 p.m.]

Housing (Scotland) Bill
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I want to come back to what happened before the House rose for pleasure. When the House was about to be adjourned I intended to ask the Government to state their intentions in view of the fact that we were starting consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill so very late. Unfortunately, the noble Lord in the Chair did not hear what I said and I was deprived of the opportunity. I understand, however, that further discussions through the usual channels indicate that we shall not proceed tonight beyond Amendment No. 16. That is a reasonable basis and so I am content.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I heard him say quite distinctly, "Not-Content". I understand that the noble Lord in the Chair did not hear him. Therefore when the noble Viscount sitting on the Government Front Bench rose to say that it had been arranged through the usual channels, it might have appeared that this was acceptable to one and all and overruled any objection. This is most important from what I would call a constitutional point of view. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did object and owing to the bad sound the House adjourned without him being heard.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, and I undertake to go as far as he has indicated in the progress of the Committee stage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Scottish Homes:]
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) assisting in promoting, developing and advising on the availability of housing—

(i) for homeless people

(ii) to prevent homelessness;").

The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of amendments designed to improve this important Bill. Appropriately, it touches on one of the most serious social problems in Scotland, the problem of the homeless. Shelter has been good enough to provide me with some figures in relation to the extent of the problem. In 1983–84, 15,891 families were registered with local authorities as homeless. By 1986–87 that figure had risen to 30,859. It is difficult in this quiet, comfortable and subdued environment to visualise what that means. However, Members of the Committee should consider for a moment how they would feel if they or any of their family or friends were in the position of the 30,000 or so homeless families in Scotland.
The amendment is designed to ensure that this new body, Scottish Homes, will play a supporting role in the efforts of local authorities to alleviate and prevent homelessness. It is accepted that the responsibility for dealing with the problem lies with local authorities. However, in practice local authorities have required the co-operation of all the various housing associations and organisations in order to carry out their statutory responsibility.
The Government acknowledged the problem in the White Paper which preceded the Bill. They expressed the view that the problem of homelessness would be dealt with through a general improvement in the housing situation. However, such an improvement takes a long time to percolate through. The changes envisaged in the Bill will take a long time to work their way through to the large number of homeless people in Scotland. Therefore it is suggested in the amendment that Scottish Homes should play a role in co-ordinating and pushing the care of the homeless, although it is accepted that that is a local authority responsibility.
In the discussions about Scottish Homes frequent references were made in the press and also in this Chamber to the Scottish Development Agency. It was said that Scottish Homes would be a kind of development agency applying itself to the great social problem of housing in Scotland. One thing distinguishes the SDA. It has a dynamic and active role in bringing industry together with local authorities and all kinds of organisations involved in industrial progress. It is a dynamo that gets problems tackled. I hope that by adding this responsibility Scottish Homes will become a kind of SDA and will inject some urgency into dealing with the problem. I hope that it will become an important element in the co-ordination that is necessary.
The problem has been tackled in the city of Glasgow by the local authority in conjunction with the Housing Corporation, the West of Scotland Housing Association and the Scottish Development Agency. All those bodies are involved. They were brought together by the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless. As a result of their efforts a stop-over
72
hostel was established. This has been remarkably successful. All of that work took a good deal of time. It took a good deal of time to deal with what is an immediate problem.
I urge the Minister to accept that giving Scottish Homes this new responsibility will probably expedite the co-ordination of the various agencies. It is said that the problem will be taken care of in the long term as we improve Scottish housing. We should consider that these families are homeless tonight. We cannot wait until a general improvement in the housing stock takes place and there is a general improvement in catering for the homeless. The problem is urgent.
I strongly urge that the new body be given that additional responsibility, although I acknowledge that the responsibility is basically that of the local authorities. Many agencies, including housing departments, social works departments, organisations catering for the single homeless, and so forth, are involved. We hope that the new body will succeed in achieving what the Bill sets out to do. We hope that it will be a dynamic element which will make some contribution to the ever worsening problem. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Committee will be aware that it has been decided that it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 together. My name and that of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna are on the amendments. I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, stressed towards the end of his remarks about people's problems. We are not just talking about people in poor housing; we are talking about families which have no homes. Many of them live in the notorious bed and breakfast accommodation, and that is no way to bring up a family. It sows the seeds of later problems for society.
At present, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide for, or to take account of, homelessness. I shall return to that point in a minute. I wish to stress what has been said before and what was in the Government's White Paper, where they talked about homelessness being a symptom of failures in the housing system. They suggested that the Bill, and Scottish Homes, provided the solution to the problem. We have all said that we believe that there are possibilities in Scottish Homes, especially if the Minister accepts many of the amendments to the working of Scottish Homes. Although we believe that that may be the long-term solution, nevertheless this point is likely to be missed if we cannot have Scottish Homes' responsibility implemented by these two amendments.
In Scotland, as the Minister knows, the Scottish Special Housing Association, with the local authority, is responsible for dealing with homelessness. We have received representations from a number of local authorities which feel the problem acutely. For instance, the Highlands and Islands Council is aware of its problem, and the district and island authorities have the statutory duty under Sections 1 and 85 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to assess the needs of their areas for housing accommodation, and to ensure that all houses in their districts, whether public or private, are brought up to tolerable standards.

73
It is the district council's firm view, as it is ours, that Parliament, having placed this duty on those local authorities, should give them the financial resources or share the responsibility for discharging the duties with the new body (Scottish Homes).
The Bill appears, unless the Minister can satisfy us otherwise, clearly to propose to remove to a central body virtually all power over expenditure. Under Clause 2, Scottish Homes "may provide" and so forth, but local authorities, as the Minister will be aware, "shall provide" and consider the needs of their areas and "shall secure" that houses in their area meet a tolerable standard. There is a dilemma. It seems to me, and obviously to a number of other people, to judge from the representations that we have received, that there is a gap somewhere. A possible pool of houses, and a possible pool of money which at present is being used to bring houses up to a tolerable standard, are being taken away from the ambit of local authorities which, nevertheless, are charged with finding houses for the homeless. That is a weakness in the Bill to which I sincerely hope the Minister will address his mind.
It is important that in future there should be a statutory duty to share the responsibility of housing the homeless, as it is inevitable that under the Bill's provisions local authorities' housing stock is bound to diminish, and so their ability to meet their statutory duties towards the homeless will also diminish. Local authorities will become increasingly dependent upon other agencies which have no statutory obligation to provide housing for the homeless.
I hope that the Minister will give this matter his serious consideration and will realise that there is a gap in the Bill which badly needs to be filled. I therefore support the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised this point. It is curious that the Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said to me is an important Scots housing Bill, does not mention the homeless. I am not clear why it does not. It is important that we have a clear picture of just what Scottish Homes is to do. I am not greatly in favour of co-ordination. I rather think that someone should have a direct responsibility for dealing with the homeless. I am not sure that I should like to see that responsibility shared. It lies with the local authorities. It is right that local authorities should arrange with housing associations, Scottish Homes, and where one will, to obtain help, but I believe that the responsibility should rest with the local authorities.
I do not know what is the relationship of the local authorities with Scottish Homes. It has to be worked out. Scottish Homes is clearly going to be important. We shall return to that point in various ways later. What is the relationship to be? As I see it, local authorities should have their responsibility emphasised more forcefully. I do not know enough about the subject. Homelessness is difficult to define because few of us know what is happening. We see the statistics, but we do not wander around the back streets to see the homeless. We have to rely entirely on reports.
74
It seems to me that the local authorities are not fulfilling their duties. How can they fulfil them? Should they do rather less in relation to what is called general needs and place more emphasis on the homeless, and leave to housing associations and Scottish Homes the more general requirements? I put that as a question to the noble Lord. It is vital to know the answer because someone must be held responsible. I do not see how anyone can hold that responsibility as well as the local authorities do.
Viscount Thurso: It is unfortunate that owing to an administrative hiccup no one from these Benches spoke about the Bill on Second Reading. That was not because we are not interested in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, will know that our colleagues in another place commented favourably on the Bill and tried to help improve it to the best of their ability. I should like the noble Lord to know that and that such comments as I and my colleagues from these Benches will make will be designed to be helpful. Where we are critical of the Bill, it will be only in the friendliest possible way.
I feel that perhaps I ought also to declare a very small interest in that I am chairman of a company which provides housing and flats for the accommodation of people by way of rent. I hope that this will prove of assistance to the Committee, rather than inhibiting my being able to speak on this subject. I feel that I have learnt a lot through doing this kind of work. I learnt it in the old days as a town councillor in the borough of Thurso and as a county councillor in the county of Caithness. It is true that statutorily the homeless are the responsibility of the local authority. But it is not always possible for the local authority easily to discharge that responsibility.
My experience tells me that a large number of tenants of this company with which I am associated are homeless people for whom the local authority finds it has no housing. The authority comes to us and asks us to provide these people with housing. In a small area dealing with small numbers of people with whom one is in ready contact, it is easy to get in touch with people such as ourselves. It is easy for the local authority to find us and say, "Look, we have this problem family. Can you help?" It is easy for us to respond, perhaps much easier than it would be in a large place where one is dealing with vast and more impersonal numbers.
However, I think that we should not lose sight of the fact that it is well nigh impossible for the local authorities solely to discharge society's responsibilities towards the homeless. We should use every agency available to us to deal with this real and often very sad problem.
I feel that it would be right from the point of view of the country and society in general to draw the attention of the new Scottish Homes organisation to the fact that because the principal responsibility for dealing with the homeless may be laid at the door of the local authorities, they are by no means absolved from a responsibility towards the homeless, any more than private landlords within the private sector. There is a responsibility on anybody who is interested in our society to see that the homeless are housed, in just the same way as there is a responsibility to see that those

75
who are already in homes are properly provided with the amenities and facilities which they should have within those homes.
That is why we on these Benches support both Amendments Nos. 1 and 6. We feel that this responsibility should be stated at this point and it should be known that homelessness is a very real problem which is part of the responsibilities that lie before this new body.
Lord Hughes: I also should like to support these amendments. I note that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, where it deals with Scottish Homes, includes the words:
"It provides for the transfer to Scottish Homes of the property, staff and liabilities of Scottish Special Housing Association".
I assume—I hope that I am wrong—that "liabilities" has a financial connotation. I would prefer it if liabilities were interpreted as including responsibilities. If it does, perhaps the Minister has a fairly easy way out of this.
At the moment the Scottish Special Housing Association is the owner of a very large part of the Scottish housing stock. That stock is being transferred to Scottish Homes. However, the Scottish Special Housing Association, in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Clause 38(a), has a duty to assist local authorities with regard to homeless persons. I think it would be contrary to what the Government had in mind as short a time as a year ago that the Scottish Special Housing Association should be playing a part in helping to deal with the problem of the homeless if, in transferring the property, they did not transfer these responsibilities.
In the amendments it would be made quite clear that the responsibility which the SSHA has at the present time would be transferred to the successor body, Scottish Homes. Perhaps I could be told that the use of the word "liabilities" includes these responsibilities, these duties, which are presently with the Scottish Special Housing Association. Then the amendments would not be necessary. Unless it is absolutely certain that Scottish Homes is assuming these responsibilities, it would be better that these words should be included in the Bill to put the matter beyond any possible doubt.
Furthermore, many local local authorities have informal working arrangements with housing associations in this matter. There is no legal responsibility on the housing associations. Of course the amendments do not suggest that this should be the position. But while the informal arrangements with housing associations are working very satisfactorily in some areas, in others this is not the position, possibly because in the other areas the housing associations may not be big enough to be able to make a contribution which is worth while.
I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to say something pleasing. It would be a nice way to start what he has described as a major housing Bill, perhaps even greater than or equal to the 1980 Act in its provisions.
Lord Strathclyde: I too was not present at the Second Reading and I am very sorry for that.
76
However, I much enjoyed reading the debate in Hansard. I am also grateful to be given this opportunity to discuss homelessness because it must surely be a very serious problem. That is not to say that the Government do not care about it, because the main thrust of the Bill is ultimately to improve the situation for housing in Scotland, especially when we hear that there are 130,000 more homes than households in Scotland. Given that problem, I think it is essential that local authorities be left to deal with homelessness. It should be their role to look after the most needy in society, and thus there would be no confusion as to whose role that should be.
Also, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned the similarity between Scottish Homes and the Scottish Development Agency. But the SDA does not necessarily become involved in every single investment that is made in Scotland. Likewise, Scottish Homes should probably not be involved in every aspect of housing in Scotland. Homelessness is already dealt with in other areas.
Going on from homelessness, I have been told that in the fourth quarter of last year over 6,000 new private tenants were created due to people buying their own houses. That is about 20 per cent. of the figure which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gave us of 30,000 homeless people. There is a difference between the two types of people. Surely this shows a dynamism in the Scottish market for housing, because there is an increase of 40 per cent. on the same figure last year. Private sector money therefore must ultimately improve the situation, leaving local authorities to deal with the real problem.
I do not really believe that this amendment would help homelessness any more than is happening at present.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have great difficulty in following what the noble Lord has just said. He seemed to be saying that private tenants who had bought their houses would—
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that the noble Lord understood that what I really meant was that new private tenants were created by people buying their council houses.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should have thought that it was self-evident that no tenancy is created by anybody buying any house. One removes from the rent market any house which is bought by a tenant. That house becomes owner-occupied. It is not available to be rented out by the council.
One of the problems of local authorities is that they have a duty to provide housing for homeless people. They have a large number of their acceptable houses removed by tenants who want to buy and they are restricted in the amount of money they are allowed to spend on new housing. I should have thought that it was very important for this new body to have a duty to look at homelessness. I regret to say that nothing the noble Lord has said convinces me otherwise.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: These amendments take us to the heart of this very important issue. I say straight away to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso,

77
that the fact that no speeches came from the Members on his Benches on Second Reading does not mean to say that I do not realise how important they consider this Bill to be.
During the months of discussion of the White Paper and the Bill, the Government have repeatedly been faced with the entirely groundless charge that our policies ignore the plight of the homeless. And yet one of the Government's primary objectives and one of Scottish Homes's main tasks is to increase the quantity of housing available in Scotland. I am at something of a loss to understand what can be more relevant to the needs of the homeless than an increase in the numbers of available houses.
I made the point during our Second Reading debate that the surplus of houses over the number of households in Scotland, which is about 130,000, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has said, is more than five times the number of households whom local authorities assist as homeless in the course of a year. The Government's policies are directed at bringing more of those properties into use.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned the figure of 30,000 as being the homeless figure in contrast to the 24,196 which was the total obtained from the returns made by local authorities themselves to the Scottish Development Agency. Admittedly the department's figures are based on incomplete returns, but I expect any final figures to show a difference in hundreds rather than thousands.
Some of the houses to which I have referred are unused because the existing Rent Acts are a deterrent to their owners to let them out. We hope that introduction of assured tenancies will change that.
Some of them are unused because they are in parts of council estates where no one can be persuaded to go and live. Their boarded-up windows are a visible indictment of the failures of remote and bureaucratic public sector management. We hope that our policies will change that by encouraging local authorities to improve their management or to transfer the houses which they are not using to someone else—a housing association, a co-operative, a developer or individual families who might wish to buy them cheaply and devote their energies to rehabilitating them. Scottish Homes will be promoting and assisting in these processes.
As well as bringing unused houses into use, our policies will result in more houses being built, both for owner-occupation and for rent. Since 1979 we have provided the funding to enable the number of houses which housing associations have available for renting to increase more than six times over. The new financial framework for housing associations, which Scottish Homes will administer in succession to the Housing Corporation in Scotland, is designed to enable an even faster rate of annual growth than we have seen over these years.
All of these policies, with Scottish Homes at the heart of them, will help the homeless. Yet they are not for the homeless alone. They are for everyone who wants better housing and a wider choice of housing. The homeless are not a breed apart. They are ordinary households whom the housing system has failed to provide with a means of dealing with their own housing needs. As the White Paper says, very succinctly:
78
"Homelessness is a symptom of failures in the housing system. The Government's proposals will make the housing system work better".
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned timing. As regards the timescale of change and the immediacy of homeless people's needs, I invite the Committee to draw a distinction between the time needed to transform completely our housing system and the time needed to achieve results. The empty houses which I have talked about, particularly those in the public sector, could be brought back into use very quickly. Many thousands of extra houses are being provided every year and we are seeking to increase that number virtually as soon as the Bill is in effect. It will be some time before we bring owner-occupation to every family who wants it, or a real choice of renting arrangements to everyone who wishes to rent. But our policies are already producing results which are of real benefit to those in most need.
If I may turn more closely to the detailed wording of the amendments, it is important not to misconceive the purpose of the statutory provisions dealing specifically with the homeless, which derive from the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. The purpose of those provisions is to provide a single door.
Here I refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk when he talked about which door was meant. It is the single door to which those who have become homeless or who are in danger of doing so can go. That single door is, quite rightly, the local authority. The system as it stands works well. Let us remember that the statistical figures which are so often quoted in relation to the homeless are for people for whom the safety net provided in legislation works. They are people who go to the local authority and who receive housing, exactly as the legislation intended. They are not people who are left without a roof over their heads. We will not help the people whom we describe as homeless by introducing overlap and ambiguity into the statutory responsibilities in this field. It would not be a positive step to give Scottish Homes statutory duties which duplicate those of local authorities, as there is a danger that Amendment No. 1 would do.
Amendment No. 6 is a rather different matter. It is essentially unnecessary. The Bill already places a duty on Scottish Homes to co-operate with local authorities by assisting them to carry out their functions in relation to the homeless. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, this duty rests on the SSHA at present by virtue of Section 38 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and it will pass to Scottish Homes through the operation of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Bill, which converts existing statutory references to the SSHA into references to Scottish Homes.
Scottish Homes will play a vital part in easing Scotland's housing problems. But these amendments, in so far as they do not duplicate the existing effect of the Bill, are perhaps an attempt to separate one kind of housing need from other kinds. The Government's rejection of these amendments is not a rejection of the homeless. It is a rejection because they feel it is the wrong approach to deal with their needs. Therefore I hope that the noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will my noble friend say whether he agrees with me that an additional very important point in all this is that the district housing authority, which is the district or island council, which has the job of operating the Act has in many cases to work also with the social work department, which is a regional or island council function? My noble friend is quite right, however, to say that this does not apply in all cases and that there are different kinds of people who become homeless.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, that function is best carried out by local authorities. The SDA was mentioned as having been compared with Scottish Homes as a concept. That is correct, but the SDA's function in bringing people together has never been concerned with being involved in social work in the way that social work departments are involved. For example, in GEAR in Glasgow the SDA has brought social work departments together with others to think out the planning of housing and of provision, and it has been very successful. There is no need for Scottish Homes to do that because that is what the planners do in all local authorities. That is stretching the comparison a bit far.
It seems to me that local authorities are clearly the people to operate the Act and to deal with the problem as such. Scottish Homes has the job of helping to reduce the shortage of housing, as my noble friend has said. Will the Minister agree with that? Am I making a correct assumption?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes. I can do no better in answering my noble friend than to read Section 38, to which I referred earlier and to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred. It says:
"Where a local authority—(a) request … the Scottish Special Housing Association to assist them … the authority to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates as is reasonable in the circumstances".
That may answer the point.
Viscount Thurso: In discussing homelessness it is a great trap to talk in terms of statistics. The homeless are people. The way in which we should deal with individual needs of special people who have become homeless is not by talking of statistics. Sometimes they must be dealt with one by one, and sometimes more than one department or sector must be involved.
As I see it, Scottish Homes is supposed to bridge the gap between the local authority sector and the private sector. For that reason I feel we should put an obligation on Scottish Homes as regards homelessness. It is all too easy statistically to have plenty of houses for the people who need to be housed but end up with the wrong sorts of homes so that large numbers of people still remain unhoused.
When I was in local authority work, we found that certain classes of housing were difficult to let. For instance, a five-apartment house was difficult to let because the rent appeared to be high. It was difficult to interest the local authority in producing two-apartment houses. Local authorities wanted to produce three-apartment and four-apartment houses because it was easy to calculate the number of families to be housed and most of them wanted that
80
type of housing. However, I believe that a large proportion of the homeless are in the unfortunate category of one-parent families.
It is easy for a local authority to say: "Why don't their parents look after them?" That is not always the answer. The unfortunate people who are forced into homelessness are not being fully provided for by the system which exists within local authorities. We should widen the responsibility and make it clear that we do not simply have one door to which those people come crawling on their knees, tugging their forelocks. It should be the responsibility of the whole of society to provide housing for those who are unfortunate, who are unable to provide it for themselves or who require help in finding it. The responsibility should be spelt out at the point of setting up a body to bridge the gap between local authority housing and the private sector.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may say one or two words about Amendment No. 6, which has been spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I shall read with great care what the Minister has just said. He seemed to say that the amendment was superfluous because the responsibilities of the local authority under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Clause 38, provided that SHHA had a duty to assist local authorities with regard to homeless persons and that that duty would be transferred to Scottish Homes. Once the Minister's speech is printed in Hansard, we shall study it carefully and decide what to do. However, if that is the case, and without making any commitment on Amendment No. 1, I would not propose to move Amendment No. 6.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may ask one question. The Minister said that there was reference to co-operation between authorities in Section 38 of the Housing (Scotland) Act. While fully appreciating that that section mentions homeless people and threatened homelessness, as well as mentioning the Scottish Special Housing Association, I cannot find anything in the Bill that brings Scottish Homes into Section 38 of the Act of 1987. Perhaps between now and Report stage, in order to meet some of the points that have been raised, some amendment should be made to Section 38 to bring Scottish Homes into it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am rather disappointed that we have not been able to convince the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of the wisdom of the amendment. I should have thought that with the experience which the noble Baroness has had in local government she would welcome a new agency which could inject a degree of urgency into dealing with this terrible social problem.
I should also have thought that the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, with his close connections with the city of Glasgow through his father and his grandfather, who was a councillor in that city when Glasgow was the worst-housed city in Europe, would have felt a degree of urgency. It is a crucial social problem, and it is getting worse.
I admit that that problem is the responsibility of the local authorities under the statute. However, in

81
1983–1984, the number of homeless people in Scotland was 15,891. According to a survey by Shelter, the number has how increased to 30,859. Those are families who are actually homeless. Many have young children who go to school in the morning and who live in bed and breakfast premises. They do not have a home of their own.
Before we discard that new responsibility for Scottish Homes, we should think seriously about whether the new body with its new responsibilities can inject something into the situation which will help. I am not suggesting that the Government do not care. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I am not suggesting that. Equally, we on this side of the Committee are anxious to be helpful.
We are creating a new body in Scotland. We are creating a new element. I should have thought that even in terms of its own credibility and standing, to provide that the new body should help to deal with the critical social problem of homelessness would increase its authority. I want Scottish Homes to succeed and I should like to see it play that role. It is possible to say that that is the local authority's job and that there will be duplication. However, I suspect from the correspondence which I have had with CoSLA that a local authority would not mind the new body taking an interest in, working with, co-operating with and co-ordinating the effort to deal with the homeless.
While I shall not press this amendment to a vote tonight, like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I shall read what has been said and possibly return to the subject at a later stage. However, I plead sincerely with noble Lords including the Minister to recognise that we are trying to be helpful. We are not scoring political points. We are not saying that we care more than they care. We are trying to be helpful in creating a new Scottish institution with authority and credibility that will make a contribution to dealing with this desperate social problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8, after second ("associations") insert ("and all persons and bodies to whom it provides financial assistance").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and myself, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 3. I believe I have a very easy task because I know, or suspect, that the Minister is a reasonable man, even though I do not think that all of his colleagues are reasonable men. The amendment addresses what is an obvious omission.
As the Bill stands, Scottish Homes has the function of registering and supervising housing associations. We all agree with that. One factor that has helped housing associations and public confidence in them is the knowledge that the Housing Corporation since 1974 has supervised and registered the various housing associations and has gone along with their work. By Clause 1(3)(a) the Bill gives Scottish Homes the general function of,
"providing, and assisting in the provision of, finance to persons or bodies intending to provide, improve, repair, maintain or manage housing".
82
That means of course anyone at all. Scottish Homes gives those bodies the money. It has no power anywhere to supervise what those persons or bodies do with the money. Such a provision is missing entirely. I cannot believe that the Government intend that money should be handed out to anyone—some might possibly be Rachman types—without any power to control or register who they are or any power to supervise what they do. Therefore, in the confident hope that the Minister sees the reason behind these amendments, I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: As the president of a very small housing association in England which is highly registered and supervised by the Housing Corporation, I should like to support very strongly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My name is attached to the amendment. We would argue that the position outlined in the Bill is anomalous. All recipients of financial assistance should be subject to the same degree of supervisory control. The procedures and mechanisms for doing so are already in existence and need only be extended to cover the whole range of landlords. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has already mentioned the danger of a re-emergence of Rachmanism unless there is appropriate supervision. I suspect that the Minister may wish to avoid that. I support the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am sure there is no dispute about the intention of these amendments—the need for accountability in relation to landlords and others in receipt of public funds. The question is whether the amendments are the best method of achieving that accountability. It is on that point that we are in some disagreement.
I am sure it is right for Scottish Homes to continue the well-proven system of registering and monitoring housing associations in receipt of high levels of public funds. However, Scottish Homes's financial assistance to other private landlords is likely to be at a much lower level and only in specialised circumstances. That is because housing associations will be receiving grants specifically to enable them to let at rents which are below market level. Private landlords, on the other hand, will generally be eligible for financial assistance only where a project is not commercially viable even on the basis of market rents and where the project would serve some public policy purpose.
Each application for assistance will be considered on its merits and an appropriate level of funding may be approved. It may be a very small proportion of the cost of a project. To require the same supervisory regime as applies to registered housing associations would be to apply an unwieldy and bureaucratic system which more often than not would be quite unnecessary.
There is no doubt that public funds must be protected and that standards must be maintained. We consider that both those requirements can best be achieved through contractual arrangements, including conditions under which financial support may be offered. This is a similar system to that operated by the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board when

83
offering grants or loans. We must remember that letting or developing housing is a commercial activity no different in principle from the provision of other important services.
The Government's approach will ensure that the conditions will be closely tailored to the circumstances of the individual project and the level of Scottish Homes's involvement. It would also have the benefit of reflecting the type of contractual arrangements familiar to the private landlord or developer. It would, as a result, be easier to operate and less likely to deter potential applicants.
I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will consider seeking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall study what the Minister has said. However, I must say that at first hearing I find it singularly unconvincing. It seems to be that so long as one is a private body or corporation or building company—and I do not wish to mention any names—nothing is to be written into the Bill that would restrict anything the company might do with the money and there is to be no supervision as to how it is to be spent.
That seems to me quite farcical. If I may say so, the history of certain contracts supervised by St. Andrew's House, especially in the building of hospitals, does not give this side of the House total confidence in the commercial expertise of St. Andrew's House in arranging such supervision. It would be much better to have something in the Bill in the very general wording that I suggest in the amendment, placing a duty on Scottish Homes to supervise the financial assistance.
The quality of supervision varies. Some people supervise and require supervision that takes them along step by step, like a nanny teaching a mentally defective child to walk. Other types of supervision may be from long distance. I suggest to the Minister that he might reconsider this matter during the interval between now and Report stage. I shall certainly read with care what he has said. At this stage I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) assessing the extent of the need for, and promoting and developing the provision of, housing for community care throughout Scotland in conjunction with relevant bodies").
The noble Viscount said: Last Sunday I went to church. We put up our prayers of intercession for the sick and the disabled. In the evening I sat and watched television and saw a most moving programme about the sad plight of the mentally ill in our society. I appreciate what the Government are trying to do through their policy of caring for the mentally ill within the community. It is an ideal with which we on these Benches would certainly go along, provided that the community are given the tools with which to perform the job properly. I feel that this amendment pinpoints one of the missing parts of
84
what is needed in order to deal with this serious and real problem. Somebody must be assessing the extent of the need for and promoting the development and the provision of housing for community care.
Scottish Homes, if it is to do the kind of job which we have accepted from the Minister is the kind of job that it is supposed to be doing, should surely have a strategic and developmental role with regard to community care provision. It would be unrealistic to leave the strategic role to district councils alone. Many health boards cover several district council areas. In the Highlands, for example, proper Highland perspective is required, which none of the local authorities individually could be expected to provide. One would possibly get an unevenness throughout Scotland as a result of leaving Scottish Homes out of the role of assessing the need for housing for community care and promoting its development.
Owing to the fact that health board and regional council boundaries overlap and in many cases do not coincide, it is essential that there is a body with a broad national perspective on the issue. Surely Scottish Homes is the body to provide that national perspective. That is why we put forward this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think that this is a very important amendment, although my own name is not on it. I wonder whether the Minister, in his reply, could give us an indication that paragraph (g),
"such other general functions as are conferred upon Scottish Homes by or under this Act or any other enactment".
allows for the amendment that has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because generally speaking people are anxious that there should be special provision. There has been a fair amount of provision, although we have frequently had a fight trying to preserve special housing for people in special need and not have the houses taken over by others through earlier legislation in this Chamber and in the other place.
The Minister may be able to reassure us. Perhaps he could confirm that there will be a role for the promotion of owner-occupation; for improvement of housing and improvement of management; for promoting development of housing associations; and for undertaking and assisting the development, redevelopment and improvement of physical, social and economic facilities. It would be a great help to us all if in paragraph (g) there could be a reference of some sort to meet the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and if the Minister did not just tell us that he was sure it would be covered but said that it is covered by earlier legislation.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord cannot give much of an answer because, after all, Scottish Homes has not been formed yet. It will have to make its policy in due course. But I ask the noble Lord to let this point be clearly before it. It is something that is necessary. Edinburgh is a splendid place, but one does not want everything to be centralised in Edinburgh. Other parts of the country must be considered. I believe we should be very happy if the noble Lord could say that that was very much in his mind.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The Government are committed wholeheartedly to the Care in the Community policy, which enables many people to return to their own homes and communities rather than spend their lives confined to long-term residential care establishments. This amendment is intended to to give Scottish Homes a major role in bringing about that desirable object.
Care in the Community has a number of components which vary depending on the needs of the individual. In general the lead is taken by the health boards and the social work authorities, which often provide the care and support services that a person needs to resume life in the community. Many voluntary bodies play a major part in providing suitable houses and co-ordinating the support services. We all know of such bodies. Many of them are housing associations.
As chairman of a local housing association I was instrumental in promoting this policy with the social work department and the health board in the Border region, and a very successful development took place.
It has to be said that the success of such a policy depends on constructive co-operation between the bodies providing the various elements. In many areas this is now quite sophisticated. As I indicated, in the Border area there is a joint committee of the social work department and health board working consistently on this matter.
However, I do not accept that the difficulties of co-ordination between body A and body B will be any the less if body C, Scottish Homes, is introduced. The amendment seeks to give Scottish Homes a statutory central role. Given that its main aims are in housing and housing-related community development, I think that it would be in some difficulty in taking the lead in community care. However, it will provide any assistance it can to make community care a practical reality. If asked, it could co-ordinate a project involving, say, a housing association. It will play its part, but the real changes, if they are needed, must come from the main bodies; namely, the health boards and the social work authorities.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, powerful though it will be, Scottish Homes is not a panacea for all ills. I hope that he will consider withdrawing his amendment in the light of what I have said about the co-operative role that Scottish Homes, in this case through housing associations, will play.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who asked about the point of Clause 1(3)(g), it would be more relevant to look at the general functions in Clause 1(3)(a), (b), (d), (e) and particularly (f), all of which may be relevant without altering the general thrust of what I have already said.
Baroness Seear: As a complete Sassenach I enter this discussion with the greatest hesitation. However, unless Scotland is far and away ahead of England and Wales—and I accept that that might well be the case—I can only say that, as the report by Sir Roy Griffiths on community care has made plain, already in England and Wales the policy of returning people to the community from institutions has far outrun the provision being made in local areas for receiving
86
those people. Scotland may have better anticipated the position, but if not some provision of this kind will be very much in order.
Lord Hylton: I hope that, if the Minister is not already in the picture, he will inform himself about the arrangements that have been worked out in England and Wales stemming from the Housing Corporation. Year after year it was consistently provided with finance for community care projects. In this country these are usually done through housing associations. The property is built to a specification for the client group. It is leased on to a social work voluntary body which then operates it. This has worked very satisfactorily. The National Federation of Housing Associations in England and Wales had a working party on this subject over a period of years.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am well aware of this. I am also well aware of what has been written in the Griffiths Report. I go back to the initial point that I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on this. We are not arguing that Scottish Homes should not play a part in this. I am arguing on the point that was put to me: that it should play a central role in this. This the Government do not accept.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, for showing that he is so keenly aware of this problem. I do not totally agree with his assessment on whether Scottish Homes should play a greater part in this than it appears that it will do. However, I take some comfort from the fact that he seems to hint that it will be able to reach that decision itself. Perhaps I may receive more comfort than I do at this moment when I read more carefully in Hansard what he has said. I accept that it would be a mistake to give Scottish Homes the sole responsibility, but I feel that it would be a good thing to give them a measure of responsibility.
I shall read with care in Hansard what the Minister has said and if necessary I am sure that I or my colleagues will return to the fray at a later stage. Meanwhile I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) producing an annual investment strategy and consulting local authorities on that strategy;").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to tie up the work and planning of Scottish Homes with the general planning of housing as a whole in Scotland. In the amendment we ask that Scottish Homes shall have the general function of,
"producing an annual investment strategy and consulting local authorities on that strategy".
The Minister will be aware that local authorities are expected to develop their enabling and strategic role in meeting the housing and other strategic needs of the areas. They will require an input to the plans for the future housing policies and proposals of Scottish Homes. Therefore, although in the Committee in another place the Minister said that he had made it clear that Scottish Homes will routinely

87
consult local authorities and others, we feel that this is not as positive as it could be.
The amendment therefore seeks to make it a statutory duty of Scottish Homes to consult local authorities on ordinary investment strategy—not to give them control over it, but merely the right to know what Scottish Homes will do, and how it will spread the housing development. In other words, we are asking that the left hand should have an idea what the right hand is doing. There is no point in Scottish Homes deciding to build x number of houses in an area for which the local authority has already made plans. That seems to me common sense. The amendment is merely giving the local authorities the right to be consulted rather than to be routinely consulted. The phrase "routinely consulted" may be interpreted as meaning that perhaps they may be consulted when it suits Scottish Homes or when it is convenient for Scottish Homes. I believe that the wording should be stronger: that they must be consulted and that there can be no veto on that. At least they should know what is being done. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: We are again on the subject of the relationship between the local authority and the new agency. It is important at this stage that their respective roles and responsibilities towards each other should be clearly defined. Bearing in mind the very important involvement of local authorities in housing in Scotland, I believe it may be desirable that this should be written in. I am sure that the local authorities will welcome it and it need not impede the activities of the housing association. I hope therefore that this may be accepted.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned investment strategy. Those are big words. I should like to ask who is responsible for the relative number of houses and trading estates. Who will decide that one area shall contain some industrial estates for development? It is no good building masses of houses unless there are places to work. That must be done absolutely at the beginning, when the planning is started.
It seems to me that Scottish Homes should have that in mind. It is perhaps a long distance ahead, but in laying out, perhaps with the assistance of the local authority, this matter should not be forgotten in the general planning of homes and opportunities for work.
My other point concerns roads. One of the greatest problems to face us all over the country is roads. Any development must have a proper road system, otherwise people cannot go to wherever they want to go to. I just throw this idea out because it should be within the capacity of Scottish Homes to make suggestions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Are we not discussing this as if the district councils were not the local planning authorities and regional councils were not the strategic planning authorities? There is the overall structure plan for the regions and the local plans of the districts. I should have thought that all
88
discussions about housing had to take account of those, or am I misunderstanding what the amendment proposes?
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether I may add one more comment here. There needs to be close co-operation among water, sewerage, lighting availability, industrial development that might be next to housing, shops and so on. These landscape architectural arrangements can be extremely expensive. I trust that Scottish Homes, in conjunction with local authorities, will employ its own architectural staff to work out the feasibility of developing something like this. I do not want necessarily to criticise architects, but it is not unknown for architects to be employed on landscaping for housing developments and for them to place houses in such a way that they cannot be drained because the levels are incorrectly taken. This can lead to a great deal of expense.
I know that the co-operation between the Scottish Special Housing Association and the local authorities has been remarkable, but these unfortunately are things that have happened in the past and I should not like to see them happen again.
Viscount Thurso: There is no doubt that Scottish Homes will have to co-operate closely with local authorities all over Scotland. It would help us all if the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, will spell out how he expects this dialogue to be started and maintained.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The amendment seeks to subject Scottish Homes to a requirement to prepare an annual investment strategy. At this stage I should say to my noble friend Lord Balfour that I do not want to get into a debate on the merits or demerits of architects or their plans. There is no doubt that any body which undertakes capital spending, let alone on the substantial scale under which Scottish Homes will operate, must plan carefully. Both the Housing Corporation and the SSHA do so now. They do not do so in isolation. In preparing their plans they are fully aware of the competing claims and interests of a variety of bodies including local authorities and housing associations.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour is quite right about the planning authorities, the structure plans that exist in various areas and the importance of them. Discussions take place when necessary and no one is shy of letting either body or the Government know his views about where funds should be deployed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the availability of information. Scottish Homes will produce a corporate plan which will be publicly available. It will operate within the terms of a financial memorandum and specific financial directions from the Secretary of State. These arrangements are similar to those used successfully in relation to the Scottish Development Agency. We should remember that Scottish Homes will be undertaking a variety of tasks, and judging the balance and priorities will be a major concern. I do not consider that consultation with local authorities in the formal manner implied by the amendment would assist in the exercise. Good and effective planning procedures are not synonymous with

89
cumbersome routines and a need to allow for the long intervals that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, knows exist in dealing with local authority committee cycles.
If we take the spirit of the amendment as being that Scottish Homes's investments should be planned, and planned with the knowledge of needs, then we are in agreement; but the mechanisms required to achieve that must be flexible and capable of change. They are complex and not amenable to being reduced to one line in a Bill. No doubt this is one of the reasons why the SDA, the Housing Corporation, the SSHA and other bodies are not subject to a statutory requirement of this kind. I trust that the noble Lord, having heard the comments I have made, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit of his reply. Unfortunately that spirit is difficult to put into a code in perhaps 10 or 20 years' time. One of the problems which was raised rather sharply, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is that at certain critical periods one could get within a local authority strong conveners of housing, for instance, who would push ahead without having the machinery in the council to uphold the operations. A convenor would be concerned with figures of housing, and, because he was concerned with increasing his housing statistics, schools, shopping and community centres might in the rush to do that sometimes be left with no room for development. That has contributed to some of the difficulties which have arisen in establishing the areas.
So, although I understand the Minister not wanting to tie Scottish Homes down too much, I am not sure that by the time it comes to planning permission it is not too late. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, it would all need to have planning permission ultimately through local authorities, with strategic plans and so on. However, perhaps it is too late by that time and too much "face" would be lost if there were a radical change. I feel that when Scottish Homes puts forward a big idea it will be anxious to get a certain amount of publicity and if a local authority then comes along and says, "Oh, no, this is just not the right thing" and turns it down on planning grounds, we could get unnecessary conflict between two bodies which are really going in the same direction.
I hope that the Minister will perhaps give a little more thought to that. I believe that his right honourable friend in another place was rather more progressive—although I hate to use the word in this context—than the Minister has been tonight. However, I hope the message has gone home. Does the Minister wish to speak?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like to say just one word. We are talking about the annual investment strategy: I think it is in the terms of the amendment. That is all we are talking about. So far as dealing with planners and Scottish Homes and their overall plan are concerned, that will go ahead: they cannot operate otherwise. So I hope I have not been as unhelpful as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seems to suggest.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think the Minister has more faith in Scottish Homes and the professional people who will be pushing it. I believe that when they announce their financial strategy they will have a very good idea of exactly where they are going to develop. However, I will not labour this any more at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Scottish Homes]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 43, line 39, at end insert—
(" . Scottish Homes will establish administrative offices in each region and islands area of Scotland.").
The noble Viscount said: The Government have said that they expect Scottish Homes to establish regional administrative offices to help in the execution of its responsibilities. I think an awful lot will depend on the word "expect". Do they mean expect in a confident sense, as Nelson did at the Battle of Trafalgar when he expected the crews to do their duty? Will Government urge on Scottish Homes with the lash, and draw it on with the rum tot, or will they just sit back and hope?
There is a real problem. Perhaps more than any other noble Lord I know the difficulties of travelling within Scotland. It is a burden to travel, for example, from Thurso to Edinburgh and back again in order to transact business. It is believed that there may be offices in Glasgow, Edinburgh and possibly Perth which will serve the north of Scotland. Perth is a long way away. It is a hard drive from Perth to Inverness and having reached Inverness it is a further drive to Thurso. Therefore noble Lords will understand that from the point of view of those who live in the far north of Scotland, in places more remote than Thurso, with worse roads, it will be difficult for tenants to travel to the offices of Scottish Homes to make their complaints and discuss their problems.
There is a large SSHA housing estate in Thurso which some years ago I was partly instrumental in attracting there to deal with the housing problem. It found it necessary to run an office in Thurso, and, that being so, if Scottish Homes is developing in other strategic points in the Highlands I hope that it will open more offices around the country. I hope that the word "expect" will be used in the Nelson tradition rather than in a pious sense. I believe that in order for proper confidence to be established in Scottish Homes that should be so.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: These amendments, which were debated in some detail in another place, seek to impose what I consider to be unnecessary restrictions on Scottish Homes in relation to its organisation at administrative and board level.
I am aware that there has been some concern, as expressed by the noble Viscount, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, but also in other rural areas, that Scottish Homes may tend to concentrate its activities in the regeneration of large peripheral housing estates in central Scotland. My honourable

91
friend the Minister for Housing and the Environment in another place has received a number of representations from district and islands councils about the likely location of Scottish Homes administrative offices. He has given assurances, which I can repeat here, that the Government's commitment to the appropriate developments of housing policy to meet the needs of rural areas is no less than their commitment in relation to urban areas. Scottish Homes will have an important role to play, alongside local authorities, in improving housing conditions throughout Scotland and for this reason the Government have expressed the view that Scottish Homes should have a decentralised organisational structure. I believe that that is not a pious hope on the part of the Government.
We believe, however, that it would be wrong to predetermine the detailed structure of Scottish Homes. At administrative level Scottish Homes must be left to produce its own proposals after careful consideration of its requirements. At board level Scottish Homes must have the flexiblity to set up committees as and when they are necessary, and to have serving on these committees representatives of interests relevant to the range of matters to be considered by the committee. The imposition of such a management and board structure as would result from these amendments would be entirely inappropriate to many of the matters with which Scottish Homes may find itself involved; and indeed may have the opposite effect than that intended by leading to greater conflict with local authorities.
For these reasons I hope that the noble Viscount will seek leave to withdraw his amendment. I should like to emphasise that the Government do not intend to put forward a pious hope and that his reference to Lord Nelson is perhaps more appropriate.
Lord Hylton: I believe that it is most important to get the urban-rural balance right in any country, including Scotland. Figures have been produced which show that 5·2 per cent. of the Scottish population at the moment lives in the Highland region; that is, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Yet during the past few years only 2·3 per cent. of the budget of the Housing Corporation in Scotland has been spent on those areas. That fact rather underlines the thrust of the noble Viscount's amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like to reply to the noble Lord on this aspect. I think when he has been to the Western Isles, as I have recently, he will agree that because of the Crofting Commission and the work done by the local authorities—very good work—the housing stock in those areas is much better than it was only a few years ago. The Government take this point very seriously, although we come back to the issue of regional administration and so on. Scottish Homes will have to address that aspect early in its career.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the assurance that he will adopt the Nelson stance. However, I hope that Scottish Homes does not do so because Nelson turned a blind eye to the orders he received. I trust that it will not be
92
Scottish Homes that has the Nelson touch but rather the Scottish Office. With the assurances that the noble Lord has given me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 44, line 22, at end insert ("in Scotland").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. All the amendments relate to the terms of employment and, so to speak, the transfer of the Scottish Special Housing Association and Housing Corporation employees who may be or are to be transferred to Scottish Homes.
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 provides that:
"Scottish Homes shall … make an offer of employment … to each person employed … by—

(a) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

(b) The Housing Corporation, in connection with its functions in Scotland,

and any question as to the persons to whom an offer of employment is to be made … shall be determined by the Secretary of State".
That seems to mean that the Secretary of State is to determine whether anyone is employed by the Housing Corporation in connection with its functions in Scotland; otherwise, I cannot see any content to it. Lines 26 and 27 therefore appear to be totally unnecessary. That is the reason for Amendment No. 9. It is a question of fact and does not need determination.
The other issue is more difficult. The purpose of Amendment No. 8 is to change the sub-paragraph to read:
"an offer of employment by it to each person employed in Scotland … by … the Scottish Special Housing Association".
I understand that people are employed in Scotland by the Housing Corporation, whose functions might not be considered by the Secretary of State to be wholly in connection with its functions in Scotland but might be concerned with other duties as well. It would be rather difficult for those gentlemen, or ladies, to be transferred suddenly to the Housing Corporation in England; they might not wish to move from a pleasant country into an overcrowded area. There is a problem, perhaps a problem of definition, which needs to be looked at more carefully; as do Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
They show what I am sure is a defect in the thinking of the draftsmen, because we have here the fact that the Secretary of State, or someone, has to make an offer to an employee. The employee then has three months in which to make up his mind. But if he refuses, then on the day he refuses and does not accept the offer he has to have put in his appeal to the industrial tribunal. That seems to me to be quite unreal and different from the normal situation.
If one looks at paragraph 13(2) the industrial tribunal,
"shall not consider a complaint referred to it under sub-paragraph (1) … unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer".
If one takes as an example Mr. Smith, who has made an offer on 1st January, he has until 31st March to accept or reject that offer. If he does not accept it by 31st March he has to lodge his appeal with the

93
tribunal by 31st March, which is what is said, namely,
"3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment".
For the analogy that I have taken, the date of the offer is 1st January. I do not believe that is what is meant and from the indication of the noble and learned Lord sitting beside the noble Lord the Minister he seems to think that that is not quite what is meant.
The reason for the amendment to make it "3" instead of "6" is, first, to put it in line with the industrial tribunal procedure with which the Minister will be well acquainted from Sections, 84, 90 and 101 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. It is also to make it reasonable for someone having failed to take up an offer to have a further period in which to consider whether he wishes to go to the industrial tribunal. Therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Like him I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. If I understand it right, Amendment No. 8 is intended to establish which staff of the SSHA and of the Housing Corporation in Scotland are to receive offers of employment by Scottish Homes. The intention is that all those employed by both bodies immediately before a date set by the Secretary of State should receive an offer of employment. Under the terms of paragraph 12 of the schedule, that offer shall be on terms which taken as a whole are no less favourable to the person than the terms on which he or she is employed on the date of the offer.
I believe that the Committee will recognise that that is a fair way of proceeding. However, as the Housing Corporation in Scotland is not a separate legal entity from the Housing Corporation and technically all its staff are employees of the Housing Corporation proper, there is a problem of definition. The words used in the paragraph are intended to mean that all the staff of the Housing Corporation in Scotland receive offers of employment.
The lines that Amendment No. 9 seeks to remove provide that where any question arises as to whom an offer of employment should be made, the question is to be determined by the Secretary of State. This is a safeguard to ensure that no one is left out through a doubt. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to extend from three months to six months the period of time during which a person who has received an offer of employment from Scottish Homes with which he is dissatisfied may refer a complaint to an industrial tribunal.
I expect that if all goes well the terms of employment which Scottish Homes will offer will be known well before the appointed day on which formal offers have to be made to every employee at that time of the SSHA and the Housing Corporation of Scotland. I expect that these terms will be the subject of keen examination by every prospective employee or his representative. Scottish Homes will be involved no doubt in substantial discussions on them. I cannot say when the formal offers will be made, but our plans are still that Scottish Homes will take over the staff and the obligations of the SSHA and the Housing Corporation in Scotland by 1st April 1989. That could mean that the terms of employment were in discussion by late this year.
94
Only where the discussions fail to produce a result acceptable to an individual will reference to an industrial tribunal be necessary. The complainant will know of this well before he receives a formal offer and it would seem reasonable that he should make his complaint within three months of that offer. To allow his six months would leave the staffing of Scottish Homes in limbo for a long time and could affect adversely the appointment of colleagues.
These provisions are well precedented. As far as I am aware, no individual member of staff of the Housing Corporation in Scotland or of the SSHA, in respect of which these definitional problems do not arise, is in any doubt as to whether he or she will receive an offer of employment. If the noble Lord has any such person in mind I shall be happy to have the case examined and will write to him.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that there is no difference between us as to the intended effect of these provisions. We shall study his erudite words carefully, and if there is a drafting error we shall correct it. In the meantime I do not think his amendments add anything to what is already in Schedule 1. I trust therefore that he will feel able to withdraw them.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may ask one question. Is it contended that paragraph 11 should continue indefinitely into the future, or does it apply only to the initial period while Scottish Homes is being set up? In other words, will the Secretary of State have complete control over all appointments at all times to Scottish Homes?
The Earl of Dundee: I can reassure my noble friend that that is a different point in a different context. The reference to the Secretary of State in this context is simply so that if there should be any doubt whether somebody is an employee of Scottish Homes the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State. It is then up to him to decide one way or the other.
The Earl of Selkirk: That is not what the Bill says. It says that under this paragraph any such question,
"shall be determined by the Secretary of State".
The Earl of Dundee: If I am wrong, and if the point to which my noble friend refers is ambiguous, I shall certainly have it looked into and come back to him at Report stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, understood what he read out to us. If so, he is way beyond me because I could not understand it at all. First, who is to ask the question that the Secretary of State is to answer? Is this a right of appeal to somebody who thinks he should have had an offer and does not get one? If so, how will it operate? The paragraph says,
"any question as to the persons to whom an offer of employment is to be made".
Who will have the right to ask the question? The Secretary of State must answer it, but who will ask it? Will it be just a civil servant who says, "Is A within paragraph 11, or does A have the right to say 'I should have received an offer of employment?' ". It is

95
not clear. It is far from clear to me why the Secretary of State, with all his many rights and duties, should have this quasi-judicial one.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He asks who will ask the questions. I can assure him that it is our intention that all existing employees of the SSHA and the Housing Corporation in Scotland will be offered a job by Scottish Homes. Therefore we hope that there will be no need for any questions to be asked.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is fine. As I follow it, that answer means that the noble Earl is accepting the terms of my amendment, which is to leave out lines 26 and 27 because they are unnecessary. I should have thought that if there was any question about that offer the one person who should not be deciding it is the Secretary of State. If those lines are left out, and there is a strange person who is not certain whether
96
he is employed by the Scottish Special Housing Association, that matter would be better dealt with by the court or an industrial tribunal and not determined by the Secretary of State, whose qualifications to decide who is and who is not employed do not necessarily follow with everyone who holds the office of Secretary of State.
On Amendment No. 8, I can see that there is a certain difficulty about whether someone is employed in connection with a function or is employed in Scotland. However, I entirely failed to understand what the noble Earl said about Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. If I followed him at all, apparently everyone is to receive an offer before they receive an offer, will therefore know what is in the offer before they receive it and will have decided whether they will accept it before they get it. So it is right for them to have to appeal against the terms of the offer before they have accepted the terms of the offer. That seems all wrong, but I shall read with care what he said. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 46, line 13, at end insert—
(" . Scottish Homes will establish a committee for each region and islands area of Scotland on which a representative of each local authority which is a housing authority, a representative of the tenants, and a representative of Scottish Homes will serve.").
The noble Viscount said: There is a precedent for the suggestion contained in the amendment with regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It has an advisory body on which a number of persons with knowledge of the Highlands serve and from which advice is given to the HIDB from the community in general. A similar body to advise Scottish Homes with regard to regional problems would not only be helpful but in some ways almost essential.
The Bill allows Scottish Homes to establish subcommittees, as deemed necessary, but it is clear from the drift of the Government's arguments that they are generally hostile to decentralisation and they do not envisage regional committees being set up to oversee the work of the agency in each locality. It is important to establish the principle that local groups should have some say in the way that Scottish Homes operates in their areas. That is the purpose of the amendment. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to ask the Minister some questions. Although I agree with the spirit of what the noble Viscount said, I am not sure whether the words are right. We do not have a shape for Scottish Homes, which leaves us in some difficulty. It will be much bigger than the Scottish Special Housing Association, for instance, which has its own structure, and the housing associations, which have an intimate structure and a relationship with local people. It will probably be difficult to get sonic sort of organisation that will give the best of both those organisations. I can see the housing association pattern for a large body such as Scottish Homes being a little too small, finicky or oppressive.
There should be some input and acceptance by Scottish Homes that it must establish a presence, a Mr. Scottish Homes, a Mrs. Scottish Homes, a Miss Scottish Homes in each area. Remember, Scottish Homes has a great deal of responsibility in appointing factors who will be local people. We have already discussed the problems of trying to "sell" factors in Scotland. They are not terribly popular in mythology or in fact. There must be some way in which Scottish people will relate to Scottish Homes and to a person in the area with whom they can have some contact. While I am not sure about this amendment which is perhaps too binding, I believe that the spirit of it is absolutely correct. I hope that the Minister will respond in some way.
Lord Hughes: Like my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I support the spirit of what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has put forward. He introduced an interesting case for the appointment of advisory committees. Unfortunately, so far as I can see, that is not what the amendment
98
says. It talks about appointing committees but says nothing about what these committees will do. I do not think the Minister will have much difficulty in rejecting the amendment as it stands. But perhaps the noble Viscount can come back at the next stage of the Bill with an amendment worded along the lines he spoke of, with advisory committees being appointed. We should certainly have no difficulty then in supporting it. However, I cannot bring myself to support the appointment of a committee with a totally unspecified function.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think that the noble Viscount has put forward an idea based on experience in the Highland region. I do not know whether he has worked out the size of the committee for Strathclyde, with somebody from each housing authority. I do not know whether there is a representative of the tenants on each housing authority or whether the people of Argyll might have to represent the people of Glasgow. I should not have thought that that would be very acceptable.
I feel the suggestion needs rather more thinking about than perhaps it has had to date. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would agree with me about that.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thought that we had dealt with Amendment No. 12 with Amendment No. 7. The two amendments have much in common. I must make very clear that the direction will come from the Scottish Homes board itself. I thought on the previous amendment we were talking about administrative "devolution", if I may use the word. I entirely agree—I know what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is saying—that it is no use setting up a committee to do nothing. What we are looking at is administrative devolution. That is one of the first tasks to which Scottish Homes will have to address itself.
Perhaps I may go back to Amendment No. 7 where I said clearly that the views expressed to my honourable friend, the Minister with responsibility for housing and the environment in another place, by those from the Highlands and islands in particular and others were very carefully considered. As I said at the time, it was not a pious hope that an administrative set-up would take place which would have regard to the very points which the noble Viscount made in respect of Amendment No. 7.
Viscount Thurso: I regard these two amendments as being completely separate. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes understood that. I am grateful for his sensible criticism of the amendment as it stands. There are two points here. The first is that the administration should have suitable decentralisation so that people can make contact with their landlord. That arose on the previous amendment. Now we are dealing with a much wider matter. We are not suggesting that the management or direction of Scottish Homes should be in the hands of a lot of different bodies. I agree that this would be for the board of Scottish Homes itself, just as the direction of the Highlands and Islands Development Board is in the hands of that board.

99
However, I feel that it should be clear that there is proper contact between the board and the communities it seeks to serve. Different areas will have different problems. I believe it will be helpful to the board of Scottish Homes to have advisory boards on a regional basis which can advise it on specific regional problems.
It is not always possible, considering the distance to Edinburgh and Glasgow from many parts of Scotland, to be omniscient and see everything that goes on and understand all the problems. It is from that point of view that the amendment is proposed. However, I agree that the flaws in it have been pointed out to me, and at this stage I should seek—
Lord Gray of Contin: Before the noble Viscount withdraws the amendment I must say that I find the amendment quite outrageous. Those of us who live and have worked in the Highlands of Scotland emphasise to all and sundry the ease of access to that region. After all we can be in Edinburgh from Inverness in two and a half hours. Even the noble Viscount can reach Edinburgh in a maximum of four hours from his part of the country, I should have thought. Perhaps the way he drives he could even do it in three and a half hours. Anyway, he should be able to do it easily in four hours.
We cannot on the one hand say how easy access is to the Highlands of Scotland and invite industry to come here and see what we have to offer it and on the other hand make a fuss about having to travel a few miles to a meeting.
I think that the amendment is irrelevant. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was generous to it. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, should take it away, think again and perhaps forget it altogether, because it really is a non-event. For my part I think we should leave it to Scottish Homes—which is the intention in the Bill—to get on with the job. We are appointing a responsible body. Let Scottish Homes make its mind up about what is needed and what is not. Let us not mess around with this nonsensical idea which has been put forward tonight.
Lord Hughes: This is a rather unusual development. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, describes the amendment as outrageous and then proceeds to delay its withdrawal.
Viscount Thurso: I do not need to defend myself against the attacks of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, because he knows perfectly well that I am right and he is wrong. He will understand why it is that I have to drive so fast. But I feel that at this stage I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General functions of Scottish Homes]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("including the relations of landlord and tenant").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend will be getting a little bit tired of our questions as to what exactly Scottish Homes will do. But he must remember that there are some 27 functions which stand in this Bill. Scottish Homes must, I suppose, perform all those 27 functions. It is therefore not surprising that we should be just a trifle inquisitive about this.
I shall ask the following question in rather a different line. We have been emphasising the power and the finances of Scottish Homes. I shall ask a different question. What about the element of morale which it will set going? When the social history of Scotland is told, one of the things that children learn is that it started with about 90 per cent. of rented property in the 1920s but that it is now down to 7 per cent. Why is that?
Of course in this world of propaganda we live in we hear constant stories of brutal landlords and riotous tenants. One never hears of a cheerful household where those two parties live happily together. That is not the stuff that television is made of. It is just not looked at in that way at all. Somebody must restore the prestige of rented property. I do not know whether Scottish Homes will do that but I do think that it should not exclude it from the range of its responsibilities. People should realise that it is not a kind of hell to live in rented accommodation. It is the norm for most people in the world, apart from those living in tropical areas. There should be an attempt to publicise the fact that the majority of people in France and Germany live in rented property. Perhaps that is not true to such a large extent in North America. But in many countries it is the case. The concept of rented property deserves better treatment. Scottish Homes could give it that treatment with a bit of care and thought.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: I should like to support the amendment from a slightly different angle. Scottish Homes is to provide or assist in the provision of advisory services. Once it has been given that job, it is important that it should make clear the kind of service it will provide. I have in mind the problem of harassment, which is usefully covered in Clause 35.
We are anxious that, when landlord and tenant arrange a secure tenancy or whatever it may be, the tenant should know that he can go to Scottish Homes and say: "Help; I am having trouble". That may be implied in the Bill. However, it would be useful to spell it out specifically. If we do not wish to spell it out in exact detail, the amendment will help us to know what we are talking about.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I also support the amendment. It seems at times that the Government are against rented property and in favour of owner occupation. If they are, as they now say, in favour of rented accommodation, something must be done to improve relations between landlord and tenant. Over the last few years, there has been some criticism of landlords from one side of the Committee as regards Rachmanism and from the other side as regards heartless local authorities. It is remarkable how many local authority tenants seem to want to remain in that position. However, I am not trying to make a political point but merely saying that if we wish to

101
increase the availability of rented homes (as we all agree should be done) it is a good idea to improve the relationship between landlords and tenants. Scottish Homes should be able to help. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The Government are fully sympathetic to the aims of the amendment. However, we take the view that it is unnecessary. We recognise that, through the revitalisation of the private rented sector and the introduction of the tenants' choice provisions of Part III of the Bill, tenants will be faced with options which are unfamiliar to them. Some of them are likely to be hindered in taking the best advantage of those options in the absence of reliable and unbiased advice.
Equally landlords, and particularly small landlords who are entering the field for the first time, may find it difficult to judge the market opportunities and understand their legal responsibilities without factual advice. Scottish Homes, as I said at the Second Reading of the Bill, is an organisation which I hope will be a catalyst, will be able to advise on such matters or perhaps more commonly give advice to agencies, including the voluntary sector, which wish to offer advisory or other services. I note that Scottish Homes will also be able to promote publicity in relation to its functions which will inform people who are interested in housing matters.
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because there is no doubt that the Bill is adequate for the purposes which my noble friend Lord Selkirk wishes to see pursued. The powers already contained in the Bill are very widely drawn. Indeed, to add the words proposed may be interpreted as narrowing the provisions by casting doubt on certain uses of the power not also singled out for explicit reference.
With those assurances I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment. I come back very strongly to the point that we need— and it is one of the prime duties of Scottish Homes—to recognise that 6 per cent. is a very low figure for the private rented sector and has to be increased by some means or other. It is quite wrong to say that this Government are against renting in any shape or form.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: We are getting near to the end of the proceedings tonight and I do not propose to extend them. However the Minister said that that would be one of the functions of Scottish Homes and that he regarded the words as unnecessary. There is a public relations job to be done by Scottish Homes. It is a new organisation. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, one of the problems in Scottish housing is the conflict between the landlord and tenant and the confrontational atmosphere that arises even when one mentions the words. I should have thought that there was a case to be made for adding the proposed wording. It would not limit or impede Scottish Homes at all but perhaps give it an additional role in the public relations sense and a certain credibility and standing. The organisation has to establish itself.
We talked about the Scottish Development Agency earlier in the discussion. It took some years
102
for that body to establish its credibility. I should have thought that this was an additional function and responsibility which may well enhance Scottish Homes. I am a little disappointed with the Minister, who is a very reasonable chap. He seems to be picking up a brief all the time and rejecting every kind of helpful suggestion. I ask him to think again about this helpful suggestion from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may just put one question. Subsection (2)(e) reads:
"provide or assist in the provision of advisory or other services".
Is that deliberately vague or has the noble Lord some clear picture of what those words mean? As they stand they mean nothing at all. I should have liked them to indicate clearly that an element of human relationship and morale is included in those words.
I ask the Minister to consider very hard whether at the next stage he cannot produce words which indicate the ground which I and other noble Lords have sought to cover. Will he try? The words mean awfully little as they stand at the present time.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Of course I shall take very careful note of what has been said on this point. I am concerned that by writing something in on the lines which the noble Earl has suggested by inference we are ruling out other points and that that may be taken by some to indicate that we are thereby going against the spirit of what is required.
However, I shall look very carefully at those words. I shall look to see whether we need to change or embellish the words under subsection (2)(e) which have been suggested by the noble Earl on the understanding that we are giving Scottish Homes the widest possible powers to promote its activities and indeed to act as a catalyst in the whole area of housing in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned that the Scottish Development Agency had taken time to achieve its very good reputation. I hope very sincerely that the reputation that Scottish Homes will achieve in a very short time will run alongside that of the Scottish Development Agency in relation to the very matters to which the Committee has paid most attention, namely, improving housing in Scotland.
Lord Hughes: The reference which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made to the number of functions makes me think of a rather stupid little point and perhaps I may be forgiven for raising it. I noticed in looking through the functions that we proceeded from letter (h) to letter (j) in order, I presume, to avoid a conflict with the Roman numeral (i). Should the same omission not apply to the Roman numeral (v), which appears at the end as the letter (v)?
The Earl of Perth: I know the noble Lord will think about this point. It is perfectly true that the whole includes the part, but in this instance it seems to me that the part is of the greatest significance for the functions of Scottish Homes. Nothing can be more encouraging or more valuable in the aim of providing housing than to know that Scottish Homes will be concerned in particular that there is no abuse of the powers of either the landlord or the tenant. I hope

103
that the noble Lord will be able to find some words which suit our purpose if he does not accept those of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
The Earl of Selkirk: I accept readily what my noble friend has said. I hope that he will make the point clear. I have in mind simply that the relationship between landlord and tenant should be personal. If it is personal there should be no difficulty. If the relationship is cold and indifferent then there will be hardship and nasty questions with which the Scottish Office will have to deal in the long run. I beg the noble Lord, in his own interest, to define a little more precisely what he has said. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of providing public access to Scottish Homes meetings the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall apply as if Scottish Homes were specified in the Schedule to that Act and as if this section were contained in an Act in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: It will probably be helpful if when moving Amendment No. 14 we also discuss Amendment No. 15. As a publicly-funded body, Scottish Homes should make its meetings accessible to the press and public. This is especially important for a quango which is not democratically elected and has no accountability to the public. I wonder how many quangoes there are now. We wanted to get rid of them all.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, spoke very truly about Scottish Homes being a responsible body and therefore I am assuming he will help us in trying to make it responsible to the people by this amendment. At present it seems to be responsible to no one. This new clause would give Scottish Homes, subject to exemptions and confidentiality being imposed on its meetings, the opportunity to give public notice of the time and place of meetings of members' committees or sub-committees; it will permit Scottish Homes to give press and public access to meetings of its committees or sub-committees and give press access to agendas and connected reports.
Certain bodies other than local authorities, for instance health boards, have responsibilities to give the press and public access to their meetings in terms of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. This amendment would extend those responsibilities to Scottish Homes. These responsibilities are very much fewer than those given to local authorities by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
Amendment No. 15 is slightly different, but I think it reflects the general feeling that the public should be allowed to know what is happening.
As a publicly funded body, Scottish Homes should make all its records and minutes available to the public. The records relating to approved landlords, for instance, would be extremely useful for tenants deciding whether or not to exercise tenants' choice. Scottish Homes may build up quite a dossier on certain landlords, and it would be only right that,
104
before tenants decided whether or not to change the landlord, they should have the right to see the record that certain landlords have.
This clause would also permit Scottish Homes, subject to confidentiality and exemption provisions, to give public access to meetings of Scottish Homes and to agendas and connected reports as well as minutes and other documents prepared after meetings, and background papers. It would give Scottish Homes's members access to documents in the possession or control of Scottish Homes containing material which related to any business to be transacted or proceedings at the meetings of the members of any committee or sub-committee thereof.
This is a responsibility that local authorities have to an even greater extent. These amendments will extend the same responsibilities to Scottish Homes, which has responsibility for a great deal of public money being spent, and responsibility for the contentment of many families in Scotland. It would give these families and others the right to know exactly how Scottish Homes is behaving. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 seek to make Scottish Homes subject to the terms of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 and to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. The main thrust of both these statutes is to allow public access to meetings of certain bodies. Until it was amended by the 1985 Act, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act in general terms applied only to meetings of committees of local authorities and health boards. Since 1985 it has applied only to health hoards, and its provisions have in the main been superseded by the 1985 Act.
Amendments in almost identical terms to those we are presently discussing were fully debated in another place. However, I am happy to repeat the arguments which led to their rejection.
I regard these amendments as concerning two issues: first, the accountability of Scottish Homes; and, secondly, the provision of information about the work of Scottish Homes. It is entirely right that we should be examining these aspects. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, bore this in mind when he tabled his particular brand of amendments.
However, the Bill already makes substantial provision towards ensuring that Scottish Homes is fully accountable to the Secretary of State, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and Parliament. Clause 11 requires Scottish Homes to keep proper accounts, to submit them to the Secretary of State and thence to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for scrutiny. An annual report is to be laid before Parliament. These provisions are similar to those applying to the housing corporation and to the SDA.
On the question of information about the work of Scottish Homes I do not think that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that this is best achieved by permitting public access to meetings and minutes of meetings. Bodies such as Scottish Homes take decisions at a variety of levels and what is presented at a board meeting would in many

105
instances not be informative. There are two further important points which I must mention on this issue. The first of these is the question of confidentiality. Indeed, the noble Lord alluded to this. Both the 1960 and 1985 Acts mentioned in these amendments contain provisions which permit the public to be excluded from meetings where specified confidential matters are to be discussed; for example, matters of commercial confidentiality. The very nature of Scottish Homes suggests to me that many such confidential matters would be discussed at meetings and the public would thereby necessarily need to be excluded.
The second point I wish to make is that if these amendments were accepted it could be counterproductive with regard to the dissemination of information. I am sure that Scottish Homes will be an organisation which will work in an open way, but surely it should not be forced to do so by statute.
As I said earlier, the application of the 1960 Act is restricted to health boards and the 1985 Act applies only to local authorities. These Acts are not designed for bodies such as Scottish Homes and do not apply to the Housing Corporation, the SSHA or the SDA as matters now stand. It would not be right to introduce such application to Scottish Homes. In view of these few remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will realise that I followed the proceedings in another place and found the replies then not as full as I should have liked. I cannot say that his reply has been any better. Scottish Homes will handle very large sums of government money or, as Ministers continually tell us, taxpayers' money. Taxpayers will not be allowed any observation on how that money will be spent until it appears on the contract. That seems quite inadequate. Merely to have the assurance of the Secretary of State and Parliament that an annual report will be made is not enough for a body as important as this.
The Minister spoke about commercial confidentiality. This is allowed for in what I said moving the amendment. But more so even than in respect of commercial matters, local authorities, in their social work departments—dealing, for instance, with adoption—have to be extremely careful. A code and a method are worked out so that citizens know what is happening but not to whom. I am sure this could be done if there were a will to let us know what this quango will do.
I should like to return to this vitally important matter at a later stage. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of SSHA and transfer of its property, rights, liabilities and obligations to Scottish Homes]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 28, at end insert ("and Scottish Homes shall be deemed to be infeft in all heritable property.").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely technical point, but nonetheless it is rather important. I propose it on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. It is also viewed, not unfavourably, I believe, by the Keeper of the Scottish Register, but I cannot speak authoritatively on that.
We pride ourselves in Scotland that for a long time we have had public registration of titles to land and heritable property. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, is introducing this gradually into England. We offer him our warmest congratulations; I believe the proposal was well received in both Houses of Parliament.
If, at any one time, 80,000 houses are registered the problem of infeftment which arises is considerable. It is a burden on the Keeper of the Register which I feel is unreasonable. If he does not maintain the register, what will happen? In the first place nobody would buy a property in Scotland unless it was on the register. That is well established. That means that such property would be difficult to sell under any circumstances.
When the Scottish Register gets under way, the insurance indemnity which the Government offer on this property will be invalid. I therefore suggest that it is of great importance to have a system of infeftment which is valid for the property which will belong to Scottish Homes. It would be foolish to try to by-pass that system. I do not think anybody understands the system of conveyancing in Scotland better than the Law Society of Scotland. I am afraid I must include in this the men in the department who are advising my noble friend. The Law Society knows what it is talking about because this is business it does every day. It is not without complication.
Although the proposal is not by any means perfect—indeed, I am told that the perfect proposal would be to amend the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924—it would be absurd to attempt to do that in a housing Bill. I realise that entirely, but this is a simple method which I think would cover the point. It will reduce the labour of the Keeper of the Register and enable the proper infeftment of property to be done at a reasonably leisurely speed, which would not upset anybody. I beg my noble friend to think very hard about this because I believe it is in the interests of his own staff, for whom he is responsible, indirectly at least.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It gives me great pleasure, as usual, to support the noble Earl and it is an even greater pleasure to think that perhaps we shall be bringing some Scottish words like "infeftment" and "sasines" to the acquaintance of certain of your Lordships. I would strongly support the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl has said as to the purpose of his amendment. I agree with him that it is necessary for Scottish Homes to complete title to the heritable property which is transferred to it from the Scottish Special Housing Association under Clause 3(1) of the Bill if it wishes to continue the practice of the SSHA of granting feu dispositions to tenants who wish to buy their houses. This is because under Scots law it is only a person who has a completed title to land who can grant a feu disposition of it.

107
Clause 3(1) of the Bill does not automatically complete the title of Scottish Homes to such property. It only enables it to do so, first, by recording a deed known as a notice of title in the Register of Sasines; or, secondly, by registering its title in the Land Register of Scotland.
As the noble Earl said, these are the only methods at present known under Scots law by which title can be completed to land held under feudal tenure. In technical terms this involves a vassal becoming infeft in the land, which means that he has been given legal possession or saline of it by the superior. Since 1617 this has required and is now constituted by recording his deed in the Register of Sasines or, more recently, by registering his title in the Land Register. As both these registers are public, the principle has evolved that the public are entitled to rely upon those registers to ascertain who owns land in Scotland.
These principles would be breached by the amendment, which merely deems Scottish Homes to be infeft in the property by virtue of the statutory provision and without any deed or title being recorded or registered in the public registers.
I am quite certain that the Committee will agree that we should tread softly in this area and not seek to breach those principles which have lain at the very foundation of Scottish feudal land law for almost four centuries unless there is a real and pressing need to do so and without careful consideration being given to all the consequences of doing so, including the precedent which it would create.
This is particularly so when there are ways available to Scottish Homes which would enable it to complete title to such land without the need for any amendment. It could, for example, record a notice of title either to all the land in the estates still belonging to the SSHA or to each individual house as and when the tenant wishes to buy it. It is said that these ways give rise to administrative difficulties and would be costly. We therefore propose to give urgent consideration to whether the extent of these difficulties would justify a departure from these fundamental principles. We are already in consultation with the Keeper of the Register of Scotland and we hope to discuss the matter with the Law Society of Scotland. If it is considered that an appropriate and limited amendment might be justified, we shall bring one forward for your Lordships' consideration at Report stage.
In the meantime, I would point out that the amendment goes too far, because it would not be known what are the properties in which Scottish Homes is deemed to be infeft. Its effect would be to deem Scottish Homes to be infeft in property in which the SSHA is not infeft and might not even be capable of being infeft, such as where the SSHA only has a leasehold interest in property or where it might only have a right under missives. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Earl will seek leave to withdraw his amendment, and we hope to come back to it at the next stage.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I must point out that the Bill has been in production for a long time and that the Law
108
Society has made these representations for a long time. It is a little disappointing to note that the Government have not been a little more on their toes in order to ensure that this matter is correct. To have 80,000 houses infefted is a considerable task and I appreciate that the difficulties may mean a short-circuiting. However, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  SERPENTINE GALLERY: ART EXHIBIT
  SERPENTINE GALLERY: ART EXHIBIT
  HOMELESS PERSONS: SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION
  HOMELESS PERSONS: SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION
  ENDANGERED SPECIES: APPLICATION OF EC REGULATION
  ENDANGERED SPECIES: APPLICATION OF EC REGULATION
  DHSS: DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  DHSS: DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  INCOME TAX STATISTICS 1986–88
  INCOME TAX STATISTICS 1986–88
  REDHILL SECURE UNIT: CLOSURE
  REDHILL SECURE UNIT: CLOSURE
  SOCIAL FUND OFFICIALS AND THE OMBUDSMAN
  SOCIAL FUND OFFICIALS AND THE OMBUDSMAN